Why Does it Take 2 Years For GSFC To Respond to a FOIA Request?

I'm not a big global warming believer myself. Mainly because there is a lot about our climate we don't know, and because we do know that the problems with ocean health and air quality are much broader than a "focus on the carbon" approach will solve.
One or two degrees in warming per century wont matter if we're wiped out by more serious issues long before.

That said, I think this is a bad position for NASA. Some folks are looking at them to act as a form of tiebreaker in the debate, but both camps are too entrenched in their views to change now.
So whichever side is not supported by extensive reviews will go on the offensive against NASA for lying about or covering up the results that were supposed to prove their case once and for all.

In the end this is an agency charged with working out problems in transportation and spaceflight, not climate.

Dealing with a political s---storm like this sounds more like a NOAA or EPA task.

"Why Does it Take 2 Years For GSFC To Respond to a FOIA Request?"

Answer: Because the data has been altered and manipulated to prove a preconceived conclusion. If an open minded scientist gets the data and proves that the last 10 years Earth has been cooling while CO2 levels increase, all of their climate models are garbage. That would be very embarrassing for NASA and the Democratic party and Arnold Swarchenegger.

I couldn't see why it would take so long, except, maybe, possibly

A COVER UP?!?!?!

Silly me, these globull warming hysterics wouldn't do THAT, would they?

Nahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

OK, crazy aside, this is more akin to the type of stuff that ends up frustrating scientists in the area of evolution research (i.e. with the biblical literalists and intelligent design "scientists") where you have a small but very entrenched activist group that does everything in its power to harass functioning scientists. Unfortunately, what happens is human nature where the instinct is to entrench and resist, while in actuality, it would be better to be open and go along with it. The problem for the perspective of the scientists is that it's an annoying and tedious waste of time. They're not doing active research and the arguments they're having to address are usually scattered and imbecilic. The scientists want to be off doing science, not repetitive "education" activities. The focus here is obviously (like evolution) is that it has a significant political impact.

If you google this guy, he is a lawyer who is obviously looking for inconsistencies in NASA data in order to prove that global warming is a hoax. And of course, if NASA gives him enough data, he will certainly find inconsistencies. So the reluctance of GRC to give him data that will be used to embarrass them is understandable.
Of course, finding inconsistencies in data or disagreements among scientists does not prove that global warming is a hoax perpetrated by a vast global conspiracy of scientists who are looking to make a killing in solar panel and wind turbine stocks. It proves nothing.
Keep in mind that smoking was first connected with decreased lifespan and lung cancer in the 30's and in the 50's, the cigarette companies ran ads with doctors talking about how smoking was healthy. And of course there are many people who smoke all their lives and live a long time, but this proves nothing as well.

Steve
Flometrics

> If you google this guy, he is a lawyer who is obviously looking for inconsistencies in NASA data in order to prove that global warming is a hoax. So the reluctance of GRC to give him data that will be used to embarrass them is understandable.

There's a list of reasons for FOIA exemptions here:

http://www.osec.doc.gov/omo/FOIA/exemptions.htm

Curiously, "likely to be used for political embarrassment" doesn't seem to be on the list of reasons to ignore an FOIA request.

Wouldn't that be an even more dangerous situation?
Interpriting the foia to read "we can choose to not give you the data because it would make us look bad / prove something we don't want to believe / cloud the issues / because we think your up to no good... Etc.
The military and GAO would have a field day with something like that.

NASA should be allowed to turn over Data without it being spun as support one way or another. I think a quick paper dump would have looked more neutral than a stalling action.

"NASA should be allowed to turn over Data without it being spun as support one way or another. I think a quick paper dump would have looked more neutral than a stalling action."

Word.

[Sigh] How did it come to this? People who have no expertise in science, much less climate research, are shouting about some "smoking gun" emails without any understanding of whether they're central or peripheral.

No, it's a MUCH better guess that the delay comes from either bureaucratic incompetence or scientific perfectionism. How about those old standbys?

