IPCC to retract Himalayan glacier report

[shira]

Here you go Shira. Your prior post is a little outdated. Now you get "raw data... but "corrected".......how can it be raw data if it's been adjusted?

http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/01/13/ghcn-does-unadjusted-mean-cooked/

"The data he used is not the GHCN Unadjusted data directly, but the data set used is the result of the processing of GIStemp. (The link in the paper at Icecap connects to the GISS web site, not to NOAA / NCDC. The option to download the STEP0 data is labled “Raw GHCN + USHCN corrections” at GISS). If that was, in fact, the data set used; then the graph will reflect the merger process in GIStemp STEP0.

That process looks for the existence of both sets of data (GHCN “unadjusted” and USHCN – version one prior to November 15th 2009, and version 2 with added “adjustments” thereafter). If only one exists, that one is used. If both exist, then they are averaged, in an odd sort of way. To the extent the heading on this graph ought to have been “GHCN Unadjusted AND USHCN” there will be some USHCN derived adjustments making up part of that “unadjusted” line. To the extent that the “as combined” data were used, the chart does not change much (it is mostly an ‘in fill’ process). And to the extent that the “homogenized” data were used, then this chart shows what the “homogenization” process does to the data. (And potentially, for all cases, what “adjustements” are in the USHCN version 2 set.)"

You don't get it, do you?

You geniuses are going to use the RAW data (it's right there in the "Climate data (raw)" section of http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/#Climate_data_raw). And then you're going to perform your own lengthy analysis using whatever methods you choose (fully documented, of course) and you're going to DISPROVE ACC.

The fact that CRU either massaged the raw data or started with processed data or whatever is irrelevant. YOU guys are going to start from scratch and prove to us that it's all a fraud.

Isn't that why you wanted the raw data in the first place?

Now go on. You have all the raw data you could possibly want. Exactly what you asked for. So do your comprehensive analysis.

 

[palehorse]

Anybody want to open up a carbon offsets company with me? The new issues of Entrepreneur Magazine and Capital Investor say they're all the rage!

Lez do this!

"Money for nothing, get your chicks for free!"

 

[monovillage]

Of course there's always a problem with the way that NASA and NCDC use that data.

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/01/climategate-arrives-in-the-us/

 

[Craig234]

Anybody want to open up a carbon offsets company with me? The new issues of Entrepreneur Magazine and Capital Investor say they're all the rage!

Lez do this!

"Money for nothing, get your chicks for free!"

I'm up for investing. I was looking for a good investment, but the Republican investments were unethical. Things like the previous Bush favorite the Carlyle Group, the arms consortium - kills people.

Or Tom DeLay's favorite, the exploited, impoverished island area factory workers. How would you sleep?

This is just a harmless hoax.

 

[Genx87]

I'm up for investing. I was looking for a good investment, but the Republican investments were unethical. Things like the Bush favorite the Carlyle Group, the world's largest arms consortium - kills people.

Or Tom DeLay's favorite, the exploited, impoverished island area factory workers. How would you sleep?

This is just a harmless hoax.

Dont let reality slap you in the face again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlyle_Group

In October 1997 Carlyle acquired United Defense Industries , bringing in over 60% of Carlyle's defense business. United Defense went public on the New York Stock Exchange in December 2001 with Carlyle retaining a stock ownership position. Carlyle completed the sale of all of its United Defense stock and exited the investment in April 2004.[10] (One major United Defense program was the XM2001 Crusader self-propelled howitzer which was canceled by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in early 2002 causing United Defense stock prices to fall 27 percent.[11]) Since then, The Carlyle Group has divested the majority of its interest from the defense industry.

As a bonus Soro's was also a major investor in that group

 

[Craig234]

Dont let reality slap you in the face again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlyle_Group



As a bonus Soro's was also a major investor in that group

It was a snarky comment, referencig their history - last I heard the Bushes and their close friend James Baker have left Carlyle. But for a while, it had people like that and other leaders like Tony Blair while in defense.

But if they weren't the #1 defense consortium for a period, my snarky comment had an error. It was based on a statement in a book. I will try to either find the reference or withdraw the claim as unsubstiantiated.

Update: haen't found 'laegest defense consortium' yet in several books checked. The closest is "arguably the world's largest private equity fund", another ranking it #3.

I'll update the post above to remove the word largest until if and when I find the reference.

