FReepmail me to get on or off
Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown
New!!: Dr. John Ray's
GREENIE WATCH
Ping me if you find one I've missed.
Posted on 08/13/2007 12:27:03 PM PDT by bnelson44
Via Noel Sheppard, the guys who exposed the big data bug in the NASA temperature calculations last week have now responded to the global warming believers who naturally downplayed the error and dismissed it as irrelevant to GW trends. No commentary here from me; just follow the drill from the last post and read Steve McIntyre’s and Warren Meyer’s posts slowly and carefully. The bullet points version of McIntyre to guide you as you go: 1. NASA and James Hansen have allegedly shown an astonishing amount of bad faith in protecting their bogus numbers. Last week’s posts noted how secretive Hansen has been in hoarding the algorithm he uses to make temperature adjustments, but most of McIntyre’s wrath this time is reserved for NASA, which pointedly declined to mention prominently that it had revised its own data lest it attract any unwelcome public attention. 2. While the revisions to U.S. data didn’t have an affect on global averages, they did obviously have a “significant” effect on U.S. averages while pointing up potential errors in data collection worldwide. Specifically, according to McIntyre, not only are certain U.S. temperature measurement stations that are thought to be unreliable being “adjusted” by algorithm, even stations not thought to be unreliable may be undergoing adjustment. Quote:
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown
New!!: Dr. John Ray's
GREENIE WATCH
Ping me if you find one I've missed.
NOAA Dynamic Data is not available guess they are adjusting their secret sauce. Last I checked they had 1998, 2006, 1934 first second and third warmest.
1998 was Colder than 1934...in 2002? (GISS Data Falsehood Before the Recent Scandal? FR EXCLUSIVE)
Not only do the GW alarmists have to prove the validity of their data. (precision and accuracy) They must also provide viable research and justification for adjustments. Preferably, these adjustments would "work" and match historical data when run forward or backward through time.
Until then, their so-called proof of GW and its causes is just so much wild-a$$ guessing.
IIRC NOAA pulled their data off the web shortly after “State of Fear” was published. Conspicuously because it did not show warming trends...
Bingo!
I just read “Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman!”. Feynman was one of the physicists at Los Alamos during the development of the A-bomb, and is just an all around interesting character.
Feynman would have been horrified by the lack of transparency in the AGW Alarmist’s so-called “work”.
What the AGW Alarmists are doing, is pure Cargo Cult Science, with an agenda, using Feynman’s terms.
Cargo Cult Science
http://wwwcdf.pd.infn.it/~loreti/science.html
BTW, regarding how the GISS U.S. error and how it doesn’t affect the global numbers...I don’t know how firm the complaint is, but it seems that a guy named Wang contributed to Jones some data defined by metadata from the Chinese that they don’t have.
Metadata = information about the data, like site placement, site moves, changes in procedures.
It’s been bouncing out there for a bit, but seems to have moved forward due to the U.K. version of the FOI. Jones runs East Anglia’s CRU, similar to how Hansen runs GISS’s climate group.
Thanks for the pings, which led to some fascinating links!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.