Posted on 08/28/2007 7:58:48 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Was 1998 the hottest year in United States history, as most reporting on climate change has presumed? Or was that record set back in 1934 before "global warming" became a scary household phrase?
A corrective tweak to National Aeronautics and Space Administration's formulation shows that the hottest year on record in the United States indeed was back during the Dust Bowl days.
But does this mean that all the concern about global warming being a relatively recent phenomenon tied to carbon-belching power plants and hulking SUVs is a bunch of Al Gore hooey?
Climate change skeptics and their cheering section among conservative bloggers and radio shoutmeisters think so -- even though most scientists say, no, the tweak is not a big deal and overall trends are in the direction of toastier days around the globe.
The controversy began "when Steve McIntyre of the blog Climateaudit.org e-mailed NASA scientists pointing out an unusual jump in temperature data from 1999 to 2000," reports The Los Angeles Times. "When researchers checked, they found that the agency had merged two data sets that had been incorrectly assumed to match. When the data were corrected, it resulted in a decrease of 0.27 degrees Fahrenheit in yearly temperatures since 2000 and a smaller decrease in earlier years. That meant that 1998, which had been 0.02 degrees warmer than 1934, was now 0.04 degrees cooler."
Put another way, the new figures show that 4 of the 10 warmest years in the United States occurred during the 1930s, not more recently. This caused a stir among those critical of the push to stem human-induced climate change.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
"We have proof of man-made global warming," Limbaugh said on his show. "The man-made global warming is inside NASA. The man-made global warming is in the scientific community with false data."
7 of the 11 hottest years in the USA all occurred before 1955.
From the corrected data posted by NASA, it now shows the correct hottest years as follows, beginning with hottest:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt
1934
1998
1921
2006
1931
1999
1953
1990
1938
1939
1954
Has the national MSM circled the wagon to defend their religion yet? I read an article in last Sunday’s SF Chronicle that became a twisted pretzel trying to do so. Really convoluted “logic”. It failed if your IQ is above 80. I’ll see if I can provide a link.
Ummmm...yeah. However, I'm pretty sure that Manbearpig is damaging the environment.
Now we have the data scam and we see activist scientists supplying raw data which is false.
At it's heart, this is Dan Rather's "Fake but authentic" all over again:
"Sure the raw data is fake, and the way we manipulate the data is fake, but -- you know -- the conclusion we're aiming at is the important thing and that's still true (as far as we're concerned)."
we’re reposting this for the 11th time because?
Well it does mean tens of thousands of MSM headlines have been hooey.
I thought they circled the wagons long ago. It happened about the time that comrade Cullen over at the Weather (history) Channel made her comments about on-air meteorologists. Similarly, along about the same time, comrade Owl Gore said the debate is over and "consensus" had been reached. I suppose they thought everybody was too stoopid to look at the data for themselves.......
No bias here. None at all.
Now let's apply the ABC writing style to BOTH sides and see what happens:
Climate change skeptics and their cheering section among conservative bloggers and radio shoutmeisters think so -- even though most data-fudging alarmist scientists say, no, the tweak is not a big deal and overall trends are in the direction of toastier days around the globe.
Just asking James. Please answer before the 80-ft high wall of water drowns everyone.
Someone is going to make the argument that 4 of the 11 all occurred after 1990, though. Just wait.
Here’s Hansen’s comments on the “correction” linked from the GISS website.
....
Please see “A Light On Upstairs?” for discussions regarding the changes made on August 7, 2007 for 2000-2006 annual mean, U.S. mean temperatures.
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/distro_LightUpstairs_70810.pdf
He’s pretty pathetic in his response.
..remember the absolute silence from Alcore when asked if HE would take the pledge he wanted others to take? *LOL* When did "carbon credits" start up?. Alcore is also "on the board" of the organization that "distributes" the often used credits for such good work as planting trees. But you have to be a full pledged liberal caught in the act of using more than one piece of toilet paper while motoring down the highway with your gas guzzling entourage
Also have a link to the Washington Post report carrying a quote from Hansen.,...
Which is:
Hansen said that the critics were "making a mountain of a molehill."
“Now let’s apply the ABC writing style to BOTH sides and see what happens:
Climate change proponents with leftist agendas and their cheering section among liberal bloggers and the main Stream Media shoutmeisters think so — even though most left leaning alarmist scientists say, no, the tweak is not a big deal and overall trends are in the direction of toastier days around the globe.
How’s that?
There has been a “ton of grind” on this for a week or so - the MSM will mess it all up, and confuse the facts - just you watch.
Oh, absolutely! Oil Companies are eeevil, too, even though a lot of his family's wealth came from his father and his shady dealings with Oxcidental Petroleum.
The fact that 'ole Owl Gore won't debate anyone on the subject of anthropogenic global warming speaks VOLUMES, too.....
Yeah. Bet he's sorry he ever invented the Internet ;o)
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.