Freedom Isn’t Free

NOAA is desperate to hide their data tampering, and is taking a new tack to defeat FOIA requests.

Kent Clizbe and I have been working for almost a year to get them to release their published monthly temperature data over the past couple of decades, which they overwrite in place in order to hide their ongoing manipulations.

The data should be kept in a simple file structure like the NOAA drought data, and it should require no more than 10 seconds for me to recover it online. Instead, they want a quarter of a million dollars, due on Monday.

We estimate that the cost to search for responsive records will be approximately $262,000.

If payment or other communication is not received by March 24, 2015, your FOIA request will be considered “closed.”

Fee Notification Letter – 2014-001602

There must be something very incriminating in that data.


About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

85 Responses to Freedom Isn’t Free

  1. Ron Clutz says:

    I just completed a study on this issue:

    Adjustments Multiply Warming at US CRN1 Stations

    A study of US CRN1 stations, top-rated for their siting quality, shows that GHCN adjusted data produces warming trends several times larger than unadjusted data.

    The analysis shows the effect of GHCN adjustments on each of the 23 stations in the sample. The average station was warmed by +0.58 C/Century, from +.18 to +.76, comparing adjusted to unadjusted records.

    19 station records were warmed, 6 of them by more than +1 C/century. 4 stations were cooled, most of the total cooling coming at one station, Tallahassee.

    So for this set of stations, the chance of adjustments producing warming is 19/23 or 83%.

    Details here:

  2. Tel says:

    In this day and age anyone doing analysis who cannot achieve basic tasks like extracting a data set should probably pack their bags and go home. Clearly, whatever they have been doing, it wasn’t state of the art science.

    • Neal S says:

      This is a travesty. If the Republicans-in-name-only had a backbone, they would tell NOAA to either produce the information or have their funding cut. Because it is obvious if they cannot (or will not) produce the information, the current funding is being mis-spent, and whatever NOAA is doing, it isn’t science.

  3. Disillusioned says:

    Even if you paid it, you wouldn’t get the truth from those criminals.

    Freedom isn’t free, and the truth is priceless.

  4. Disillusioned says:

    “Please be aware that not all responsive documents are necessarily releasable under the FOIA.”

    [But please also be assured we will do everything possible to thwart your efforts.]

    ” If you have any questions about your request or the NOAA’s FOIA regulations or procedures, please contact Maria Williams, 301-713-7103 or

    [And Maria will be happy to stonewall and waste your time in the friendliest way possible.]

  5. sfx2020 says:

    Wasn’t this crap the reason somebody hacked the emails and such from the CRU?

  6. More ammo here, Tony

    Comparing the 2007 and 2014 GISS versions of US temperatures, about 0.2C has been added to warming since the 1930’s.

    This is, of course, after all TOBS adjustments etc have been accounted for, as they were already in the 2007 numbers.

    To make matters worse, NCDC add another 0.1C to the GISS trend

  7. omanuel says:

    Thank you, Steven, for your efforts.

    Climategate emails were but the tip of the iceberg of global deceit that began when Stalin emerged victorious from WWII – holding Japan’s atomic bomb plant at Konan, Korea and the crew of an American B29 bomber for negotiations on forming the United Nations.

    None of us know all of the details yet, but we do know falsehoods were inserted into the foundations of nuclear and solar physics as early as 1946.

  8. gator69 says:

    Crowd source it. Find a bank to loan any shortfall, and give the Koch brothers a call. It can be done.

    • gator69 says:

      Contact those fine folks on the Oregon petition, it works out to about $8 per person. I’ll pitch in.

    • Shazaam says:

      Now that they have shown their hand. i.e. named the price of the data, file another FOIA request on the 25th and start that funding effort in tandem.

      Thus, you will have a fair chance of having the funds available when they stop stalling and present the bill.

      The truly disgusting part, is that the requested data has already been paid for via the taxes taken.

      Methinks the tax parasites are circling the wagons and they seem to be worried about tar and feathers. Wonder why?

    • Donna K. Becker says:

      Last I heard, the Koch brothers funded a study showing that warming is real–and they changed sides. Please let me know if they have since changed their minds.

