Answer: They already have one.
It is a red-letter rule in business that transactions between a company and its insiders or employees must be disclosed. Some of the most egregious breaches by Enron were its attempts to avoid disclosure of writeoffs by selling worthless assets to the infamous limited partnerships organized by company insiders for equally worthless paper issued by the partnerships. Company insiders cannot evade securities laws by pretending to be be acting in a “personal capacity”.
The U.S. federal government has a detailed set of regulations requiring scientific information to be peer reviewed before it is disseminated by the federal government. NASA, which says that it has “employs the world’s largest concentration of climate scientists”, has carried out an interesting manouevre that has the effect of evading the federal Data Quality Act, OMB Guidelines and NASA’s own stated policies. Once again, the system involves an employee purporting to be acting in a “personal capacity”.
[…]
NASA has carried out an interesting manouevre that has the effect of evading the federal Data Quality Act, OMB Guidelines and NASA’s own stated policies.
NASA says that it “employs the world’s largest concentration of climate scientists”. It has plenty of opportunity to use product from those scientists that has been produced in accordance with NASA quality procedures and subject to the Data Quality Act. Instead of doing so, NASA’s webpage on global warming relies on non-peer reviewed material, including material produced by one of its own employees as a “private citizen” at a “personal” website where his contributions have not been subject to mandatory NASA quality control procedures.
Emphasis mine. This comment lays things out in plainer language.
;NASA’s webpage on global warming relies on non-peer reviewed material, including material produced by one of its own employees as a “private citizen” at a “personal” website where his contributions have not been subject to mandatory NASA quality control procedures.;
Why, why, that is EXACTLY the kind of thing john cross is supposedly concerned about when it comes to the increasingly larger group of scientists who do not think agw exists.
Wow.
Jeez. And you wonder why the Shuttles keep falling out of the sky.
Phantom, in defense of NASA, they do a really greart job elsewhere, where political idiocy doesn’t hold as much sway. A number of personalities (don’t ask me who, we’re talking early 80s here) were already cautioning us to be ready for disaster, because there would be those (mostly on the Left) who would call for it to be shut down. You can’t use a ship like that time after time without something going wrong eventually.
But this weather stuff is still political idiocy. Expect john cross to defend it.
Daytona Beach Florida prepares for …. SNOW !!
otter: As I have said, I like to stick to the science. To me this seems very much like it is not the science in question but more of an administration problem (similar to the issue of George Deutsch).
Now, if you want to discuss the scientific parts in question I would be happy to comment. Unless of course your argument consists of telling me to “shut up” again.
regards,
John
Otter, I hear ya. It is a wonder those old birds fly at all, ever.
But you know, the problems that have blown up shuttles to this point have all been known engineering issues that management chose to ignore.
Kind of like management is ignoring this issue. How many drops of pee ruin the soup?
‘NASA’s webpage on global warming relies on non-peer reviewed material,’
I see, jc. So the science IS in question if the person against agw does not have peer-reviewed papers, but when a major governmental site relies on non-peer-reviewed papers, it is an administrative problem. And that means…. what? that the papers NASA quotes on its site are perfectly accurate and legitmate?
btw, did I actually say ‘shut up’ or did I say ‘put up or shut up’? It has been a while since I began ignoring your condescension.
John Cross, can you ever offer anything other than an offer to discuss the science? It’s so tiring. Make your point already. It’s been, what, six months, and we’re still waiting.
Come on the favorite has to be
Calvert said that is not what happened.
He added he doesn’t trust anything called “Small Dead Animals” especially when it encourages people to vote “no”.
Yukon Gold maybe Cross can tell me how many more severe hurricanes there were in the 90’s compared to the 50’s and earlier.
Maybe he can show me where the sea levels are going down. Lets face it we started massive industrialization 60 yrs ago and has the water gone up 1 foot in any location recently.
Maybe he could discuss how the antarctic ice sheet was at it’s largest ever a few months ago.
Hardly likely if the hockey stick isn’t pure unadulterated BS.
Maybe if the sea levels are rising as fast as Al Gore note politician says he could push for the elimination of all dredging efforts in all harbours because the Sea Level is going up, who cares what the actual measurements say. It’s more important to listen to people who want to line their pockets.
And Al has, [is it] 3 homes? So his pockets are well lined. Plus you can buy carbon credits from his company and when he’s got a 30 k el;ectric bill he must buy a lot from himself to help him save the earth. Heaven forbid he turned the lights out.
“To me this seems very much like it is not the science in question….”
Considering the bad year AGW had in 2007, anyone who makes the above quote isn’t interested in discussion.
I’d like to see him try his routine over at climateaudit.
yep ron, it has snowed in florida several times during my time on the planet. just the weather doing what it always does.
NASA report to Congress 2007.
[quote]The Nunn-McCurdy certified NPOESS program, as you are aware, focuses NPOESS on its weather mission and deletes many of the capabilities previously planned for climate science. As the Decadal Survey committee was finalizing its notional mission set and sequence, the full impact of the removal of the climate sensors from the NPOESS program was just coming to light. Since last summer, we in NASA have been working closely with NOAA, OSTP, and the scientific research community to understand and rank the impacts of these programmatic perturbations [/quote]
Yes! science NEEDS real Numbers, normally used by “real” scientists. Programmatic perturbations is not the term i would use. Someone guarding a 800lb Turd (GW) is more likely.
