It's Getting Hotter, If You Use The Right Pencil

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Originally posted by: shira
- snip -
Shira...I'm disappointed that you found your search for information so difficult. And you say you care...forgive me...but I'm beginning to doubt.

NASA's data is considered the least reliable of all the major data sources...it always shows more warming than all of the others. Another example of Hansen cooking the data in addition to the October, 2008 data blunder, Hansen modified temperature data (while hiding his modifications) to show the 1990's were the warmest on record. When his calculations were reverse engineered by Watts and McIntyre, it was found his calculations were 'fraudulent'. His modified temperature data was subsequently withdrawn. And now Hansen is trying to re-write the temperature data from the time period of 1910 to 2008.

Dr. James Hansen: Unethically Manipulating The Data

"It seems that Dr. James Hansen can?t keep his name out of the headlines, especially when he is caught engaging in the junk science that AGW alarmists cling to despite evidence to the contrary.

Now, Dr. Hansen is trying to re-write geophysical history by re-writing the temperature data from the time period of 1910 to 2008.

Dr. Gregory Young, neuroscientist and physicist, a doctoral graduate of the University of Oxford, Oxford, England, wrote an entry into the American Thinker explaining the scientific fraud that Dr. Hansen tried to get away with.

From his article:

In yet another egregious display of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) arrogance, he changed the temperature data from 1910-2008 to reflect what is clearly a cooling trend to reflect a warming trend. Note the following graph:

<See Article Hyperlink For Graph>

The blue lines are the raw data and the red lines are Dr. Hansen?s compensation. Apparently, Dr. Hansen is not okay with letting the data just be the data. He has to insert his own bias into it.

More:

Indeed this past year (2008) is set to be the coolest since 2000, according to a preliminary estimate of global average temperature that is due to be released this month by the Met Office?s Hadley Centre in Great Britain. The global average for 2008 should come in close to 14.3C, which is 0.14C below the average temperature for 2001-07.

This flies completely in the face of global warming theory which clearly states that as so-called greenhouse gases increase, the temperature must increase as well. But, greenhouse gas emissions have increased and the temperatures have decreased. Global warming theory has failed a major test here.

Dr. Young also re-print an excerpt from Dr. David Deming, associate professor of arts and sciences at the

University of Oklahoma who has published numerous peer-reviewed research articles:

?Environmental extremists and global warming alarmists are in denial and running for cover?. To the extent global warming was ever valid, it is now officially over. It is time to file this theory in the dustbin of history, next to Aristotelean physics, Neptunism, the geocentric universe, phlogiston, and a plethora of other incorrect scientific theories, all of which had vocal and dogmatic supporters who cited incontrovertible evidence. Weather
and climate change are natural processes beyond human control. To argue otherwise is to deny the factual evidence.?

It is high time we start paying attention to real scientists like Dr. Gregory Young and Dr. David Deming and send pseudo-researchers like Dr. James Hansen packing."

**********

Dissing Hansen

"In November 2008, NASA?s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), run by Dr James Hansen, and one of the four bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures, announced that October 2008 was the ?hottest on record?.

Which must have come as something of a shock to the countless millions who trudged through the heavy snow and ice in what they had been told was an unseasonally cold October. But then Hansen should know. He is, after all, climate alarmism?s ?Mr Big?. But then this is far from the first time Hansen has been caught ?fiddling? the climate figures.

In October, two independent monitors at Watts Up With That and Climate Audit, performed their own detailed analysis of Hansen?s reported data. What they found should disturb us all. They discovered that the GISS readings from across a swathe of Russia that appeared to reveal a warming of 10 degrees above average were not readings for October at all. They were a repeat of September?s readings.

A highly embarrassed GISS was forced to own up. GISS retracted the figures - and then immediately set about obfuscating its original error claiming they had discovered a new ?hotspot? in the Arctic. This caused even more confusion. Intriguing as the new vacation prospect opened up by the GISS report might be, satellite indicators throughout the Fall consistently revealed the Arctic sea ice had undergone a remarkably fast, post-summer recovery with 30 percent more ice than for the same period in 2007.

