NASA global warming temperature revision redux: How big is the problem?

posted at 12:53 pm on August 13, 2007 by Allahpundit

Via Noel Sheppard, the guys who exposed the big data bug in the NASA temperature calculations last week have now responded to the global warming believers who naturally downplayed the error and dismissed it as irrelevant to GW trends. No commentary here from me; just follow the drill from the last post and read Steve McIntyre’s and Warren Meyer’s posts slowly and carefully. The bullet points version of McIntyre to guide you as you go:

1. NASA and James Hansen have allegedly shown an astonishing amount of bad faith in protecting their bogus numbers. Last week’s posts noted how secretive Hansen has been in hoarding the algorithm he uses to make temperature adjustments, but most of McIntyre’s wrath this time is reserved for NASA, which pointedly declined to mention prominently that it had revised its own data lest it attract any unwelcome public attention.

2. While the revisions to U.S. data didn’t have an affect on global averages, they did obviously have a “significant” effect on U.S. averages while pointing up potential errors in data collection worldwide. Specifically, according to McIntyre, not only are certain U.S. temperature measurement stations that are thought to be unreliable being “adjusted” by algorithm, even stations not thought to be unreliable may be undergoing adjustment. Quote:

The USHCN station history adjustments appear particularly troublesome to me, not just [at the Grand Canyon] but at other sites (e.g. Orland CA). They end up making material changes to sites identified as “good” sites and my impression is that the USHCN adjustment procedures may be adjusting some of the very “best” sites (in terms of appearance and reported history) to better fit histories from sites that are clearly non-compliant with WMO standards (e.g. Marysville, Tucson). There are some real and interesting statistical issues with the USHCN station history adjustment procedure and it is ridiculous that the source code for these adjustments (and the subsequent GISS adjustments – see bottom panel) is not available/

3. The flip side of the last point: how many global measurement stations are unreliable and are not undergoing adjustment? Quote again:

[M]any of the stations in China, Indonesia, Brazil and elsewhere are in urban areas (such as Shanghai or Beijing). In some of the major indexes (CRU,NOAA), there appears to be no attempt whatever to adjust for urbanization. GISS does report an effort to adjust for urbanization in some cases, but their ability to do so depends on the existence of nearby rural stations, which are not always available. Thus, ithere is a real concern that the need for urban adjustment is most severe in the very areas where adjustments are either not made or not accurately made.

Meyer makes a similar point about what systemic problems in U.S. data collection and adjustment portend for global measurements. As he put it last week, “This is not the end but the beginning of the total reexamination that needs to occur of the USHCN and GISS data bases.” Which explains his first recommendation now.

Now go read McIntyre, making sure to stay with him through the devastating conclusion.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

What does the SNOWMAN have to say about all this?

D0WNT0WN on August 13, 2007 at 1:02 PM

How big is the problem?

Hard to say, since we are obviously unable to prove there is a problem.

What we have proven to this point is that our current temperature spikes are high, but within relatively normal trends. We have also proven that our short term average temperature now is 2 degreess warmer than our long term average temperature.

What we have failed to prove is that this is not a natural trend. We have also failed to prove that human interaction impacts global climate change in any measureable way.

And if anything, what we have proven recently is that our measurements are faulty making any theory derived from this data equally faulty.

But, I guess science really doesn’t have that much to do with global warming since we all honestly feel (and therefore must believe) that human influenced global warming theory is true.

Lawrence on August 13, 2007 at 1:04 PM

GISS recognized that the error had a significant impact on individual stations and took rapid steps to revise their station data (and indeed the form of their revision seems far from ideal indicating the haste of their revision.) GISS failed to provide any explicit notice or warning on their station data webpage that the data had been changed, or an explicit notice to users who had downloaded data or graphs in the past that there had been significant changes to many U.S. series.

Gee, the MSM has the same problem.

This is the height of dishonesty. It’s a despicable, unethical practice and it must be exposed and stopped.

