A change in climate history data at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies recently occurred which dramatically alters the debate over global warming. Yet, this transpired with no official announcement from GISS head James Hansen, and went unreported until Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit discovered it Wednesday.
For some background, one of the key tenets of the global warming myth being advanced by Hansen and soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore is that nine of the ten warmest years in history have occurred since 1995.
McIntyre has been crunching the numbers used to determine such things as published by GISS, and has identified that the data have recently changed such that four of the top ten warmest years in American history occurred in the 1930s, with the warmest now in 1934 instead of the much-publicized 1998.
As McIntyre wrote Wednesday (emphasis added, h/t NBer dscott):
There has been some turmoil yesterday on the leaderboard of the U.S. (Temperature) Open and there is a new leader.
[...]
Four of the top 10 are now from the 1930s: 1934, 1931, 1938 and 1939, while only 3 of the top 10 are from the last 10 years (1998, 2006, 1999). Several years (2000, 2002, 2003, 2004) fell well down the leaderboard, behind even 1900.
Most importantly, according to the GISS, 1998 is no longer the warmest year in American history. That honor once again belongs to 1934.
As global warming is such a key issue being debated all around this country and on Capitol Hill, wouldn't such a change by the agency responsible for calculating such things be important to disseminate? When this correction was made by Hansen's team at the GISS, shouldn't it have been reported?
In fact, it is quite disgraceful that it wasn't, as it suggests that a government agency is actually participating in a fraud against the American people by withholding information crucial to a major policy issue now facing the nation.
Think this will be Newsweek's next cover-story?
No, I don't either.
Post facto thought: If Hansen's team had made changes to the data which showed that ten of the ten warmest years in American history occurred since 1995, do you think that would have been reported?
Yeah, I do, too.
*****Update: This appears to be necessary given some very silly e-mail messages that I've received. Gore's claim concerning warmest years in history pertains to data for the entire planet. The changes at GISS are only for American data.
However, as e-mail messages from various scientists around the world have pointed out, American climate data collection is the finest on the planet. It is expected that when these changes are made to numbers across the globe, the worldwide rankings might see some changes as well.
Yet, still more to the point is the fact that American data were changed without any announcement.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Main Questions
August 9, 2007 - 11:45 ET by TruthMattersThe main question that needs to be asked to Al Gore and his ilk is "If we implement all the controls you ask for, or we go one step further and we eliminate man altogether, what type of climate would you expect?" Would earthquakes still happen? Will floods still occur? Will New York have 30 days of 70 degree weather in August? Please define what a "normal" climate should look like so we can measure our progress when we all have to implement mandatory cut backs to our standard of living. If they can't answer these questions, they have no business spreading their alarmism and making people - even innocent children - pay for their nonsense
Another broken hockey stick.
August 9, 2007 - 11:50 ET by danboNoel. You are fast. I just found the same thing, and had to share the news. Posted it elsewhere. Then hit home and found you beat me to it.
I found it on Icecap.
Looks like we have another broken hockey stick.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
Alright, Joe D’Aleo
August 9, 2007 - 13:15 ET by dscottAlright, Joe D’Aleo former forcaster from intellicast, good man. He's been dissenting on AGW for years. Heide Cullen being clueless of course, hey now who should have their certification pulled? What did you say Heidi?
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. Marcus Aurelius
I can't pass it up. The
August 9, 2007 - 13:20 ET by danboI can't pass it up. The science uis there. The science is certain. We have a concensus.
All it takes is one person with the right answer.
Heidi may soon be looking for a job.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
Neglient media.
August 9, 2007 - 11:53 ET by danboWith all the attention to Global Warming. If the media fails to report it. They deserve no respect.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
News Media
August 9, 2007 - 11:57 ET by JDWWhat's the difference between 'failing to report' the real story and lying about it?
JDW
News media: Scoreboard for terrorists
Two different forms of
August 9, 2007 - 12:30 ET by danboTwo different forms of lying.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
Reuters has a story right
August 9, 2007 - 14:40 ET by Free ThinkerReuters has a story right now that claims the coming years will be hotter than 1998, which they say is the warmest on record. I wonder if the story will be corrected in light of this new info. You can see the story on drudge.
Respect?
August 9, 2007 - 13:29 ET by kbworkmanI didn't know they still deserved any.
Al Gore giving instructions
August 9, 2007 - 12:06 ET by dscottAl Gore giving instructions to his followers: Dissent is confusion, confusion is the mind killer, we must focus our minds from facts that are not relevant to our agenda. Attention All Global Warmers, please stick your fingers in your ears and repeat after me - lalalala, lalalalala, I can't hear you, lalalala, lalalala.
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. Marcus Aurelius
dscott -- judging by the
August 9, 2007 - 12:11 ET by Jack Bauerdscott -- judging by the photo, Al's carbon buttprint looks to be approaching the size of the Hindenberg.
Scary.
YouTube vid
August 10, 2007 - 00:56 ET by nofateHey, Jack! Great video. I will be sending it on to my address book list. It's still not apparent, even to many conservatives, it seems, that when Bush told us after 9-11 that this was going to be a long slog, that he meant a generation or so. Your video emphasises that point. The history of these islamofascists, i.e. gates of Vienna, the Pope's stirring of the pot by mentioning the past, etc., ought to be proof enough. Then, to put icing on the cake, they are telling us what they are going to do, just as Hitler did. I can't describe the thoughts I have when I hear the dumbocrat candidates all get up there and "debate", one trying to outdo the other, to prove that this is just a "bumper sticker war". Idiots is being too kind, but it's the best I can do without being too colorful.