A GISS spokesman sought to explain the false Russian temperature figures by shuffling off blame to ?other bodies? on whom GISS rely and over whom they have no means of ?quality control?. The problem is it?s NASA?s GISS published figures that are mostly quoted precisely because they are regularly higher than those reported by other monitoring bodies. Not to mention they go a long way to underpinning the UN?s IPCC ?end is nigh? climate scenario, too.

Neither is it the first time Hansen?s NASA figures have been challenged as at odds with other monitoring evidence.

In June 2008, NASA temperature data was challenged again over its higher recordings of temperatures compared to the other official bodies. Back in 1998, satellite data from associate bodies at Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH) were broadly in agreement with those at NASA. Tens years later, NASA?s reported figures are regularly higher than those published by RSS and UAH. One reason put forward for the NASA anomaly is that its figures are derived from a grid of ground-based thermometers (the less efficient method) and not by (the far more efficient) taking of satellite readings. But does it matter. Just what is at stake? Well, governments panicked into uneconomic measures; policies which mostly hurt the poor by avoiding the utilization of cheap and plentiful Western energy resources. Resources like plentiful and cheap coal - Hansen?s literal bete noir, which he believes is ?the enemy of the human race?.

In pursuit of his campaign to have the West abandoning its precious coal reserves, Hansen recently took it upon himself in a bid to influence the UK Government to refuse a licence for a coal-fired power station at Kingsnorth in Kent. Kingsnorth is prospectively the first of six coal-fired stations under consideration. Hansen knows only too well that if the UK greenlights the Kingsnorth plant it could kick start a similar program across Europe - and in turn create pressure to follow suit in the US (which has over 25 percent of the world?s highest quality coal reserves). If that were to happen, the resultant boost to global CO2 emissions would effectively send the chief climate alarmist message, quite literally, up in smoke. So Hansen took up his pen and wrote to lobby over the decisions with letters to the British PM and to the Queen herself.

Next Hansen - ignoring the hypocrisy as do most leading alarmists - jetted to the UK to give evidence in defence of a group of Greenpeace activists in a British criminal case. The activists had invaded the existing Kingsnorth facility causing thousands of dollars worth of criminal damage. Ignoring the evidence of red-handed guilt, perversely, the jury acquitted whereupon Hansen expressed his public backing for the right to break the law in the cause of climate activism. Hansen didn?t say whether this was official NASA policy.

Al Gore regards Hansen as an ?objective scientist?, but in 2004 Hansen received a grant of $250,000 from the Heinz Foundation shortly before publicly endorsing Teresa Heinz?s husband, John Kerry, for the presidency. While those who argue the skeptics case are consistently accused of being in the pay of Big Oil, Hansen got a free pass from the liberal media on the Heinz grant. As Senator James Inhofe, of the US Committee on Environment and Public Works put it, ?It appears the media makes a distinction between oil money and ketchup money.?

NASA does fine work and there are fine people working for NASA. Some have even gone on record disparaging both Hansen and his publicity-seeking methods. In an article Science, Ignorance is not Bliss (Launch magazine,

July/August 2008) former astronaut Walter Cunningham delivered a blistering denunciation of Hansen for fostering the ?current hysteria? of climate alarmists by misusing NASA data. Cunningham states, ?NASA should be at the forefront in the collection of scientific evidence and debunking the current hysteria over human-caused, or anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).? Nor is Cunningham happy at what Hansen is doing for NASA?s reputation as a serious player in scientific research. He says of NASA, ?Unfortunately, it is becoming just another agency caught up in the politics of global warming, or worse, politicized science. Advocacy is replacing objective evaluation data, while scientific data is being ignored in favor of emotions and politics.?

And, for good measure, Cunningham reminds us of yet another Hansen blunder. ?After warning 2007 would be the hottest year on record,? says Cunningham, ?what we experienced was the coolest since 2001.? Lamenting that the GW debate had deteriorated into a ?religious war? between ?true believers and non-believers? Cunningham astutely observes about those who follow Hansen?s logic, ?it is impossible to reason a person out of positions they have not been reasoned into.? Cunningham states Hansen is ?a political activist who spreads fear even when NASA?s own data contradicts him.? To drive home his point that Hansen is circumventing the real science, Cunningham highlights that, ?warming in the upper atmosphere should occur before any surface warming effect, but NASA?s own data show that has not been happening.? Cunningham goes on to note how when Hansen?s boss, Michael Griffin, ?a distinguished scientist in his own right, attempted to draw a distinction between Hansen?s personal and political views and the science conducted by his agency? he was ?forced to back off?.

