The longer NASA resists releasing its climate researchers' e-mails, the stronger suspicions become about what those e-mails say and why it's stonewalling.
Nearly three years after filing his first Freedom of Information Act request, Christopher C. Horner, senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, is suing NASA to obtain documents promised but never delivered.
Mr. Horner expects the e-mails, mainly from scientists working with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, to further discredit the blame-mankind-for-global-warming crowd -- much like the Climategate e-mails leaked from Britain's Climatic Research Unit that showed data manipulation to conform to climate-change orthodoxy. He says NASA might be stalling to keep embarrassing information out of upcoming Senate debate on climate-change legislation.
NASA says Horner's inquiry is just one of many it's fielding and the volume of information he's seeking poses "just a herculean task." But it's had years to complete that task, begging the question of just what it's hiding -- and why.
Clearly, NASA is siding with the sort of suspect "science" that rightly has undermined climate alarmists' credibility -- and against the taxpaying public's right to know about work it paid for.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.