« Best. Global. Warming. Story. Ever. | Main | Wage Slave Revolt »

Al Gore's Global Warming Hysteria the Result of a NASA Programming Error

This is big, big news. Al Gore's global warming cause is based upon NASA graphs that say 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium. It turns out that is completely wrong. 1998 was not the hottest year; that distinction goes to the year 1934. Here's the nut of the whole thing from Anthony Watts:

Steve McIntyre, of Toronto operates www.climateaudit.org and began to investigate the data and the methods used to arrive at the results that were graphed by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS).

What he discovered was truly amazing. Since NASA does not fully publish the computer source code and formulae used to calculate the trends in the graph, nor the correction used to arrive at the "corrected" data. He had to reverse engineer the process by comparing the raw data and the processed data..

Here is one of his first posts where he begins to understand what is happening. "This imparts an upward discontinuity of a deg C in wintertime and 0.8 deg C annually. I checked the monthly data and determined that the discontinuity occurred on January 2000 - and, to that extent, appears to be a Y2K problem. I presume that this is a programming error."

He further refines his argument showing the distribution of the error, and the problems with the USHCN temperature data. He also sends an email to NASA GISS advising of the problem.

He finally publishes it here, stating that NASA made a correction not only on their own web page, attributing the discovery to McIntyre, but NASA also issued a corrected set of temperature anomaly data which you can see here:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt

[...]

According to the new data published by NASA, 1998 is no longer the hottest year ever. 1934 is.

Four of the top 10 years of US CONUS high temperature deviations are now from the 1930s: 1934, 1931, 1938 and 1939, while only 3 of the top 10 are from the last 10 years (1998, 2006, 1999). Several years (2000, 2002, 2003, 2004) fell well down the leaderboard, behind even 1900. (World rankings of temperature are calculated separately.)

You must read all of Watts' piece, in which he provides a ton of information from Steve McIntyre who did the analysis. If NASA's original and wrong data was the basis for the current global warming hysteria, then this new and corrected data should be shouted from the rooftops because it debunks Al Gore's argument that global warming is man made and that the science has been settled. Many, many others have seized upon this earth shattering information and are offering their analysis:

Ace, Tigerhawk, Coyote Blog, Hot Air, Michelle Malkin, Right Wing Nut House, Macsmind, Sister Toldjah.

Rush Limbaugh also discussed this on his radio show yesterday. You can read what he said here.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/23257.

Comments (78)

$20 bucks say Tass America,... (Below threshold)
GianiD:

$20 bucks say Tass America, aka the lib media, fails to consider this a worthwhile story.

Its settled science, remember??

Science is never settled. ... (Below threshold)
yo:

Science is never settled. That's why it's so cool.

There will always be seriou... (Below threshold)

There will always be serious disagreements on scientific data collection and what it means. But overall, business, the consumer and evironment will all gain from a move towards more "green" products that use less energy and save consumers real money.

For all the Algore lemmings... (Below threshold)
Pretzel_Logic:

For all the Algore lemmings this clip comes to mind!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxULYcZlEuM

I think it is called Global... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

I think it is called Global warming and not US warming. If you look at the charts I link to (Fig 1 and 2) you will notice that temperatures have increase drastically over the last century and half.

http://www.environmentaldefense.org/documents/4418_MythsvFacts_05.pdf

Another example is that our winter was cool, but the overall global reading for the winter of 06-07 was the warmest ever recorded.

I bet Algore will be all ho... (Below threshold)
Gmac:

I bet Algore will be all hot and bothered by this new information which is sure to cool everyone's fears that the world is overheating.
It even gives him a convenient excuse to explain why his beliefs are so full of hot air.

Dang you Kim.... just when ... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Dang you Kim.... just when I had the best global warming story ever. lol

The position was false befo... (Below threshold)
Brad:

The position was false before the data was corrected. It would have been false even if the data showing 1998 to be the hottest year on record. One hot year does not prove human caused global warming.

What we have is a political agenda seeking justification and that is the problem. It's not about global warming; it wasn't about global cooling; it wasn't about over-population; and it won't be about the next manufactured crisis. It is about the destruction of Western ideals.

It turns out that is com... (Below threshold)
wolfwalker:

It turns out that is completely wrong.

Not completely. 1998 and 1934 simply switched places on the list. So did the #3 and #4 years. There was more shuffling lower down, with 2001 dropping off the top 10 completely and being replaced by 1939.

The real significance here is that the program code was never reviewed by others, so this mathematical error went undetected for several years. Errors in complex mathematical formulae are among the hardest programming errors to find, precisely because there's no way to find them other than working the data with pencil and paper, which few people have the patience to do. One wonders what other undetected errors are lurking deep in the climate-change models...

Corrections are always welc... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Corrections are always welcome, but keep in mind that the data in question are for US temperatures, which only account for about 2% of global temperatures. 2005 is still the warmest year on record globally (according to GISS analysis).

"I think it is called Globa... (Below threshold)
Ben:

"I think it is called Global warming and not US warming."

A good point, but three crucial items of consideration:

1. Prior to WWII, only the US, Western Europe, and a handful of other locations had reliable weather records. Others are not reliable.

2. Of the pre-WWII "Good" climate records, only the US occupies a broad climate range. Due to the sheer size of the US and the ecological variability, records in the US can be used to proxy global conditions much better than records in Europe.

3. Ergo, the US data pre-WWII is probably a better indicator of global conditions than what world wide data can be dredged up.

Ben

"the warmest ever recorded.... (Below threshold)
yo:

"the warmest ever recorded."

Recorded. Not the warmest ever, really.

My gig is that I do think animals affect the planet; however, the climate will always be changing.

The Ice Age came and went (though I don't blame Ray Ramano), twice, at least. Then the little Ice Age which, supposedly, killed millions.

I think the real question(s) is(are): are we speeding up climate change? And, if so, how much?

Regardless, just because Al gore says it's true doesn't mean that it is. Serial.

Brad:What we have... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

Brad:
What we have is a political agenda seeking justification

precisely.

And one thing I want to hea... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

And one thing I want to hear, Yo, is what the temperature's SUPPOSED to be.

You hear that the temperature's varying - but what's the selected norm that we're X number of degrees over?