I did notice the different ranking for 'consortium' than 'contractor', the latter of which was 9th to 11th. Of course the point of the snarky comment is unchanged regardless.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

What's this....yet another AGW lie exposed? Isn't "science" wonderful? The IPCC is a joke.

 

[nick1985]

global warming. lol

 

[monovillage]

You don't get it, do you?

You geniuses are going to use the RAW data (it's right there in the "Climate data (raw)" section of http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/#Climate_data_raw). And then you're going to perform your own lengthy analysis using whatever methods you choose (fully documented, of course) and you're going to DISPROVE ACC.

The fact that CRU either massaged the raw data or started with processed data or whatever is irrelevant. YOU guys are going to start from scratch and prove to us that it's all a fraud.

Isn't that why you wanted the raw data in the first place?

Now go on. You have all the raw data you could possibly want. Exactly what you asked for. So do your comprehensive analysis.

It's not up to the skeptics to "disprove ACC" it's up to the warmers to PROVE ACC with scientific evidence that can stand up to scrutiny.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

It's not up to the skeptics to "disprove ACC" it's up to the warmers to PROVE ACC with scientific evidence that can stand up to scrutiny.

I think your wasting your breath...it doesn't look like shira cares if CRU intentionally fudged the tree core data to make their case stronger...or that the IPCC includes in their "scientific concensus report" some bogus speculation from a telephone call with a nobody scientist predicting greatly exaggerated Himalayan glacier melt.

I guess some value agenda>truth when it comes to science.

 

[monovillage]

More information about IPCC.

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/3308/...-UN--Appeals-to-Authority-The-IPCC-has-spoken

 

[werepossum]

More information about IPCC.

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/3308/...-UN--Appeals-to-Authority-The-IPCC-has-spoken

It's funny that we always hear "The science is settled!" and then it turns out that the science equals "I heard it from this guy."

 

[shira]

It's not up to the skeptics to "disprove ACC" it's up to the warmers to PROVE ACC with scientific evidence that can stand up to scrutiny.

The scientific evidence is the raw data you've been screaming for. Now, do your calculations and disprove ACC. Come on, I dare ya'.

 

[shira]

It's funny that we always hear "The science is settled!" and then it turns out that the science equals "I heard it from this guy."

No, that's the argument you deniers use.

But it's pointless to debate true-deniers. Your so-called argument amounts to this:

That's the IPCC. They can't be trusted.

That's the NIS. They can't be trusted.

That's NOAA. They can't be trusted.

That's the CRU. They can't be trusted.

Any science anyone presents to you can't be trusted.

So how can one convince a true-denier that doesn't trust scientists? Answer: You don't. You just let them stew in their own juices. Ignorance is bliss, so be blissful in your ignorance.

 

[BeauJangles]

It's not up to the skeptics to "disprove ACC" it's up to the warmers to PROVE ACC with scientific evidence that can stand up to scrutiny.

Wait, what?

Climatologists have made their findings and laid out their proof time and again. In about four sentences you've discredited their findings completely, citing a lack of the actual data. Shira provides you with a link to the actual data, ostensibly so that you can do your own research and actually prove climatologists wrong, and now you bitch and moan that the burden of proof is on the guys who have already provided the research, the data, the models, and the analysis?

Do you see what's wrong here?

 

[werepossum]

[/B]

No, that's the argument you deniers use.

But it's pointless to debate true-deniers. Your so-called argument amounts to this:

That's the IPCC. They can't be trusted.

That's the NIS. They can't be trusted.

That's NOAA. They can't be trusted.

That's the CRU. They can't be trusted.

Any science anyone presents to you can't be trusted.

So how can one convince a true-denier that doesn't trust scientists? Answer: You don't. You just let them stew in their own juices. Ignorance is bliss, so be blissful in your ignorance.

This is the original quote from the story.

In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC's 2007 report.

It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi

Hasnain has since admitted that the claim was "speculation" and was not supported by any formal research. If confirmed it would be one of the most serious failures yet seen in climate research. The IPCC was set up precisely to ensure that world leaders had the best possible scientific advice on climate change.

The science is, literally, "I heard it from some guy". And it turns out that guy was just speculating. It does not matter if I trust them or not, they are admitting fraud. And yet you somehow respond with a schoolyard "I know you are but what am I?" response. Why not just man up, stick your fingers in your ears, and yell "LA LA LA LA"?

I know this stuff is religion for you guys, but when you wake up and the pope is porking the maid in your bed, then it's time to look at your religion with a critical eye. Joseph Smith with his head in his hat is integrity personified compared to these guys. Hell, Scientology has more credibility - and it even has "Science" right there in the name. Maybe it's time you switch churches.

