I have attached 7 excerpts from the NASA documents that I found the most suspicious/interesting. Below are brief summaries of the pdf’s, and explanations of why I chose these excerpts. Again, I am not sure how long these emails have been posted on the NASA site (they never informed me they were posting them) so I don’t know how widespread the knowledge of this information is/don’t know how much credit we can take for their being posted. That being said, a lot of the quotes I have found that seem somewhat controversial do not make a lot of noise in a Google search…if nothing else might make for a good blog.
1.) The first pdf (NASA Jones.pdf
) is of correspondence between NASA officials and Phil Jones, the central figure in the climate-gate controversy.
In this email chain, Jones tells Hansen what he has been up to in regards to international weather stations, instructing Hansen “Don’t pass any of this on via Real Climate.” He then laments that the Chinese keep moving their weather stations to rural areas as cities develop, writing that “they are doing some reasonable work, but not seeing the big picture…”
In a follow-up email concerning the NASA temperature correction controversy, Jones notes that “I guess if you’d rounded to tenths none of the comments of the last few days would have happened. Our files work the numbers out in thousandths, but we round these for the web!”
Jones also says that in the UK he things has been able to persuade the Times not to cover the story, but hasn’t had the same luck with the Mail on Sunday.
2.) The second pdf (NASA Rounding.pdf
) is an email chain concerning a new analysis of US temperature.
One NASA official, Gavin, asks “but did 1934 and 1998 swap places?” The other NASA official, Reto, responds “No – but I needed an extra digit to decide that question…Maybe, we’ll switch to a single digit in the US-table, then we have 3 years in the number 1 position.”
The same official says a few minutes later “Rounding to the nearest .1C was Phil Jones’ suggestion”
3.) The third pdf (NASA Mann.pdf
) is of a NASA GISS scientist who is joking around with Michael Mann, who was another central figure in the climategate controversy. Notice that Mann refers to Senator Inhofe as “the chief disinformer himself” – at least I think he is referring to Inhofe.
4.) The fourth pdf (NASA Competition.pdf
) is an exchange between two NASA officials wondering why a article by a global warming skeptic is a top viewed article of the month. I include this, because in the first paragraph, NASA official Gavin Schmidt writies “However, you have to ask about the competition…” – so…he is referring to climate skeptics as NASA’s “competition”???
5.) The fifth pdf (NASA Pundits.pdf
) simply contains a quote by Hansen that I find suspicious. Hansen writes to another NASA scientist: “The correction that you made to stations post 2000 records (by setting the means for 1990 to be equal in the two records?) should be fine, and since we have made that available, we should use that. We don’t want still another result, which would really set the pundits happy”
6.) The sixth pdf (NASA Revkin.pdf
) is just an off the record comment by NYT writer Andrew Revkin. It probably isn’t a big deal, but I think it speaks to journalistic objectivity. Revkin writes “off record> I never doubted the answer, but had to ask. The spinup in blogosphere these days is instantaneous.”
7.) The last pdf (NASA Hansen.pdf
) isn’t really all that controversial, but I found it an interesting exchange. Someone from the UK emails Hansen asking him why he had such a strong response to a blogger finding a flaw in NASA data – pointing out that such a strong response only sends the message that agenda is driving Hansen’s actions. In Hansen’s response, he writes “if we just report the science and do not make note of misinformation, it is not clear that the message gets out, and we are running out of time.” I included this email exchange instead of the numerious others that demonstrate Hansen’s agenda (which does not seem to be something he shies away from).
I don’t believe any of the pdf’s were included in the original batch of documents we received. Here is the link to NASA’s posting of the GISS documents: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/business/foia/GISS.html
Finally, I should note that throughout the documents there are small but noticeable redactions (naughty, naughty) that are not labeled.
Let me know if you need more info.
Dir Public Affairs