TheBigOldDog on August 13, 2007 at 1:09 PM

What we have proven to this point is that our current temperature spikes are high. . . .

Lawrence on August 13, 2007 at 1:04 PM

Ah, No. We haven’t PROVEN anything. What we now suspect is the data is not reliable, because the data is being manipulated in an unknown manner, by persons unknown, for unknown reasons.

rockhauler on August 13, 2007 at 1:32 PM

Wow, global warming based on data “massaged” by true believers who refuse to reveal their methods. Who would have thought?

Clark1 on August 13, 2007 at 1:32 PM

Hey, Fake but Accurate eh! Besides which, everyone knows that the science is settled, so just move on, nothing to see here.

oilbertan on August 13, 2007 at 1:32 PM

It doesn’t matter, it just doesn’t matter.

Harpoon on August 13, 2007 at 1:34 PM

Open a freakin window and stick your head out and “witness” the global warming for yourself!!! Summertime you say? I question the timing of this so-called summertime. Obviously Karl Rove invented summertime to shift focus from Al Gore’s amazing message…

saltydogg14 on August 13, 2007 at 1:34 PM

Did anybody notice that the charts showed temps going down before the Clean Air Act and going up after? Let’s just do away with the act and problem solved.

Harpoon on August 13, 2007 at 1:37 PM

These guys are alchemists, not scientists. They’re converting the bad data of thermometers mounted outside air conditioners into the gold of taxpayer funding.

pedestrian on August 13, 2007 at 2:27 PM

Well it’s probably still safe to say that 1998 is the hottest year on record in Canada since record keeping began*.

Since NASA is tax payer funded, why doesn’t someone who has a lot of time and money toss a couple dozen FOIA requests at them to get this data out?

* please note, record keeping in Canada began in 1949

Canadian Imperialist Running Dog on August 13, 2007 at 2:38 PM

Guys. Guys…

The debate is over.

Montana on August 13, 2007 at 2:39 PM

Did anybody notice that the charts showed temps going down before the Clean Air Act and going up after? Let’s just do away with the act and problem solved.

Harpoon on August 13, 2007 at 1:37 PM

Nice Red Herring, but I don’t think it will work here.

Red herring (From SourceWatch)

A red herring is an irrelevant issue used as a distraction to divert attention from the primary issue. Red herrings are usually used in attempts to deliberately mislead.

There are various theories on the etymology of the phrase. They all involve laying out a fake scent trail to distract hounds by using a smoked red herring (the herring becomes red when smoked and is known for emitting a distinctive odor). In one version, the trail is laid by hunters to test the bloodhounds or to prolong a fox hunt. According to another version British fugitives used herring to distract hounds from their trail, and in yet another version poachers used herring to distract hunting hounds from the game so they could claim it themselves. The phrase was supposedly picked up in the 1920s to warn American investors that preliminary prospectuses, dubbed “red herrings,” were not complete and could be misleading.

Maxx on August 13, 2007 at 2:40 PM

The raw data they’re using ain’t so good, either. Check out this blog for an example of why the weather folks and the “climatologists” have problems with their predictions.

…and lest you think this is an isolated problem, check:

this site …which contains the data from a nationwide audit of weather stations. This all-volunteer but strictly disciplined effort seems to have been started by a TV weatherman in CA (I think) who wanted to know how good the data he was getting really is.

This whole thing is a great example of how the Internet and “new media” is changing the world by making it increasingly impossible to get away with a lie.

landlines on August 13, 2007 at 2:56 PM

Well it’s probably still safe to say that 1998 is the hottest year on record in Canada since record keeping began*.

Sorry to burst your bubble, Canadian Imperialist Running Dog, but the hottest year on record is now 1941 (after correcting the government’s Y2K bug)

landlines on August 13, 2007 at 3:02 PM

Correction to the corrupt link in my previous post:
The blog showing the problem with the weather data is here.

landlines on August 13, 2007 at 3:08 PM

Another correction: the new year is 1934 (my fingers cannot seem to connect properly to my brain today).