      • gator69 says:

        From my understanding, they were conned.

        • gator69 says:

          Elizabeth Muller, executive director of the Berkeley Earth Project, tells Whispers she too believes the Koch brothers are genuinely interested in the science.

          Muller points out that the Arlington, Va.-based foundation’s $150,000 grant for the study was “unrestricted,” and that the study’s stated purpose was to “increase the transparency” of climate change studies.

          The proof will be in the pudding, however, if and when the Koch Foundation decides to support the second phase of the Berkeley study, which will focus on ocean surface temperatures, but will also continue to explore mankind’s role in climate change.

          Though two foundations have already renewed their funding for the second phase, says Muller, the Koch Foundation is not among them.

          Since transparency in science is their stated goal, I would think they would be perfect.

    • mcraig says:

      I was thinking the same sort of thing; you know if I was a billionaire I’d fund this in a heartbeat.

      But the problem is the “1.9 years” it would take for the search. In any event, this response letter is ludicrous. This is another classic case of them either being incompetent idiots not worthy of public funding or clever liars (again not worthy of public funding).

  9. DD More says:

    search for responsive records will be approximately $262,000. This estimate is based on approximately 1.9 years of Search and Review time

    Reminds me of poor Arthur Dent and getting plans on the by-pass.
    “But the plans were on display . . .”
    “On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.”
    “That’s the display department.”
    “With a torch.”
    “Ah, well the lights had probably gone.”
    “So had the stairs.”
    “But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?”
    “Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying Beware of the Leopard.”

    1.9 man years to find?? They got those records buried deep.

  10. Gail Combs says:

    Yes, it can be done. I am asking Hubby to contact people outside the Climate Denier group.

  11. kentclizbe says:

    Open to any thoughts and suggestions for the response to this.

    Welcome to share here, or drop me a note:


    • gator69 says:

      Might I suggest…


      Get well trafficked skeptic sites to banner this project, hit up the Oregon Petition signers, and you will likely have enough money for multiple fascist FOIA fees.

    • Neal S says:

      Any money would likely be used to suppress the information/data they DON’T want you to have. (sensitization and providing false records that cover their behinds) Might I suggest instead that various congress-critters be encouraged to threaten them with having all their funding removed, if they cannot do this simplest task of providing information. After all, what are they being paid for anyway?

      • Caleb says:

        I agree. Not only one congressman, either. After all, we paid for the data in the first place.
        It is our data, and all our congressmen should be notified.

        Voters make congressmen nervous, even if people in NOAA are not elected and think they are outside the law.

    • mcraig says:

      To give you any suggestions, I’d have to see your request since NOAA claims the request is very broad.

      • Curious George says:

        I second your point. In any case, I like a key sentence from the NOAA letter: “As data stewardship – including homogeneity adjustments – has been central to NCDC’s mission
        for decades, determining which records are responsive to this extremely broad request will require significant resources.”

        Why would anybody doubt NOAA adjustments? It must hurt deeply.

    • Anything is possible says:

      Convert to Islam, and try to obtain the information via the Muslim outreach program.

    • Steven Mosher says:

      learn to write an FOIA request.
      overly broad requests will fail.

      I suspect you wrote your request asking for everything.
      I had no problem getting everything I wanted from NOAA ( nearly 1000 pages )
      by writing a good clear specific request.

      FOIA was not designed to aid in fishing expeditions where you request any and all documentation.

      For example in the CRU request we were aware of their 18 hours of labor limitation and constructed our request in light of this.

      If you really want the information you have to work carefully and be less stupid

      • kentclizbe says:

        Dear Scientist Mosher,

        Thanks so much for sharing your humble thoughts. I’m sure that your input will be afforded all the consideration which it deserves.

        In the meantime, it would be great if you’d avoid the name-calling.



        • gator69 says:

          Mosher is no scientist. but he does know how to write! 😆

          Steven Mosher is an English major with a long career in marketing and technology who is known for wasting everyone’s time by making indecipherable drive-by comments on skeptic websites. He is not an “aerospace engineer”, he is not an “open-source software developer” and he is certainly not a “scientist” (despite all ridiculous claims to the contrary).
          “Mosh[er] is indeed a scientist…” – Willis Eschenbach
          Unlike apparently most of those who entertain his comments I took the time to research Mr. Mosher’s credentials and found them long but completely devoid of any scientific education or experience.