Why the insane RUSH?. well maybe real numbers come in 2009..
“As I have said, I like to stick to the science. To me this seems very much like it is not the science in question but more of an administration problem…”
Since, as you have said, you like to stick to the science, and if we are only given NASA’s conclusions and are denied access to the science, would you agree that NASA’s conclusions should be greeted with skepticism?
One of the things you’ve got to understand about NASA is that the spooks and black project people took over way back when Admiral Bobby Inman was put in charge.
It’s hard to know at this juncture to what extent civilian space exploration projects are a cover for weapons platforms being developed and experimented with.
Quite possibly these crop circles that appear primarily in allied countries are experiments conducted by high-frontier weapons systems.
Naturally, NASA still carries on a lot of legitimate research and exploration appropriate to the civilian sector. But its joint mission or perhap real mission lies outside of public scrutiny.
It seeems that otherwise smart people are acting in strange ways over so-called Man Made Global Warming.
As Kate’s post shows, why are some in NASA clearly breaking protocol, guidelines. (At the risk of being liabelous ?)
And others (Gore, Suzuki) keep pushing a known fraud.
And media (Byers/Star article) trying to instill panic, a sense of urgency. Day after day they print clearly false articles on MMGW.
And yet none of the above truly try and defend their positions. Other than sending in cannon fodder.
As Ward(?) suggested awhile back, perhaps they ARE in a panic. Desparate people will do desparate things. (Especially in an attempt to save face)
Surely the alarmist crowd ( Nasa, The UN, Political Parties, Media) must now realize they have been had — and so are desparate to save face ?
But how ?
Well, if they could quickly (the panic) get Kyoto up and running, even in a watered down (desparate) mode, then, when the inevitable global cooling comes along — PRESTO !!
GLOBAL COOLING ARRIVES, KYOTO SAVED HUMANITY
THE PROPHETS WE’RE RIGHT, NEXT TIME SEND MONEY RIGHT AWAY
SEE, ONE ‘CAN’ BELEIVE ALL ONE READS IN THE NEWSPAPERS
Was Kyoto patterned after the Ozone Success Story ?
Ozone “Success” Story;
http://www.discerningtoday.org/ozone_depl_twilight_.htm
Montreal Protocol, Kyoto Protocol
Maybe they are similar in more than name 🙂
otter: Please provide quote from my posts that backup your assertions. There is much good science done in the peer-review as well as not in the peer-review. In the end, the only thing that matters is does it hold up to scrutiny. Now, let me ask yet again, do you have a scientific point to make?
Yukon Gold: Yes, it is strange that I would want to discuss the science in a scientific topic.
Robert in Calgary: The stuff I like to discuss is the stuff that Steve does not want discussed on his site.
cross Jon: Conclusions without backing information should always be treated as suspect.
Regards,
John
Well, Ron, if people threw money at me the way they throw money at the likes of Al Gore, I’d sing, dance, and do whatever else they want me to do (and it wouldn’t be pretty). Then go ahead and call me a fraud if you like … I’ll be laughing all the way to the bank.
Whether Kyoto’s a fraud or not, the Gore et al road shows are working for them, so why on earth should they change their tune now? People are paying to hear what they want to hear. If it were me I’d just keep singing (and P.T. Barnum would know what I’m talking about).
Kate:
Did you shut down the comments in the Sounds of Settled Science thread (the one just before the Polling For The Rock Hard Stupid thread). I have tried to post a reply there several times over the last while and I always get:
Comment Submission Error
Your comment submission failed for the following reasons:
Comments are not allowed on this entry.
Thanks,
John
John Cross: That’s why I distrust Kyoto and AGW.
Comments are only open for a few days, John. After that they’re automatically closed by the software to prevent spambots from taking over.
Curses! Kate McMillan has ruined my plot to take over the world with spambots!!!
Kate: Good enough, I will keep that in mind. Do you also delete the comments after a while. I was having trouble accessing them this morning.
Thanks.
cross Jon: Kyoto is a political solution to global warming so I do not consider it science. In regards to AGW, in which parts have they hidden the science?
John Cross,
I also like the Science of the debate! I would strongly recommend that those that don’t understand “Street” dynamics be very careful in the public domain.
There are Paramilitary & Survival groups that take target practice every day!
Steve McIntyre should be commended for taking the thread off-line, and hopefully discourage such public discourse. The Scientific Community should deal with alleged behavior within the confines of a “scientific” Community.
I consider SDA as an intelligent community, not a scientific Blog. Behavior patterns count here and you are fair game.
Just my dime,
Hands up, now, everyone with an advanced science or engineering degree. OK, now hands up if you also work at NASA.
Thanks. Now shut up.
John – no, only blatant troll comments are deleted.
Anon – I invite you to read this thread –
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/006355.html
In a reader survey conducted a few months ago, about 10% of the first 600 people responding had engineering degrees.
I trust that helps.
Thanks Kate, but I think I specified advanced engineering/science degree. That means at least Master’s level. I work at Johnson Space Centre and I don’t know many people who don’t have a PhD, let alone an MSc, MAsc or MEng; everyone that works in the Mission Evaluation Room does.
The people working in the research labs may not, but they are usually working towards one – and the people that direct the labs certainly do.