Tag Archives: John O’Sullivan

Leading US Physicist Labels Satellitegate Scandal a ‘Catastrophe’

Launching wasted tax dollars into space?

Leading US Physicist Labels Satellitegate Scandal a ‘Catastrophe’ By: John O’Sullivan

Respected American physicist, Dr Charles R. Anderson has waded into the escalating Satellitegate controversy publishing a damning analysis on his blog.

In a fresh week of revelations when NOAA calls in their lawyers to handle the fallout, Anderson adds further fuel to the fire and fumes against NOAA, one of the four agencies charged with responsiblity for collating global climate temperatures. NOAA is now fighting a reargaurd legal defense to hold onto some semblance of credibility with growing evidence of systemic global warming data flaws by government climatologists.

NOAA Systemically Excised Data with ‘Poor Interpolations’

Anderson, a successful Materials Physicist with his own laboratory, has looked closely at the evidence uncovered on NOAA. He has been astonished to discover, “Both higher altitudes and higher latitudes have been systematically removed from the measured temperature record with very poor and biased interpolated results taking their place.”

Like other esteemed scientists, Anderson has been quick to spot sinister flaws in official temperatures across northern Lake Michigan as revealed in my earlier articles.

I had proven that the website operated by the Michigan State University had published ridiculously high surface water temperatures widely distributed over the lake many indicating super-boiling conditions. The fear is that these anomalies have been fed across the entire satellite dataset. The satellite that first ignited the fury is NOAA-16. But as we have since learned there are now five key satellites that have become either degraded or seriously compromised.

In his post Satellite Temperature Record Now Unreliable Anderson’s findings corroborate my own that NOAA sought to cover up the “sensor degradation” on their satellite, NOAA-16. The U.S. physicist agrees there may now be thousands of temperatures in the range of 415-604 degrees Fahrenheit automatically fed into computer climate models and contaminating climate models with a substantial warming bias. This may have gone on for a far longer period than the five years originally identified.

Anderson continues, “One has to marvel at either the scientific incompetence this reveals or the completely unethical behavior of NOAA and its paid researchers that is laid open before us.”

Indian Government Knew of Faults in 2004

I have further uncovered proof that the Indian government was long ago onto these faults, too. Researcher, Devendra Singh, tried and failed to draw attention to the increasing problems with the satellite as early as 2004 but his paper remained largely ignored outside of his native homeland.

Indian scientist, Singh reported that NOAA-16 started malfunctioning due to a scan motor problem that caused a ‘barcode’ appearance. Singh’s paper, ‘Performance of the NOAA-16 and AIRS temperature soundings over India’ exposed the satellite’s growing faults and identified three key errors that needed to be addressed.

Singh writes, “The first one is the instrument observation error. The second is caused by the differences in the observation time and location between the satellite and radiosonde. The third is sampling error due to atmospheric horizontal inhomogeneity of the field of view (FOV).” These from India thus endorse Dr. Anderson’s findings.

Photo of the barcode problem noted by Singh

NOAA Proven to have engaged in Long-term Cover Up

My investigations are increasingly proving that such data was flagged by non-NOAA agencies years ago, but NOAA declined to publish notice of the faults until the problem was publicized loudly and widely in my first ‘satellitegate’ article, US Government in Massive New Global Warming Scandal – NOAA Disgraced. Official explanations initially dismissed my findings. But then NOAA conceded my story was accurate in the face of the evidence.

My second article, shortly thereafter, exposed that a succession of record warm temperatures in recent years may be based on contaminated satellite readings. But NOAA spokesman, Program Coordinator, Chuck Pistis declined to clarify the extent of the satellite instrument problem or how long the fault might have gone undetected.

Thereafter, in my third article, Official: Satellite Failure Means Decade of Global Warming Data Doubtful we saw the smoking gun evidence of a cover up after examining the offending satellite’s AVHRR Subsystem Summary. The official summary shows no report of any ‘sensor degradation’ (NOAA’s admission) since its launch in September 2000.

Subsystem Summary Details Censored Between 2005-10

But even more sinister is the fact that the official online summary now only shows events recorded up to 2005. All subsequent notations, that was on NOAA’s web pages last week and showed entries inclusive to summer 2010, have now been removed. However, climatechangefraud.com is displaying a sample of the missing evidence copied before NOAA took down the revealing web pages after it entered into ‘damage limitation mode.’