          Steven M. Mosher, B.A. English, Northwestern University (1981); Teaching Assistant, English Department, UCLA (1981-1985); Director of Operations Research/Foreign Military Sales & Marketing, Northrop Corporation [Grumman] (1985-1990); Vice President of Engineering [Simulation], Eidetics International (1990-1993); Director of Marketing, Kubota Graphics Corporation (1993-1994); Vice President of Sales & Marketing, Criterion Software (1994-1995); Vice President of Personal Digital Entertainment, Creative Labs (1995-2006); Vice President of Marketing, Openmoko (2007-2009); Founder and CEO, Qi Hardware Inc. (2009); Marketing Consultant (2010-2012); Vice President of Sales and Marketing, VizzEco Inc. (2010-2011); [Marketing] Advisor, RedZu Online Dating Service (2012-2013); Advisory Board, urSpin (n.d.); Team Member, Berkeley Earth 501C(3) Non-Profit Organization unaffiliated with UC Berkeley (2013-Present)

          Ironically, the #1 word that appears on his LinkedIn profile is Marketing.

          Since he has been a frequent commentator on various climate related websites [Climate Audit, Climate Etc., The Blackboard and Watts Up With That?] his status has grown into somewhat of an urban legend. Yet, he is only notable in the global warming debate for two main things:

          1. Writing a book on the Climategate scandal in 2010 – “Climategate: The Crutape Letters” and,
          2. Outing Peter Gleick over the fake Heartland Institute Memo in 2012.

          While both are legitimate, neither has anything to do with scientific research and both lend to his English language skills. The problem with trying to determine his education and experience is his background changes depending on the source and various positions and titles appear to have evolved over time.

          Background Inconsistencies and Misrepresentations

          Sometimes it appears even Mr. Mosher does not know who he is.

          * In a March of 2012 resume Mr. Mosher posted to he claims to have a “Ph.D. in English” but in an interview in 1999 he explicitly stated, “I quit my Ph.D. in English to become a full time operational analyst.”

          Just like many others, Mosher knows how to write fiction for money…

        • Steven Mosher says:

          years ago when NOAA blocked anthony’s access to station metadata I filed a FOIA. got 1000 pages, no trouble whatsoever. Had similar success with CRU in about half the cases. You got denied cause you dont know what you are doing

        • kentclizbe says:

          Sciency Steve,

          Thanks again for sharing another bit of your amazingly insightful, valuable and humble guidance.
          If only everyone could be as talented and all-round swell as you!
          I’ll keep trying, until one day, maybe years and years from now (maybe never, even) I can be as wonderful as you are.

          Please keep sharing the blazing insights flowing from your font of wisdom. I’m all ears.


        • gator69 says:

          Background Inconsistencies and Misrepresentations

          Sometimes it appears even Mr. Mosher does not know who he is.

          * In a March of 2012 resume Mr. Mosher posted to he claims to have a ” Ph.D. in English ” but in an interview in 1999 he explicitly stated, ” I quit my Ph.D. in English to become a full time operational analyst. “

          My brother is a high level NASA employee who has had to testify in front of congress on more than one occasion, and he has also had to deal with multiple FOIA requests. I asked him last week about the 1.9 year estimate as well as the $262,000 price tag, and he did not bat an eye. He said that such requests are time consuming and costly (at government rates, remember they do get paid time off every there is a government shutdown) and in his opinion this estimate was not out of line with previous similar FOIA requests with which he has been personally involved.

          To maintain some credibility Mr Mosher, please provide us with your full claimed FOIA correspondences, including all replies, in order to verify your claims. Then maybe we can consider taking your claims more seriously. Otherwise, consider the link above, consider your history of what may not be exactly truthful statements, and consider your future posts before you hit ‘Post Comment’.

          Most sincerely, Gator.

        • One of these days some retired English professor will come across a Mosher post and say:

          ”Why, that’s the young man we asked discreetly to quit his Ph.D. and do something different with his life. The poor devil couldn’t organize his thoughts in a meaningful sentence and ignored punctuation on top of it. We were mostly just guessing what he was trying to say. So what is it he’s doing now?”