As a scientist spectator to this debate, it's very demoralizing to see a field brought to this unhealthy state by the injection of politics. It saddens me that the first hypothesis many people leap to is conspiracy and cover up. That's just preposterous, the least likely explanation, because I know what kind of people these scientists are and what makes them get up in the morning. It's all about getting clean data or sound models that lead to a small piece of real truth. A climate-science conspiracy is even less plausible than our US government being able to hide evidence of direct alien encounters at Roswell and Area 51 for over 50 years without a leak.

So a fresh postdoc in the 70s-80s chooses to specialize in atmospheric science and follows it through the birth of the climate change hypothesis and the research to support or disprove it. Somewhere along the line, politicians jump in and try to steer the debate. Their method is not "are you sure you did this part right?" but "this is a vast conspiracy and a hoax."

That dynamic caught the scientific community off guard, because it's completely foreign to the practice of good science -- like someone running up and shouting in your face in another language. Naturally, many of those scientists became defensive, or curled up like pill bugs.

The science community that's doing and reporting the research (e.g. IPCC) has responded positively to the attacks by making their language crisper and stating what they can defend. Here's a fact: the great weight of evidence points toward real climate change on 50 year time scales, and now also supports human forcing as a major contribution. These scientists all understand that, and they find the consequences daunting (terrifying) and our hostility and intransigence baffling. Trying to communicate this message against the ignorant and vituperative ranting of pundits and politicians is a terrifying job for a person with a scientific temperament. We're lucky they keep at it.

So if you fashion yourself a technically sophisticated person in the world, you should not be one of those ranting about conspiracy. You may question the process and the sufficiency of the data, but you should use that skepticism to fill in your ignorance of how it's done and why we believe the answer. When you can tell the difference between weather models and climate models, and can explain what parts of the climate picture are well understood and what's still uncertain, only then will you be qualified to give thumbs up/down on the conclusions.

Try this one on PAPA.
The truth does not fear nor hide from scrutiny and skepticism.
Oh yeah, its snowing in Texas.
Like I said earlier, we have time to do the science.

The truth is not hiding from scrutiny and skepticism. That assertion comes from TV fire breathers who wouldn't know a good scientific debate if they stood in the middle of it.

A skeptic must be a listener and a learner, and most skeptics in this debate are not holding up their end. If you only learn from Sean Hannity, that doesn't fulfill your obligation. You have to listen to your opponent as well - really listen. And just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it's not true.

You mention snow in Texas, as though that proves your point. But it often snows in Texas. Why are you surprised? Go look it up in the almanac. It also was -17 C at my house last night. That has no bearing on climate. That's weather. Learn the distinction, because it's very important.

I disagree that "we have time to do the science". I'm not 100% sure that we're in a hurry, but you can't possibly know that we're NOT. In fact, the data are pretty clearly against you. Look, we're doing an enormous atmospheric science experiment right now. In only 50 years we've exceeded natural temperature fluctuations on 1000-year time scales, and it's still ramping up, without leveling off. This is consistent with the amount of CO2 we've added since the industrial age began. Even after we do some more studies and figure out what our current predicament is, we'd still need to muster an appropriate political, technical and economic solution, which will take years. Who's to say we won't lose the coastal cities of Western Africa before then? It's already happening on the Tuvalu Islands in the Pacific.

"The truth does not fear nor hide from scrutiny and skepticism."
Absolutely:
"Christopher C. Horner is an attorney in Washington, D.C., a Senior Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute,"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competitive_Enterprise_Institute#Environmental_policy
Specifically:
"However, the editor for Science stated that the ad "misrepresents the conclusions of the two cited Science papers... by selective referencing". The author of the articles, Curt Davis, director of the Center for Geospatial Intelligence at the University of Missouri-Columbia, said CEI was misrepresenting his previous research to back their claims. "These television ads are a deliberate effort to confuse and mislead the public about the global warming debate," he said."

