|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: mrbawana2umrbawana2u Date: Aug 17, 2007 03:54
August 17, 2007
Why Would Anyone NASA's Trust Climate Data Now?
By Marc Sheppard
Last week's disclosure of a critical temperature data revision by NASA
climate experts under cover-of-darkness poses as many questions as it
answers. With worried alarmists scurrying to either dismiss the
restatement's relevance or ignore it altogether, and NASA itself
descending to CYOA tactics, the paramount issue remains that of
credibility - both the agency's and the big green scare machine's.
Hastily responding to the media-subdued mini-furor his amendment
sparked, NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) chief James
Hansen reflexively complained that "deniers" were "making a mountain
of a molehill" about the "insignificant" revision. The overruled head
eco-doomer mulishly denied that the data update had any impact upon
"the overall trend." Ironically, while he's undoubtedly wrong, he
also happens to be quite right.
|
| Show full article (7.07Kb) |
|
| | 12 Comments |
|
|
Author: Paul HyettPaul Hyett Date: Aug 17, 2007 10:15
In alt.global-warming on Fri, 17 Aug 2007, mrbawana2u
gmail.com> wrote :>August 17, 2007
>Why Would Anyone NASA's Trust Climate Data Now?
Because they've been honest enough to admit to a mistake, unlike AGW
fans?
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
|
| |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: LloydLloyd Date: Aug 17, 2007 10:18
On Aug 17, 6:54 am, mrbawana2u gmail.com> wrote:> August 17, 2007
> Why Would Anyone NASA's Trust Climate Data Now?
> By Marc Sheppard
> Last week's disclosure of a critical temperature data revision by NASA
> climate experts under cover-of-darkness poses as many questions as it
> answers. With worried alarmists scurrying to either dismiss the
> restatement's relevance or ignore it altogether, and NASA itself
> descending to CYOA tactics, the paramount issue remains that of
> credibility - both the agency's and the big green scare machine's.
>
> Hastily responding to the media-subdued mini-furor his amendment
> sparked, NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) chief James
> Hansen reflexively complained that "deniers" were "making a mountain
> of a molehill" about the "insignificant" revision. The overruled head
> eco-doomer mulishly denied that the data update had any impact upon
> "the overall trend." Ironically, while he's undoubtedly wrong, he
> also happens to be quite right.
>
> After all, only his fellow doomsayers ever actually found any trend or ...
|
| Show full article (8.23Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Green Turtle Green Turtle Date: Aug 17, 2007 12:23
> In alt.global-warming on Fri, 17 Aug 2007, mrbawana2u
> gmail.com> wrote :>>August 17, 2007
>>Why Would Anyone NASA's Trust Climate Data Now?
>
> Because they've been honest enough to admit to a mistake, unlike AGW fans?
> --
> Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
Yes, but we want to know how the mistake happened?
Further, I don't think it takes much thought to realize that if you have a
set of data, and take the average of the temperatures, the average will NOT
change if you MOVE the number!
Hum, so, hey, why not just move a data point here and there to someplace
else in the data set. Especially from the early part of the century to the
late part? After all, anyone looking at the data will not notice a "change"
in the average. It will NEVER be seen by anyone anyway....
However, someone came along, and these guys where busted big time....
|
| Show full article (1.87Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: TunderbarTunderbar Date: Aug 17, 2007 12:43
On Aug 17, 12:18 pm, Lloyd emory.edu> wrote:> On Aug 17, 6:54 am, mrbawana2u gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>> Take a look at the revised 1930 through 1950 data, and you'll find not
>> only 4 of the 10 hottest years since 1880 occurring in the 1930s, but
>> a 5YM "trend" similar to that building today to boot. You'll also
>> notice a 2nd zenith is reached in 1940, followed by a gradual drop to
>> below 1930 levels by 1950.
>
> I see it's the Big Lie again. First, that correction only affected US
> data; globally, 1998 is still the warmest. Secondly, the 1990s were
> warmer than the 1930s. Thirdly, the hottest 5-year periods on record
> have all been since 1990.
Cite?
>
>> So any alarmist argument that we've been getting consistently hotter
>> over the past decade would not only ring disingenuous, it would be of
>> no empirical value whatsoever. And that's exactly...
|
| Show full article (6.76Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Citizen BobCitizen Bob Date: Aug 18, 2007 05:25
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 17:15:21 GMT, Paul Hyett
wrote:
>>Why Would Anyone NASA's Trust Climate Data Now?
>Because they've been honest enough to admit to a mistake, unlike AGW
>fans?
They were very reluctant to do that.
The fact remains that some of their workers changed things to support
AGW.
--
"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."
--Benjamin Franklin
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Citizen BobCitizen Bob Date: Aug 18, 2007 05:25
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 19:23:10 GMT, "Green Turtle"
Turtle@ greenpiece.com> wrote:
>>>Why Would Anyone NASA's Trust Climate Data Now?
>> Because they've been honest enough to admit to a mistake, unlike AGW fans?
>Yes, but we want to know how the mistake happened?
Some people in NASA deliberately altered the findings.
--
"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."
--Benjamin Franklin
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Paul HyettPaul Hyett Date: Aug 18, 2007 10:35
In alt.global-warming on Sat, 18 Aug 2007, Citizen Bob uce.gov>
wrote :>On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 17:15:21 GMT, Paul Hyett
>wrote:
>>>>Why Would Anyone NASA's Trust Climate Data Now?
>
>>Because they've been honest enough to admit to a mistake, unlike AGW
>>fans?
>
>They were very reluctant to do that.
>
>The fact remains that some of their workers changed things to support
>AGW.
>
What - LQ's even infiltrating your favourite anti-AGW organisation? :)
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: TomTom Date: Aug 18, 2007 11:01
One reason it that when someone points out an error in their
assumptions, they don't keep asking them to prove it again and again
like all you and all the other denier morons who post here.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Bill HabrBill Habr Date: Aug 18, 2007 11:11
> One reason it that when someone points out an error in their
> assumptions, they don't keep asking them to prove it again and again
> like all you and all the other denier morons who post here.
>
Neither do they take the trouble to explain the change to the public until AFTER it has
been blown out of proportion.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