In November, another former NASA astronaut, the award-winning Harrison ?Jack? Schmitt, the Apollo 17 moon-walker and former chair of NASA Advisory Chair, resigned from the Planetary Society. Schmitt?s resignation letter identified the Society?s new ?roadmap? that attempted to link space exploration and climate change research on earth. In his resignation letter Schmitt states: ?You know as well as I, the ?global warming scare? is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, income and decision making. It has no place in the Society?s activities.? My guess is that Walt Cunningham and Jack Schmitt are not on Hansen?s Christmas card list.

That James Hansen has a private fame-seeking agenda and is using NASA to peddle it as he makes predictive blunder after predictive blunder in their name is patently clear. Which begs the question: Why is James Hansen - a publicity-seeking leftwing political activist, responsible for issuing false climate data to the detriment of NASA?s reputation and against the public good - still picking up a pay check in a top public sector job? And just how much are Hansen?s headline grabbing, ultimately false, pronouncements helping to propel governments towards hugely expensive precipitous climate action?"

Here's some interesting reading to give you a little additional insight into our good friend Mr. Hansen.
Hansen Frees the Code

BTW...his previous boss was "embarassed" by Hansen...John Theon was his name. He can offer some additional insight into Hansen's character. Google is your friend.
 

Deeko

Lifer
Jun 16, 2000
30,215
11
81
Fuck all you eco hippies, every time someone bitches to me about global warming or the need to be green, I drive a few miles in my 14mpg car just for fun. Hell, I stopped taking the free bus to work just for that purpose. I also intentionally do not recycle and leave my lights on when I'm at work. My dog gets lonely in the dark, jerks.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
I also invite YOU to provide links to OBJECTIVE evidence demonstrating that Hansen is cooking data. I'm not asking for "proof" - just strong, objective evidence. Because what I found on the web is crap and I'm amazed you consider it worth believing.
Done...and all I hear is crickets. Go figure.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,567
6
81
Done...and all I hear is crickets. Go figure.

Crickets? Hardly:

1) You've repeated (in BOTH) links, the same October 2008 data case already discussed. This doesn't establish manipulation of data by Hansen, regardless of what ACC naysayers would like to believe.

2) One of the links ascribes NASA's use of ground-based measurements to "manipulation." But there are VERY good reasons that satellite-based data is avoided. For example, check this excerpt from wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements#The_satellite_temperature_record

the warming trend in global-mean surface temperature observations during the past 20 years is undoubtedly real and is substantially greater than the average rate of warming during the twentieth century. The disparity between surface and upper air trends in no way invalidates the conclusion that surface temperature has been rising.

Finally, if you check the Wikipedia article on Hansen,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen#Hansen.27s_role_as_a_climate_activist

you'll see LOTS of criticism of what many consider his overly-activist role in the climate debate. But how strange, isn't it, that this wiki article doesn't utter a word about Hansen alleged manipulation of or falsifying data. If that were generally believed to be true, or even reasonably credible, you'd better believe it would be in that article.

In other words, all you're finding are ideologically-driven, right-wing sources that interpret data in ways that fit their pre-conceived notions of reality.
 
Last edited:

BudAshes

Lifer
Jul 20, 2003
13,911
3,195
146
The basic facts are there right? We take carbon from the ground and put it in the air in mass quantities. Maybe its not a lot yet but when china and india hit their peaks, along with south america, we are going to be pumping some crazy amounts of co/co2. The ocean warms up, currents changed and everything goes to hell. Though we will run out of oil before then anyway, so it's possibly a moot point.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Crickets? Hardly:

1) You've repeated (in BOTH) links, the same October 2008 data case already discussed. This doesn't establish manipulation of data by Hansen, regardless of what ACC naysayers would like to believe.

