Toss NASA Into the Mix, Warmaquiddick Round-Up

From The Washington Times:

The fight over global warming science is about to cross the Atlantic with a U.S. researcher poised to sue NASA, demanding release of the same kind of climate data that has landed a leading British center in hot water over charges it skewed its data.

Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said NASA has refused for two years to provide information under the Freedom of Information Act that would show how the agency has shaped its climate data and would explain why the agency has repeatedly had to correct its data going as far back as the 1930s.

“I assume that what is there is highly damaging,” Mr. Horner said. “These guys are quite clearly bound and determined not to reveal their internal discussions about this.”

The numbers matter. Under pressure in 2007, NASA recalculated its data and found that 1934, not 1998, was the hottest year in its records for the contiguous 48 states. NASA later changed that data again, and now 1998 and 2006 are tied for first, with 1934 slightly cooler.

Good piece over at Flopping Ace’s on why reducing CO2 won’t have an impact on “climate change.”

UN Chief admits hacked emails and code are damaging, but says science is solid and the damage is mainly because revelations fuel skepticism (this is the consolidated party line; call it the Butt Monkey Gambit).

In the interests of perspicacity, Gordon Brown’s government wishes to block re-examination of the largely non-existent CRU data.

Washington Examiner has an article about the scandal of multiple unofficial scams rocking the Danish CO2 exchange. Did I mention that Copenhagen’s in Denmark? I’m sure it’s a coincidence.

Were you aware that Obama helped fund a privately held Chicago based Cap & Trade scheme, and that he stands to make millions on it after leaving office if it pans out?

Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT has a beautifully written and argued piece up that forwards the following three points in its peroration:

So what, then, is one to make of this alleged debate? I would suggest at least three points.

First, nonscientists generally do not want to bother with understanding the science. Claims of consensus relieve policy types, environmental advocates and politicians of any need to do so. Such claims also serve to intimidate the public and even scientists — especially those outside the area of climate dynamics.

Secondly, given that the question of human attribution largely cannot be resolved, its use in promoting visions of disaster constitutes nothing so much as a bait-and-switch scam. That is an inauspicious beginning to what Mr. Gore claims is not a political issue but a “moral” crusade.

Lastly, there is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition. An earlier attempt at this was accompanied by tragedy. Perhaps Marx was right. This time around we may have farce — if we’re lucky.

PJM has a nice conspectus of the players and issues.

Another well-written piece at Real Clear Politics:

The Washington Post learns an odd lesson from the CRU materials: “Climate scientists should not let themselves be goaded by the irresponsibility of the deniers into overstating the certainties of complex science or, worse, censoring discussion of them.” These scientists overstated and censored because they were “goaded” by skepticism?

Were their science as unassailable as they insist it is, and were the consensus as broad as they say it is, and were they as brave as they claim to be, they would not be “goaded” into intellectual corruption. Nor would they meretriciously bandy the word “deniers” to disparage skepticism that shocks communicants in the faith-based global warming community.

Skeptics about the shrill certitudes concerning catastrophic manmade warming are skeptical because climate change is constant: From millennia before the Medieval Warm Period (800 to 1300), through the Little Ice Age (1500 to 1850), and for millennia hence, climate change is always a 100 percent certainty. Skeptics doubt that the scientists’ models, which cannot explain the present, infallibly map the distant future.

Fausta has the news that now Obama’s going to Copenhagen on the last day to help seal the deal. The fierce urgency of now is much more fierce than it was regarding the troops in Afghanistan, after all.

Donald Douglas has his own, more comprehensive, round-up.