In other words this guy works for an organisation (previously funded by Exxon, until this little incident) ...that misrepresents data. Given this would you hand over your data?
PS The science is done, all that is left is the spin and that won't stop until the waters are lapping around certain individuals necks.
I would also refer you to:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html
Regarding FOI requests.

Time to move KSC to higher ground!

Why did it take 2 years? Sometimes you just have to look for the simplest reasons to get to the actual truth: it took this long because the Agency lacked sufficient staffing and resources to process all of its FOIA requests. The admin processing people got behind and dropped the ball. Rather than assume a complex conspiracy, perhaps you should first ask whether the scientists at GISS were even aware that these requests were outstanding. Perhaps you should ask how long it takes to process a similar broadly-worded FOIA request. The answers are "no" and "a long time." This was not about science, it was about human beings with busy lives who made a mistake and took too long to process their workloads. This is certainly not a good reason, nor an acceptable excuse and those folks should be disciplined accordingly. But it is what happened.

@Papa
I don't care who the guy is requesting the information. The people waving their arms and crying man made global warming have an obligation to prove their theory. What does Sean Hannity have to do with this debate? (straw dog) Yes I understand that having the earliest snow in history of Texas doesn't mean that much, however this year and last year have seen many record cold temperatures. The Antarctic ice has increased 43% since 1980. You won't see that in the news. As far as the Data suggesting we don't have time, see my reply to brobof.

@Brobof
I don't care who the guy is requesting the information. Fear is a great weapon. So your side loves to wave their arms and scare children. Just because Al Gore and James Hansen declare the science settled doesn't mean it is. NONE of the computer models predicted the current cooling from 1998 to present. If you want to talk about misrepresenting data check out the following links.
The fraud is clearly and provable on your side. Scientist colluding to alter data, misrepresent science, strong arm opposition, and even ruin careers of anyone who gets in their way. They can't account for the current decline in temperature so all of their computer models are worthless.

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/143573

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8aefbf52-d9e1-11de-b2d5-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6678469/Climategate-University-of-East-Anglia-U-turn-in-climate-change-row.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-computer-codes-are-the-real-story/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPDyfNVUt08

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/24/hiding-evidence-of-global-cooling/

@leighfirst
The simplest reason is when they release the data, people will find out they cherry picked it to match their preconceived conclusion. As far as a conspiracy follow my previous links to brobof and yes, proof positive there is a conspiracy to defraud the American tax payer out of billions if not trillions of dollars.
They have been given billions of dollars for climate research, money is no excuse for ignoring FOIA request, they are rolling in tax payer money. If you read the previous links you will see they had no intention of releasing the data.

AND, once again. WE HAVE TIME to do the proper science that will stand up to scrutiny and skepticism.