  12. Gail Combs says:

    NOAA’s Mission:

    Science, Service, and Stewardship.
    To understand and predict changes in climate, weather, oceans, and coasts,
    To share that knowledge and information with others, and
    To conserve and manage coastal and marine ecosystems and resources.

    • mcraig says:

      Gail, they will share all the synthesized, analyzed, homogenized, adjusted, tweaked and easy-baked knowledge and information they have.

      Unfortunately, they didn’t specifically say “raw data”.

  13. Anthony S says:

    You do have he option to narrow your search, limiting it to the past 15 years or so when most of the adjustments start going crazy, hopefully eliminating the necessity of accessing “obsolescent systems.”

  14. Louis Hooffstetter says:

    When you read between the lines, this is what she really said:

    “Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it…?”
    -Phil Jones email Feb. 21, 2005

  15. kentclizbe says:

    Thanks very much for all the suggestions and thoughts on how to continue this pursuit.

    Paying the fees is, I think pretty much out of the question.

    Note in the letter that they said, even if the fees are paid, the responsive records may not be releasable any way.

    I think that any effort to raise the money would just be a fool’s errand–lots of activity, with no actual result at the end, and a lot of wasted time and money.

    The best approach, I think is a legal one–that is to sue for the records.

    There is a great opportunity for a foundation or legal group to take on a case with massive potential for benefits for all US citizens, and the whole world.

  16. Louis Hooffstetter says:

    I wouldn’t hit the tip jar to give $262,000 to these crooks… but I would gladly donate to sue these bastards for blatant and willful violation the Freedom of Information Act. I’m sick and tired of the “most transparent administration ever” wiping their butts with our laws.

    If you need $ for a good law firm, let us know. Just make sure they’ll go after them for punitive damages.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Ask Mark Steyn to recommend a lawyer. If anyone knows who to get he will.

    • Caleb says:

      I think they should face the charge of “Falsification Of Public Records.”

      Once some of these people faced the prospect of serious fines and serving time, they’d become quite talkative to congress, I imagine.

  17. Gail Combs says:

    To add a bit of irony to the whole mess. Kent posted Gary North’s Ken Burns’ The Dust Bowl: Blowing Sand in Our Eyes

    In the last section is this:

    If you want to know where Burns got all those spliced-in movies and photographs, think “Rexford Guy Tugwell.” They are all part of the public domain — free. The government’s subsidy is still paying off politically, over 75 years later.

    So the US Government can retrieve 75 year old film and photos FOR FREE but can not retrieve NOAA temperature Data from the last couple of decades?

    Color me SKEPTIC!

  18. Perry says:

    Inform Senator Tom Cotton. Obama claims that prisoners at Guantanamo create a reason

    for attacks and recruiting by terrorists. Tom Cotton does not agree

    & makes his point against Senator Brian McKeon, Under Sec for

    Defence. See him in action.

    • gator69 says:

      One of my favorite beatdowns of this century.

      • David A says:

        Obama also said that terrorists are not real Muslims.
        So, according to Obama, imprisoning these non-Muslims terrorists, who debase all true Muslims by their brutal acts of terror, causes real Muslims to become non Muslim terrorists? And he give them (these non-Muslim terrorists) prayer rugs and Muslim clerics to practice their religion of peace, even though he says they are not Muslims.

  19. jn says:

    Tony, can you post your original FOIA request? Some of us might like to file our own. Maybe we will get different results.

    • kentclizbe says:


      This message is to confirm your request submission to the FOIAonline application: View Request. Request information is as follows:
      • Tracking Number: DOC-NOAA-2014-001602
      • Requester Name: Kent Clizbe
      • Date Submitted: 09/07/2014
      • Request Status: Submitted
      • Description: 1. Temperature Data Record Adjustments: Rationale, Methodology, Discussions–USG employees and others
      For the NOAA/National Climactic Data Center: Please provide Internal and external e-mails, letters, phone logs, memos, and other communications, from, to, and between: government employees, external consultants, experts, advisors, or other parties regarding the rationale, methodology, and other issues concerning adjustments/homogenization or other changes to both the US and global temperature record data, from the beginning of the adjustments through today.

