Michelle Malkin » Hot news: NASA quietly fixes flawed temperature data; 1998 was NOT the warmest year in the millenium

Hot news: NASA quietly fixes flawed temperature data; 1998 was NOT the warmest year in the millenium

By Michelle Malkin • August 9, 2007 10:02 PM

Mind the gap.

Some big environmental news that you haven’t heard much about: NASA has revised much-publicized US temperature data that have been used to claim 1998 as a record-breaking hottest year in the millenium. Michael Asher at DailyTech reports:

My earlier column this week detailed the work of a volunteer team to assess problems with US temperature data used for climate modeling. One of these people is Steve McIntyre, who operates the site climateaudit.org. While inspecting historical temperature graphs, he noticed a strange discontinuity, or “jump” in many locations, all occurring around the time of January, 2000.

These graphs were created by NASA’s Reto Ruedy and James Hansen (who shot to fame when he accused the administration of trying to censor his views on climate change). Hansen refused to provide [McIntyre ]with the algorithm used to generate graph data, so McKintyre reverse-engineered it. The result appeared to be a Y2K bug in the handling of the raw data.

[McIntyre] notified the pair of the bug; Ruedy replied and acknowledged the problem as an “oversight” that would be fixed in the next data refresh.

NASA has now silently released corrected figures, and the changes are truly astounding. The warmest year on record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place. 1921 takes third. In fact, 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II. Anthony Watts has put the new data in chart form, along with a more detailed summary of the events.

The effect of the correction on global temperatures is minor (some 1-2% less warming than originally thought), but the effect on the US global warming propaganda machine could be huge.

Then again– maybe not. I strongly suspect this story will receive little to no attention from the mainstream media.

McIntyre’s blog is down at the moment. (*Update*: It’s down because his work has gotten some major media attention…no, not from the MSM, but from Rush Limbaugh.) His work on this is extraordinary and hopefully the website will be back up. (Another update: McIntyre also debunked the famous “hockey stick” analysis linking human activity to global warming, which turned out to be an artifact of poor mathematics.) In the meantime, see Anthony Watts, who walks you through McIntyre’s findings and adds some helpful charts:

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.

Bottom line:

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.)

In other words: Four of the top ten are in the 1930’s, before mainstream scientists believe humans had any discernible impact on temperatures.

Noel Sheppard wonders: “As global warming is such a key issue being debated all around this country and on Capitol Hill, wouldn’t such a change by the agency responsible for calculating such things be important to disseminate? When this correction was made by Hansen’s team at the GISS, shouldn’t it have been reported? In fact, it is quite disgraceful that it wasn’t, as it suggests that a government agency is actually participating in a fraud against the American people by withholding information crucial to a major policy issue now facing the nation. Think this will be Newsweek’s next cover-story? No, I don’t either.”

***

More reax on the James Hansen factor:

Ace: “So James Hansen, who claimed Bush was politicizing Global Warming, refused to provide his algorithms to other researchers so they could simply check his work, hiding his own errors from them and distorting the science he claims to care about oh-so-much until some persistent researchers went to the great trouble of reconstructing his algorithms themselves. Fire him. Immediately.”

Bryan Preston at Hot Air: “The discontinuity in the data should have been a serious red flag for Hansen et al, but what we’re probably seeing here is the effect of personality and agenda on the scientific process. They assumed they were right, and either discounted or didn’t even notice the discontinuity that occurred at 2000. When I say that personality had an effect, here’s what I mean by that. After Hansen became the most famous “silenced” scientist since Galileo and particularly since he was battling Bush, he became a titan to the vast majority of the people I worked with in the earth science field at NASA (an admittedly small slice of that field, but also the top couple of echelons of it at the Goddard Space Flight Center). Questioning him in any way invited hostile stares and could limit a career. When I say that agenda played a role, if you ever manage to get onto the GSFC and find yourself outside any of the couple of earth science buildings, take note of the bumper stickers on most of the cars. They’re faded and pealing and say in big, bold letters “Dean for President.”

Small Dead Animals has more.

