Like Joe Katzman, I don’t think that’s too strong a word for it any more. Steve Hayward has an extensive roundup of all the problems at the IPCC (though I could have done without the naked Al Gore picture).
Also, remember how we were told, even by warm mongering commenters here, that the CRU data didn’t matter because we had GISS?
Nope.
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.
Of course not. Didn’t fit the template.
Hansen should be drummed out of the global “science” community, if they want to regain any credibility.
[Update a few minutes later]
As I’ve noted before, this isn’t just a science scandal, it’s a media scandal. If they were fooled by these charlatans, it’s because they wanted to be.
[Late morning update]
More from Chris Horner — three of the four data sets are irrevocably tainted. But the faithful will not waver in their religion.
[Early afternoon update]
A video interview with Chris Horner — the climate cover up spreads to NASA.
I could’ve done without the AlGore pic too, but I imagine it could’ve been worse; just think what they could have done with the former railroad engineer.
Hansen is the real disgrace. Let me see… the same organization which tolerated the half-science and politicized buffoonery of Hansen is also the the only organization that we can trust to provide safe manned space flight?
If you actually read the emails linked to by the Pajamas Media article, “Reto Ruedy” says that they combine two datasets for certain testing. Moreover, if you go to the NASA Goddard site, you’ll see that they are using a mix of three data sets – Global Historical Climatology Network, US Historical Climatology Network, and SCAR data from Antarctica.
RealClimate lists 12 raw temperature data sources, 4 processed surface temperature sources, and fifteen (15) other different indicators, from sea ice (6 sources listed) to radiosondes (7 sources).
There’s a hell of a lot of data to try and wave away.
“There’s a hell of a lot of data to try and wave away.”
I’m still working through the politicization and journalistic fraud, not forgetting the intimidation and collusion before I even get to the data sets. Of course, I can understand why you might skip that part.
Shorter Gerbil: “Look, the manipulated data supports the thesis, therefore there could have been no hoax in manipulating the data!”
Climate science has less credibility now than alchemy. Hansen and his ilk have been playing ecophrenology for political and financial reasons, with science completely left out of the equation.
Hansen should be drummed out of the global “science” community, if they want to regain any credibility.
I don’t know if it is all that NASA’s credibility needs, but drumming him out of Goddard would be a start.
FTA: “[For] example, we extrapolate station measurements as much as 1200 km.”
720 miles. Greater than the distance from San Diego to San Francisco. How well do you think we could estimate the temperature in the latter based on the former?
Do you mean the RealClimate eco propaganda site that is organised and supported by Fenton Communications , Chris?
If Hansen, Gavin Schmidt or any of these scammers told me the sun would rise in the east tomorrow I’d check.
None of the historic climate data was actually intended for the use to which it is being put and that includes the microwave sounding satellites.
Many of the sensors have all sorts of accuracy problems(including mercury in glass thermometers).
One estimate I saw of the accuracy of the surface temps was at best +/-0.6 deg C for the sensors themselves, let alone the problems with their exposure. Now what was the alleged warming again?
Never mind, Gavin apparently thinks that the 0.6 deg C is OK because during any one month they take 60 readings(max and min daily) so he divides the error by the square root of 60.
As I’ve noted before, this isn’t just a science scandal, it’s a media scandal. If they were fooled by these charlatans, it’s because they wanted to be.
Well Rand if the climatologists said everything was going on as usual, that it was just the normal solar cycle, then it wouldn’t be news. It has to be a catastrophe. The bigger the better.
RealClimate lists 12 raw temperature data sources, 4 processed surface temperature sources, and fifteen (15) other different indicators, from sea ice (6 sources listed) to radiosondes (7 sources).
Chris, that middle item is the problem. Bottom line is that the processed surface temperature data is the data that matters here because they are the only estimates of global surface temperature over a period of time.
My view is that the processed surface temperature data may well be correct (as well as the AGW interpretation of that warming as being caused by man). But for any plan to restructure human society, there should be a burden of proof. The problems with these data sets should not be treated lightly.
Remember global warming is not the only bad thing that can happen to human society. There are many risks. If we act drastically on poor justification for one risk, then it is likely that we will continue to do so, eventually either starting at shadows, ignoring risk due to too many instances of people crying “Wolf”, or most likely, a combination of both.