Skip to comments.Australiagate: Now NASA caught in trick over Aussie climate data
Posted on 02/10/2010 7:08:46 PM PST by neverdem
In this article we look at the findings of two independent climate researchers who analyse climatic data used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to show warming of two degrees per century for Australia without explanation. We find that an earlier study by Willis Eschenbach in an article on Whats up with That (WUWT) is wholly substantiated by Kens Kingdomslatest analysis of Ken Stewart at his kenskingdom blog. As a consequence, absent any other justification from NASA, we must conclude that the NASA data has been fraudulently cooked.
GISS, based at Columbia University in New York City, has adjusted over a centurys worth of temperature records from the vast Queensland State (the Sunshine State) to reverse a cooling trend in one ground weather station and increase a warming trend in another to skew the overall data set.
Independent analysis by Aussie blogger Ken Stewart exposes a deplorable smoking gun of cynical manipulation of raw temperature data.
The process of adjusting raw data to create a homogenised final global temperature chart is standard practice by climatologists whose work is relied upon by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and world governments. This homogenisation process of temperature data has fallen into disrepute since the Climategate scandal where scientists were proven to have unlawfully used a trick to fake climate data and then destroyed their calculations rendering it impossible for independent auditors to examine and justify the methodologies used.
Ken Stewart has his own take on these latest findings from Down Under: Wow- when they adjust, they dont muck around!
GISS combines GHCN data from all urban stations applying the same inexplicable two degree temperature increase as shown below to reveal the shocking disparity between raw data and the cooked GISS data:...
(Excerpt) Read more at climategate.com ...
With the overwhelming evidence of fraud there are still a number of deniers. I run into them on other forums as they don’t beleive the data itself has been “cooked”.
This has to be some kind of mass suicide movement. Like lemmings going over a cliff...
Probably because they aren’t willing to admit they’ve been stupid.
The Man-Made Global Warming Scam will go down as the biggest fraud in the history of science.
The driving force is of course that the Socialists/Marxists/Liberals/Democrats are using it as a vehicle for their march to power.
The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule. - H. L. Menken.
They have certainly elevated the pursuit of corruption in the name of ignorance to a whole new level. Damn them for their destructive actions and influences.
NASA........lametard global warming-ville.
Surprised the Aussie’s have not busted NASA for using US intelligence assets for watching trees grown, ice melt, and the oceans sea rising.......
Ok, NASA and IPCC I get. GISS is “Godard Institute of Space Studies” at Columbia University, NY.
What is “GHCN”? Writers should not rely on hypertext to excuse themselves of the need to write clearly.
Now jest how the h*ll do you expect me to ping you two guys in an untimely manner when you’re the writer and the first responder to the same blinkin’ thread that I’m tryin’ to tell you about!
Lemmings, at least, thought they knew where they were going.
The Global Warming blind followers are following their (s)creed from blind faith alone.
Give you an example of what I'm talking about. Let's say you want to set the stage so that your company can collect on a large dollar value debt owed you by another company. You wish to do this with out bringing in the law ~ just nice and sweet and cheap.
You have several ways to approach this. You could send in your lawyers to talk to their lawyers. Or, you might ask if your "world's greatest experts in whatever" talk to their "experts" and trick it all out to make sure they weren't overpaying you, and vice versa.
So the "experts" meet face to face over the data, and they work it all out. Your company gets a bunch of money. The other guys get a lower price for future events of the same nature. No cops. No lawyers. No great immediate out of pocket expense.
Everybody goes away loving everybody when you can get that kind of solution.
Up until now we've been hitting the NONEXPERTS over the head with evidence that the database is flawed.
The "non-experts" are the politicians and foundation grants administrators who aren't really into this for the sake of the project and findings, but for the sense of "accomplishment" and "comity".
Clearly we need to move forward with this a bit differently. Recall if you will the time when the fellows who found the standard weather stations had not been maintained correctly did a head-on with Doc Hansen and the NASA experts ~ that's just last year. Hansen didn't argue ~ he pulled the data from those stations. It was pretty clear our side knew it's stuff, and Hansen knew they knew. The politicians still haven't caught up to this one, and some of them are in a huff.
Now we have "Climategate". We have some really good technical stuff to beat up on the technical people over there at GW central. First issue is "where's the data" ~ and none of them seem to know. I'd recommend we keep hitting on that one. It leaves the politicians out of the picture.
Another technical issue concerns the climate models ~ the coding doesn't work to predict current reality, or even the distant past. Was there fraud? Or, was someone an incompetent programmer.
I suggest we engage them with the "incompetent programmer" thesis ~ give them a "face saving" lie to let them arrive at the conclusion that fraud was committed (not by them, but on them).
It is necessary to achieve comity with this pack of criminals or they will become intransigent.
Please forward to Al Gore!
There are 3 main surface temperature data-set that form the basis of all the IPCC’s analysis. The NASA data-set (GISTEMP) is maintained by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies under the direction of Dr James Hansen. The second is maintained by NOAA and is called the GHCN, which stands for the “Global Historical Climate Network”. The third is the one maintained by the University of East Anglia Hadley Center called “HADCRUT3”.
While it may appear that these are independent data-sets, they all are composed of observations from the same weather stations. The differences arise from which weather stations they choose to incorporate into the data-set and just how they massage the raw data to come up with their “corrected” databases.
Recently all three have been shown to have use mysterious correction methodologies which seem to cause a bias towards an artificial warming trend. These “corrections” vary from dropping observations from high altitudes and / or higher latitudes, which drops out most of the colder temps. Other “corrections” include corrections for location which appear to have been applied inconsistently. Another “correction” is to just ignore large areas of existing data such as in Siberia!
Bump for reference
With a whole lot of help from useful idiot Republicans from McCain to Gingrich.
Amen. The question is "why"?
My belief is that these Washington Republicans were duped by an unending series of propaganda briefings from a corrupted NASA and other federal agencies.
Precisely. So much data has been monkeyed with how do we know what is true anymore regarding the climate data.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.