 

[AMDScooter]

Wait, what?

Climatologists have made their findings and laid out their proof time and again. In about four sentences you've discredited their findings completely, citing a lack of the actual data. Shira provides you with a link to the actual data, ostensibly so that you can do your own research and actually prove climatologists wrong, and now you bitch and moan that the burden of proof is on the guys who have already provided the research, the data, the models, and the analysis?

Do you see what's wrong here?

The problem is that they have done nothing of the sort. And getting "actual/raw" data from realclimate? Are you serious? Better lawer up and git ya a handful of FOIA paperwork and wait a few years because they are not willing to provide their data or methods willingly.

Judicial Watch Uncovers NASA Documents Related to Global Warming Controversy

NASA Scientists Go on Attack After Climate Data Error Exposed
Contact Information:
Press Office 202-646-5172, ext 305

Washington, DC -- January 14, 2010

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has obtained internal documents from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) related to a controversy that erupted in 2007 when Canadian blogger Stephen McIntyre exposed an error in NASA's handling of raw temperature data from 2000-2006 that exaggerated the reported rise in temperature readings in the United States. According to multiple press reports, when NASA corrected the error, the new data apparently caused a reshuffling of NASA's rankings for the hottest years on record in the United States, with 1934 replacing 1998 at the top of the list.

These new documents, obtained by Judicial Watch through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), include internal GISS email correspondence as NASA scientists attempted to deal with the media firestorm resulting from the controversy. In one exchange GISS head James Hansen tells a reporter from Bloomberg that NASA had not previously published rankings with 1998 atop the list as the hottest year on record in the 20th century.

Email from Demian McLean, Bloomberg to Jim Hansen, August 14, 2007: "The U.S. figures showed 1998 as the warmest year. Nevertheless, NASA has indeed newly ranked 1934 as the warmest year..."

Email Response from James Hansen to Demian McLean, August 14, 2007: "...We have not changed ranking of warmest year in the U.S. As you will see in our 2001 paper we found 1934 slightly warmer, by an insignificant hair over 1998. We still find that result. The flaw affected temperatures only after 2000, not 1998 and 1934."

Email from NASA Scientist Makiko Sato to James Hansen, August 14, 2007: "I am sure I had 1998 warmer at least once on my own temperature web page..." (Email includes temperature chart dated January 1, 2007.)

(This issue also crops up in email communications with New York Times reporter Andrew Revkin a little over a week later.)

According to the NASA email, NASA's incorrect temperature readings resulted from a "flaw" in a computer program used to update annual temperature data.

Hansen, clearly frustrated by the attention paid to the NASA error, labeled McIntyre a "pest" and suggests those who disagree with his global warming theories "should be ready to crawl under a rock by now." Hansen also suggests that those calling attention to the climate data error did not have a "light on upstairs."

"This email traffic ought to be embarrassing for NASA. Given the recent Climategate scandal, NASA has an obligation to be completely transparent with its handling of temperature data. Instead of insulting those who point out their mistakes, NASA scientists should engage the public in an open, professional and honest manner," stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

Yet somehow their work passes supposed "peer reviews". That PR run cite is home of the worst scientific charlatans involved with creating MMGW from whole cloth. Using "tricks" to "Hide the decline" ringing any bells? Ya.. this how those realclimate tools deal with data that does not match their agenda.

Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?

Manipulation of evidence:

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

Michael "hockey stick" Mann, currently under an "internal" investigation for his role in climategate. Want a good rundown on how that lie keeps making the rounds in IPCC reports? I'd recommend a quick read here"

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html

&

‘Climategate’ professor Michael Mann protected ‘to maximum extent’ by Penn State policy

Don't even get me started on Dave "my methods and work are intellectual property" Hansen.The list of contributors at realclimate are a who's~who of discredited, agenda driven, anti science, profiteers.

Sorry, but IMHO anyone who links realclimate as a good source for "raw data" should go get their heads examined.

How many of the computer models (the only place MMGW exists) accurately predicted the absence of warming for the last decade? I'll help ya out.. not one. Yet the dire predictions continue to roll in.. based on models that supposedly know what will happen decades from now.. but cannot accurately predict what has actually happened. Divergence? What that?

Sorry if some of us "deniers" have issues when the actual observed data does not match the output of computer models fed "homogenized" data to suit an agenda driven few.