Just so I can’t screw it up again, here is another source.

landlines on August 13, 2007 at 3:19 PM

Ah, No. We haven’t PROVEN anything. What we now suspect is the data is not reliable, because the data is being manipulated in an unknown manner, by persons unknown, for unknown reasons.

rockhauler on August 13, 2007 at 1:32 PM

But you only quoted the first part of my statement. My complete statement in full context pretty much agrees with you. And if you read down through the rest of what I said you will see that I make a similar statement to yours in context of the unreliability of the data.

But I stand by my statement that current temperature trends are, in the short term, spiking high. But that doesn’t prove gobal warming. It just reflects historicaly documented patterns. Patterns documented by sources other than NASA.

Lawrence on August 13, 2007 at 3:36 PM

Patterns documented by sources other than NASA.

Lawrence on August 13, 2007 at 3:36 PM

…and some of the sources turned out to be nearby air conditioners and asphalt rather than actual weather…

landlines on August 13, 2007 at 3:42 PM

This whole thing is getting beyond stupid. Lets see, we have the following:
1) Bad data
2) Questionable computer models
3) Agenda driven conclusions
4) A direct and very close correlation between solar
activity and the current warming trend
5) Man made CO2 increases an almost minuscule fraction
of total “greenhouse gases”
That the earth is in a “warming cycle” seems to be the only thing here that seems likely. That this warming is caused by CO2 seems highly improbable. When people substitute “faith” for science you get some wild results.

duff65 on August 13, 2007 at 4:11 PM

The lack of interest within the scientific community over this secretive and dishonest handling of data reveals just how many scientists are earning a living peddling this snake oil.

I think I’ll hold off on buying that Nebraska beach property.

T J Green on August 13, 2007 at 4:11 PM

Was there a mix up using metric or standard numbers?
The last time that happened we lost the Mars Surveyor.
So, are the GW numbers hot or cold?

Kini on August 13, 2007 at 4:30 PM

I liked the comment left at the Watt’s site:

“You mean Hansen cheery picked the dataset and then adjusted it!”. LOL

Sergei on August 13, 2007 at 4:37 PM

…and some of the sources turned out to be nearby air conditioners and asphalt rather than actual weather…

landlines on August 13, 2007 at 3:42 PM

Studies of the ice sheets in Greenland, for instance, (easy stuff to find Googling the web) confirm the historical rise and fall of global temperatures coinciding with historical weather patterns recorded in Europe and North America over the past 500+ years.

Lawrence on August 13, 2007 at 5:08 PM

Studies of the ice sheets in Greenland, for instance, (easy stuff to find Googling the web) confirm the historical rise and fall of global temperatures coinciding with historical weather patterns recorded in Europe and North America over the past 500+ years.

Lawrence on August 13, 2007 at 5:08 PM

{rest of the above paragraph}… But what this all proves is that whatever is happening now is the work of nature. And not at all mand made.

Sorry for the extra post. Fat fingers, small keyboard, yadda yadda…

Lawrence on August 13, 2007 at 5:11 PM

Its time for James Chicken-Little Hansen to step down. This is a clear case of the fox in charge of the hen house.

We’ve got all of these “scientist” on the “global warming gravy train” being funded by the taxpayers and its time for them to get off. We spent four billion dollars on global warming research last year and lesser amounts going all the way back to the early 1990′s, what a waste of taxpayer money and total fraud on the American public !! We have every right to be outraged. We’ve got bridges falling down, because government has ignored it core responsibilities, yet they shovel money by the train load to crap like this. And of course now they want to raise our taxes to pay for all the infrastructure that is in disrepair because of their negligence.

When is this fraud going to stop ? Let’s be sure to remember who the proponents of this giant scam have been the next time we go to the polls, its time to send them home.

