Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 03/11/2010 7:42:55 AM PST by jpl
Email messages obtained by the Competitive Enterprise Institute via a Freedom of Information Act request reveal that the climate dataset of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) was considered — by the top climate scientists within NASA itself — to be inferior to the data maintained by the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU).
The NASA scientists also felt that NASA GISS data was inferior to the National Climate Data Center Global Historical Climate Network (NCDC GHCN) database.
These emails, obtained by Christopher Horner, also show that the NASA GISS dataset was not independent of CRU data.
Further, all of this information regarding the accuracy and independence of NASA GISS data was directly communicated to a reporter from USA Today in August 2007.
The reporter never published it.
—————————————
There are only four climate datasets available. All global warming study, such as the reports from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), must be based on these four.
They are: the NASA GISS dataset, the NCDC GHCN dataset, the CRU dataset, and the Japan Meteorological Agency dataset.
Following Climategate, when it became known that raw temperature data for CRU’s “HADCRU3″ climate dataset had been destroyed, Phil Jones, CRU’s former director, said the data loss was not important — because there were other independent climate datasets available.
But the emails reveal that at least three of the four datasets were not independent, that NASA GISS was not considered to be accurate, and that these quality issues were known to both top climate scientists and to the mainstream press.
In a response to reporter Doyle Rice of USA Today, Dr. Reto Ruedy — a senior scientist at NASA — recommended the following:
Continue using NCDC’s data for the U.S. means and Phil Jones’ [HADCRU3] data for the global means. …
We are basically a modeling group and were forced into rudimentary analysis of global observed data in the 70s and early 80s. …
Now we happily combine NCDC’s and Hadley Center data to … evaluate our model results.
This response was extended later the same day by Dr. James Hansen — the head of NASA GISS:
[For] example, we extrapolate station measurements as much as 1200 km. This allows us to include results for the full Arctic. In 2005 this turned out to be important, as the Arctic had a large positive temperature anomaly. We thus found 2005 to be the warmest year in the record, while the British did not and initially NOAA also did not. …
It should be noted that the different groups have cooperated in a very friendly way to try to understand different conclusions when they arise.
Two implications of these emails: The data to which Phil Jones referred to as “independent” was not — it was being “corrected” and reused among various climate science groups, and the independence of the results was no longer assured; and the NASA GISS data was of lower quality than Jones’ embattled CRU data.
The NCDC GHCN dataset mentioned in the Ruedy email has also been called into question by Joe D’Aleo and Anthony Watts. D’Aleo and Watts showed in a January 2010 report that changes in available measurement sites and the selection criteria involved in “homogenizing” the GHCN climate data raised serious questions about the usefulness of that dataset as well.
These three datasets — from NASA GISS, NCDC GHCN, and CRU — are the basis of essentially all climate study supporting anthropogenic global warming.
Just imagine how much other stuff there probably is out there that the media knows about, but won’t tell us. It would likely boggle the mind.
RICO!!!
for sure....traitors and co-conspirators in the subversion of our constitutional republic.
When will any remaining journalists of integrity become so alarmed at the degeneration of the profession that they devote themselves to regularly exposing their government propaganda stenographers by name?
Yep! bttt
"......Today, plowing through 1,500 pages of e-mails just dumped on me by NASA to, I get the feeling, forestall the inevitable litigation they knew became ripe this week I see the following e-mail from the good doctor to James Hansen. The footer jumped out at me. ..."
Continue reading here:
Planet Gore 03/09/2010
Chris Horner
Just saw that Ernest_at_the_Beach has a thread on it:
Americans' Global Warming Concerns Continue to Drop ( global warming is exaggerated )
BTW: Do you remember the reporter named by Rush who wouldn't publish the information?
Some enterprising investigative reporter needs to create a timeline on this global conspiracy: What did they know, and when did they know it. Conspirators need to be imprisioned.
“..BTW: Do you remember the reporter named by Rush who wouldn’t publish the information?” ~ thouworm
Reporter Doyle Rice of USA Today (See below)
Climategate Stunner: NASA Heads Knew NASA Data Was Poor, Then Used Data from CRU
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-stunner-nasa-heads-knew-nasa-data-was-poor-then-used-data-from-cru/?singlepage=true
New emails from James Hansen and Reto Ruedy (download PDF here) show that NASA’s temperature data was doubted within NASA itself, and was not independent of CRU’s embattled data, as has been claimed.
March 10, 2010 - by Charlie Martin
Email messages http://pajamasmedia.com/files/2010/03/GISS-says-CRU-Better0001.pdf obtained by the Competitive Enterprise Institute via a Freedom of Information Act request reveal that the climate dataset of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) was considered by the top climate scientists within NASA itself to be inferior to the data maintained by the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU).
