ROFL... Some of the three things alarmists hate the most.
1) Watts
2) Steve McIntyre (How DARE he find errors in temperature adjustments. Why can't he just unquestioningly believe they are right like we do?)
3) FACTS
A triple play. Well done sir.
I think it's absolutely correct that anyone can request data from publically funded institutions.
However, a request for information and a subsequent rebuttal against releasing that information may be perfectly valid. It might not be. That's why we have courts to decide. An example of that might be in terms of academia. If you imagine a PhD student, well, it is perfectly acceptable for a university to deny someone access to their data until that PhD candidate has had an opportunity to put it in their thesis.
What I do slightly cringe at is the deliberate slant this story is being given - you can already see how the skeptics are thinking. Oh NASA manipulated the data and now they're trying to cover it up. Which, of course, might be true. It might not be. But no one should jump to a conclusion.
I had the same take as Caliserve. I found the mention of Exxon Mobil earnings to be what was immaterial. To someone like Gryph, that is the only thing that matters, certainly not keeping NASA honest. That is the one consistency with alarmists, demonizing private industry and fawning over any government institution.
People do look idiotic quoting wuwt. That site is a con run by a guy who was fired as a weatherman in a small northern California town. He was then fired by his neighbors from the local school board because he's and idiot. Look up the guy's history, you'd be embarrassed to even be caught looking at his site. If you claim to be at all scientifically skeptical, stop being used by a con-man. The site exists only because Anthony Watts could not find a job. Wise up and think a bit.
That's a good start.
All the data at GISS needs to be reviewed for the last 100 years. There has been major data tampering. They 'cooled' the past and 'warmed' the present and that's fraud on the American people that paid for accurate data. Not "politically correct" data.
-----------------------
Not only did NASA lose the court case, but note the bias in the quoted article: it opens with an ad hominem (...funded by Exxon Mobile...as if $1 of oil money is more corrupting than $3500 of government money...) and then waxes into a petito principii (...that is occurring...)
All of which (lack of transparency, logically invalid arguments) indicate that the global warming movement is a sociological-political movement, divorced from science.
Ideology vs. ideology
Unfortunately the courts are going to protect AGW science.
The first 5 posters to your question have clearly stated their bias to a science looking to conceal the real identity of the climate. This information clearly has no national security issues attached unless it would help collapse or expand temperature readings. Temperature readings have always been suspect.
Not to worry. Climate change is upon us. A cooler climate is on the horizon and soon "Global Warming" will become "Climate Change" again. They're focus on weather events is back.
Climatology and Scientology are pretty much the same science. Having faith in themselves is all they have to stand on.
Another 'fishing expedition', this time by the fossil fuel funded Competitive Enterprise Institute.
<<...dont you think institutions funded by public taxes should be more transparent? >>
All their data is publicly available online. What more transparency do you want?
What the Competitive Enterprise Institute wants is access to all scientists' emails and private correspondence so they can have another fishing expedition and fabricate another Climategate.
BTW, they did not win on all the points in their initial claim. Only two were granted, the remaining 14 were rejected.
>>Sensing a potential scandal, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI)<<
And that would be the same CEI that along with the National Review filed – and lost – motions to prevent Michael Mann’s defamation case against them from going to discovery and moving forward.
Why do you imagine that the CEI would be afraid of discovery? After all, the entire Denier political movement is based on the belief in a conspiracy involving scientists. It couldn’t be that they don’t want to reveal exactly how they came to their position of denying AGW – could it?
Unfortunately, no matter how many times McIntyre and the CEI lie about science and scientists, Deniers will never get wise.
Linking to WWWT isn't going to help you win friends and influence anyone. This is a 7yo court case that has no bearing on the state of AGW, only another distraction with no real substance as usual
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/10/cei-wins-foia-tiff-with-nasa-via-judicial-order/
Damn that "climate change NASA" - didnt they fake the moon landing too?
you'd be taken more seriously without WUWT. How is this changing AGW?