2) One of the links ascribes NASA's use of ground-based measurements to "manipulation." But there are VERY good reasons that satellite-based data is avoided. For example, check this excerpt from wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements#The_satellite_temperature_record

Finally, if you check the Wikipedia article on Hansen,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen#Hansen.27s_role_as_a_climate_activist

you'll see LOTS of criticism of what many consider his overly-activist role in the climate debate. But how strange, isn't it, that this wiki article doesn't utter a word about Hansen alleged manipulation of or falsifying data. If that were generally believed to be true, or even reasonably credible, you'd better believe it would be in that article.

In other words, all you're finding are ideologically-driven, right-wing sources that interpret data in ways that fit their pre-conceived notions of reality.
Sigh...I give you 3 examples (there are more) and character references to boot and you still can't see that how this guy's strong personal beliefs have consistently marginalized science by 'incorrectly' coloring the data. Doesn't it strike you as 'strange' that all his 'blunders' show exaggerated warming? Look...it's become very clear that this doesn't mean anything to you for some reason. If you want to believe that Hansen is the epitome of what a good scientist should be...then go at it. Hooray for you. If you want to believe everything Wikipedia doesn't say about him is somehow proof that Hansen is clean as a whistle...then go for it. Hoooray for you. Your logic defies me.
 

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
2
0
Man its just crazy were I live in south eastern MN. Its been the coolest summer I can recall . Cloudy all the time . Its gets frustrating to . Because I like to look at nibiru approaching threw welding helmet . Its hugh its there and its on its way here. So were I am at it is cooler . But every were else its hotter.
Nibiru friend or enemy. I think friend. The enemy may be the dark rift. center of galaxy . Both arrive here about the same time . 2012 be interesting . But the action has already begun . Artic ocean ice melted . What more proof do ya need. A meteor in front yard. LOL.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,567
6
81
Sigh...I give you 3 examples (there are more) and character references to boot and you still can't see that how this guy's strong personal beliefs have consistently marginalized science by 'incorrectly' coloring the data. Doesn't it strike you as 'strange' that all his 'blunders' show exaggerated warming? Look...it's become very clear that this doesn't mean anything to you for some reason. If you want to believe that Hansen is the epitome of what a good scientist should be...then go at it. Hooray for you. If you want to believe everything Wikipedia doesn't say about him is somehow proof that Hansen is clean as a whistle...then go for it. Hoooray for you. Your logic defies me.

You've supplied retreads of the same point by multiple ideologues. As I wrote, they choose to interpret data in a way that supports their point of view. I could - using your "strategy" - make the claim that the critics are skewing data, since (for example) they don't accept the completely reasonable approach of using ground-based data.

What's remarkable is that nothing NASA has done regarding data is controversial to anyone but the naysayers. You, too, apparently, also let your beliefs skew your judgment.

I've read all your links, and all I see is tendentious arguments and bias.
 

Ozoned

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2004
5,578
0
0
The basic facts are there right? We take carbon from the ground and put it in the air in mass quantities. Maybe its not a lot yet but when china and india hit their peaks, along with south america, we are going to be pumping some crazy amounts of co/co2. The ocean warms up, currents changed and everything goes to hell. Though we will run out of oil before then anyway, so it's possibly a moot point.

Now that you mention it,,,,The carbon that is in the ground,,,,was once in the air. Right?
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
Fuck all you eco hippies, every time someone bitches to me about global warming or the need to be green, I drive a few miles in my 14mpg car just for fun. Hell, I stopped taking the free bus to work just for that purpose. I also intentionally do not recycle and leave my lights on when I'm at work. My dog gets lonely in the dark, jerks.

Can't tell if this is sarcasm or you're just a douche. Either way, no one cares what you're doing or listening to.
 

BudAshes

Lifer
Jul 20, 2003
13,911
3,195
146
Now that you mention it,,,,The carbon that is in the ground,,,,was once in the air. Right?

Yeah, and the climate was a lot different. The plankton in the ocean collects it effectively for us, but we are killing that too.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
You've supplied retreads of the same point by multiple ideologues. As I wrote, they choose to interpret data in a way that supports their point of view. I could - using your "strategy" - make the claim that the critics are skewing data, since (for example) they don't accept the completely reasonable approach of using ground-based data.