From Rush’s show earlier today, with a sharp tie-in to Newsweek’s alarmist cover this week on global warming:

So Steve McIntyre, who lives in Toronto, 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. What he discovered was amazing. NASA doesn’t fully publish computer source code and formula they use to calculate the trends and the graph I have here nor the correction used to arrive at the correct data. So we had to reverse engineer the process by comparing the raw data and the processed data. And the bottom line is, that 1998 is no longer — you can say NASA made a reporting error or did they make a reporting error? Did they do this on purpose? How long have they known that it was erroneous and haven’t corrected it? But the bottom line of this is that 1998 is no longer the hottest year on record. Four of the top ten hottest years on record are from the 30s: 1934, 1931, 1938 and 1939 while only three of the top ten warmest years on record are from the last ten years, ‘98, 2006 and 1999. Well, you might say, “So what? What does this matter, Rush?”

Well, when 1934 was the hottest year on record, and NASA may know about it and doesn’t correct the data, and when a guy named James Hansen involved in all this, who is a political activist, then you have to figure there is a reason why they want 1998 continue to be reported as the warmest year on record. And voila, from a soon-to-be released Reuters story, “A study forecasts that global warming will set in with a vengeance after 2009, with at least half of the five following years expected to be hotter than 1998, which was the warmest year on record.” So ladies and gentlemen, what do we have here? We have proof of man-made global warming. The man-made global warming is inside NASA. The man-made global warming is in the scientific community with false data. This is irresponsible. This is supposedly scientific data. It is unchallengeable. It is inarguable. And it’s bogus. I don’t know how long they’ve known it. I don’t know if they intend to correct it or not. I doubt you’ll hear anything about this, other than this program. The Drive-By Media, this is not going to interest them. “Oh, Rush, irrelevant footnote. Everybody knows that global warm is happening out there.” All right, well, you see how this works.

…Newsweek has this story, current issue, that is the most irresponsible, one sided, no science in it, where they go after the global warming deniers. The use of the term deniers, global warming is on purpose. Holocaust deniers and so forth. It has gotten so bad here, I tell you what the Newsweek thing means. It means we are winning the debate…

Posted in: Enviro-nitwits

Printer Friendly

comments (113)

trackbacks (46)

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

Trackback URL

Comments

« Older Comments

#115435

On August 10th, 2007 at 6:57 pm, ScottyDog said:

California just forced electric bills to be billed by customer usage of kwh in “usage tiers”. Any usage over a certain mystery amount, that the nuts in the state legislator determined would reduce Global Warming, results in a penalty rate being charged to the customer.

My bill this month was $400 higher than last month due to the fact I consumed into the penalty usage tier they call “energy hogs”.

From $200 to $600 even though most days were in excess of 100 F last month and I set my thermostat at 82 F.

I want a refund!

This is the kind of crap the global warming nut jobs are using to say we are wasting energy and increasing the temperature of the planet with fraudulent research by NASA.

My local barber said his bill was in excess of $1000, a $600 increase because of bogus science.This is a real world example of consensus science run amok. My barber will have to pass the cost along as well as all the other businesses in this state.

Pure insanity. How do I as a homeowner pass the cost along?
#115440

On August 10th, 2007 at 7:15 pm, greenLibertarian said:

You are correct about misguided energy conservationists. The measures they conceive are sometimes impractical and may even increase overall energy use: they may not consider the NRE or initial energy cost of energy conservation equipment, etc . The figure of merit is the energy payback time: the time it takes for the energy plant or equipment to provide or save the energy used to construct it.

We are not all nut jobs, this sort of generalizing weakens your arguments. NASA data is not isomorphic with global warming, research it carefully and thoroughly before claiming that it is.

I think the CA legislature should have considered the difficulty of improving energy efficiency of existing homes and structures before setting these perhaps arbitrary tiers. Given the extra cost to you, consider adding insulation and a radiant barrier in your attic to reduce your cooling costs, and solar screens or reflective film for your windows. The cost of these may quickly be recouped if they lower your tier.

Good luck!
#115447

On August 10th, 2007 at 7:33 pm, jcribbs said:

I apologize if this has been discussed before, as I haven’t had the chance to keep up. I found this report on the NASA site, which does have the correction and something (well, several, actually) but one in particular strikes me as interesting. The graphs used to show US and Global temperatures seem to indicate a wide difference between the two. But what they did was use 2 different scales on the y (vertical) axis to make sure that it looks dramatic. This is not the proper way to compare values in any scientific publication as far as I know, so it must be for the dramatic (ie political) effect.
#115451

On August 10th, 2007 at 8:00 pm, ScottyDog said:

greenLibertarian

I live in a brand new house so how can I improve the energy efficiency when all the things you mentioned have been done.I have a 16 SEER air conditioner.