Is it the Medieval Climate Optimum? How about the little ice age? When Greenland was colonized by the Vikings? The temps, as have been pointed out, go all over the map and there's a LOT of variables that haven't been accounted for, my my readings. The temperature on Mars is going up also - so if MARS is warming (for whatever reason) could the temperature on Earth be affected?

Sorry - but those questions haven't ever been answered to my satisifaction...

McIntyre has been the targe... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

McIntyre has been the target of a lot of innuendo and slanders among the AGW adherents including among the sycophants of AGW here. But we see that there is real problems with the "science" behind AGW. Note that the critics of AGW want to debate the science, adherents want to debate ad hominem.

wolfwalker:I reject ... (Below threshold)
George:

wolfwalker:
I reject your premise that this was an error in "complex mathematical formulae." I believe there is nothing complex about it. But since Dr. James Hansen who runs NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and is most responsible for these bad data has made it official GISS policy to not release its temperature aggregation and adjustment methodologies, I guess we will never know.

Hansen refused to cooperate with the McIntyre investigation that found this problem. Steve McIntyre had to reverse engineer the data to conclude there was a problem.

Furthermore, Hansen is the same man who accused the Bush administration of trying to censor his views on climate change. Does this sound like a man who should be in charge of a taxpayer funded organization designed discover the science of the global climate? He should be fired.

I see Mantis and Barney can... (Below threshold)
scrapiron Author Profile Page:

I see Mantis and Barney can't break the political love a affair with Algor-abge. Anything he says must be true even when proven wrong. Look people, Algor-abge's history is as a lying politician, not a climate expert. He just used his history (politician full of BS) to sucker people out of millions of dollars and they still haven't woke up to that fact. Next he'll be selling miracle drugs that don't exist and democrats will buy them.

I question the timing.... (Below threshold)
Susan:

I question the timing.

And I blame the Sun.

"so if MARS is warming"... (Below threshold)
yo:

"so if MARS is warming"

... is it?!?! Quick, have a concert!

Seems like Al Gore is turni... (Below threshold)
dewaun Author Profile Page:

Seems like Al Gore is turning out to be in the fashion of Genghis Khan in the class of documentary makers like Michael Moore in that he goes off half-cocked with only a partial truth and without verifying his facts. What an unfortunate event... the loss of credibility of another patriot political celebrity. Tsk, Tsk.

Until AGW adherents deal wi... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

Until AGW adherents deal with the dishonest behavior of their so-called scientists like Mann and Hansen, I'm going to consider their cause to be a religious one, not a scientific one.

If AGW adherents want to call themselves scientists, then they must actually practice science. And that includes open processes, cooperation with those who are examining their work, and strict adherence to the strictures of the scientific method.

They are not and that is why they are propagandists. We see it above as the sycophants of AGW refuse to deal with the core issue - which is that the secrecy of the GISS series ( which exists only to avoid criticism ) was the reason this error has existed so long.

He played on our fears!... (Below threshold)
Robert the Original:

He played on our fears!

Thanks for repeatedly provi... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Thanks for repeatedly proving that the right is so myopic that they can not tell the difference between the US and the rest of the world.

Barney, your comment is inc... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

Barney, your comment is incoherent as usual. That this data series is of the US rather than global does not change any of the points made above.

First of all, its commonly referenced as a proof of global warming. Secondly, it is actually the highest quality temperature series, and yet still shows these fundamental errors that pervade AGW adherents work.

Separately, there are effor... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

Separately, there are efforts ongoing to survey the various temperature stations across the US that go into this series.

The results have been astonishing. Large numbers of the stations are compromised by poor siting, or nearby heat generation to cast doubt on all of the conclusions drawn from surface station data.

Here is one example of their findings, a weather station with an A/C unit located next to it. Yep, there's climate change for you.

Al Gore: "Never mind"... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Al Gore: "Never mind"

"Thanks for repeatedly prov... (Below threshold)
Mycroft:

"Thanks for repeatedly proving that the right is so myopic that they can not tell the difference between the US and the rest of the world.

Posted by BarneyG2000"

Barney, if you had bothered to READ the article, you would find out that the recalculation of the US data was quietly released and the the recalculation of the World data is still in progress, to be released at a later date.

So, by that admission - by NASA and Hansen - we know that the world GISS data is flawed and therefore unreliable. So, until the new version of that data is released you are quoting the now debunked data!

Have a nice day moonbat!

Thanks Barney, for repeated... (Below threshold)

Thanks Barney, for repeatedly proving that you're so myopic and predictable that you always revert to the "You're so wrong and I'm so right" claim when others simply get tired of your pettifogging and choose to ignore you.

I don't know about you guys, but I'm done with Barney. Even Jim will at least change the tone of his argument once in a while. But Barney's argument will always consist of crap like the difference between "swerve" and "jerk" or citing Cuban healthcare data "provided by Cuba" as gospel.

While others here are actually bringing up valid concerns about contentious issues, Barney's contributions are full of "gotcha" antics and demands of proof, setting standards for that proof that he never sets for those with whom he reflexively agrees with.

Let me cite a "consensus" here for you, Barney; most people here have grown tired of your trifling and niggling. We're not here to convince you of anything. You can accept reasonble answers or not. It's your choice. I personally don't care anymore.

Oh, on station data, see <a... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Oh, on station data, see here. Follow ups here, and here.

Mantis demonstrates that AG... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

Mantis demonstrates that AGW is about propaganda rather than science.

The basic point of this post is that the AGW adherents are not practicing science. Their concealment of their methodologies, data and resistance to duplication of their results show this clearly.

The site surveys have shown that there are violations of the standards for siting weather stations. Specifically, they've even shown that sites that Hansen himself ranks as the least affected by urban heat island effects are also compromised. What is the response from mantis? Oh, don't worry ... heat rises.

This is hilarious in the extreme. It is propaganda, not science.

Boo Hoo, you guys made me c... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Boo Hoo, you guys made me cry!

Actually you guys don't get it. A correction of a couple hundredth of a degree centigrade does not change the trend of temperature measurements for hundreds and thousands years, and the correlation with increase CO2 saturation. The correction does not change the fact that beginning with the industrial revolution the global temperature TREND has rapidly increased.

<a href="http://tamino.word... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Here's more on weather stations.

Barney, still don't get the... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

Barney, still don't get the point do you? Well, you beat that strawman you've built all you want.