Maxx on August 13, 2007 at 5:35 PM

As someone who has commented on HA in support of the findings of the scientific community, I must say that I am disappointed in the failure of NASA to make some sort of press release, the lack of coverage of this development in the MSM, and the non-disclosure of the computer algorithms. That said, science bloggers have responded and the consensus still stands on the weight of the evidence.

Sum total of this change? A couple of hundredths of degrees in the US rankings and no change in anything that could be considered climatically important (specifically long term trends).

See also: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/08/so_who_exactly_reported_that_n.php

Read ‘em before you dismiss ‘em.

starflyer on August 13, 2007 at 6:15 PM

landlines on August 13, 2007 at 3:02 PM etc.

Did you notice that both years you mentioned come BEFORE 1949? Since Canada didn’t track those years, they can’t be the record hottest years there.

Isn’t it awfully CONVENIENT that so many countries don’t have data for these prior heat waves?

The Monster on August 13, 2007 at 6:36 PM

Release the AlGoreithims.

Aside from nuking it from orbit, it’s the only way to be sure.

Pablo on August 13, 2007 at 6:38 PM

Why has the Earth been warmer in the past, before the combustion engine?

Why has the Earth been cooler in the past, before the combustion engine?

Why have most scientific theories from the past, about everything, been proved wrong, ultimately?

What does this say about the likely accuracy of this “Global Warming” theory?

Calm, deliberate and rational decisions about how to confront human-pollution and over-taxing of parts of the ecosphere (fishing species to extinction, over-tapping the watertable, etc., etc.)make more sense than stampedes based on unscientific hysteria.

profitsbeard on August 13, 2007 at 6:44 PM

starflyer on August 13, 2007 at 6:15 PM

Agreed that the amount that 1934 exceeds 1998 is miniscule. But would we be talking about hype if the headlines for the past few years were shouting “temperatures statistically the same as 70 years ago!”

Just based on a hunch, outside of Europe and the US, I have zero confidence in global weather data from the 1930′s to the 0.1 C level. What I do know is that the number of air conditioners and amount of asphalt has gone up world wide. I seriously doubt the siting problems of weather stations is much worse in the US than the ROW.

Nobody really thinks this adjustment changes the big picture (but it’s .18 degrees not a couple of hundredths just to get the facts right). The claim that it is just a diversion from the real problems including secret data adjustments, bad measuring sites, lack of real understanding
of atmospheric filtering, and the recent results on cloud fformation effects from radiation.

pedestrian on August 13, 2007 at 6:46 PM

Release the AlGoreithims.

Pablo on August 13, 2007 at 6:38 PM

That is golden.

Maxx on August 13, 2007 at 6:58 PM

starflyer on August 13, 2007 at 6:15 PM

You are too silly to even get started with.

RightWinged on August 13, 2007 at 7:01 PM

The lack of media coverage continues to infuriate me, but I’m too lazy to go off again, so I’ll simply quote myself from two posts left on a dead thread last night:

This is all fine and good, but WHERE’S THE MSM COVERAGE OF THE OVERTURNED “HOTTEST YEARS ON RECORD” BS!?!?!?

This is infuriating! It’s bad enough when there’s a AP wire story that the liberal media choose not to pick up, and it only gets a few mentions on Fox and in the Wall Street Journal, maybe a tiny passing mention on CNN… but there IS NOTHING! Literally, outside of blogs, there is NOTHING on this! We’ve got one of the biggest “proofs”, quoted time and time again about the “hottest” years being almost all in the last decade being COMPLETELY overturned, where the hottest years are now:

1934, 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999, 1953, 1990, 1938, 1939

5 of 10 are before friggin’ WWII!!!!!

Wow, I wasn’t aware that when my grandfather told me the other day that on the farm he grew up on north of Detroit, that when he talked about going down the long road (named after his family, that remains today) to go to the store, etc. via horse and buggy in the 20s and 30s, that he really meant that some time traveler had brought them a Hummer from the future… along with everyone else in the country. It was an SUV Emissionpalooza, apparently, in the early 1900s! Right? I mean “carbon emissions = warming”, so that can be the ONLY explanation. Not increased solar activity. Not the fact that the weather stations taking the readings are in parking lots and hot hot rooftops. It’s carbon, period. Consensus!!!!!