What's remarkable is that nothing NASA has done regarding data is controversial to anyone but the naysayers. You, too, apparently, also let your beliefs skew your judgment.

I've read all your links, and all I see is tendentious arguments and bias.
What kind of comment is that? It's like saying nothing Rush Limbaugh has done is controversial to anyone but the naysayers. Your logic continues to defy me.

Starting in 2003, satellite temperature data had begun to diverge with the temperatures reported by GISS, which uses many data points in addition to the satellites. Previously the satellite information matched rather well GISS, RSS and UAH. However, since the beginning of 2003, RSS has been dropping at 3.60C/century, UAH has been dropping at 2.84C/century, and GISS has been dropping at 0.96C/century. The satellite, RSS and UAH data all roughly coincide and the GISS 'adjusted' data showing significantly less cooling sticks out like a sore thumb.

Hmmmm...interesting...and why would this be? Well...it appears that Hansen made a 'mistake' in how he applied a mathematical filter to several years of surface station temperature data from the USHCN data network between the years 2000-2006. This mistake had the effect of falsely exaggerating surface temperature averages for the US during the period. Hansen has a long history of making 'mistakes' and cherry picking data to exaggerate his claims.

You have done nothing to refute the facts I've presented. I've read all your posts, and all I see is tendentious arguments and bias.
 

sportage

Lifer
Feb 1, 2008
11,493
3,159
136
I CAN NOT BELIEVE (yes I am shouting) PEOPLE HAVE NO UNDERSTANDING OF THIS WHOLE GLOBAL WARMING THING!!!

Global warming is NOT about hot or cold, warm or cool.
Global warming (probably bad terminology from the start due to the confusion it causes), but the term &#8220;global warming&#8221; has nothing to do with the earth warming or cooling. What it refers to is &#8220;MAN MADE&#8221; permanent environmental changes taking place with all climates and regions.

Droughts, hurricanes, flooding, cool Summers, warm Winters, in other words changing of the global climate patterns. Re occurring floods in the Midwest. 100 year floods now happening every other year.
Polar climate changes, regional climate changes.
This change might be a pattern of warming in one region, while it could also be a pattern of cooling in another.

"Global Warming" could in fact consist of the overall ""cooling"" of the earth's atmosphere, not the warming of. But what must be noted is the long term effect, this event labeled "global warming", consisting of massive pattern changes across the entire earth. Not temporary changes, but permanent changes.

Long term reoccurring climate changes, not natural to that region = GLOBAL WARMING.
When they are fighting off fires, year after year, out in the west or up to their butts in water from floods, year after year, in the Midwest, THAT people &#8220;is&#8221; global warming. Not hot or cold trends, but climate change trends. The polar regions melting, along with snow in Las Vegas and Florida. That is global warming, climate change caused by man.
Having nothing to do with the earth&#8217;s warming up or cooling off. I think global warming got its name originally, and thus the label error, when the early trend was for warming cycles. But that in no way meant the overall heating up of the earth in general, it simply meant an overall permanent climate change pattern.

Patterns of change that repeat over and over, year after year, climate unnatural and not consistent to that regions past history of climate.

When the Midwest becomes the new ocean, or droughts turn farmland into deserts, year after year to the point it becomes permanent, then THAT my friend is global warming. The "permanent changing" of the earth&#8217;s climate by region, long term, and not the usual quirky changes that have always corrected back within the next year or two.
Global warming is the creation of permanent long term enviromental change, said to be caused by man.

Global Warming&#8230; defined.
 
Last edited:

FaaR

Golden Member
Dec 28, 2007
1,056
412
136
The dictator of climate change has spoken! All hail dictator Gore!

Beware of Prophets seeking profits.
You don't think there are prophets for the opposite camp as well?

Unlike Al Gore, you may not know their names, they certainly haven't been ex-vice president of the United States (well, except for Coc^h^h^h Dick Cheney of course...), but they're there alright. Hiding silently in the wings, while their PR firms and spinmeisters spread FUD, propaganda and plant seeds of discord for them.