Oh, and by the way, Barney,... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

Oh, and by the way, Barney, not even the IPCC says that humans have caused warming since the Industrial Revolution. Need to go learn the talking points better.

Okay Mantis. I read the fi... (Below threshold)

Okay Mantis. I read the first link and while I'll readily admit that I don't understand most of the scientific lingo and acronyms, among other things, I do have a level of concern regarding "adjusting" temperatures for compromised sites. I suppose if I had the time, I would begin to understand better what he's saying, but the method of adjusting these temps, even though I as a layman wouldn't likely understand it, isn't revealed as far as I can tell. The comment section is replete with others who obviously don't understand either, but accept whatever they hear "on faith". I've never been one to deny that global temps have risen or changed in any way; my beef with Global Warming revellers is of a different nature, so let me be clear that's not my purpose in stating my concern.

Rather than using some mysterious method to "adjust" temp readings and expect others to accept it "on faith" I don't understand why they don't just move these sites so they comply fully with the standards and remove all doubt.

"Boo Hoo, you guys made me ... (Below threshold)
Mycroft:

"Boo Hoo, you guys made me cry!

Actually you guys don't get it. A correction of a couple hundredth of a degree centigrade does not change the trend of temperature measurements for hundreds and thousands years, and the correlation with increase CO2 saturation. The correction does not change the fact that beginning with the industrial revolution the global temperature TREND has rapidly increased.

Posted by BarneyG2000"

Actually Barney, the latest news on that front is that CO2 is the effect, not the cause.

As for your hundreds and thousands of years of data - where did you dig that up? We have measurements in the US since about 1880. And only the last half of that are anything like really accurate. As for the tree rings and the ice cores, there is a single data point for each, which is not valid data for predicting from.

Further, this correction brings the data back into line with the cyclical nature it has always had. Because now the temperatures are at the top of the normal curve, rather than above the curve.

The "global warming" you are talking about is now projected at .3 degrees celcius for the next decade. (According to Hansen no less, and Hansen is your doomsayer, so I am giving you the BEST case for your side in that number) and what you don't seem to realize is that the measurement tools are not accurate to less than 1 degree, but even if .3 degrees is accurate - so what?

Barney face it, "Global Warming" is a lie - moonbat.

Oyster, the last link I sen... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Oyster, the last link I sent looks at the data from stations before heat island adjustment (see update at the bottom). Though it probably doesn't explain the adjustments to your satisfaction, it will give you an idea of how much such adjustments really change the outcome of analysis. In short, adjustments are necessary to eliminate biases, and without them you would see even higher temperatures.

As far as moving the sites, they add new sites all the time, but the problem with moving sites is that the data from those sites goes back years and if you move them too far from their historic placement you disconnect the current data to previous data. It's better to leave them where they are and adjust for variables than to move them and cause a break in the record.

You guys are right about Barney, though. As tamino points out in the post I linked, the modern warming trend began in 1975, and that is what we are all concerned about ("we" meaning those of us who recognize the trend; some can't even concede that, though they aren't really worth listening to).

Oh, on station dat... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
Oh, on station data, see here. Follow ups here, and here.

Using adjusted data to show that the air temperature over blacktop is no higher than over grass or other natural surfaces show that the adjustment is bogus. Claiming that heat from an A/C unit only goes up ignores the reality of wind and turbulence. Claiming the heat from a burning barrel 5 feet from the temperature sensor has no effect ignores the physics of radiated heat, the wind and turbulence.

The reason for having specifications for placement of surface stations is to insure reliable and accurate data. Not just accurate data when the wind is not blowing from a certain direction, or the sun is not shining, or someone is not burning garbage. The global warming signal is at the level of noise in the normal temperature data. Adding any bias to that signal decreases the probability that it will be correctly recognized.

Adjustments eliminate biase... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Adjustments eliminate biases, Mac, they don't add them. In any case you're off message. You believe the warming is happening, you're just sure it's the Sun's doing, right? If the Sun is in fact causing warming as you contend, then disputing the temperature data that is evidence of said warming (one type of data among many) seems a bit contradictory, don't you think?

Oh yeah, about the sun... (pdf).

Adjustments elimin... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
Adjustments eliminate biases, Mac, they don't add them.

Actually adjustments can add bias if they are not correctly done. Adjusting data to make it look right is always wrong. There are statistical approaches, but the details must be fully revealed to carry any weight, and that has not always been the case.

You believe the warming is happening, you're just sure it's the Sun's doing, right? If the Sun is in fact causing warming as you contend, then disputing the temperature data that is evidence of said warming (one type of data among many) seems a bit contradictory, don't you think?

I wasn't disputing warming or cooling, only the validity of data gathered by grossly out of spec. surface stations. As for the sun, I believe changes in the magnetic activity of the Sun may be responsible for some part of climate change, and maybe all of it. Of course we can't know for sure how much change there has been without accurate data, which goes to my first point.

Are you really defending sloppy data gathering? Even if it's somehow accurate, it loses it's credibility. Imagine some scientist testifying before Congress about some important study he did using this data and then his opponent shows up with the photos of surface station after surface station that make the entire data set look like a joke. No claims that the errors have been adjusted for are going to be as convincing as those photos. That's why data gathering has to be done by the book and no one interested in the truth should be defending these stations.

Oh yeah, about the sun... (pdf).

The study you linked to includes this statement "recent observations of short-lived (lasting of the order of 1 day) transient events indicate there may indeed be an effect on clean, maritime air (Harrison & Stephenson 2006)." So your source cites and accepts a study that has "observed" the Sun/Cosmic Ray/Cloud effect.

As you know CERN is currently conducting the CLOUD experiments to test the hypothesis that cosmic rays can produce clouds. There are lots of variables involved, so the data won't be available until 2010. Only a psychic or a fool would claim they know the outcome of those experiments before they are run. All one can say is that preliminary testing has shown such a link does exist under some conditions.

"Adjustments eliminate bias... (Below threshold)
Robert the Original:

"Adjustments eliminate biases..." - mantis.

Adjustments try to reduce bias while introducing bias of another sort in hopes that it is of a lower magnitude.

But eliminate? Come on now.

How successful this is depends on how bad the data is (in this case bad) and the accuracy required for the job (in this case a high degree of accuracy is required).