The building codes should require PV in new housing and it would hardly increase the cost of the home.instead they effecting the economy based on junk science

I read the data and NASA cooked the books with their adjustments. They refuse to release the underlying data which is not science.
Breaking News: Recent US Temperature Numbers Revised Downwards Today
http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/

Turns out the IPCC report was a big fraud too:
http://www.sepp.org/Archive/NewSEPP/KyotoAssessment.htm
http://www.sepp.org/Archive/controv/ipcccont/Item05.htm
#115453

On August 10th, 2007 at 8:02 pm, greenLibertarian said:

They did that so that maximum detail would be visible, I suspect. If the us scale were the same as the global scale, the us temp fluctuations would be difficult to see.

This is obfuscation anyway: the global mean is clearly rising and the planet will be affected – e.g. ice melting. What responsible global warming folks are claiming the US temperature is significant in terms of critical issues such as ice melting: there are no significant amounts of ice in the continental us.

Nice try to avoid admitting the problem may be real, jcribbs.
#115455

On August 10th, 2007 at 8:07 pm, greenLibertarian said:

Was just trying to help, sorry that I cannot, ScottyDog. I don’t know if NASA data was the main data used for the CA tiers, or even if the CA gov interpreted the data they had at that time correctly. But the data jcribbs refers to clearly shows that global temp is rising.
#115456

On August 10th, 2007 at 8:17 pm, jcribbs said:

LOL. I know a fraud and a snow job when I see one. Let’s see whether you’re an honest Greenie or just a blowhard fanatic. Read this and tell me if you still believe that the science is settled and we should all act like lemmings.
#115457

On August 10th, 2007 at 8:19 pm, greenLibertarian said:

Aye, aye, will read it, but are you saying you don’t believe the NASA data you linked us to???
#115463

On August 10th, 2007 at 8:32 pm, jcribbs said:

I’m saying I don’t trust the underlying data. Nor do I trust models that assume (as the ones currently in use do) that the amount of energy put out by the sun is a constant. I also do not believe that we have the technology available to properly predict what will happen over time in a dynamic environment with as many variables as the Earth’s environment has. But I especially do not believe that the science is “settled”. We should know by now that science is never settled and continuing to ask questions and challenge the “accepted” assumptions of the day is how we fine tune our technology and science and our very ability to handle issues of this magnitude. Closing our eyes on dissent is pure nonsense, because that dialog is how our science, technology and our very existence expands and florishes.
#115464

On August 10th, 2007 at 8:40 pm, greenLibertarian said:

But you still won’t admit that it is -possible- we are signficantly altering the climate and atmosphere of the planet with the massive amounts of pollutants and greenhouse gasses we are emitting, and that is what makes you uncredible, sorry to say. Look at Mexico City and Beijing: air so polluted that people can pass out while exercising due to lack of oxygen, have respiratory problems, … I visit China four times, and contracted lung infections twice. It is possible we are a problem for the planet, if you cannot admit that you are simply not credible. You seem to be reaching for reasons to not believe that it is possible, instead of seeking the truth and realizing how great the risk of ignoring the effects of what we do is.
#115467

On August 10th, 2007 at 8:51 pm, jah said:

greenLibertarian said

There you go again, Al Gore is your rebuttal. He is irrevelant, and his hypocrisy does not disprove global warming

.

The problem is that he is not irrelevant. He is the main spokesman, self-appointed maybe, for man-made global warming. Too many people hangon his every word and most of them refuse to even allow for the possibility of other than man-made causes.

He does his case no good when he goes around saying that the concensus is in and the science over. As I explained in an earlier post, consensus is not science and the science is never settled. He is not alone Kennedy out there calling the other side traitors and Heidi Kellen (sp) stating that any meteorologist that denies man-made global warming should lose their certification. The problem is they will not show the data that shows there may be a problem with the theory. If you have not read it go back and read my post about “cago cult science”.

Now could there be Global Warming, yes.
What could be the possible causes?

1) Could it be manmade, yes
2) Could it be caused by natural forces we know about, but don’t fully understand, yes
3) Could it be caused by natural forces that we don’t know about, yes
4) Could it be casued by all of the above, yes

Could it be caused by the Global Warming Fairies, yes, but unlikely

The problem with those who blindly follow Al Gore, etc. is they try to stifle those who are researching the possibility of natural causes, even to the point of calling for trials and even death threats.