The NASA scientists also felt that NASA GISS data was inferior to the National Climate Data Center Global Historical Climate Network (NCDC GHCN) database.
These emails, obtained by Christopher Horner, also show that the NASA GISS dataset was not independent of CRU data.
Further, all of this information regarding the accuracy and independence of NASA GISS data was directly communicated to a reporter from USA Today in August 2007.
The reporter never published it.
There are only four climate datasets available. All global warming study, such as the reports from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), must be based on these four.
They are: the NASA GISS dataset, the NCDC GHCN dataset, the CRU dataset, and the Japan Meteorological Agency dataset.
Following Climategate, when it became known that raw temperature data for CRU’s “HADCRU3 climate dataset had been destroyed, Phil Jones, CRU’s former director, said the data loss was not important because there were other independent climate datasets available.
But the emails reveal that at least three of the four datasets were not independent, that NASA GISS was not considered to be accurate, and that these quality issues were known to both top climate scientists and to the mainstream press.
In a response to reporter Doyle Rice of USA Today, Dr. Reto Ruedy a senior scientist at NASA recommended the following:
Continue using NCDC’s data for the U.S. means and Phil Jones’ [HADCRU3] data for the global means. …
We are basically a modeling group and were forced into rudimentary analysis of global observed data in the 70s and early 80s. …
Now we happily combine NCDC’s and Hadley Center data to … evaluate our model results.
This response was extended later the same day by Dr. James Hansen the head of NASA GISS:
[For] example, we extrapolate station measurements as much as 1200 km. This allows us to include results for the full Arctic. In 2005 this turned out to be important, as the Arctic had a large positive temperature anomaly. We thus found 2005 to be the warmest year in the record, while the British did not and initially NOAA also did not. …
It should be noted that the different groups have cooperated in a very friendly way to try to understand different conclusions when they arise.
Two implications of these emails: The data to which Phil Jones referred to as “independent” was not it was being “corrected” and reused among various climate science groups, and the independence of the results was no longer assured; and the NASA GISS data was of lower quality than Jones’ embattled CRU data.
The NCDC GHCN dataset mentioned in the Ruedy email has also been called into question by Joe D’Aleo and Anthony Watts. D’Aleo and Watts showed in a January 2010 report that changes in available measurement sites and the selection criteria involved in “homogenizing” the GHCN climate data raised serious questions about the usefulness of that dataset as well.
These three datasets from NASA GISS, NCDC GHCN, and CRU are the basis of essentially all climate study supporting anthropogenic global warming.
Charlie Martin is a Colorado computer scientist and freelance writer. He holds an MS in Computer Science from Duke University, where he spent six years with the National Biomedical Simulation Resource, Duke University Medical Center. Find him at http://chasrmartin.com, and on his blog at http://explorations.chasrmartin.com.
<>
More:
“......Today, plowing through 1,500 pages of e-mails just dumped on me by NASA to, I get the feeling, forestall the inevitable litigation they knew became ripe this week I see the following e-mail from the good doctor to James Hansen. The footer jumped out at me. ...”
Continue reading here:
Planet Gore 03/09/2010
http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/
No, I'm not missing any point at all. I'm pointing out that despite the fact that all that money has been thrown against the wall, it is STILL the solitary brain or small group that comes up with game-changing new ideas.
a big “duh” on my part.... For some reason (brain fog), it was not clear to me that it was the same reporter.
Thanks again
For the most part, I agree, although scientists can sometimes achieve results on big projects that would be virtually impossible for a single scientist, like the A-bomb or manned space flight.
However, you still missed the point, in that you said Eisenhower was wrong, but he was not. If you read carefully, you will see that you agree with him. Eisenhower's point was to warn about unfortunate effects of government money on scientists. He said that the solitary inventor has been overshadowed by task forces with huge budgets, but for them "a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity." Which is why "climate scientists" produce poor results, while individual inventors do produce game-changing ideas.
I have a few inventions of my own, but I never received a dime from the government to help me.
bfl
I have to disagree somewhat. Forty years ago, there were dozens of massive Corp R&D centers... I remember four of them withing 15 minutes of where I lived all Fourtune 50 companies. They employed more PhDs than you could shake a stick at and they really did do basic research --- things that had no immediate value to the company. They had Development functions as well who employed the engineers on perfecting their products, but they did do a lot basic scientific research back in those days.
Today, that is mostly not the case. Basic research today is conducted at Universities, under government grants with maybe some corporate funding, at at government labs. Corporations today do very little in the way of basic research. Yes, they still do product development which is cool, but no, they aren't investing in basic scientific research today with no particular end in sight like they did decades ago.
The innovative spark for both of those still came from individuals. What you are doing is mistaking development and engineering for innovation.
"However, you still missed the point, in that you said Eisenhower was wrong, but he was not. If you read carefully, you will see that you agree with him. Eisenhower's point was to warn about unfortunate effects of government money on scientists. He said that the solitary inventor has been overshadowed by task forces with huge budgets, but for them "a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity." Which is why "climate scientists" produce poor results, while individual inventors do produce game-changing ideas."
No, I am NOT missing the point. I disagree with it (and you). Look up "SBIR" and see what it means. Then look up the company "Nanosolar" and read their track record. There is nothing "evil" about government money. Like all money, it is "just money", and can either empower, stultify or corrupt individuals.
"I have a few inventions of my own, but I never received a dime from the government to help me."
I have more than a few, some of them had some government funding, some not. But in all cases, the innovation came before the money.
Having worked in an R&D department for a major chemical company, I'm well aware of what went on yesterday vs. what goes on today.
While it is true that most basic research is done at universities, that research almost never results directly in innovative products.
The route today is that some bright guy, or small group of bright guys learns about that basic research and says, "gee, I can use this knowledge to make THAT new thing". In many cases they self-fund the initial stages, get "angel funding", or even a "Small Business Innovative Research" government grant, or all of the above. They then reduce the innovative new product to feasibility (or near feasibility), and in many cases, sell the idea, technology, and company to a major corporation.
And then they go off and do it again.
True.
What you are doing is mistaking development and engineering for innovation.
No I am not. Of course engineering was a huge component, but innovation was also necessary.
There is nothing "evil" about government money.
In the case of IPCC, there is.
Like all money, it is "just money", and can either empower, stultify or corrupt individuals.
I agree that all 3 effects are possible, but I would not go so far as to say that it is "just money," since its political associations make it particularly dangerous. In the case of IPCC, the victim is science itself.
BTW, did you ever meet Gilbert Shelton?
“Now we happily combine NCDC’s and Hadley Center data to … evaluate our model results. “
The most damning sentence of all! The models are designed to reproduce ANY history and then tested against that same data. They then assume it works going forward.
Note that every time they change the historic data set, they redo the models to fit.
BOY, what science!
Yes you are. The "innovation" necessary for development is a different type from the creative spark necessary to envisage a totally new thing. Believe me, I know, because I've done both. Some folks can do one, some the other, and some both, and a very rare few can do all that, and also have (or can develop) the business skills to grow a company from a raw idea. I think in my entire forty year career, I have met at most two people in that last category (and I'm certainly not one of them....I lack the business savvy).
"In the case of IPCC, there is."
Nope. The problem with the IPCC (and the rest of the global warming hoopla) is a lack of ethics, not money. Money just makes the lack of ethics worse.
"I agree that all 3 effects are possible, but I would not go so far as to say that it is "just money," since its political associations make it particularly dangerous. In the case of IPCC, the victim is science itself."
Again, it's not the money that is the problem, it is the ethics of the people involved. This is true for all cases, be it government or corporate. "Giant" organizations foster anonymity, which allows (and even rewards) a "win at any cost" mode of thinking that has negative consequences.
"BTW, did you ever meet Gilbert Shelton?
Nope, never did. Got my exposure to the WW character from "Mad" magazine in college (which was a LONG time ago!).
Sometimes it is, but I think you are making arbitrary categories. Some of the "technical solutions" that scientists had to provide on the Manhattan Project required a more profound "creative spark" than the "main idea" on other projects.
But all this is secondary to the problems of government funding, which is the main dispute here.
The problem with the IPCC (and the rest of the global warming hoopla) is a lack of ethics, not money. Money just makes the lack of ethics worse.
Without money the IPCC would not exist. There are potential ethical problems everywhere, and many of these potential problems will not do any great harm without money.
In a way though, it's pointless to debate a chicken and egg problem. If I give my junkie sister money and she buys drugs with that money, is the problem the money or the sister, or both?
What you have to remember is that there are FAR more research projects, using Federal funding, that are run with correct scientific methodology and impeccable ethics. The problem is ethics. At its root, the "climate science" people mostly get their ideology from green leftists, who like all leftists HAVE no ethics except to promulgate socialism by any means necessary.
"In a way though, it's pointless to debate a chicken and egg problem. If I give my junkie sister money and she buys drugs with that money, is the problem the money or the sister, or both?"
The sister.
You don’t see any “ethical” problems with giving money to a junkie or IPCC? I do.
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.