They're the oil, coal and NG barons of the world, and they're both rich, and influential.
 

sportage

Lifer
Feb 1, 2008
11,493
3,159
136
When people get so tired of having their homes destroyed by fire year after year out in the west, or when farmers can no longer make a living growing crops in fields turned to lake swamps year after year, or growers in Florida see their crops destroyed from frost year after year, or people in the Midwest find their homes flooding out and destroyed needing rebuilding year after year, then you will become a witness to global warming in the US.

And think about the cost? Farmland in the Midwest furnishes the nation with food, as well as does Florida. When those areas no long can sustain productive agriculture, what will happen to the rest of the country? Think about that!

And consider insurance. How often will insurance companies rebuild burnt out homes in the west, or flood destroyed homes in the Midwest? What reflection will that reoccurring costs to insurance companies have on YOUR insurance Costs? Think about that!

Yes, Global Warming is more than some debate. If we do nothing it WILL come to your home and bite you in the butt. If we ignore what is happening right under our nose, we will pay in many many ways. Now is no time to act like the Ostrich and hide in the sand as disbelievers.
Maybe Rush Limbaugh can afford and get away with that, but can you?
 

Deeko

Lifer
Jun 16, 2000
30,215
11
81
Can't tell if this is sarcasm or you're just a douche. Either way, no one cares what you're doing or listening to.

I like how the people that whine about my twitter/zune feeds are whiny kids that are upset that I'm disagreeing with them. If you don't care, don't click on it, but don't let your tears be what stops you.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
What's remarkable is that nothing NASA has done regarding data is controversial to anyone but the naysayers. You, too, apparently, also let your beliefs skew your judgment.
Shira...here's some more evidence to support my case about Hansen. Here's a 10/6/09 CRU email...they also think that the GISS data is crap. Hansen needs to go!
giss_is_inferior.png
 
Last edited:

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,567
6
81
Shira...here's some more evidence to support my case about Hansen. Here's a 10/6/09 CRU email...they also think that the GISS data is crap. Hansen needs to go!
giss_is_inferior.png
It's funny. I am VERY reassured by this email. For two reasons:

1) Any notion that there's some conspiracy is difficult to believe when one major arm of the presumed the climate-change web of deceit is criticizing the data from another arm.

2) Notice that one of the specific criticisms is that GISS uses an "urbanization adjustment" that (I'm interpreting to mean) accounts for the heating effect of city lights and other "population" uses of energy in cities. This is exactly the sort of adjustment that Patrick Michaels (of Cato) would approve of; his 2007 paper claimed that half of the observed heating was due to such urban effects. The fact the CRU doesn't like this adjustment shows that it's still an open question as to which approach (using or not using the adjustment) is appropriate.

This is exactly how science progresses - from a state of knowing less to a state of knowing more. Science isn't neat and clean. Scientists butt heads, see what works better (by which I mean, which approaches produce the best fit between theory and reality), discard what doesn't work, make corresponding adjustments, and begin again.

Also, the notion that there are two polarized approaches to climate research is dispelled here. GISS comes off as being partway between Michaels and CRU (at least with respect to the urbanization adjustment). So Michaels views aren't being ignored wholesale; he's apparently a part of the discussion.

Also, the fact that this CRU email expresses the view that GISS data is inferior (a relative term) to the CRUTEM3 data doesn't mean they think GISS data is crap (an absolute term). Presumably, GISS would be made aware of CRU's reservations, and a process of negotiation would ensue. One of the other or both teams would then perhaps modify the way they collate their data. Again, that's science.

By way of example: Do you think that when teams of cosmologists initially measured red-shifts of distant objects they all accounted for gravitational lensing? Of if they did, that they all adjusted for it in the same way? I highly doubt it, and I'm sure if we'd seen THEIR emails, we'd have seen much the same sort of "conversation" as shown here.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
It's funny. I am VERY reassured by this email. For two reasons:

1) Any notion that there's some conspiracy is difficult to believe when one major arm of the presumed the climate-change web of deceit is criticizing the data from another arm.

2) Notice that one of the specific criticisms is that GISS uses an "urbanization adjustment" that (I'm interpreting to mean) accounts for the heating effect of city lights and other "population" uses of energy in cities. This is exactly the sort of adjustment that Patrick Michaels (of Cato) would approve of; his 2007 paper claimed that half of the observed heating was due to such urban effects. The fact the CRU doesn't like this adjustment shows that it's still an open question as to which approach (using or not using the adjustment) is appropriate.