By the way, I’m not going to really take this far here… but I have to point out that we were told BY SCIENTISTS (and idiot enviros) that these “hottest years” were scientific facts. And we continue to hear that there is “consensus” on global warming (which anyone who’s paying attention knows is bullsh** anyway)… But think for a moment, all you evolutionists who say “it’s established science” and “consensus”, if there’s even a slight possibility that the wool is being pulled over your eyes. There are an infinite amount of assumptions, made based on the larger assumption of evolution, that have been flushed down the toilet… some of them HUGE, and there is a steady flow of small ones. Yet when something is proven to have not evolved the way they had been forced to assume, the “scientists” wave a magic wand and say “we discovered that it evolved differently (and/or faster, etc.)”. That’s not science, because they didn’t discover that something evolved at all… they simply proved their original assumption wrong, but because there is an overall assumption of evolution, they see a lack of evidence as evidence. It’s shameful, and unscientific.

/rant

Back to the point, I’m not shocked, but I am angry that there is a complete media blackout on this HUGE story… Even if you want to spin and try to insist that catastrophic man made global warming is occurring, if ANY media outlet expect to be trusted, they should report this. Even if they don’t think it’s HUGE as I do (I’ve said one of the largest stories of our generation), it still has to be reported, and it’s not. Not that most of your don’t already, but you should trust virtually NOTHING you’re told by the media unless you can see it for yourself. That’s the lesson learned by what is going on here. Again, they can downplay this and pretend it’s unimportant in the grand scheme, but no one can argue that this shouldn’t at least be reported.

RightWinged on August 13, 2007 at 4:57 AM

…Holy crap! After writing that last comment, and thinking about how NASA GISS had silently changed the temps on their “warmest years” data after the “oversight” was discovered, I figured I’d see if they’d decided to now do the honorable thing and post a headline on their site. I think ANYONE with an ounce of honesty would agree that they should at least have some mention of this story, which is huge for this group who specializes in this area, provided false numbers for a long time, and made a massive change just a few days ago. Guess what?

NOTHING!
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/

And the worst part is that in the main body of their page, the “News and Features”, the most recent piece was written in May, and is entitled… wait for it… Climate Approaches Dangerous “Tipping” Point. These pieces of garbage. Your tax dollars at work my friends.

Incase you don’t click that link, here are the other stories listed on their main page (on the page they have infuriating alarmist summaries to entice you to click to read the entire articles):
Climate Change and Summer Heat Waves
Storms Power Saturn’s Jet Streams

The Color of Life, Here and Out There
Particulate Consequences
Global “Sunscreen” Has Likely Thinned

G.Projector Map Maker Released
Warmer Future Could Bring Droughts
2006 Was Earth’s Fifth Warmest Year
Modeling Carbon Monoxide

Really NASA GISS… all those stories, and you couldn’t even have the balls to note that things have changed a little? (and by “a little” I mean “a lot”)

Oh and here’s the best part (and by “best” I mean “worst”)
That second to last one, written in February entitled 2006 Was Earth’s Fifth Warmest Year is pumping the old bogus numbers:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20070208/

Now you may ask yourself, “Wait… I thought 2006 was the Fourth warmest based on the new numbers?”. Well that’s true… but that’s because 2002, 2003, and 2005 all fell completely out of the top 10 list!!!