      2. Temperature Data Computer Code Used to Process/Adjust/Homogenize US Temperature Data
      Please provide the complete source code used for processing raw US temperature data.

      • Gail Combs says:

        That should all be publicly available in a transparent government.

      • Mark says:

        A small suggestion – limit part 1 to e-mail. That should all be on computer and limits the justification for more manual methods to address letters, phone logs, etc. Once you have the e-mails, you can then target requests for the other means based on the e-mail content. It is likely memos and letters would be exchanged as e-mail attachments anyway (nobody uses USPS for that anymore).

      • t jenk says:

        That will be $262,000 thank you

      • Lauren R. says:

        I’m a bona fide non-alarmist; climate or otherwise (or “denier” if you like), but I find NOAA’s response to your request to be quite reasonable. You’re asking for many years of emails, letters, phone logs, meeting notes and so on that someone has to track down and sift through which would take thousands of hours. If it were just monthly temperature data and computer code it wouldn’t take long at all. Normally it would require a substantial incentive to have someone produce the massive number of records you requested. That would be something on the order of a criminal investigation or Congressional hearing. I’m surprised that the NOAA stopped laughing long enough at your pretentious request to respond politely and even suggest the option of narrowing it. We are no better than the alarmists when we make unreasonable claims and beat our chests in indignation when the response seems unreasonable. Treat people like human beings and you’ll be surprised how much more accommodating they will be.

        • kentclizbe says:


          Congratulations on your bona fides! That’s great to hear.

          Not sure if you know anything about either FOIA or dealing with the US government, though.

          There are thousands of nooks and bureaucratic crannies in which details can be hiding. Unless you have an insider telling you exactly the type of document, where it is, dates, subjects, and all details that allow you to specify, then you will be lost in the maze.

          Think Hillary Clinton’s scheme to hide her internal government communications from FOIA. There are many other possible schemes to dodge FOIA requests.

          To help you with a little FOIA background, here is a typical media FOIA request, in this case the AP is asking for virtually the exact same set of communications and discussions which we asked for. This case is regarding the Fukushima nuclear incident:

          “Pursuant to the federal Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, I request access to and copies of all internal communications within the NRC (including its chairman, four commissioners and their staff members) pertaining to the Japanese nuclear incidents caused by the March II earthquake and tsunami. This includes problems at the following three facilities: Fukushima Dai-ichi, Fukushima Daini, and Onagawa. .The communications should include em ails, faxes, and written correspondence between the commission’s chairman, its four commissioners, their staffs, the public affairs team and employees of other offices such as the Office ofNuclear Reactor Regulation, the Office ofNuclear Security and Incident Response, and the NRC’s 24-hour Operations Center.”

          Hope that helps.

  20. ntesdorf says:

    With fees like that at their disposal, there is effectively no Freedom of Information Act on offer.

    • Gail Combs says:


      The ONLY ‘Freedom of Information’ is for Astroturf organizations like Greenpeace and WWF. The US government gives them money and then they give the money back to get the information that will embarrass the enemies of the State.

      Joe the Plumber and Suzy the School Teacher are kept from the information their tax money PAID FOR.

      FOIA Fees

      ….For purposes of fees, the FOIA divides requesters into three categories:
      commercial use requesters;
      news media, educational, or scientific requesters; and
      all other requesters.

      Commercial use requesters are charged for any search time, document review, and duplication. News media, and educational and scientific research requesters are charged for duplication only, after the first 100 pages. All other requesters are charged for search time (after two hours) and duplication (after 100 pages).
      FOIA Search Fee Schedule

      The reproduction fees are $0.10 per page.
      The current search and review fees are determined by the General Schedule (GS) salary level which is representative of the HHS employee performing the initial search and review services.

      Hourly Fees:GS 8 $83

      Fee Waivers

      You may request a fee waiver for FOIA prepossessing fees. However, fee waivers are limited to situations in which a requester can show that disclosure of the requested information is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations and activities of the government and is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requester.

