Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
CEI Suing NASA Over Climate Stonewall
#1
Those pesky Liberal/Libertarian think tanks are at it again. Now the CEI(Competitive Enterprise Institute), a Libertarian/Classic Liberal think tank, are officially filing suit againg NASA for it's loose and freewheeling dealing with some of it's high ranking employees.



Quote:This morning in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the Competitive Enterprise Institute is filing suit against NASA, calling the erstwhile space agency to account for its nearly three-year stonewall of access to internal documents exposing an abuse of taxpayer funds to advance the global warming agenda.

Along the way to this point, we have begun revealing how NASA is running a third-party advocacy website out of NASA facilities, at taxpayer expense, to assail "skeptics" and promote the highly suspect basis for a specific policy agenda. This campaign also helped to elevate the particular fiefdom in question (James Hansen's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, or GISS) in terms of budget and stature. It has also elevated the scientists involved, professionally, at the expense of the taxpayer they are working to stick with the biggest economic intervention in our history (one I detail in my new book "Power Grab").

In this process, if only thanks to pressure on NASA after a December 2009 news story about their games, we have already obtained important emails among 2,000 or so pages released. These include an admission to USA Today's weather editor that NASA GISS is just a modeling office, using the temperature record of ...CRU, the ClimateGate outfit. That means their "independent temperature record" is actually a recapitulation of one that ...doesn't exist, but was withdrawn as a result of ClimateGate when the custodians admitted they actually lost all original data.

So whether the CRU claims were actually made up, as seems entirely plausible reading that crowd's own nasty anti-scientific campaign in their own words, it is as good as made up, meaning non-existent, for any legal or scientific purpose. So we already know that two of the four supposed "independent temperature records" are down the drain. And they're the only two subjected to anything resembling scrutiny.

Also along the way, in recent months we won on administrative appeal after NASA denied that documents created and held on NASA assets were really agency records, if editing and managing a third-party activist and advocacy site, RealClimate.org. NASA originally denied access to the records (which they are still withholding) on the grounds that taxpayer-funded scientists were actually moonlighting and so the documents were not really the government's property.

Our suit seeks to finally compel production of these records, among other documents the public paid for, are owed access to, but for years have been denied.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up” — Saint Al of the Gore -
Reply
#2
I make it a point to make political contributions to those organizations that file lawsuits. The judicial system was responsible for getting us into our current mess (partially), and it should be used to get us out, partially.
Jefferson: I place economy among the first and important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our choice between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy.
Reply
#3
I do like CEI a lot.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up” — Saint Al of the Gore -
Reply
#4
James Horner, who is leading the attack, thinks NASA is stalling in order to keep damaging evidence from getting out before the upcoming senate debate.

Quote:Mr. Horner said he expects the documents, primarily e-mails from scientists involved with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), will be yet another blow to the science behind global warming, which has come under fire in recent months after e-mails from a leading British research unit indicated scientists had manipulated some data.

"What we've got is the third leg of the stool here, which is the U.S.-led, NASA-run effort to defend what proved to be indefensible, and that was a manufactured record of aberrant warming," Mr. Horner said. "We assume that we will also see through these e-mails, as we've seen through others, organized efforts to subvert transparency laws like FOIA."

He said with a global warming debate looming in the Senate, NASA may be trying to avoid having embarrassing documents come out at this time, but eventually the e-mails will be released.

"They know time is our friend," said Mr. Horner, author of "Power Grab: How Obama's Green Policies Will Steal Your Freedom and Bankrupt America."

Mark S. Hess, a spokesman for NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, which overseas the climate program, said the agency is working as fast as it can, and that Mr. Horner should expect some answers any day. "It looks like the response to his appeal is probably going to happen very soon. I can't tell you it's going to be tomorrow or the next day, but it's just a matter of days," Mr. Hess said.

He said he hasn't seen the response, and doesn't know whether it will authorize any more information to be released.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up” — Saint Al of the Gore -
Reply
#5
Oh boy... its another witch hunt. I'm still waiting for the smoking gun from climategate. I know you denialists love to incorectly characterize climaegate as proof of them manipulating data but as far as I have seen it is just not there.

And I doubt that this will find anything as well.
The rightist motto: "Facts?... we don't need no stinkin facts."

[Image: Obama08_Logo150.gif]
Reply
#6
Buzz,

We denialists hope only we survive the ecological disaster mankind has selfishly thrust upon the earth. Maybe we're naive,what do you think?
Reply
#7
Naive to want people you disagree with dead? No... it is selfish and immoral.
The rightist motto: "Facts?... we don't need no stinkin facts."

[Image: Obama08_Logo150.gif]
Reply
#8
Buzz,

I guess your sarcasm meter was turned off. Let me re-phrase that:

"You think we "denialists" want to die in the inferno your AGW predicts or do you think maybe we think the idea is a fraud and full of sh.it"?