Anyone who is interested in how bad the junk "science" is behind the MMGW alarmists need only visit the sites that broke Mann's hockey stick every time it presented itself and go on from there:

http://climateaudit.org/

&

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

I could go on and on.. but MMGW or Anthropogenic Global Warming or climate change.. or whatever the name is this week is a dead issue. Not to worry.. I'm sure Mann will continue to get his stimulus stabilization bucks..

Economic Stimulus Funds Went to Climategate Scientist

Funds Should be Returned to U.S. Treasury, Says National Center for Public Policy Research

Washington, DC - In the face of rising unemployment and record-breaking deficits, policy experts at the National Center for Public Policy Research are criticizing the Obama Administration for awarding a half million dollar grant from the economic stimulus package to Penn State Professor Michael Mann, a key figure in the Climategate controversy.

"It's outrageous that economic stimulus money is being used to support research conducted by Michael Mann at the very time he’s under investigation by Penn State and is one of the key figures in the international Climategate scandal. Penn State should immediately return these funds to the U.S. Treasury," said Tom Borelli, Ph.D., director of the National Center's Free Enterprise Project.

Professor Mann is currently under investigation by Penn State University because of activities related to a closed circle of climate scientists who appear to have been engaged in agenda-driven science. Emails and documents mysteriously released from the previously-prestigious Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom revealed discussions of manipulation and destruction of research data, as well as efforts to interfere with the peer review process to stifle opposing views. The motivation underlying these efforts appears to be a coordinated strategy to support the belief that mankind's activities are causing global warming.

"It's no wonder that Obama's stimulus plan is failing to produce jobs. Taxpayer dollars aren't being used in the ways most likely to spur job creation. The stimulus was not sold to the public as a way to reward a loyalist in the climate change debate. Nor was the stimulus sold as a way to promote the Obama Administration's position on the global warming theory. This misuse of stimulus money illustrates why tax cuts are a better way to stimulate the economy than letting the government decide where to spend taxpayer dollars. As is often the case, political considerations corrupt the distribution of government funds," said Deneen Borelli, a fellow with the National Center's Project 21 black leadership network.

"Mann's credentials as a climate change alarmist seems to fit the political criteria for stimulus funds sometimes known as 'Obama money'," added Deneen Borelli.

Mann is a central and controversial figure in climate change research. Mann's so-called "hockey stick" graph depicting temperature changes over a 1000 year period was used as evidence in the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2001 report to demonstrate that carbon dioxide from industrial activity is causing global warming. Mimicking the shape of a hockey stick, the graph showed a long time period of stable temperatures (the shaft) followed by a rapid rise in temperatures (the blade) during the last hundred years.

Critics of the hockey stick claim Mann manipulated data to eliminate periods of time such as the medieval warming period and the little ice age to eradicate the visual impact of natural global temperature variation. The emails from Climategate reveal that the inner circle of climate scientists were troubled by the methods Mann used to produce the graph.

"It's shocking that taxpayer money is being used to support a researcher who seemingly showed little regard to the basic tenes of science - a dispassionate search for the truth," said Tom Borelli.

The $541,184 grant is for three years and was initiated in June 2009.

The National Center for Public Policy Research is a conservative, free-market think-tank established in 1982. It receives less than 1% of its revenue from corporations.

 

[monovillage]

The scientific evidence is the raw data you've been screaming for. Now, do your calculations and disprove ACC. Come on, I dare ya'.

You're not being accurate, they did not release the raw data, they released some raw data and some "Revised raw data" which is data that has been adjusted.

"So now instead of only 1176 thermometers surviving into 2009 in GIStemp, all from GHCN, we will have them plus a couple of thousand in the USA, but with those USA thermometers having been “adjusted” to show sufficient warming."

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/political-climate

 

[AMDScooter]

^^^

To give a better idea how the data has been "homogenized" by the MMGW cult leaders have a look at this chart. They tossed out thousands of ground based readings in cooler climates. Data from entire continents has been tossed out and replaced with "homogenized" data from stations thousands of miles away. And the replaced stations always.. without fail... show warming.

The continuing egregious and blatant disregard for science by the well (taxpayer) paid, agenda driven few is sickening. And realclimate is a rats nest of the very worst offenders whom have set climate science back hundreds of years and damaged the creditability of scientists the world over. Once this MMGW farce is exposed completely... who will believe supposed "scientists" or the "peer review" process any more? They should all be held accountable in court IMHO for purposely perpetrating mass fraud on a global scale. These guys are pond scum from ALGORE to Mann. What they have done makes the Bernie Madoff fraud look like child's play.