Sometimes the GW calculations are about a fraction of a degree over a hundred years and that is Mac's point: bad data adjusted or not will not be accurate enough for these very fine predictions - too much poyential error no matter what you do.

As far as surface temp. rea... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

As far as surface temp. readings goes the data is verified by other sources:

"For years, skeptics of global warming have used satellite and weather balloon data to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening.

Now, according to three new studies published in the journal Science, it turns out those conclusions based on satellite and weather balloon data were based on faulty analyses.

The atmosphere is indeed warming, not cooling as the data previously showed."

So, now go run along and find some denier that will say "but but we didn't have satellites back during the little ice age".

Barney, don't try to play w... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

Barney, don't try to play with the big boys, you only get hurt.

The bottom line remains unaddressed by AGW sycophants in this thread. This error was found by a skeptic despite the complete lack of cooperation and openness by the responsible "scientists". As long as the concealment of methodology, and data continues, AGW is not science - its propaganda.

Science is done by open processes, complete review of data and methodology and the ability of others to duplicate experiments. That is not happening in the AGW camp.

SPQR, Ha Ha HA HAA HAAA. G... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

SPQR, Ha Ha HA HAA HAAA. Good post there buddy.

Did you know that the last IPCC was written by more than 800 climate scientists and reviewed by another 2,500 from 130 countries? We are talking about climate researchers here that actual conduct tests, observations, modeling and experiments.

What do you got!

The IPCC is not a scientifi... (Below threshold)
RicardoVerde:

The IPCC is not a scientific body. They may employ "scientists" and researchers, but it is by its very formulation a politcal body. As we have noted before, a scientific organization would never publish a summary of a report and then delay the report to make sure the analysis in the report matches the summary. The antithesis of science.

As far as surface ... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
As far as surface temp. readings goes the data is verified by other sources:

What other source are those? No proxy data is near that accurate and satellite data didn't exist prior to the mid 1960's.

Now, according to three new studies published in the journal Science, it turns out those conclusions based on satellite and weather balloon data were based on faulty analyses.

The atmosphere is indeed warming, not cooling as the data previously showed."

First, these studies were published in August 2005. Second, they refined how changes in the behavior of the instruments effected the results, which was not much. Third, the degree of error in the raw data is so large that the range of the results includes the possibility of global cooling. Now if you want to know why that is, here a good primer (pdf). Even if there is warming, it doesn't prove the cause, and knowing the cause is an important part.

Barney, as RicardoVerde poi... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

Barney, as RicardoVerde points out, the IPCC is currently working to make sure the latest full report matches the summary they have already written and published. That's because last time, the full report did not match the summary conclusions because the politicians who wrote the summary didn't understand the science. The IPCC has already been caught misrepresenting the science, which is why Chris Landsea resigned. Once again, Barney, your attempt to play with big boys only gets you hurt.

That's not science, that's propaganda. That's the point and that's what goes over your head, Barney.

Adjustments elimin... (Below threshold)
C-C-G Author Profile Page:
Adjustments eliminate biases, Mac, they don't add them.

Check out Einstein's "Cosmological Constant" sometime, Mantis.

After doing that, you might rethink that statement.

mac, the satellite data bac... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

mac, the satellite data backs-up the current surface temp readings that you guys put in doubt.

SPQD, is that the best you got? You tell me when was the last time 130 countries agreed on anything at the 90% certainty level?

If AGW was a solid proposal... (Below threshold)
cirby:

If AGW was a solid proposal, then why is it that EVERY time there's a adjustment to the numbers (temp measurements, ice cores, etc), the adjustment is DOWNWARD?

We keep seeing these holes, which are quickly patched up ("ignore that hockey stick then, even though we'll keep putting it on our web pages"), but which ALWAYS result in a little adjustment in the opposite direction of the trend they oh-so-carefully derived. Like these temperature measurements, which were apparently fudged in a more-dramatic direction by a guy who still refuses to release his source code (up until the last few years, refusal to show your work was considered to be a kiss of death in science, but with AGW it seems to be the norm).

barneyGRUBBLE:... (Below threshold)
marc:

barneyGRUBBLE:

Did you know that the last IPCC was written by more than 800 climate scientists and reviewed by another 2,500 from 130 countries? We are talking about climate researchers here that actual conduct tests, observations, modeling and experiments.

The media is in error when it states that,

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -made up of thousands of scientists from around the world -- reported earlier this month they are more certain than ever that humans are heating earth's atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels...." (see)

Are there really "thousands of scientists" who wrote this report? Hardly. The IPCC is actually led and written by just a few dozen scientists.

What do you got GRUBBLE?
The final nail in the globa... (Below threshold)
C-C-G Author Profile Page:

The final nail in the global warming coffin is this:

The weatherman can't accurately predict what the weather is going to do next week. Yet we are supposed to believe that they can predict it ten years down the road?

Yeah, right. And I got a bridge to sell you, painted a beautiful shade of "International Orange."

mac, the satellite... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
mac, the satellite data backs-up the current surface temp readings that you guys put in doubt.

Given the amount of error inherent in the satellite data that could be coincidence or one of those adjustments to make the data look right. As I said before, even if there is actual warming, that doesn't mean the cause is not natural.

marc, let me explain Englis... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

marc, let me explain English to you. "The pannel was made up" is not the same as "writing". Since you are too dense to understand complete sentence structures let me brake it down for you.

I wrote:
"Did you know that the last IPCC was written by more than 800 climate scientists and reviewed by another 2,500 from 130 countries? We are talking about climate researchers here that actual conduct tests, observations, modeling and experiments."

What that means is:
Only about 800 scientist participated in writing the report. 800 is less than (

Everybody gather 'round to ... (Below threshold)
C-C-G Author Profile Page:

Everybody gather 'round to watch the latest dance... the Barney Spin!

He can't admit that anything that he believes is ever wrong, so he spins, spins, spins!

That is weird? It should h... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

That is weird? It should have ended as "less than thousands".

barneyGRUBBLE:... (Below threshold)
marc:

barneyGRUBBLE:

marc, let me explain English to you.

From who? You? Not unless you have a mouse in your pocket who more than likely would have a better grasp of the subject. (examples, Mickey and Ratatouille [he can even cook!])

Anywho... the IPCC "report" hasn't been released, you DID know that right?

What has been released in an interim report and as the link indicates what has been released "is actually led and written by just a few dozen scientists."

As a result of this misconception, or subterfuge as some prefer to call it, are idiots like you who make outlandish claims.

The link further explains:

This candid report confirms that the Statement For Policymakers was actually written with a small number of climate scientists. That such a small number of scientists are actually involved in the writing may make sense from the perspective of efficiency, but it also is guaranteed to result in a report that emphasizes the particular perspectives of the small group of scientists who wrote it. The biases that result would have been balanced if other climate scientists were able to write alternative perspectives, but this was not done. A "unanimous consensus" is hardly how science should be presented by a subset of the climate science community.

The use of the term "lead authors" is also misleading as most are co-authors with one lead author per chapter. The contributing authors provide material and comment, but, based on my experience in the 1995 IPCC report process, do not function as true co-authors. Thus the actually number of true lead authors actually corresponds to just the first author on each chapter.For the "reading challenged" or those that refuse to read and knee-jerk their way into foolishness, there is no "unanimous consensus" based on this report because the writers omitted opinions they didn't agree with.

It's bunk, crapola. A Religion.

Kevin... fix the way your h... (Below threshold)
marc:

Kevin... fix the way your html works, as it is it sucks.

This should also be in BQ's:

The use of the term "lead authors" is also misleading as most are co-authors with one lead author per chapter. The contributing authors provide material and comment, but, based on my experience in the 1995 IPCC report process, do not function as true co-authors. Thus the actually number of true lead authors actually corresponds to just the first author on each chapter.For the "reading challenged" or those that refuse to read and knee-jerk their way into foolishness, there is no "unanimous consensus" based on this report because the writers omitted opinions they didn't agree with.

damn it all to hell, this i... (Below threshold)
marc:

damn it all to hell, this is the BQ'd section.

The use of the term "lead authors" is also misleading as most are co-authors with one lead author per chapter. The contributing authors provide material and comment, but, based on my experience in the 1995 IPCC report process, do not function as true co-authors. Thus the actually number of true lead authors actually corresponds to just the first author on each chapter.
And this isn't. It's ALL ME.

For the "reading challenged" or those that refuse to read and knee-jerk their way into foolishness, there is no "unanimous consensus" based on this report because the writers omitted opinions they didn't agree with.

It's bunk, crapola. A Religion.

Hey barn' how about giving ... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Hey barn' how about giving us the names of the 130 countries (lol) and the 800 algores (snicker snort).

There have been at least tw... (Below threshold)
Robert the Original:

There have been at least two very important points made in this thread:

1) SPQR and cirby (and others) have made the point that too often data and methods that purport to support GW predictions have not been released. There is no valid reason for this absent fraud. Any valid scientific result must be reproducible by independent experiment to confirm it. This is basic scientific method.

2) Mac made the point that frequently GW conclusions do not include an error range, or, in part due to #1, the possible error cannot be known. No scientific finding can be valid unless the range of possible error is understood.

Advocates of a huge carbon tax must ask themselves: "Why is it that John Kerry refuses to release his full military records?"

Right, he's hiding something.

Ah yes, another week and an... (Below threshold)
BC:

Ah yes, another week and another crackpot bit 'o "science" spreading through the right wing nutosphere like the norovirus on a cruise ship. Gawd....

I know this is a waste of time, but I'm obligated to shed some light on this recent round of crackpottery -- all that NASA correction did was adjust some records for temperature deviations and not absolute temps. It's like if, say: the temperature for last Tuesday averaged out 78 degrees while the average temperature for that date for the past 5 years was 76, representing a +2 degree deviation; and the temperature for the is past Thursday averaged out to 81 degrees while the past five year average was 80, making it a +1 deviation.

What you nutcases are essentially trying to do with the NASA correction is claim is that Tuesday was warmer than Thursday because it had a higher deviation. No.

Perchance a little bit of knowledge might help.

But I suspect not....

-BC

BC, all t... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

BC,

all that NASA correction did was adjust some records for temperature deviations and not absolute temps. It's like if, say: the temperature for last Tuesday averaged out 78 degrees while the average temperature for that date for the past 5 years was 76, representing a +2 degree deviation; and the temperature for the is past Thursday averaged out to 81 degrees while the past five year average was 80, making it a +1 deviation.

Your example uses two separate means, one for Tuesday's date and one for Thursday's date, and thus it's an invalid comparison with the NASA data that uses only a single mean, which some like to refer to as the "normal temperature". With a single mean value it's mathematically impossible to change the ranking of the hottest years without changing the absolute temperatures for those years.

What you nutcases are essentially trying to do with the NASA correction is claim is that Tuesday was warmer than Thursday because it had a higher deviation.

Those of us who passed high school math are comparing the deviation from year to year against a single "normal temperature", as it's the only valid way of making such comparisons. Even the sites you link to do the same thing.

So what does it mean that 1934, 1931, 1938 and 1939 are now in the top 10 and 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004 no longer are? It means the longer term US average for 1930-1934 (0.63 °C) is only 0.16 °C cooler than the 1998-2002 (0.79 °C) longer term US average. Given there's an uncertainty of at least 0.1°C in the data, the claim that 1998-2002 is the warmest years on record depends on just a 0.06 °C signal. Given the survey of about 20% of U.S. surface stations so far shows that many or grossly out of spec. it's unlikely that the 0.06 °C difference can be sustained once the "revised adjustments" are applied to the data.

Why is this important? Because if the period from 1930-1934 is as warm or warmer than 1998-2002 it means the warming is not caused by increased CO2, but is a naturally occurring cycle. Even if it's just the U.S. data it has an impact, because the U.S. data is more accurate than that from many other locations. Also, many other countries use the same or similarly methods as the U.S. If the U.S. methods were wrong, the methods in many other countries could also be wrong. At least this raises the question and will get people looking. That's good for science, but bad for the politics of Global Warming.

Notice that not one ... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

Notice that not one of the AGW sycophants above address the core issue, that NASA's main climate scientist will not disclose the core methodology of this temperature series. Will not share the entire data set and algorithm by which it is calculated.

None of these people, so quick to call skeptics "wingnuts" will address the key question: Why is it that AGW "scientists" will not perform science in a manner consistent with the scientific method?

And they will never answer this because half of them are basically religious fanatics on the subject, and the others know that this is propaganda but that they support it "for your own good".

SPQR,Do you refer ... (Below threshold)
Robert the Original:

SPQR,

Do you refer to Hansen, the sultan of sizzle, the gonzo of Gore, the medicine man of melt?

Is that the same Hansen who accused the administration of muzzling him after he gave hundreds of media interviews?

The Hansen who is no doubt at work on some more post 1980 dubious adjustments, just in time for the election? (Oops! Looks like we got to put in more secret warming adjustments, but we won't say how or why),

The same Hansen who has silently corrected his data without comment, or acknowledgement that this error was so crude that it would have been caught in ten minutes had he released his (taxpayer funded) methods and materials?

The same Hansen who self-graded to a 99% confidence factor and a max error of .01 C, numbers that now make astrology look good?

That one?

Or did you mean Hanson from Sesame Street? One controls a puppet, the other is one.

Mac Lorry wrote:<i... (Below threshold)
BC:

Mac Lorry wrote:

Why is this important? Because if the period from 1930-1934 is as warm or warmer than 1998-2002 it means the warming is not caused by increased CO2, but is a naturally occurring cycle. Even if it's just the U.S. data it has an impact, because the U.S. data is more accurate than that from many other locations. Also, many other countries use the same or similarly methods as the U.S. If the U.S. methods were wrong, the methods in many other countries could also be wrong. At least this raises the question and will get people looking. That's good for science, but bad for the politics of Global Warming.

No, no, no. What you right wingers don't understand (among other matters) is that the science involved in just measuring something like global warming is highly complex and subject to judgment calls as to how best to do things, and there is constant refinement in techniques and theory. There will always be bad data and mistakes made, but anyone who's had a lab course in high school or college knows, the more measurements you make, the better you can sort out bad data, mistakes and bad technique. The science get better, the plots and graphs make more sense and so on.

In the case of global warming, the NASA correction did nothing, nada, squat in regards to what all the other data measurements have been indicating -- the current round of warming is caused by human activity, and when you plot things out with the "new" data, you end up with the same friggin curves as before! Note that the data in question only affected US temps, and note also in those graphs how zig-zaggy the year to year temps vary, which again may only be due to uncertainties in measurement techniques. So you need to average out the yearly temp measurements to make some sense of them, and when you do, the patterns are clear and totally unaffected by the NASA correction. The warmest period in the past century had been the past 10 years, no ifs or buts.

What's is confusing is the anomalous drop/leveling in global temps that occurred from about 1940 through the late 70's. I'm pretty sure that was also human caused via tropospheric "pollution" initiated by massive WWII bombings in urban area and then sustained by continuous above-ground nuclear testing that didn't taper off until the late 70's. But that's just my opinion, although the timeframes match up a bit too well to just be a coincidence.

In any case, all this right wing "reinterpretation" of the NASA correction is just more eye-rolling crackpot nonsense that makes me wonder about what the hell have we've been teaching in science classes the past several years.

-BC

BC,No, no... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

BC,

No, no, no. What you right wingers don't understand (among other matters) is that the science involved in just measuring something like global warming is highly complex and subject to judgment calls as to how best to do things, and there is constant refinement in techniques and theory. There will always be bad data and mistakes made, but anyone who's had a lab course in high school or college knows, the more measurements you make, the better you can sort out bad data, mistakes and bad technique. The science get better, the plots and graphs make more sense and so on.

I don't see where anything I wrote should leave you with the impression that I oppose more data or more research into making sense of that data. On the contrary, it's the Al Gore crowd that has been calling for an end to further research with their claim that the science is settled. Sorry bub, the science is just getting started.

When the IPCC delivers its fourth assessment this fall they have said they will release the names of all the contributing scientists to support their claim of consensus. Some in the media have stated that they will track down each listed scientist and put them on record as to whether or not they support the overall claims of the IPCC. There are a number of well known cases where IPCC researches have expressed a different opinion than that of the official report. Unlike before, the claim of consensus will be put to the test.

The numbers I used in my last post were from YOUR source. If you dispute those numbers then don't link to them. The fact remains that there's only a 0.06 °C signal (indication of warming) in all of the NASA data as it stands now. Being the longer term US average for 1930-1934 occurred prior to most of the build up of C02, it must have been caused by a natural event. If that even is natural then it could be occurring again right now. At best, all the CO2 increase since then may have resulted in only a 0.06 °C increase during 1998-2002. Once again from YOUR source we find that 2002-2006 was only 0.03 °C warmer than 1930-1934, and again from YOUR source, no change less than 0.1 °C has any significance. Thus, there is currently no indication of unnatural warming in the U.S. data. The graphs you like so much come from this longer term US average data and can show nothing different. Yes, there's still the global data, but the US data is more accurate. There's also a growing body of evidence that indicates that the medieval warm period was as warm or warmer and for longer than the current warm period. If so, the claims that the current warm period is caused by human produced CO2 evaporate into thin air.

In fact, there's no known basis is physics to claim that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming. In fact, the physics says it will cause cooling.

Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2
Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics

In the face of facts I expect to see another childish "No, no, no" response from you BC.

<a href="http://www.msnbc.m... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

Newsweek editor admits misrepresentation by Newsweek in story about skeptics. Another example of the dishonesty of the AGW adherents.

And BC above demonstrates exactly what I've been pointing out, that the adherents have no response to the fact that the AGW crowd is not doing honest science. No response at all.

BC claims that there are "judgement calls" and sometimes mistakes. But BC ignores that the reason these "mistakes" occur is because the AGW "scientists" are hiding their data and their methodology. Something that they would not be doing if they were actually interested in science, or if they had confidence in the quality of their science.

When the AGW crowd does science instead of propaganda, then they will have to re-earn their credibility.

BQ writes:<blockquote... (Below threshold)

BQ writes:

What you right wingers don't understand (among other matters) is that the science involved in just measuring something like global warming is highly complex and subject to judgment calls as to how best to do things, and there is constant refinement in techniques and theory.

Funny, that's exactly what we "right wingers" (if you insist on calling skeptics that) do understand. We don't blindly trust the data. We don't just buy any old analysis. We don't believe simplistic claims about causes. And when a given theory (such as AGW) is contradicted by the facts - such as that the CO2 concentration in the ice core record lags temperature by 800 years, or the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age, or the 1945 to 1970 cooling trend - we wonder why. And when lead AGW cheerleaders like Hansen and Mann keep their own analysis and methdology secret, and still get caught with their pants down, we smell something fishy going on.

But as Brad said earlier, this correction wasn't required for the AGW theory to be wrong. It's just another nail in the coffin of Big Green. All that coffin needs now is velvet and a bell.

Mac Lorry wrote:<i... (Below threshold)
BC:

Mac Lorry wrote:

Sorry bub, the science is just getting started.

It's more the case that a new escalation in crackpottery has just started.

Once again from YOUR source we find that 2002-2006 was only 0.03 °C warmer than 1930-1934, and again from YOUR source, no change less than 0.1 °C has any significance. Thus, there is currently no indication of unnatural warming in the U.S. data.

Hmmm....one of the links in my last post loops back to this thread instead of where it's suppose to go: here.

Now look carefully at that US temp graph and then compare it to this older temp graph at the NOAA.

Big difference, eh? It's the same friggin result for all practical purposes and it has no impact whatsoever on the far more dramatic changes in the overall global temperature changes. And in case you are wondering why the US temp rise is less steep than the global average -- the warming trends are not evenly distributed. It's as simple as that. The polar areas and those in high elevations have been particularly hard hit.

And for all the bashing of Mann's hockey stick, when you compare his graph with ones from other researchers, you still don't see a practical difference.

You guys can scream all you want about this "new" information proves you can't trust scientists, NASA, blah, blah, blah, but you might as well standing by a fountain in a city center holding up a handwritten sign that goes "Jesis safes". You're still in crackpot land.

With that said, I am a little bit annoyed with NASA in how they handled this. They should have known full well how the right wing nutosphere would have jumped on this and should have included some easy to grasp graphs showing how inconsequential the data correction was, but of course they didn't. Also the Y2K thing was stupid to begin with -- I even wondered about that odd lead post 2k disconnect at one point, but the NASA stuff is one of many, MANY datasets being used by climate scientists and goes back to my point about the advantages of refinement and taking many measurements. You have to look at the big picture, the multiyear trends, and multiple data sources.

And for those of you yelling "Where is the data!?" -- there is this thing called Google, and if you use it correctly, you can find stuff like this. NASA's stuff, while important, isn't exactly the only source of info....

Lastly, I came across this nice little guide for people confused on global warming, or who foolishly use right wing web sites as sources for information. It probably won't make a difference ("New Scientist" is a liberal, Al Gore lovin, USA hating piece of crap sympathetic of Islamofascism"), but at least I tried.

-BC

BC, your position seems to ... (Below threshold)

BC, your position seems to be dogmatic and partisan, rather than scientific and rational, as your reference to "right wing web sites" and "nutosphere" suggest.

Contrary to your speculation, among the sources that did the most to convince me climate alarmism is, well, alarmism, is a book by a European soft-left vegetarian statistician who as a member of Greenpeace set out to prove the skeptics wrong. That's hardly a "right wing website".

I repeat: this correction, while very significant in terms of the credibility of Hansen et al, does not change much about the core arguments against Global Warming(TM). Among these:

  • that the temperature trend we observe is not a crisis,
  • that it may be notable but isn't extraordinary,
  • that its cause is uncertain but that manmade CO2 emissions are at worst a minor contributor,
  • that computer models that can't even predict past climate are hardly a good basis for drawing conclusions about 100 years from now,
  • that worst-case scenarios from inaccurate and incomplete models are not a good justification for major policy decisions,
  • that the resources climate alarmists propose be spent on adjusting climate can better be spent on a whole range of problems that offer both a greater and more certain cost-benefit in terms of lives saved and prosperity gained,
  • and that forcible bureaucratic measures to change the climate ("address the problem") are exceedingly expensive, are likely to have little effect, and seem pretty risky in and of itself.

To Ivo Vegter:My r... (Below threshold)
BC:

To Ivo Vegter:

My references to "right wing web sites" and "nutosphere" are simply truth in labeling. Look at even how this tread is labeled: Al Gore's Global Warming Hysteria the Result of a NASA Programming Error. The correction only imperceptibly changed US temp records -- 1934 had been just very slightly lower than 1998 before the correction and is now ranked just very slightly higher -- and did nothing to change the overall global temp charts. But look at how the -- accurately labeled -- right wing nutosphere grossly overreacted and misrepresented it.

There is no nice way to portray this sort of over the top, maliciously crackpotty behavior. It really makes me wonder what the hell has happened to science education in this over the past couple of decades.

And if by "vegetarian statistician" you're referring to Bjørn Lomborg, he's not exactly a big help to your side either.

Sorry.

-BC

BC,It's m... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

BC,

It's more the case that a new escalation in crackpottery has just started.

The crackpots have had the floor to themselves for too long. Now real science is catching up.

Hmmm....one of the links in my last post loops back to this thread instead of where it's suppose to go: here.

And even this link doesn't say anything different than your prior link that shows there is no statistically significant warming now as compared to the 1930's per the NASA data. According to Hansen, his flub caused an average error of 0.15 deg C. Being that half the surface stations reporting into the GISS network are US stations, that error calls into question the accuracy of the global data. Beyond this last error, all the charts you like to link to use adjusted data and the exact process for doing those adjustments is not available for examination even with researchers asking for it. Here's a chart that demonstrates the problem. Note how past warming has been dropped or how current warming has been adjusted higher by some process, the details of which, are being withheld. There needs to be full accounting and openness, without which, no one can call it science.

And for all the bashing of Mann's hockey stick, when you compare his graph with ones from other researchers, you still don't see a practical difference.

But if you read the articles instead of just looking at the graphs you find this in one of YOUR links: "It is true that there are big uncertainties about the accuracy of all past temperature reconstructions, and that these uncertainties have sometimes been ignored or glossed over by those who have presented the hockey stick as evidence for global warming." Wow BC, your own source calls into question the validity of the evidence for global warming.

Mac Lorry wrote:<i... (Below threshold)
BC:

Mac Lorry wrote:

But if you read the articles instead of just looking at the graphs you find this in one of YOUR links: "It is true that there are big uncertainties about the accuracy of all past temperature reconstructions, and that these uncertainties have sometimes been ignored or glossed over by those who have presented the hockey stick as evidence for global warming." Wow BC, your own source calls into question the validity of the evidence for global warming.

Ya think?

That quote is from this link. And let's put it slightly more in context, shall we:

Most researchers would agree that while the original hockey stick can -- and has -- been improved in a number of ways, it was not far off the mark. Most later temperature reconstructions fall within the error bars of the original hockey stick. Some show far more variability leading up to the 20th century than the hockey stick, but none suggest that it has been warmer at any time in the past 1000 years than in the last part of the 20th century.

It is true that there are big uncertainties about the accuracy of all past temperature reconstructions, and that these uncertainties have sometimes been ignored or glossed over by those who have presented the hockey stick as evidence for global warming.

Climate scientists, however, are only too aware of the problems (see Climate myths: It was warmer during the Medieval period), and the uncertainties were both highlighted by Mann's original paper and by others at the time it was published.

That's not exactly "calls into question the validity of the evidence for global warming" is it? Scientific research often is no more than making the uncertain a little less uncertain via better instrumentation, cleverer measuring, and refining models. The idea that humans could be causing global warming is not that old and there was a lot of initial skepticism by scientists in climate-connected fields, but with more research came less and less skepticism until there is now very few of those scientists left still doubtful. The uncertainties now are really all in the details: how bad are things getting and how quickly; do we really understand the dynamics of the polar ice melt; is there a "tipping point" ahead for our complex ocean current system; and so on.

By the way, I just came across some oddball contest called The Ultimate Global Warming Contest put out notcase Steven Milloy's ironically well-named site, Junkscience.com

I love this little bit in the contest rules:

2. Entrants acknowledge that the concepts and terms mentioned and referred to in the UGWC hypotheses are inherently and necessarily vague, and involve subjective judgment. JunkScience.com reserves the exclusive right to determine the meaning and application of such concepts and terms in order to facilitate the purpose of the contest.

3. JunkScience.com, in its sole discretion, will determine the winner, if any, from UGWC entries. All determinations made by JunkScience.com are final.

That means if I entered and showed the equivalent of Colonel Mustard in the Library with the Knife, and with no other scenario possible, they will still likely weasel out of paying by simply interpreting "the meaning and application of such concepts" because those concepts are "inherently and necessarily vague" by their own description.

Gawd....

-BC

Notice that BC is still whi... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

Notice that BC is still whistling past and ignoring the core point, that AGW adherents are not doing science. All of his response to that point is to just keep calling people wingnuts.

That reinforces my point that AGW adherents are not interested in the scientific method, just in propaganda.

SPQR wrote:Noti... (Below threshold)
BC:

SPQR wrote:

Notice that BC is still whistling past and ignoring the core point, that AGW adherents are not doing science. All of his response to that point is to just keep calling people wingnuts.

Ummm, do I really need to point out that "AGW adherents" include pretty much, with few and diminishing exceptions, the entire scientific community, especially the researchers directly involved in climate science? Also I seldom, if ever use "wingnuts" -- it's more "right wingers" or stuff like the "right wing nutosphere."

That reinforces my point that AGW adherents are not interested in the scientific method, just in propaganda.

Yeah, right. There is this little thing I post periodically in my Usenet debates -- a comparison of the 2 sides in the global warming "debate." The bottom line is that for "Side One" you have, with few and fast diminishing exceptions, the entire global scientific community; while for "Side Two," again with extremely few exceptions, you have pro-lassiez-faire, right-wing, anti-science frauds & crackpots and their organizations, often couched in bogus, scientific-sounding names, publications and web sites meant to deliberately confuse, and not to mention being funded by the likes of ExxonMobil and Philip Morris.

The bottom line is that along with the crackpotism, the vast bulk, if not all, of the "propaganda" has come from your side as well. Check out this 1998 Exxon memo that details what will become the heart of the propaganda machine against global warming science. Note especially page 4 with the section titled "Victory Will Be Achieved When" and read the bullet points that follow. That section might as well had been called "The 5 Commandments of The Church of the Anti-Science".

-BC

BC still avoids the point w... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

BC still avoids the point with more propaganda, misdirection with the nonsense about Exxon, and appeals to a meaningless "consensus" and many outright brazen lies about funding. McIntyre for instance has been accused of being funded by the "oil industry" but those allegations are without basis. BC typifies the propaganda of global warming adherents.

BC does not get it, willfully. The Boston Herald however, gets it:

The correction reduced the average temperatures for 2000-2006 in the continental United States by about 0.27 degrees Fahrenheit (with many stations showing lower readings and many showing readings much above average). That dethroned 1998 as the hottest year on record, a distinction in the NASA data set that now belongs to 1934 (by an insignificant margin over 1998). Several other recent hot years were moved down in the rankings, and the 1930s now account for four of the top 10.

The number changes don't greatly affect worldwide averages - but they reveal a disturbing arrogance among scientists in the community of global-warming true believers.
The data-handling error - the assumption that one set of numbers was identical to another when it was not - was discovered by Canadian researcher Steve McIntyre, who notified NASA on Aug. 4. NASA almost immediately corrected its Web site, but without any notice of the changes. You can bet that if the correction had shifted the data the other way, there would have been press releases, news conferences and lugubrious music on the TV news. As it was, it was left to the conservative blogosphere to spread the word; the mainstream media ignored the episode.
That's not the worst of it. NASA refused to release to McIntyre the computer codes it used to make the correction, though a huge amount of the agency's other climate codes are online. McIntyre believes there are "real and interesting statistical issues" involved in the records of the observing stations on which NASA relies, issues of whether the proper corrections have been made for the well-known "heat island" effects of urban areas. Most warming believers take it on faith that they have; McIntyre says he knows of too many instances where a thermometer has been placed closer than 100 feet to a paved surface.
Science is not supposed to work by secrecy. Stonewalling by NASA will only increase the number and fervor of the skeptics.

There is no justification for these tactics unless the AGW adherents have something to hide. And McIntyre has shown several times now that in fact they do have somethign to hide: often bad, and occasionally fraudulent "science". Until real, verifiable and auditable science is done, everyone should be skeptics.

I believe man-made climate ... (Below threshold)
John Jensen:

I believe man-made climate impact when they start to include man in the formula.

If it is man-made, why not look at the rocketing population and the following rise in live-stock? I pig emits methane 24 hours a day. Why is only the western civilization blamed ?

Computer models? Read: computer games.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy