Newsweek Burns Truth In Global Warming Story
Global Warming Hysteria, The New Eugenics
Global Warming on FreeRepublic
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:
Steve McIntyre, who was the one who discovered the error (and also the one who figured out the fake hockey-stick and who’s blog Climate Audit is now down because the warmers hit the site with massive “denial of service” attacks right after the error came to light ...)
... has posted more about the whole issue at the link below. It turns out James Hansen has cooked the books for the US by a truly whopping 0.6C. Hmmm!
This little 0.15C error is nothing compared to the 0.5C Hansen had changed the data otherwise.
http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/08/lights_out_guest_post_by_steve.html
What needs pointing out is that adjustments are a theoretical construct and, as such, must be justified and validated by evidence.
So the AGW guys have not publically released the “temperature adjustment algorithms” they use to calculate global mean temperatures - and algorithm important enough to either make the 1990s and 2000s the hottest decades in the past century, or to make the 1930s the hottest decade on the past century.
By definition, what they were doing was not science. The scientific method requires open, peer reviewed experimental design and results, thus allowing for validation or falsification by competing and/or complementary experimentation.
Global Warming Hysteria, The New Eugenics
Global Warming on FreeRepublic
Newsweek Burns Truth In Global Warming Story
Global Warming Hysteria, The New Eugenics
Global Warming on FreeRepublic
It’s not how big is the problem; it is how big is the con? And, so far, the global warming con is the biggest and best of the new century! Running a close second in it’s wake is the ‘carbon offset’ scam. lol
Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown
New!!: Dr. John Ray's
GREENIE WATCH
Ping me if you find one I've missed.
NOAA Dynamic Data is not available guess they are adjusting their secret sauce. Last I checked they had 1998, 2006, 1934 first second and third warmest.
1998 was Colder than 1934...in 2002? (GISS Data Falsehood Before the Recent Scandal? FR EXCLUSIVE)