As events have unfolded we are also learning that major systemic failures in the rest of the satellite global data-collecting network were also not reported. Such serious flaws affect up to five U.S satellites as reported in an excellent article by Susan Bohan here.

NOAA Tears Up its Own ‘ Data Transparency’ Policy

But rather than come clean NOAA has this week ordered their lawyers to circle the wagons.  Glenn Tallia, their Senior Counselor, wrote to advise me, “The data and associated website at issue are not NOAA’s but instead are those of the Michigan State Sea Grant program. Thus, we have referred your e-mail to the Michigan State Sea Grant program.”

Yes, Glenn, clearly the final data output was published by Michigan but the underlying fault is with your satellite!

With NOAA now hiding behind their attorneys we appear to see a contradiction of NOAA’s official pledge that “ The basic tenet of physical climate data management at NOAA is full and open data access” published in their document, NOAA/National Climatic Data Center Open Access to Physical Climate Data Policy December 2009.
Sadly, we may now be at the start of yet another protracted delay and concealment process that tarnished NASA’s and CRU’s reputations in Climategate. We saw in that scandal that for 3-7 years the US and the UK government agencies cynically and unlawfully stymied Freedom of Information requests (FOIA).

NASA’s disgrace was affirmed in March 2010 when they finally conceded that their data was in worse shape than the much-maligned Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the UK’s University of East Anglia. CRU’s Professor Phil Jones only escaped criminal prosecution by way of a technicality.
The attorney credited with successfully forcing NASA to come clean was Christopher Horner, senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Horner is now advising me as to how best to pursue a possible FOIA of my own against NOAA if they continue their obfuscation.

American Physicist Pick Out Key Issues

Meanwhile, back on his blog Anderson points to the key issues that NOAA tries to cover up. He refers to how Charles Pistis, Program Coordinator of the Michigan Sea Grant project, tried to pass off the dodgy data as being an accidental product of the satellite’s malfunction sensors taking readings off the top of clouds rather than the surface temperatures.

By contrast, Anderson cogently refutes this explanation showing that such bogus data was consistently of very high temperatures not associated with those detected from cloud tops. He advises it is fair to assume that NOAA were using this temperature anomaly to favorably hype a doomsaying agenda of ever-increasing temperatures that served the misinformation process of government propaganda.

As Pistis admitted, all such satellite data is fed automatically into records and apparently as long as it showed high enough temperatures to satisfy the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (AGW) advocates of those numbers were not going to make careful scrutiny for at least half a decade.

Anderson bemoans, “One has to marvel at either the scientific incompetence this reveals or the completely unethical behavior of NOAA and its paid researchers that is laid open before us.”

“Charles Pistis has evaded the repeated question of whether the temperature measurement data from such satellites has gone into the NOAA temperature record. This sure suggests this is an awkward question to answer.”

Now Satellites NOAA-17 and 18 Suffer Calamities

While NOAA’s Nero fiddles ‘Rome’ continues to burn and the satellite network just keeps on falling apart. After NOAA-16 bit the dust last week NOAA-17 became rated ‘poor’ due to ‘scan motor degradation” while NOAA-18’s gyro’s are regarded by many now as good as dead. However, these satellites that each cross the U.S. twice per day at twelve-hour intervals are still giving “direct readout”(HRPT or APT) or central processing to customers. So please, NOAA, tell us – is this GIGO still being fed into official climate models?

NOAA-17 appears in even worse condition. On February 12 and 19 2010 NOAA-17 concedes it has “ AVHRR Scan Motor Degradation” with “Product(s) or Data Impacted.”

Beleaguered NOAA customers have been told, “direct readout users are going to have to deal with the missing data gaps as best they can.”

On August 9, 2010, NOAA 17 was listed as on ‘poor’ with scan motor problems and rising motor currents. NOAA admits, “Constant rephase by the MIRP was causing data dropouts on all the HRPT stream and APT and GAC derivatives. Auto re-phase has now been disabled and the resulting AVHRR products are almost all unusable.”

NOAA continues with tests on ‘17’ with a view to finding a solution. On page 53 we find that NOAA-17 has an inoperable AMSU Instrument.  The status for August 17, 2010 was RED (not operational) and NOAA is undertaking “urgent gyro tests on NOAA 18.” For further details see here. More evidence proving NOAA is running a “degrading” satellite network can be read here.

Dr. Anderson sums up saying; “It is now perfectly clear that there are no reliable worldwide temperature records and that we have little more than anecdotal information on the temperature history of the Earth.”

