Think Progress

When NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies recently announced that it was revising its temperature data, right-wing bloggers leaped at the news to propel its global warming denial campaign. James Hansen — head of the NA…

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

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.

“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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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?

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!!!

While people are revising global warming calculations

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

There is a heat wave coming into southern California. …

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!

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!”

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 !!

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

starflyer on August 13, 2007 at 6:15 PM

You are too silly to even get started with.

Release the AlGoreithims.

Pablo on August 13, 2007 at 6:38 PM

That is golden.