First serious words of apology to Keith. I regard the whole AGW 'thing' as seriously off topic for NASAWatch and lay down the disclaimer that this is my final say in this matter. If RayGun wants to debate AGW there are plenty of other sites for the topic. I have no wish to pollute this somewhat excellent site with Hot Air!
Ahem.
I don't care who the guy is requesting the information.
I do! And I suspect NASA does as well. He is not a scientist, he is a lawyer with an agenda.
Fear is a great weapon.
Agreed! Like the fear of a global conspiracy led by the Illuminati, or Al Gore, or the lizard people. If they are not all one and the same! The real fear is that of CHANGE.
So your side loves to wave their arms and scare children.
My side? I don't have a side. I read the literature and make up my mind based on the evidence. Until Keith posted the links, I had neither heard of Christopher C. Horner nor the CEI. Cursory research indicated that if I had data I would not want to see it being cherry picked and distorted. QED. Oh and children LIKE being scared! What they don't like is having their world stolen from them by SUV driving plutocrats too greedy to see beyond their bonuses.
Just because Al Gore and James Hansen declare the science settled doesn't mean it is.
The IPCC, vast numbers of real scientists and, thankfully, the leaders of the industrial nations beg to differ. And so do I. The argument has now become: how to avoid a disaster turning into a catastrophe. Do try to keep up!
NONE of the computer models predicted the current cooling from 1998 to present.
Actually they do. The cherry picked 1998 date is a dead giveaway to a classic myth espoused by those that fail to understand Climate vs Weather. Or Science. It is such a classic myth that the New Scientist even has a handy webpage just for this occasion!
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14527-climate-myths-global-warming-stopped-in-1998.
If you want to talk about misrepresenting data check out the following links.
I did. It did not do me much good. But I persevered. I hope you are properly grateful and have a look at mine.
1/ A surprisingly well balanced article from the Sunday Express. Now that is a find! Alas using the views of Professor Pilmer(1). I particularly liked the quote from Vicky Pope. Did you? It certainly does not advance your argument.
2/ Agreed. But it does nothing to advance your argument.
3/ David Holland is one of a group that continually bombard the scientific community with FOI requests which in general they cannot acceed to, as the data does not belong to them. However, after negotiation, all the data, is now being released. Alas to be cherry picked to further confuse the issue. But again it does not advance your argument.
4/ An opinion piece by Booker. Whilst not in the same league as Delingpole both these hacks have an agenda that reflects the 'nature' of the papers in question: i.e. Knee jerkingly anti-progressive Tory rags that want to preserve the status quo. It proves nothing except that they will grasp at any straw to preserve the status quo.
5/ All I see on this blog is evidence that proves: to really 'foul' things up you need a computer. It certainly does not prove fraud. And it doesn't disprove AGW. The blogger assumes both!
6/ Peter Lilley MP (Tory) on Russia Today! Maggie (Lady Thatcher) would not be amused :) Like Lord Monkton (Tory) and Lord Lawson (Tory): I would follow the Money here... Nuff said!
7/ I can't speak for the Washington Times but all the other papers are, shall we say, right of centre? So I suspect that this editorial also has a political agenda. I would add that none of these articles are by leading climatologists. Nor indeed by scientists and none of them prove anything more than hysterical handwaving over one or two cherry picked quotes taken out of context by duffers not only with an agenda but a poor grasp of science.
The fraud is clearly and provable on your side.
Sides again? Science doesn't take sides. But conspiracy theorists, political pundits and lawyers do!
Scientist colluding to alter data, misrepresent science, strong arm opposition, and even ruin careers of anyone who gets in their way. They can't account for the current decline in temperature so all of their computer models are worthless.
Now who's handwaving?
Try this: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/12/febrile_nitwits_and_the_hacked.php
Not that I am accusing you of being a "febrile nitwit" but having read far too many febrile comments made by nitwits following your linked articles, I would recommend the above link to anyone with an open mind concerned about "Climategate."
Closed minds need not apply, as Pharyngula (PZ Myers) is a self confessed godless liberal!
Bootnotes:
1) Professor Pilmer http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/09/01/spot-the-recycled-denial-iii-%E2%80%93-prof-ian-plimer/

Editor's note: i agree - this is only "on topic" because NASA and James Hansen keep getting mentioned. As such, although it is somewhat removed from NASA, I do need to pay some attention to it.

@Papa,

Since you are such an advocate to continue to put faith in people who have shown evidence of potential fraud, perhaps you can explain why Keith Briffa felt compelled to include a "fudge factor" (his own words in the code comments) in order to apply a "VERY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION" (again, his own words in his own code) to his cherry-picked tree ring data?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/05/the-smoking-code-part-2/#more-13773

Furthermore, when you look at the plot of the "valadj" (value adjust) array, one wonders why Briffa sees the need to adjust temperatures UPWARDS, and by amounts that are clearly in excess of a full order of magnitude than the statistical time variance of the temperature data itself. Perhaps to "hide the decline?"

We cannot, and must not, put "faith" in any scientific analysis that cannot be fully reconstructed by independent scientists from raw data. Even moreso when fudging of data in their analysis is revealed. Period. There is absolutely no way that a reasonable scientist could disagee with this statement.

Editor's note: last warning: unless your posts have DIRECT relevance to NASA or they will be considered off topic and not published.