BTW,your use of terminology like "denialists" reminds me of reading of the USSR's show trials. You leftists have the same techniques.
Reply
#9
Palladin Wrote:"You think we "denialists" want to die in the inferno your AGW predicts or do you think maybe we think the idea is a fraud and full of sh.it"?

Of course you guys don't want to die... you all think we are full of sh*t. I just believe that you all think this way because of all the false and misleading information that the right spreads around constantly.

Palladin Wrote:BTW,your use of terminology like "denialists" reminds me of reading of the USSR's show trials. You leftists have the same techniques.

It is no different that you guys calling us alarmists or any of the other derogatory names we liberals are regularly called. Like jackasses, communists, socialists, fascists, etc... At least we leftists are not advocating eliminationist rhetoric like John L, Gunnen4u and others do on a regular basis.
The rightist motto: "Facts?... we don't need no stinkin facts."

[Image: Obama08_Logo150.gif]
Reply
#10
Buzz,

Yes,"denialists" is different.

Alarmist is a generic term globally in human history for the "sky is falling" part of humanity. We even have little children's stories along these lines.

"Denialist,"deniers" is clearly an attempt by you to equate me with evil intent. That's Stalin's main tactic. easy to associate words with an evil idea countering the great pure revolution.

I do not equate you,an alarmist", with evil intent. I equate you as too ready to believe a view whose science is questionable,that's all. Alarmist,naive,synonyms.

You equate with me the greed that I do not give a frick what happens with the earth,even including my own family's death,I only care about reaping more and more super uber wealth.

Doesn't matter I'm a brown bag worker like you,that's the stupid mindless mantra you portrayed with your denialist word. I have other leftists use the same terminology.

I do think on AGW you are an alarmist,you're afraid of terrible consequences while within the fraternity of science there is tremendous disagreement on this issue.

I'm not afraid of these consequences because I don't see it as realistic. I also do not think black helicopters fly around my city.

You people are attempting to place folks like me in bed with holcaust deniers,etc. Try as you might,AGW is not the holocaust,it's a fraud:

HERE
Reply
#11
Buzz knows the difference.

In truth, the real denialists are the supporters of AGW by CO2. They are the ones who deny that the Alarmism is based on false and incomplete science, manipulated data, models that ignore observation, etc.


The supporters of AGW by CO2 are alarmists - they use every possible scare tactic and blame virtually everything on GW in an effort to frighten as many folks as possible.

(Where's that list of things blamed on GW when I need it?)

When pressed to provide actual scientific proof of their assertions, they do as Buzz does - resort to ad hominem attacks, straw man arguments, argumentum ad nauseam, and the rest of the logical fallacies.

Science isn't based on who can argue the most, it is based on reality, data, proper observation, honest evaluation, and similar.
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!
Reply
#12
JohnWho Wrote:Buzz knows the difference.

In truth, the real denialists are the supporters of AGW by CO2. They are the ones who deny that the Alarmism is based on false and incomplete science, manipulated data, models that ignore observation, etc.


The supporters of AGW by CO2 are alarmists - they use every possible scare tactic and blame virtually everything on GW in an effort to frighten as many folks as possible.

(Where's that list of things blamed on GW when I need it?)

When pressed to provide actual scientific proof of their assertions, they do as Buzz does - resort to ad hominem attacks, straw man arguments, argumentum ad nauseam, and the rest of the logical fallacies.

Science isn't based on who can argue the most, it is based on reality, data, proper observation, honest evaluation, and similar.

JW, you know, I just don't understand how people like that really think. I'm not kidding here when I say that there has to either be something definitively wrong with the cognitive process, or it is an attempt to confuse.

It just doesn't make any sense, because anyone with an ability to use logic, should be able to spot a sham when they see it coming down the turnpike. And these scientists, at least the overwhelming majority, know it is a sham too, but play along for the money, or to push an agenda, or both. These people know this. So why can't their followers, such as Buzz, see this? I keep talking about Brain Damage, but if it is not damage, what can it possibly be other than that?

All one has to do is just pay close attention to how Mann and some others, purposefully rubbed out the earlier warmer periods in Holocene history. And all because they were warmer, and did not support their needs. It's all there so clearly. What am I missing here?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up” — Saint Al of the Gore -
Reply
#13
John L Wrote:JW, you know, I just don't understand how people like that really think. I'm not kidding here when I say that there has to either be something definitively wrong with the cognitive process, or it is an attempt to confuse.

It just doesn't make any sense, because anyone with an ability to use logic, should be able to spot a sham when they see it coming down the turnpike. ... What am I missing here?

You are forgetting that when it comes from their side of the spectrum - in this case the left - they simply can not believe that it isn't true.
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!
Reply
#14
JohnWho Wrote:
John L Wrote:JW, you know, I just don't understand how people like that really think. I'm not kidding here when I say that there has to either be something definitively wrong with the cognitive process, or it is an attempt to confuse.

It just doesn't make any sense, because anyone with an ability to use logic, should be able to spot a sham when they see it coming down the turnpike. ... What am I missing here?

You are forgetting that when it comes from their side of the spectrum - in this case the left - they simply can not believe that it isn't true.

But why can they "not believe"? There has to be some deeper and larger underlying reason. If it is not genetic, and a throwback to primitive man, what else is it? Just because you "feel" about something is just too simplistic.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up” — Saint Al of the Gore -
Reply
#15
John,

One reason is once we develop an idea and associate ourselves with it,it is extremely difficult to conclude "I was wrong".

In my local Church,we've had a major review of a couple of issues in the last year that has caused much consternation. It has taken us from a belief most US Protestants accept to a seperate view.

It was da.mn hard for my preacher to face the fact he had been teaching us(and us believing it) a bunch of anti Biblical horsecrap for 30 years. He did it though and maybe 10% of the Church left over it.

Most pastors would not have done this,most would have kept silent. Especially pastors in denominations,it becomes doubly hard to tack against the doctrine of that Church.

I can see how hard it is to accept that I was wrong in anything.
Reply
#16
Oh that sounds juicy. What was some of that "bunch of anti Biblical horsecrap for 30 years"? You have me peaked here.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up” — Saint Al of the Gore -
Reply
#17
Buzz Wrote:Oh boy... its another witch hunt. I'm still waiting for the smoking gun from climategate. I know you denialists love to incorectly characterize climaegate as proof of them manipulating data but as far as I have seen it is just not there.

And I doubt that this will find anything as well.

:lol: :lol:


I see that you forgot a pertinent fact:

Quote:Nearly three years after his first Freedom of Information Act request, Christopher C. Horner, senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said he will file a lawsuit Thursday to force NASA to turn over documents the agency has promised but has never delivered.

They are foot dragging on an old FIA request.

Climategate was only the beginning of the end for the AGW cabal.Your irrational refusal to admit that it badly damaged the reputations of many AGW believing scientists,by what they wrote in those e-mails,is indicative of your refusal to admit that you were snowed by them.

It is obvious you have not been reading them.

In my forum and Climate Realists,and through e-mails I have been exposed to revelations that is just now sweeping the internet.That will end the glory hole of AGW fantasies.

AGW hypothesis is DEAD!

You will never learn about it because you are too busy being stuck on stupid.
Reply
#18
Tom, I really don't believe he bothers to take the time to actually read the articles, other than perhaps a swift glance. Much of the rebuttal material requires one slow down and actually compare numbers, facts, and figures. Oh, and apply common sense as well.

As I mentioned elsewhere today, I really don't understand the mind set of some folks. Things which are so easy for me to see, and intellectually wrestle with, just seem to be alien to others. I just cannot help but wonder if there really is a certain amount of brain damage present. But as an anthropologist, I know a primitive set of responses when I see them. And clearly the left's 'emotive' reaction to things is a classic throwback to the "fight or flight" syndrome, and is a primitive survival trait.

And too, I suspect that there is a good bit of visceral anger from within, that needs to ensure that the perceived bad guys get theirs in the end. I suppose that is common with almost all of the left. It's as though they believe they have been dealt a terrible hand, and someone did it on purpose. Therefore, everyone else has to pay for it.

And business, along with certain uncaring people, are the enemy and must be taken to task, regardless. Kind of like the ultimate cynicism. People like that probably love disaster movies too. It's perhaps too complicated for me to answer. I need to contact Dr. John Ray on this one.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up” — Saint Al of the Gore -
Reply
#19
John L Wrote:Tom, I really don't believe he bothers to take the time to actually read the articles, other than perhaps a swift glance. Much of the rebuttal material requires one slow down and actually compare numbers, facts, and figures. Oh, and apply common sense as well.

As I mentioned elsewhere today, I really don't understand the mind set of some folks. Things which are so easy for me to see, and intellectually wrestle with, just seem to be alien to others. I just cannot help but wonder if there really is a certain amount of brain damage present. But as an anthropologist, I know a primitive set of responses when I see them. And clearly the left's 'emotive' reaction to things is a classic throwback to the "fight or flight" syndrome, and is a primitive survival trait.

And too, I suspect that there is a good bit of visceral anger from within, that needs to ensure that the perceived bad guys get theirs in the end. I suppose that is common with almost all of the left. It's as though they believe they have been dealt a terrible hand, and someone did it on purpose. Therefore, everyone else has to pay for it.

And business, along with certain uncaring people, are the enemy and must be taken to task, regardless. Kind of like the ultimate cynicism. People like that probably love disaster movies too. It's perhaps too complicated for me to answer. I need to contact Dr. John Ray on this one.

The science fiction story The Marching Morons would be worth reading.

S1
Reply
#20
Believe it or not, I have that story on file, along with a whole lot of Kornbluth's writings. He did a lot of work with his friend Frederik Pohl too, before his death at 34.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up” — Saint Al of the Gore -
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)