This is not how science works. All the data must be looked at all the research brought together and a theory based on the data must be developed. If that theory points to natural causes then that is the way it is, if it points to man-made then that is the way it is. Once we have the theory then we make the decisions on how to proceed, not before.

Based on what you have written I would definitely not put you in the category of blindly following Gore. The problem is that those who do are becoming more of a hinderance to finding the answer than a help. Think about it, if you are a climate researcher and your research shows a natual cause and you begin to get threats, even from your fellow researchers, how much of a chiiling effect that could have on you.

The problem, as I have stated before, is that the Earth’s climate is too complicated to rely on computer models. There are too many variables and too many assumptions that have to be made.

For example, obviously we need to include a solar model in our model, and we just do not know enough about the sun to know what to put into the model.

Another example, as the solar system circles the center of the Milky Way it passes in and out of dust clouds, could that cause a dimming and brightening of the sun?

Do you see how complicated this can become as you try to refine the model?

To be honest, I don’t think we will ever get an accurate model of the Earth’s climate. As I said in an earleir post, I am involved in CFD analysis and it is difficult to accurately model simple systems with a computer model due to the complexity of even small models.
#115468

On August 10th, 2007 at 8:54 pm, ScottyDog said:

jcribbs

I agree 100% and I think the Sun’s output is responsible but that is a wild guess.

Here is more evidence that Anthropogenic Global Warming is not settled.

Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics 8 July 2007
Link

“The authors express their hope that in the schools around the world the fundamentals of physics will be taught correctly and not by using award-winning Al Gore” movies shocking every straight physicist by confusing absorption/emission with reflection, by confusing the tropopause with the ionosphere, and by confusing microwaves with shortwaves.”

Goto this site and scroll down for more of the translation:
NewsBusters

My bitch is with the State of California and Arnold passing legislation that will hurt people financially based on junk science.The electric rules are mandated after 7-2007 which I am going to vigorously fight legally.
#115470

On August 10th, 2007 at 8:56 pm, jcribbs said:

Smog is certainly something that can be addressed as a health issue (can’t say I like breathing it either). There is evidence out there that refutes Global Warming. Reacting without knowing what the problem actually is could be even worse than doing nothing. As for China, I believe the Kyoto Accord left them alone to expand all they wanted, didn’t it?
#115478

On August 10th, 2007 at 9:18 pm, greenLibertarian said:

Well said, jah, I meant he is no scientist and that what he says has no scientific relevance. He is influential, and yes I believe part of this influence is negative.

The modeling problem is quiet complex, but we do have the option of returning to conditions which have worked for at least thousands of years (creationists) or for millions of years (evolutionists).

And no, jcribb, doing that is no risk because it -has- worked, please open your mind.
#115494

On August 10th, 2007 at 10:05 pm, jcribbs said:

My mind is open, Green. To be otherwise would be to refute all I have said about the science not being settled. I welcome debate, as I think that is healthy. Doesn’t mean I’m convinced by your arguments (or by those who tend to be more…strident…in their zeal). Nor am I convinced that the science supporting Global Warming is even good science (you know, the kind that welcomes healthy debate and is ready to take on all challengers on a nice level playing field…). Keep reading that series I linked earlier and let me know what you think.
#115498

On August 10th, 2007 at 10:26 pm, greenLibertarian said:

Very good, at least we agree that we don’t -know- the science and nasa data is false or true, that is a start

I will definitely do the reading, but not know, I am working still. However, global warming is not the only concern, I do know atmospheric pollutants are bad, and don’t want to pin my hopes on offsetting effects of these pollutants. I want the environment to be able to support future generations, even though I am 50 and have no kids, so I only need it to last another 20-30 years.

Have a good weekend, do some pro-global warming reading in return, ok?
#115499

On August 10th, 2007 at 10:37 pm, jcribbs said:

Lol. Like I said. It’s the “science is settled on global warming” garbage that irritates me. Fighting pollution for health reasons is perfectly logical. Have a good weekend. I’ll try to find some good reading. Wish me luck.
#115503

On August 10th, 2007 at 10:42 pm, greenLibertarian said:

Yep, some Greenies are Weenies.
#115505

On August 10th, 2007 at 10:45 pm, DarkKnight said:

So much to respond to, I may just continue to recycle and try and save on gas usage (it helps my wallet at least)… and just pray God keeps me alive to enjoy the environment as long as He sees fit.