3 Comments

Filed under Co2 Insanity, John O'Sullivan, Legal, NASA, NOAA, Sattelitegate, Science

NASA Sued for Non-Response to FOIA

...and how many times did you deny FOIA requests Mr. NASA?

I got a “tweet” from Watts Up With That” this morning about NASA being sued per this article, which led to me reading their take on it, which linked to an article on The American Spectator by Chris Horner about it.  Here’s their take on it, my take on it, and some legal information from John O’Sullivan at the end.

CEI (The Competitive Enterprise Institute) is suing NASA because they’ve been requesting documents for about 3 years under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and NASA has been avoiding them like “warmers” avoid global cooling.

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.

Seems there’s a lot going on at this agency that perhaps the general public is unaware of and the “warmers” either condone or look the other way about.  Based upon the information from the two source websites,  NASA  has been running a website, probably with your tax dollars, to surreptitiously try to back up their BS about anthropogenic global warming.  It’s called RealClimate.org, which is by the “warmers” for the “warmers” and of the “warmers.”  Evidently the people at GISS and NASA never watched Superman when they were kids and “truth, justice and the American way” are completely foreign to them.

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.

Sounds like NASA is so full of it they actually had to start another site to get the general public to believe what they evidently can’t back up.  They’re hiding out about that, too.

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.

I had to ask what are the implications of all of this.  As such I forwarded this to John O’Sullivan for his expert legal opinion on what’s actually going on beyond the obvious allegations that NASA is not only pumping out bald-faced lies, but actually is running a website with taxpayer funds to try to back the bald-faced lies up.  Mr. O’Sullivan sent me the following email.

John,

Great link-thanks. CEI are onto something here and if they have smart attorneys they will, at some point along the legal line, employ the doctrine of spoliation (i.e. file a motion for relief for NASA’s evidence destruction/withholding).

If CEI’s lawyers have a credible prima facie case indicating taxpayer funds were misappropriated into, for example, creating and maintaining the advocacy website, ‘Real Climate,’ then the burden of proof shifts to the respondents (ie.Gavin Schmidt and James Hansen et al.) to disprove CEI’s claims-unreasonably denying the FOIA claims for a 3-year period may, in itself, be sufficient to cost NASA the case.

The law requires that if during this process, NASA fails to furnish any subpoenaed documents relevant to the CEI’s case, because they may have become ‘lost’ or destroyed, then those persons (but more likely NASA) become liable, under the spoliation doctrine, to a motion for summary judgment or an adverse inference jury instruction.

In plain speak, under U.S. civil and criminal law, any party destroying or hiding key evidence is very likely to lose the case. The result will probably be that the CEI claims will be upheld. But will anyone go to jail? Unlikely.

Because, just as in the U.K, American FOIA laws may ultimately prove toothless. Such regulations are ostensibly enacted and enforced by the current representatives of the people (i.e. the govt) for the benefit of the people (or in reality, the government). So, in effect, the whole circus may well be spun out, stymied or down played long enough to spare the blushes of the incumbent ruling political party.

So that all that may result is some ‘smacked hands’ and a token level of disrepute for the institution (NASA). As we saw in Britain (with CRU) an incumbent pro-warmist government like the current administration is not going to willingly pursue prosecutions that may create setbacks for their cap and trade agenda.

The U.S. Establishment will hope it all blows over, especially with the backdrop of a compliant-almost myopic-mainstream media that won’t make a fuss,either. I’m sure that’s close to what these characters hold up their sleeve.

Regards,

John

As you can see Mr. O’Sullivan is very aware of the laws regarding this and that while it sounds good on the face of it, the reality of the situation is that perhaps a few people will get sent to their room for a time-out but that most likely no one is going to lose their job or do any jail time.  It’s real CO2 Insanity that those who appear to be promoting bald-faced lies using your tax dollars won’t have much, if anything happen to them.  I can hope that this gets enough publicity in the MSM to at least embarrass them good and perhaps get the global warming fraud out more in the public eye, but I’ll bet (like John O’Sullivan) that the MSM (main stream media) will continue to act as though they’re “co-conspirators,” and no one’s going to hear much, if anything from them.

Where’s Perry Mason when you need him?  What would they call this episode?  How about “The Night of the Missing Climate Change?”  Or, “The Case of the Inconvenient FOIA request?”

Source:  Watts Up With That?

Source: The American Spectator

Comments Off on NASA Sued for Non-Response to FOIA

Filed under Climategate, Co2 Insanity, Financial, John O'Sullivan, Legal, Politics