NASA science – climate change numbers don’t add up
The United Nations relies on four data sources for it’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. One of them is NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), headed up by Dr. James Hansen who some consider to be the scientific leader of global warming hysteria, and a good buddy of Al Gore.
Other scientists – who have a full time job peer-reviewing GISS data – pointed out that GISS carried over Russian data that was two months old. Gee, ya think it would be warmer in August as compared to October?
Hat tip to Hinderaker at Power Line, directing us to an article at the UK Telegraph.
A surreal scientific blunder last week raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming. On Monday, Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is run by Al Gore’s chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, and is one of four bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures, announced that last month was the hottest October on record. …
So what explained the anomaly? GISS’s computerised temperature maps seemed to show readings across a large part of Russia had been up to 10 degrees higher than normal. But when expert readers of the two leading warming-sceptic blogs, Watts Up With That and Climate Audit, began detailed analysis of the GISS data they made an astonishing discovery. The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running.
Nice. Do you see what’s wrong here? These scientists – including Hansen – are so invested in global warming and climate change they are blinded by conviction. Since the data proved their case quite dramatically, they popped the cork on some wine and went to press.
Of course, it took real scientists to step up, complete a peer-review that a freshman in high school could handle, and slap their data into the fire.3.
Update: Hot Air has more.
NASA must investigate this episode at GISS and insist on reliable production of accurate statistics. If they have scientists who can’t tell September from October and can’t recognize a cooling cycle in the Arctic, then they need new leadership at GISS, starting with Hansen. The admission from GISS that they can’t verify their source data when reaching to conclusions should embarrass scientists throughout the profession, as verification of data is absolutely necessary before reaching any conclusions. Without that, GISS may as well be studying the entrails of goats to make predictions about the future climate.
3 Comments
The website's content and articles were migrated to a new framework in October 2023. You may see [shortcodes in brackets] that do not make any sense. Please ignore that stuff. We may fix it at some point, but we do not have the time now.
You'll also note comments migrated over may have misplaced question marks and missing spaces. All comments were migrated, but trackbacks may not show.
The site is not broken.
Anxiously waiting to hear what the revised October temps were: higher, lower, the same?
Nice to be able to report on half the story and let it go at that.
And another position the Conservatives have taken: ranting against climate change is like peeing against the wind.
Reporting? I'm not a reporter – this is a blog.
GISS data in the past has also had to be corrected, and there is a political agenda tied to their results.
Yes, the same can be said about other data sources, but if you're a climate change "denier" who's a scientist presenting data – you're an outcast and you can forget about any funding sources.
For every scientist you've got, I've got an equally qualified one that will refute claims and present a different view. There is no consensus – there really can not be a vote on this kind of stuff.
For me, what it comes down a few basic questions.
How did climate change occur in the past? It did, and cars, trucks, buses, airplanes and humans were not the cause at the time of previous change.
Second, who decides what the "right" temperature is for the world?
Last, I think it is the ultimate in vanity to think that we can control the world's weather.
Another dodge.
GISS has a political agenda and you do not?
What caused the past climate changes in the past: I don't know. Where there cars etc then? No (I don't know too, aliens showed up? Maybe)
What is the "right" temp for the world? Not as hot as the sun, not as cold as the moon.
Is the ultimate vanity to think we can control the weather? Probably not, but do you you think insurance is OK, by reducing CO2 emissions? After all, you said you worked for an insurance company.
My bottom line: as a scientist I am a skeptic and would take evidence over dogma for anything that affects me.