      Does DOCUMENTING CORRUPTION count as “in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations and activities of the government?”

      • David A says:

        I hope the fee wavier was requested, just to say, yes we tried that.

      • kentclizbe says:


        Thanks very much.

        That’ll be the response sent this evening. Request fee waiver under the news media category, and scientific research category.


  21. Snowleopard says:

    I’m not much into government operation these days, so there is a lot I don’t know.
    Some questions:
    What committee determines NOAA’s funding?
    Is there a ranking skeptic on that committee?
    If so, might that skeptic be willing to arm twist for you?

    • kentclizbe says:


      My experience, as a normal citizen, with contacting Congressmen on specific committees with jurisdiction over specific issues is this:

      If you are not in their Congressional District, they’ll thank you politely for your query, and direct you to the Congressman who represents your District.

      Without massive media or donor interest in an issue, they have no interest.

      Best example of how to get their interest: see the speech to Congress by the representative of AIPAC earlier in March. Huge turnout and massive interest–due to his lobbying clout.

      My Congressman is already “making inquiries” about the FOIA request, but that is small potatoes to the administration.

      • gator69 says:

        I spoke with my brother (NASA manager) about this FOIA, and he said he was not at all surprised at the cost. He said that he has had to deal with FOIA requests in the past and that the man hours involved, at government rates, is extremely costly. He is sympathetic to our venture, but said that it is SOP to charge Wall Street attorney fees for their work. He said the one bit of good news is that there should not be any additional cost for sifting through classified material.

        My main concern is ‘missing’ data, and ‘missing’ email.

  22. Political Junkie says:

    Another approach that you probably have considered and rejected!

    Could you zero in on a single site and ask for detail of the adjustments? i.e. find a way to ask for info in smaller slices.

    Would this be more more difficult to stonewall?

  23. John Robertson says:

    Here in Canada our weather office (Environment Canada) has records going back to 1840 that are available for download. For some obscure reason they think the data should be freely available.
    The Mandate is interesting reading too…

  24. But the data is public property, and NOAA a public service agency. By definition, ALL of NOAA belongs to us and is free to retrieve. It’s part of their job description.

  25. David Appell says:

    Where is the original letter with your request?

  26. David Sanger says:

    Maybe I missed it, but could you please post a link to the exact FOIA request which was made.

    • Gail Combs says:

      It should be in the letter. Steven posted the URL

      Click to access fee-notification-letter-2014-001602.pdf

    • David Sanger says:

      never mind. I see it above. I

    • David Sanger says:

      “The data should be kept in a simple file structure like the NOAA drought data, and it should require no more than 10 seconds for me to recover it online. ”

      You’re kidding!

      The request included “external e-mails, letters, phone logs, memos, and other communications, from, to, and between: government employees, external consultants, experts, advisors, or other parties….. from the beginning of the adjustments through today.”

      The National Climatic Data Center was formed in 1934.

      • kentclizbe says:

        Mr Fasst,

        Great point. And very well made.

        Did you read the comments above your’s before you made your own snarky response?

        The complete request is reproduced above.

      • kentclizbe says:


        What does it matter when the NCDC was formed?

        As you quoted, the request is for information they hold concerning “the ADJUSTMENTS made to the data…”

        It appears that they only began “homogenizing” the data recently.

        So querying their systems for the emails and communications regarding the homogenization should be quite easy.

        Hope that helps.

  27. gofer says:

    Contact Judicial Watch, they have been involved in a lot of these requests.

  28. Jon Lonergan says:

    With those fees perhaps NOAA should be funding the government?

  29. nutso fasst says:

    Without seeing the actual request there’s no way to know if all the outrage is justified. (Yes, Gail Combs, it SHOULD be in the letter, but it isn’t.)

    Sad to see how few demand a complete story before jumping to conclusions, and ironic that those who demand original data fail to show their own.

    The only reason to NOT show the original request is if it justifies to some degree the snarky response.

    • nutso fasst says:

      Mr. Clizbe, thanks for the reply.

      I scanned comments but initially missed yours with NOAA’s request confirmation email.

      I suspect you had a good idea how NOAA would ultimately respond.

      Good luck tweaking certain Congresspeople into paying some attention to this issue, and with the fee waiver.