This is exactly how science progresses - from a state of knowing less to a state of knowing more. Science isn't neat and clean. Scientists butt heads, see what works better (by which I mean, which approaches produce the best fit between theory and reality), discard what doesn't work, make corresponding adjustments, and begin again.

Also, the notion that there are two polarized approaches to climate research is dispelled here. GISS comes off as being partway between Michaels and CRU (at least with respect to the urbanization adjustment). So Michaels views aren't being ignored wholesale; he's apparently a part of the discussion.

Also, the fact that this CRU email expresses the view that GISS data is inferior (a relative term) to the CRUTEM3 data doesn't mean they think GISS data is crap (an absolute term). Presumably, GISS would be made aware of CRU's reservations, and a process of negotiation would ensue. One of the other or both teams would then perhaps modify the way they collate their data. Again, that's science.

By way of example: Do you think that when teams of cosmologists initially measured red-shifts of distant objects they all accounted for gravitational lensing? Of if they did, that they all adjusted for it in the same way? I highly doubt it, and I'm sure if we'd seen THEIR emails, we'd have seen much the same sort of "conversation" as shown here.
I'm not making an argument for or against conspiracy...nor an argument that there are two polarized approaches to climate research ...but if the CRU email I posted somehow comforts you that neither exists...then go for it. You seem to have a keen ability to extrapolate well beyond the facts to form and justify your opinions. Your logic continues to baffle me.

You previously stated that the only people that had problems with Hansen's credibility were the 'naysayers' (which in itself is another interesting reflection of your 'logic'). But for for clarity's sake...this 'naysayers' statement that you made is what I'm talking about.

I have given you many examples of Hansen's long history of making 'mistakes' and cherry picking data to exaggerate his claims. I've given you clear evidence that even Hansen's peers (naysayers?) don't respect many aspects of his methodology in adjusting the temperature data upward. And now you want to argue about semantics ('inferior' vs 'crap')? Wow.

Look...you obviously have a world view that's very different than mine. But when I see a 'scientist' such as Hansen so emotionally involved, so highly opinionated, so politically active, and with a long history of 'whoops adjustments' and highly questionable adjustments to temperature data that all 'coincidentally' reflect significantly higher 'modifications' to the temperature data...I smell a rat...a big stinking rat. Maybe in your world...this is OK. But...in my world...rats have no place in science.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
I like how the people that whine about my twitter/zune feeds are whiny kids that are upset that I'm disagreeing with them. If you don't care, don't click on it, but don't let your tears be what stops you.

Number one, I'm probably older than you. Number two, you didn't disagree with me, you posted an idiotic comment. I replied to it. Don't like it? Ignore me.
 

Deeko

Lifer
Jun 16, 2000
30,215
11
81
Number one, I'm probably older than you. Number two, you didn't disagree with me, you posted an idiotic comment. I replied to it. Don't like it? Ignore me.

Act like a child, get called a child. Replied to my comment? You whined like a little girl that I have my Twitter in my signature. In other words, you're an immature child that got her panties in a bunch over a comment you disagreed with. Amazing how your "advice" at the end there would be much better suited to your own actions.

For the record, I put my Christmas lights up this past weekend. I'm guessing its about 10,000 lights or so. They're connected to a light-sensitive timer that should only have them on at night, but instead I have it set to be on 24/7. Take that, hippies!
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
lots of different studies show warming trends - you can pick apart one guy or several for having ulterior motives, but when multiple sources come to the same conclusions, it really doesn't matter:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/
I think RealClimate got the message. Glad to see that they're bending over backwards to address concerns everyone is having right now. I personally hope it's a new beginning for them.

Edit: I take that back what I said about RealClimate...I've now submitted two posts...both of which have been 'filtered'. I was very polite and all I asked them to do was update their information on GCR in light of Kirkby's (CERN) preliminary findings. Their most recent information on GCR is from 2007 and the remainder is much older. The bullshit continues.
 
Last edited: