One of the responses to the CRU scandal is that NASA has all the data and they agree with the global warming hysterics so the East Anglia scandal is no big deal. Well, the Competitive Enterprise Institute has had a Freedom of Information Act request for NASA data in place for two years. Finally, after two years of stonewalling, the CEI notified NASA that they would file suit soon. Probably because of the CRU “Climategate” scandal, the NSAS people finally released the data requested. And is it interesting !
The documents released via the FOIA request, however, contain admissions of data unreliability that are staggering, particularly in light of NASA’s claims to know temperatures and anomalies within hundredths of a degree, and the alarm they helped raise over a mere one degree of claimed warming over more than an entire century.
Dr. Reto Ruedy, a Hansen colleague at GISS, complains in his August 3, 2007, email to his co-worker at GISS and RealClimate blogger Gavin Schmidt:
[The United States Historical Climate Network] data are not routinely kept up-to-date (at this point the (sic) seem to end in 2002).
This lapse led to wild differences in data claimed to be from the same ground stations by USHCN and the Global Climate Network (GHCN). NASA later trumpeted the “adjustments” they made to this data (upward only, of course) in extremely minor amounts — adjustments they are now seen admitting are well within any uncertainty, a fact that received significantly less emphasis in their public media campaign claiming anomalous, man-made warming.
GISS’s Ruedy then wrote:
[NASA’s] assumption that the adjustments made the older data consistent with future data … may not have been correct. … Indeed, in 490 of the 1057 stations the USHCN data were up to 1C colder than the corresponding GHCN data, in 77 stations the data were the same, and in the remaining 490 stations the USHCN data were warmer than the GHCN data.
Ruedy claimed this introduced an estimated warming into the record of 0.1 deg C. Ruedy then described an alternate way of manipulating the temperature data, “a more careful method” they might consider using, instead.
Read the whole thing. Maybe thee people should be prosecuted. Billions of taxpayer dollars have been spent on this nonsense. The next Congress might be interested. This one certainly isn’t.
I especially like this e-mail quote:
Although in public he often used his high-profile perch for global warming cheerleading, former New York Times environmental reporter Andrew Revkin privately wrote that he was worried about the integrity of the ground stations. When still at the Times he wrote to Hansen on August 23, 2007:
i never, till today, visited http://www.surfacestations.org and found it quite amazing. if our stations are that shoddy, what’s it like in Mongolia?
Of course, that is the point and always has been.
UPDATE: Here is more evidence of the coverup, this time by Nature. They are all crooks.
Tags: global warming, NASA
In a casual conversation someone told me there was angst among some of the priestly class when literature and literacy became more widespread: more people were reading the Bible and other texts and questioning their theological leaders. I see that some in the global warming debate long for the good old days.
Why do you think they used Latin ?
Well, Latin was used originally because it was the “vulgar”– or common– language.
And most peasants that could read were able to because the priests taught them with intent that they’d use it for the Bible, which was generally accessible in the local church to any who would come; they were more interested in using it to understand their land-rights.
Not really a good analogy for this situation…maybe more like how lawyers sometimes willfully cover things up in legal-ese.
Sorry, Foxfier, that’s not true. Latin was the language shared by the educated, mostly monks until about 1200. It was very useful as educated men could come from England, for example, to Padua for an education and understand the teachers because all educated people spoke Latin. The peasants and even the nobility were illiterate and spoke the local dialects, such as what became English, French and German. The “Vulgate Bible” was in Latin because it replaced a series of translations from Greek into a “common” Latin version. The illiterate, probably 85% of the population, could not read anything. Even Copernicus was a monk.
Of course Latin was what the educated spoke– the folks doing the educating spoke the language. Just because our cultural ancestors didn’t keep Latin as their main language doesn’t make it less of the common tongue.
Counter the old myths about the “dark ages,” things weren’t so very ignorant. Seems that a lot of the slurs were set up during the Renaissance. If you get a chance, “Terry Jones: Medieval Lives” has some great (if lightly phrased and aimed to entertain) information. And yes, it’s the Monty Python guy. (Netflix has it on streaming)
No, it was a common tongue for the educated and, in fact, the educated man usually adopted a Latin name, like Copernicus, which was not his real name. If you are interested in the “Dark Ages” I suggest Joel Mokyr’s book “The Lever of Riches”, which has a lot about medieval science, like the horse collar and windmills. The horse collar was the greatest invention in agriculture until the reaper. The Romans did not have it.