But does that matter to NASA GISS? Nope, they’re still liking this BOGUS article on their main page, with graphics and all showing “TOP 5 WARMEST YEARS WORLD WIDE SINCE THE 1890S” as 2005, 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20070208/

Now admittedly, they’re talking “worldwide” and I think the numbers that were changed were just the United States, but surely they impact the worldwide figures… and surely most of the reliable records from the distant past only existed in places like the United States and other advanced western countries (obviously not in the third or even second world countries)

But again, the overall point is there isn’t even a wire story out there if someone wanted to pick it up which is far beyond the media blackouts we’ve seen. Usually the story is at least available if you look hard enough. You can’t find this one unless you look at a dozen or so blogs. And surely it should be required that NASA GISS make an announcement and issue a press release, or at least put an F-ing link and write a paragraph on their web page!!!

RightWinged on August 13, 2007 at 5:16 AM

RightWinged on August 13, 2007 at 7:06 PM

As someone who has commented on HA in support of the findings of the scientific community….

starflyer on August 13, 2007 at 6:15 PM

Would any of these physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists, along with many others with advanced degrees qualify as the “scientific community” ? Just wondering because all of these folks think “Global Warming” is bunk !!

Maxx on August 13, 2007 at 7:21 PM

Let’s see…”It doesn’t matter it’s just the US..”

hmm next it will be it doesn’t matter it’s just North America, then the western hemisphere then…”It doesn’t matter it’s just the earth…you should see what we are doing to the moon!”

boomer on August 13, 2007 at 7:42 PM

I always thought the warming effect was real and it was just a question of if CO2 was the actual cause, among any number of causes, natural or not. It is silly to focus on just CO2 when there are so many factor like soot, aerosols, water vapor, solar activity, changes in the magnetic field, land use and physical change of the Earth by humans ect…

I’m stunned that a core dataset showing this undeniable warming may itself be flawed. The actual measured warming is five times less then the amount that the data is “corrected” by. That is stunning. Anyone who took a first year natural science class should know this is rediculous methodology. If your measurements are so flawed the you know the margin of error is 5X what you are measuring you need to alter your methods or equipment not extrapolate the results you think you should have. (note that is extrapolate not interpolate ie make up)

On top of all that the method by which these adjustments are made is kept secret? As someone who is really fairly literate on matters of science, my reaction is what the hell!

Resolute on August 13, 2007 at 8:28 PM

What we have failed to prove is that this is not a natural trend. We have also failed to prove that human interaction impacts global climate change in any measureable way.

The picture from McIntyres’ link PROVES to me,that without a doubt,we humans ARE responsible for global warming!

After all,it wasn’t the freakin’ COWS that paved around the test site!!!

Blitz on August 13, 2007 at 9:55 PM

Yet another “global warming” segment on Hannity & Colmes, where all Hannity and author Chris Horner did was whine about the hypocrisy of celebs and pols telling us to change our lives while they live large.

SEAN AND CO. WAKE THE F UP, DESTROY THESE PEOPLE WITH SCIENCE!!!

The hypocrisy from these libs is obnoxious, but it’s not the issue. Global Warming is total bullsh**, and I can’t understand why NO ONE HAS COVERED THIS!!! Does anyone know if Hannity covered this at all on the radio? What about Rush? Or anyone?

RightWinged on August 13, 2007 at 10:00 PM

The picture from McIntyres’ link PROVES to me,that without a doubt,we humans ARE responsible for global warming!
After all,it wasn’t the freakin’ COWS that paved around the test site!!!
Blitz on August 13, 2007 at 9:55 PM

Yes, but this has nothing to do with Carbon Dioxide and would tend to disprove the actual global warming theory. sorry, I can’t tell if your post is serious or sarcastic.

RightWinged on August 13, 2007 at 10:00 PM

Honestly, the vast majority of the public and even media personalities and reporters are absoloutely clueless about science.

Resolute on August 13, 2007 at 10:47 PM

Even many college majors are not required to take classes in the natural sciences. MAybe that is why we are in this mess.

Resolute on August 13, 2007 at 10:49 PM

Does anyone know if Hannity covered this at all on the radio? What about Rush? Or anyone?