      Even with all the torturing, I don’t think the data has confessed. But the door to the chamber needs to be opened.

      Regards, nf

      • kentclizbe says:

        Mr Fasst,

        Thanks for your note.

        There’s a bit of confusion about what we are asking for.

        It’s been the better part of a year since our original request. Our goal, of course, is to ultimately have copies of all the raw temperature records, and the adjustment “algorithms” they use to create their “hottest years ever.”

        But the first goal is to reveal the debate about making the changes to the raw data. Who/why/where/when/how was this debate carried on?

        This is of utmost importance. This “homogenized” data is the main supporting “evidence” that the activists call “science.” And it is the evidence they use to support banning various cheap and efficient forms of fuel, and fundamentally destroying our economy. It is a rotten foundation.

        Our goal, instead of endlessly debating the direction of temperature changes, is to get directly to the point–to report on the government, non-government, private, academic, and other individuals who colluded to begin “homogenizing” the data to support the man-caused runaway global warming scenario.

        That’s why we’re asking for the communications about the changes to the data.

        Appropriate legal steps are being taken to continue to pursue the full release of the requested information.


  30. The letter was typed on the 17th, and the quarter million dollars and change to pull some data was due a week later—or screw the FOI request!

    Question: If it takes $262,000 every time you want to pull some data, how useful is that data?

    Well it doesn’t matter. It’s obviously a coverup.

    But whatever amount of money they’re asking for so they can bury their data, Monday? Seriously, by Monday?

    Because science.

  31. kentclizbe says:

    Just for the information of the instant FOIA specialists who are providing interesting guidance and criticism (for which, thanks very much, due regard will be given, as merited), pasted below is a typical FOIA request.

    This was by Judicial Watch, who was interested in the internal processes that resulted in the IRS targeting Tea Party groups.

    This is how it is done. If you don’t agree with the methodology, language, “presumptiousness, or other niceties, you’re welcome to have at it yourself!

    “Specifically, Judicial Watch seeks the following records from its initial three FOIA requests, filed on May 20, 2013:

    Any and all records concerning, regarding or related to the number of applications received from organization seeking tax exempt status under 501(c)(4).
    Any and all record concerning, regarding, or related to communications between the IRS and members of the U.S. House of Representatives or the U.S. Senate regarding the review process for organizations applying for tax exempt status under 501(c)(4);
    Any and all records concerning, regarding, or related to communications between the IRS and any other government agency regarding the review process for organizations applying for tax exempt status under 501(c)(4);
    Any and all records concerning, regarding, or related to communications between the IRS and any office of the Executive Branch regarding the review process for organizations applying for tax exempt status under 501(c)(4).
    Any and all records concerning, regarded, or related to the preparation of questionnaires sent to organizations applying for 501(c)(4) tax exempt status;
    Copies of any questionnaires sent to organizations applying for 501(c)(4) tax exempt status.

    These first three FOIA requests were given the following numbers: F13149-0095, F13149-0100, and F13149-0102.

    On May 22, 2013, Judicial Watch submitted a fourth FOIA request seeking the following:

    Any and all records concerning, regarding, or related to Lois Lerner’s communications with other IRS employees regarding the review and approval process for 501(c)(4) applicant organizations;
    Any and all communications concerning, regarding, or related to Lois Lerner’s communications with any government or private entity outside the IRS regarding the review and approval process for 501(c)(4) applicant organizations.”

  32. The magic bullet used by greens such as the Sierra Club and Great Basin Mine Watch, is to include a statement in the FOIA that says ” This information will be used to educate the public….” I have been on the wrong side of a couple of those. We provided a reasonable cost estimate and a circuit judge says ” give it to them free of charge”. Sucks to spend weeks making paper copies, one for the requestor, one for the FOIA officer to redact personal information, one for the solicitor and one extra to prove you did it, as requested, 20 years down the road. The purpose of the FOIA was pecuniary retribution. The greens lost in court trying to stop a mine. Their inventive FOIA cost us hundreds of man hours, a truck load of paper and huge fees for overusing every leased copier we had access to as well as paying overtime because the judge gave us a month to get it all done.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s