NOAA/NCDC: GHCN – The Global Analysis

^^^ I'd recommend anyone interested read the whole article. Then give this a watch. Part 4 is especially worth a look.

EXCLUSIVE INFORMATION FROM KUSI ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING AND THE KUSI SPECIAL REPORT, GLOBAL WARMING: THE OTHER SIDE

Here is what the head of the much vaunted IPCC (a railroad engineer with no background in climate BTW) has been up to:

UN IPCC chief Pachauri under fire in India for conflicts of interest

From the “follow the money” department, this story has been building momentum ever since the story was made public by Christopher Booker and Dr. Richard North of the EU Referendum who three weeks ago co-wrote a major piece in the Sunday Telegraph. WUWT initially covered the story here on December 21st: Pachauri’s Carbon Choo-Choo off the rails.

The following week the Telegraph had a follow up story, and more questions than answers were raised.

Now it appears the story “has legs”, and is being covered in India by India Today, front and center on their Sunday edition.

The subheadline reads: “Climate change hero was on boards of oil and power PSU’s with large carbon footprints, got crores worth of business for TERI from them“

Pachauri of course denies any conflict of interest. Details on TERI (The Energy Research Institute) here

The India Today newspaper writes:

Pachauri’s answer to this charge is:

“I haven’t pocketed a penny from my association with companies and institutes,” he said.

“All honoraria I get go to TERI and to its ‘Light A Billion Lives’ campaign for reaching solar power to people without electricity. My dealings are above board.” The climate change hero is quick with his answers, but doubts over his links linger.

Now that this story has legs, we’ll see more investigative journalism coming and those “doubts over his links” will get filled in, one way or another. There are questions now arising as to the legality of some of the dealing TERI has had in Britain and the way it reports its dealings to the Charity Commission.

There’s another interesting twist to this that involves Climategate and the CRU.

Pachauri is one of the two directors of TERI. He is also a trustee, along with Sir John Houghton and Sir Crispin Tickell, (see here) formerly England’s man at the UN and the person who converted Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher to a belief in global warming, which led her to allocate the money Houghton needed to set up the HadleyCentre for Climate Change.

As WUWT readers know, Hadley (along with the CRU) has played a key part in the story of climate research (and Climategate) ever since.

We have Al Gore who is viewed by many as being the most influential communicator on the climate change issue who is up to his neck in carbon trading and also has many board associations that help his cause. Now we have the leader of the UN’s IPCC with questionable business associations. Where’s NYT’s Andy Revkin? Where’s 60 Minutes? Where’s Dateline NBC?

Above: Gore and Pachauri get the Nobel Prize.

And here’s the kicker from the Telegraph’s follow up story:

Initially, when Dr Pachauri took over the running of TERI in the 1980s, his interests centred on the oil and coal industries, which may now seem odd for a man who has since become best known for his opposition to fossil fuels. He was, for instance, a director until 2003 of India Oil, the country’s largest commercial enterprise, and until this year remained as a director of the National Thermal Power Generating Corporation, its largest electricity producer.

In 2005, he set up GloriOil, a Texas firm specialising in technology which allows the last remaining reserves to be extracted from oilfields otherwise at the end of their useful life.

However, since Pachauri became a vice-chairman of the IPCC in 1997, TERI has vastly expanded its interest in every kind of renewable or sustainable technology, in many of which the various divisions of the Tata Group have also become heavily involved, such as its project to invest $1.5 billion (£930 million) in vast wind farms.

Next time somebody says “skeptic “x” is connected with big oil”, show them this.

Tiger Woods downfall was external affairs outside of his vow of matrimony. By the same token, Dr. Pachauri is “married” to the IPCC and is apparently conducting “business affairs” that appear to be a conflict of interest outside of his vow of public service. If this isn’t grounds for a divorce from the IPCC, I don’t know what would be.

Follow the money, not the temperature.

 

[PJABBER]

^^^

However, since Pachauri became a vice-chairman of the IPCC in 1997, TERI has vastly expanded its interest in every kind of renewable or sustainable technology, in many of which the various divisions of the Tata Group have also become heavily involved, such as its project to invest $1.5 billion (£930 million) in vast wind farms.

Tata is big.

 

[AMDScooter]

^^^ More...

Temperature data skewed: researchers

Call it the mystery of the missing thermometers.

Two months after "climategate" cast doubt on some of the science behind global warming, new questions are being raised about the reliability of a key temperature database used by the United Nations and climate change scientists as proof of recent planetary warming.

Two American researchers allege that U.S. government scientists have skewed global temperature trends by ignoring readings from thousands of local weather stations around the world, particularly those in colder altitudes and more northerly latitudes, such as Canada.

In the 1970s, nearly 600 Canadian weather stations fed surface temperature readings into a global database assembled by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Today, NOAA only collects data from 35 stations across Canada.

The Canadian government, meanwhile, operates 1,400 surface weather stations across the country, and more than 100 above the Arctic Circle, according to Environment Canada.

Yet as American researchers Joseph D'Aleo, a meteorologist, and E. Michael Smith, a computer programmer, point out in a study published on the website of the Science and Public Policy Institute, NOAA uses "just one thermometer [for measuring] everything north of latitude 65 degrees."

Both the authors, and the institute, are well-known in climate-change circles for their skepticism about the threat of global warming.

Mr. D'Aleo and Mr. Smith say NOAA and another U.S. agency, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), have not only reduced the number of Canadian weather stations in the database, but have "cherry picked" the ones that remain by choosing sites in relatively warmer places, including more southerly locations, or sites closer to airports, cities or the sea-- which has a warming effect on winter weather.

Over the past two decades, they say, "the percentage of [Canadian] stations in the lower elevations tripled and those at higher elevations, above 300 feet, were reduced in half."

The result, they say, is a warmer-than-truthful global temperature record.

"NOAA... systematically eliminated 75% of the world's stations with a clear bias towards removing higher latitude, high altitude and rural locations, all of which had a tendency to be cooler," the authors say. "The thermometers in a sense, marched towards the tropics, the sea, and to airport tarmacs."

The NOAA database forms the basis of the influential climate modelling work, and the dire, periodic warnings on climate change, issued by James Hanson, the director of the GISS.

Neither agency responded to a request for comment yesterday from Canwest News Service. However, Mr. Hanson did issue a public statement on the matter earlier this week.

"NASA has not been involved in any manipulation of climate data used in the annual GISS global temperature analysis," he said. "The agency is confident of the quality of this data and stands by previous scientifically-based conclusions regarding global temperatures."

Read more: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=2465893#ixzz0dGskYX6E
The National Post is now on Facebook. Join our fan community today.

 

[AMDScooter]

Tata is big.

It's like watching MSNBC continually stoking the MMGW ph33r mongering. Their parent company GE (which is also huge) stands to get untold BILLIONS of our tax $$$ from the Bamma administration for "green energy tech" that will "save" us from MMGW.

Have a look at who is always about whenever Bamma is pimping renewables as our only chance for energy independence/survival... Hint, look for General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt.

Blatant as it gets.

 

[OutHouse]

its just sad seeing the global warming Muppet's get totally pwoned. GW is a religion to them, so when they are shown proof that their preacher is a crook of course they would go into denial. they have been drinking to kool-aid for over a decade so ill cut them a little slack for being brainwashed.

 

[AMDScooter]

its just sad seeing the global warming Muppet's get totally pwoned. GW is a religion to them, so when they are shown proof that their preacher is a crook of course they would go into denial. they have been drinking to kool-aid for over a decade so ill cut them a little slack for being brainwashed.

I'm not cutting them any slack at all. I saw this farce from GO and it's cost us untold BILLIONS not to mention the national security issues such as energy independence it's impacted. Look at the EPA and how they are now able to regulate C02 as a pollutant!!

The damage these anti-science MMGW zealots have done is simply immeasurable. Effects will be felt for decades to come. And along the way they have denigrated those not in lockstep with what their cult faithful & leadership have proclaimed as "flat earthers" & "deniers". A holocaust reference so reprehensible it sickens my stomach.

In short.. F-them. They deserve every bite of the turd sandwich they have made for themselves.

 

[PJABBER]

It's like watching MSNBC continually stoking the MMGW ph33r mongering. Their parent company GE (which is also huge) stands to get untold BILLIONS of our tax $$$ from the Bamma administration for "green energy tech" that will "save" us from MMGW.

Have a look at who is always about whenever Bamma is pimping renewables as our only chance for energy independence/survival... Hint, look for General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt.

Blatant as it gets.

Yeah, GE made a strategic decision and they are sticking to it, though the shareholders are very upset.

It will take a while for the companies to back away so long as governments continue throw good money after bad. Very few of these projects seem viable as standalones.