At least we can all agree to that… I hope.

On August 10th, 2007 at 3:28 am, pgtips said:

Global warming is a farce. There is no data to support it.

It’s irresponsible and ignorant to draw the link between global warming and that flood so quickly.

Calling Prime Minister Brown ignorant… strong words indeed.

On August 10th, 2007 at 1:38 pm, James Felix said:

After generations in which evolution has been public schooling’s sole explanation of human origins, only a third of Americans consider it a theory well-supported by scientific evidence. By contrast, 51 percent of Americans believe “God created human beings in their present form.”

Facts aren’t democratic. Something is true or it isn’t, it’s supported by evidence or it isn’t. If global warming isn’t happening the way we’ve been told then all the polls in the world won’t make it so.

I’m interested in what poll Mr. Coulson was citing regarding Creationism… I mean, Intelligent Design… Wait, aren’ they the same thing?

Anyway, I’ve always been interested in this topic and see what people’s answers are when asked.

I think this says it all.

—————————————-

Origin of Human Life

USA Today/Gallup Poll. June 1-3, 2007. N=1,007 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

“Next, we’d like to ask about your views on two different explanations for the origin and development of life on earth. Do you think [see below] is definitely true, probably true, probably false, or definitely false?” *Options rotated

“Evolution — that is, the idea that human beings developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life”

Definitely True 18%
Probably True 35%
Probably False 16%
Definitely False 28%
Unsure 3%

“Creationism — that is, the idea that God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years”

Definitely True 39%
Probably True 27%
Probably False 16%
Definitely False 15%
Unsure 3%

So a majority could be said of Americans to either case. This says to me that the jury is still out. Consistant poll numbers (like the ones used during the Presidential election) provide a much more accurate picture.

Now back to the topic at hand, I’m feeling that there might be some inconsistencies among readers…

On August 10th, 2007 at 3:28 am, pgtips said:
Global warming is a farce.

On August 10th, 2007 at 8:51 pm, jah said:

Now could there be Global Warming, yes.
What could be the possible causes?

1) Could it be manmade, yes
2) Could it be caused by natural forces we know about, but don’t fully understand, yes
3) Could it be caused by natural forces that we don’t know about, yes
4) Could it be casued by all of the above, yes

What does Michelle think? Does Climate Change exist in her opinion… is it a farce (pgtips)… or a possibility (jar)?

I know I’m interested in an answer.
#115510

On August 10th, 2007 at 11:55 pm, Miss Ladybug said:

Let’s not forget that plantlife needs carbon dioxide to survive. Then, they give us oxygen.
#115511

On August 10th, 2007 at 11:58 pm, jah said:

to DarkKnight

Yes I did answer yes to my the question Could there be Global Warming.

Notice the question I asked and answered is “Could” there be Global Warming. I did not say there was Global Warming. I asked and and then answered the question in the affirmative so that I could go to the next part. The next part being, if I was right what could be the cause of it.

I then went on to make the point that if there is Global Warming there could be several causes. These and maybe more are the things we need to be looking into if there is Global Warming.

I am not speaking for Michelle, she is quite capable of doing that for herself.

I am coming at this issue as a trained engineer and scientist. I am trained to look for the truth in the data and present the facts. If those facts are not to someone’s liking, on either side of the debate, that is too bad. Opinions in science do not matter, data and observation matter.

So where are we in this? There is either Global Warming or there is not. We need to answer this question first

We will not find answers from pronouncements on high from those who have no idea what they are talking about. We need a clear unbiased look at the data by people who know about climatology.

Understand though, as I have said scientists are human and have biases. This is why a scientist must present all the data, not just that which upholds his theory. This is where Al Gore, Heidi Kellen (sp) and others show that they are really not interested in the science. They refuse to present all the data.

Once we have the answer to the question “Is there Global Warming” then we can proceed as follows.

If there is no Global Warming then we go on with our lives.

If there is Global Warming then we then need to determine the cause. If it is man-made there will be certain steps we will have to take, if it is natural there are other steps. In the end if it is natural we may not be able to do anyting but ride it out

Until we know for sure, a) that it does exit and b) if it does exist what is the cause, we do not know what steps to take. If we take steps before we know then we could do more harm than good.