RightWinged on August 13, 2007 at 10:00 PM

Rush nailed NASA about this. Here is the link to the radio show transcript. I don’t know if Hannity said anything about it or not.

Maxx on August 13, 2007 at 11:20 PM

Rush nailed NASA about this. Here is the link to the radio show transcript. I don’t know if Hannity said anything about it or not.

Maxx on August 13, 2007 at 11:20 PM

Thanks Maxx, that settles me a little bit… I’ve remained infuriated that there is a COMPLETE media blackout on this… it’s sad that a handful of blogs were he only ones covering it, but if Rush is as MSM as it gets right now, I suppose that’s a step in the right direction. I am just stunned that there aren’t even wire stories out there for the media to ignore, the fact that they don’t mention it on the NASA GISS website and continue to pump BS in spite of the new findings, and that even Fox is totally ignoring this!

RightWinged on August 13, 2007 at 11:34 PM

Maxx on August 13, 2007 at 11:20 PM

On second thought Maxx, I’m underwhelmed by that… I’m glad Rush talked about it, don’t get me wrong, but the fact that this happened on August 9 brings me back to the fact that no one is talking about it… I thought perhaps his talking about it would force at least a bit of conversation, but the fact that this was 5 days ago means it clearly didn’t.

RightWinged on August 14, 2007 at 12:07 AM

“Sum total of this change? A couple of hundredths of degrees”

“There is a positive skew so that the impact of the step error is about 0.15 deg C according to Hansen”

Ok, but .15 degrees from 2000 – 2006 is minor right…

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A.lrg.gif

Hmm, the graph from the meteorological stations shows an increase from 2000 – 2006 of about .2 degrees. So about 75% of the graphed increase in the past 6 years is wrong, caused by faulty and “massaged” data. Yep, minor. Care to give me a minor amount of your bank account?

“Because many sites are affected by climate change, a general urban heat island effect and local microsite changes, adjustment for heat island effects and local microsite changes raises some complicated statistical questions, that are nowhere discussed in the underlying references (Hansen et al 1999, 2001). In particular, the adjustment methods are not techniques that can be looked up in statistical literature, where their properties and biases might be discerned”

Yeah, sure you can’t check their “fixing” of the numbers that show obvious heat island effects, but you can trust them right? They’re “scientists”… hmm, that term is losing some of it’s effect on making people believe what I tell them.

Should I go back to “the Village Shaman” in my appeal to authority (when refusing to give proof, evidence, algorithms, or nubmers to back up my claim)?

Is this how “science” works now? You make a claim, refuse to let anyone check your numbers, algorithms, processes, or data collection; then claim that this is “science” and can’t be argued with?

Heck, I’m in the wrong field. I thought con artists were supposed to be dealing three-card monte on the street corner. This looks much more profitable.

gekkobear on August 14, 2007 at 1:00 AM

gekkobear on August 14, 2007 at 1:00 AM

starflyer’s comments are quite an indicator of how these people think, no?

As someone who has commented on HA in support of the findings of the scientific community, I must say that I am disappointed in the failure of NASA

He says this, then brushes it off as he runs back to sites friendly to his dishonest view of things, instead of recognizing this for what it is, and the implications it has worldwide, not to mention the surface stations project proving just how inflated the readings likely are anyway, the lack of reliable numbers in most of the world, especially in the past, etc. etc. etc.

These people are beyond brainwashed. Oh, and listen to his dishonest condescending bullsh**, when he says that he’s commented in the past “in support of the findings of the scientific community”. He’s so blinded by this pile of crap that he equates belief in global warming to “the scientific community”. Unbelievable. Actually, I guess it is believable because there are a frightening amount of people out there like him.

RightWinged on August 14, 2007 at 1:16 AM

I think it’s all the fog machines from 80′s videos that did it.

http://www.dailymotion.com/relevance/search/sunday+girl+blondie/video/x1lgje_sunday-girl-blondie_blog

profitsbeard on August 14, 2007 at 1:51 AM