I have also made the point and I stick to it that the so called climate models are a joke. I have given my reasons in earlier posts and will not repeat them here. Those using these models are really only getting gibberish. I am willing to bet that I could take those models and put in different but still reasonable starting assumptions and get totally different results. What they are trying to model is too complex for our current level of capability.
#115531

On August 11th, 2007 at 2:48 am, greenLibertarian said:

Let’s see, friend, conservation will work now, cleaner plants will work now, population control will work now, cleaner cars will work now, more energy efficient …s will work now, …

No good reasons to sit on our behinds, jah, when it is possible that we not know we have a serious problem it will be too late to fix it! Sustainable living will benefit us and the planet now!

You can spin fancily with your knowledge of what we don’t know, but doing nothing might doom us.
#115575

On August 11th, 2007 at 12:05 pm, Baklava said:

Question is GreenLibertarian,

What is your ideas for doing something?

It always comes down to solutions that will harm people economically because they are leftist in nature. That is why I bring up Bjorn Lomborg.

He has costed out what lefties are calling for and how much money governments would have to spend.

He says yes there are things that can be done that aren’t leftist oriented but governments aren’t considering those options.

They don’t understand economics 101 it seems….

Meanwhile he also talks about being able to do MORE good with resources being focused on other things like malaria (disease), shelter, health, water, etc.

Anyways, I won’t assume to know your ideas for doing something. Would love to hear what they are.

Respectfully…
#115587

On August 11th, 2007 at 1:00 pm, ScottyDog said:

greenLibertarian

At what price? That is the problem.

Conservation for the sake of conservation is the definition of Religion not Science.

The Science they teach in schools today is nothing but propaganda.The science at the UN is even worse. The IPCC report that started the whole debate is based on junk science and was a fraud according to many scientists that had their work deleted or out right changed in the final IPCC report to the UN.(Without their permission)

Believing something is true just for the sake of imposing change is fraud when the power of the Government extracts radical change using junk science.

“The IPCC report itself also underwent some remarkable editing between the time it was approved in December 1995 and printed in May 1996 [Seitz 1996]. The “scientific cleansing” involves the surreptitious deletion of several phrases that had been approved by the scientists working on the report — phrases that threw doubt on the idea of a “discernible human influence.”[See Note 2]

The international scientific journal Nature remarked in an editorial that governmental representatives made these later-discovered text changes so that the IPCC report would “conform” to the Summary, a politically negotiated document. This rather strange procedure, possibly illegal and certainly unannounced, was apparently made at the behest of the U.S. State Department. Nature mentions this letter, which indeed asked that the chapters be adjusted after the Summary had been agreed to [See Note3; Letter dated November 15, 1995 to Sir John Houghton, signed by Day Mount, deputy assistant secretary (acting)].

Note 2: Phrases edited out of the IPCC Report

1) “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”

2) “While some of the pattern-based studies discussed here have claimed detection of a significant climate change, no study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes. Nor has any study quantified the magnitude of a greenhouse-gas effect or aerosol effect in the observed data-an issue of primary relevance to policy makers.”

3) “Any claims of positive detection and attribution of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced.”

4) “While none of these studies has specifically considered the attribution issue, they often draw some attribution conclusions, for which there is little justification.”

5) “When will an anthropogenic effect on climate be identified? It is not surprising that the best answer to this question is, ‘we do not know.’”
SOURCE

IMHO-This proves the whole report was a hoax and that the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory is not supported by Science.

Another recap of the IPCC shenanigans can be read at JunkScience.com about 2/5 way down the page under the August 15, 2000, subsection “Re: Union of Concerned (Junk) Scientists” heading. It is a more humorous approach to the topic.

The profound irony of all this is that those leaders of the AGW movement, the ones that profess scientific integrity, are the actual heretics of science. The IPCC report is from a political body with a political agenda. The data and conlusions of the IPCC report were corrupted by politicians and certain supportive scientists (eg Mann, Hansen, Cullen). Bill Clinton’s own State Department officials may have been complicent in the corruption of the IPCC report. The media and Al Gore push the AGW agenda and reap tremenduous financial gains. Requests for data and methodology in order to replicate AGW conclusions, the cornerstone of scientific integrity being reproducibility, go ignored or condemned. Those that question AGW are denounced, threated or ignored.
SOURCE STRATMAN

Does that sound like good science to you?
#115599

On August 11th, 2007 at 2:07 pm, jah said:

As this thread winds down let me pull together all my points.

There are two separate questions that need to be addressed. There may only be one depending on the answer to the first question.

First — Is the Earth’s climate currently warming up. We first need to answer that question. Now based on the fact that the Earth has gone through weather extremes in the past it is very possible that we are in a warm up right now.

If and let me stress this IF we find out that the Earth’s climate is currently warming up then we must answer the next question. The question is, What is the casue if the warming. Natural, Man-Made, or a Combination of the two.

Both questions will be difficult to answer due the complexity of the climate.

The first will be the easier of the two, the second maybe so complicated we may never know to a high level of certainty.

My goal in my posts has not been to confirm one side or the other but to point out that a lot of what is being said and done on the man-made GW side is not scientific and could be counter productive.

How could it be counter-productive? Suppose that the Earth is warming up due to natural causes. If those like Gore intimidate others into silence and succeed in cutting off funding to research into natural causes we could be left with no way to lessen its impact.

I have my opinion on what is going on, but as I have said, opinion means nothing. Since I am not a climatologist I cannot go beyond opinion because I do not have the background to be definitive.

As Richard Feynman once said, A scientist who speaks on subjects outdside his own field has no more credibility than anyone else.

All I can do is educate on how science should work and on the limitations on scientific and engineering models.

Now if we ever have a discussion on how airplanes fly or how jet engines work or any topic in fluid or air flow I can be definitive. Why? That is my area of expertise. In my area of work I use a lot of models both based on empirical data and CFD models so I can talk about scientific and engineering models.

I find myself repeating things I have said before, so unless I see something new or if I see a new interesting question asked of me, this will probably be my last post. I always enjoy a good discussion/debate with intelligent people. This has been a good one. This is one of the first times I have posted here and this is the first time I have gotten into a prolonged debate. I thought it was a good one.

Have to get back to my real life before my wife throws the computer out.
#115609

On August 11th, 2007 at 3:08 pm, greenLibertarian said:

Um, I have also said my peace, it has indeed been fun. You are obviously an intelligent and knowledgeable guy, jah, but – to quote Isaac Asimov – “such folly smacks of genius, a lesser mind would be capable of it”. Doing nothing to reduce our energy use, pollution, direct environment destruction e.g. massive tree cuttings, depleting and destroying top soil, population, …, will end in disaster(s) and is extreme folly. The planet can only support a finite number of people and cannot endure infinite abuse. We have destroyed, damaged, and significantly changed many parts of the planet and environment.

Exactly what we can do, comrades, is conserve energy and resources, stop using as many products as possible that require toxic chemicals for their production or are themselves toxic, stabilize our populations and begin to reduce them, stop cutting down virgin forests and reduce paper use, and work towards an economy and life style that reuses all materials and avoid the use of toxic ones. My hope is that we will use the finite and dirty (when used) resources we have, e.g. oil, as a stepping stone towards a rich and sustainable way of living.

Back to globalwarming: we can much reduce our greenhouse gas emissions if we do the above, and avoid the -RISK- of causing or precipitating devastating global warming. Given the consequences, why take such a terrible risk, common sense is to avoid such risks.
#115610

On August 11th, 2007 at 3:09 pm, greenLibertarian said:

sorry, INcapable of it is the correct quote
#115611

On August 11th, 2007 at 3:24 pm, ScottyDog said:

greenlibertarian:

“Exactly what we can do, comrades,”

Interesting choice of words..Comrades

My point exactly about the power of the state to implement policy based on bad science.

We have begun the transition into a tolatalitarian state, comrade.
#115612

On August 11th, 2007 at 3:27 pm, greenLibertarian said:

Grasping at semantic straws instead of honestly debating and considering the issue, sadly typical.
#115613

On August 11th, 2007 at 3:30 pm, greenLibertarian said:

Newt Gingrich said it well in his recent Hot Air video, there are ways to motivate businesses and people to use the planet better without coercive means, offering economic incentives and educating them so that they want to do it. From a recent article on yahoo news, GE, Walmart, and one other large company are already working towards waste and materials reduction, cleaner energy, …, not only for environment protection but because it saves them money and represents future business opportunities. How encouraging!
#115615

On August 11th, 2007 at 3:41 pm, xblade said:

Empirical data about humankind’s damage to the environment is overwhelming. Ice caps, glaciers, Greenland’s ice, mountaintops were not melting in the 30s as they are now. Extreme weather all over the world was not happening then either.

Record years are not the main issue, the broad trend is what is critical. Global warming may be what we engineers call a bounded wave, with an envelop that is increasing over time.

With engineers this clueless, it’s no wonder the bridge in Minnesota came down.
#115616

On August 11th, 2007 at 3:48 pm, greenLibertarian said:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060810-greenland.html
Greenland Ice Sheet Is Melting Faster, Study Says
John Roach
for National Geographic News

August 10, 2006
The Greenland ice sheet is melting three times faster today than it was five years ago, according to a new study.
#115622

On August 11th, 2007 at 5:41 pm, Baklava said:

GreenLibertarian really idiotically says, “Doing nothing to reduce our energy use, pollution, direct environment destruction e.g. massive tree cuttings, depleting and destroying top soil, population, …”

No. GL. You are probably not an idiot. So how does that kind of statement come from you??????????????????????????

Look at comment 48 again. Is that NOTHING? No. It is MORE than ANY OTHER country on this planet. Period.

You can ACT like people here don’t care about the planet but you would be WRONG. And you know that you are wrong or you are acting. Whichever one it isn’t pleasantries for the sake of conversation. It’s inaccurate accusations that can’t continue with a civil discussion for long.

It’s like saying, “When did you stop beating your wife.”

Then… GL says, “Grasping at semantic straws instead of honestly debating and considering the issue, sadly typical.”

Yes….. I asked in comment 96 what we should do… You either ignored or missed it. In either case you aren’t letting us know any pro-market oriented solutions for doing the things you mentioned specifically addressing CO2. You change the debate into virgin forests and act as if people here are for wiping out virgin forests. Stick to the topic. Be clear. Don’t accuse us of things you think we think.

Your comment #103 GL was SOOO much better.

Anyways… we all “care” about the environment. This thread is about NASA being WRONG – Al Gore’s hockey stick graph being WRONG and the amount of hyperbole from the left being WRONG….

BTW – We all “care”.

We are interested in not harming people with bad economic policy and continuing on with irresponsible rhetoric. Hopefully you can get on track with that.
#115624

On August 11th, 2007 at 6:39 pm, greenLibertarian said:

Idiotic, wow, that hurts :p

Easy to say, but nothing to back it up.

You are firing spitwads at a battleship, my boy.
#115625

On August 11th, 2007 at 7:35 pm, Baklava said:

Nothing to back up your “feeling” that anybody here wants to clear cut virgin forests either…

But I suppose you know what’s in our minds better than we do….

Your battleship is sunk. Because for all my substantial life I’ve never felt we should clear cut virgin forests and NOBODY I know does either….

As with mosts liberals who spit accusations without actually knowing…. you’ve LOST the argument through your own doing…
#115626

On August 11th, 2007 at 7:40 pm, Baklava said:

Back to solutions

What are they?

How do you force my liberal neighbor who spits accusations to stop driving his Toyota 4 Runner while I a market oriented conservative ride the bus 4 out of 5 bus days per week?

What should the government do?

BTW – CO2 was the issue not massive deforestation…. stay on topic… what’s your solution?
#115627

On August 11th, 2007 at 7:40 pm, greenLibertarian said:

Careful, you almost scratched my paint!
#115628

On August 11th, 2007 at 7:53 pm, Baklava said:

Being sunk and you’re worried about your paint.

Style over substance..
#115629

On August 11th, 2007 at 8:01 pm, greenLibertarian said:

Look who’s talking! You either have not read ao are misrepresenting my words. When I believe you know what I stand for and want honest debate, I am ready.
#115636

On August 11th, 2007 at 9:20 pm, Baklava said:

ok mr. “NOTHING”…..

Was that your word in comment #99? How about “extreme folly”…. you didn’t say it did you?? It was somebody else right?

So. I referred you to comment #48 where I pointed out the word “NOTHING” was far from the truth. It was an insinuation that was misplaced in this thread for sure. Nobody I know doesn’t “care” and it is an indication as to how you feel about people here.

You can apologize and/or tell people here that isn’t what you meant. I’ll believe you… We all misspeak..

But you DON’T know how we feel. Again you are sunk. (… yet “ready”… )