As to the subject of Noel's blog: What's the point of telling anyone about a few changes in U.S. temperature data, anyway? The world scientific community is in consensus, right? No one will care about these changes except a few criminal global warming deniar types.
"The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
dscott, Am I imagining
August 9, 2007 - 13:23 ET by hydrodynDMdscott,
Am I imagining things or is your post inspired by the "Bene Gesserit Littainy of Fear" from Frank Herbert's "Dune"?
Yeap, I figured that would
August 9, 2007 - 13:24 ET by dscottYeap, I figured that would be a good one to use.
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. Marcus Aurelius
dscott, Sweet. I knew
August 9, 2007 - 13:32 ET by hydrodynDMdscott,
Sweet.
I knew all those hours spent in junior high being a sci-fi/fantasy nerd would someday pay off.
Are Al's lips stained
August 9, 2007 - 13:50 ET by dabalAre Al's lips stained red?
lmao
dabal, I think that would
August 9, 2007 - 13:56 ET by hydrodynDMdabal,
I think that would be an insult to mentats everywhere.
It is by will alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the juice of
sapho that thoughts acquire speed, the lips acquire stains, the stains
become a warning. It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.
digging for facts
August 9, 2007 - 13:56 ET by uncle_buckUnfortunately, the climateaudit site is currently down. But a quick check on wikipedia leads to this link :
http://data.giss.nas...
The giss folks do acknowledge an error discovered by McIntyre. But curiously, they say the errors only apply to the years from 2000 forward. As I read it, it has no effect on the data from 1998 or 1934.
I'm not saying I'm any expert, but upon examining the source data, and the giss acknowledgement of McIntyre's find, the conclusions reached in this newsbusters article simply do not add up.
Perhaps McIntyre found some other error - unfortunately none of the links to his site currently work
If it's only post 2000. How
August 9, 2007 - 14:06 ET by danboIf it's only post 2000. How did 1934 pass 1998?
Here
Someone's covering rear. More misinformation.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
icecap
August 9, 2007 - 14:36 ET by uncle_buckCan icecap show how they generated the charts from giss data? Do you see in the giss link, where they acknowledge error only on post 2000 data? Has the 1998 1934 claim been stated as US temperatures (as in the McIntyre link) or global temperatures - which giss data clearly show as 1934 not being any kind of peak at all. These claims from McIntyre are on very shaky ground.
If you don't like Icecap.
August 9, 2007 - 14:42 ET by danboIf you don't like Icecap. Deal with it. Your sacred hockey stick has been broken again.
US verses global has already been discussed. That's next.
The global warming in the US. Does not exist.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
too bad
August 9, 2007 - 14:47 ET by uncle_buckToo bad you don't want to examine the real data.
US verses global has already been discussed. That's next.
The global warming in the US. Does not exist
Funny stuff!
But when the real underlying misleading of this particular story is unveiled - will you ignore it - that's right - you already have!
the bigger point is the way
August 9, 2007 - 15:20 ET by Free Thinkerthe bigger point is the way the media and the global warming alarmists hype their hoax is that it is settled science when it most definitely is not. The arrogance to assume that 1.) humans have had a significant impact on global temperatures despite no clear evidence and 2.) Al Gore and his cronies know what the ideal climate for the planet really should be is absurd.
totally agree
August 9, 2007 - 15:31 ET by uncle_buckI totally agree with your points!
Prove there is
August 9, 2007 - 16:25 ET by danboProve there is anthropogenic global warming in the United States.
NASA
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
I never said there was
August 9, 2007 - 17:11 ET by uncle_buckI never said there was.
As I've stated, I'm not an alarmist. I read many stories on newsbusters on gw - most of it just poking fun at alarmists. Some cotton farmer wishes it was hotter in texas, it snowed in chile today, etc. etc.
If I want to argue with an alarmist, this headline is fantastic! But I'm not just going to accpt it on face value. Those alarmists I would argue with would dig down - as I did - and show that this story is very misleading. So unfortunately, what looked like a great comeback story has fallen apart.
Now I still haven't been able to get on climateaudit, and if mcIntyre has more compelling arguments, I'll gladly eat crow on this one and pack my anti-gw arsenal with a great tool.
This is the second Hockey
August 9, 2007 - 17:43 ET by danboThis is the second Hockey stick that Steve has broken. 1st Mann's. Now Hansen's hockey stick of warming in the US. It's more an wave than a hockey stick. And I seriously doubt GISS would have done it if Steve hadn't forced the issue.
Science is done in the open. It means being open with not just the results but also the method and data. And the willingness to allow others to disagree. Not attempting to silence them.
Yesterday was a vistory of real science over the facade of science.
NASA
I have the champagne in the fridge.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
Other link.
August 9, 2007 - 16:49 ET by Dave in Texas"But
curiously, they say the errors only apply to the years from 2000
forward. As I read it, it has no effect on the data from 1998 or 1934."
Goto this link, which contains links to the original posts at Climate Audit that explain the gory details. However, you'll have to wait until Climate Audit is available again. It's still down now.
Caught RED handed
August 9, 2007 - 12:10 ET by bulbasaurThese social engineers frantically insist "the debate is over."
One reason why is they have to move fast with their socialist power-grab before the evidence catches up with them casts doubt on their motives.
On the serious side this
August 9, 2007 - 12:13 ET by dscottOn the serious side this has huge implications on the Global average temperature as calculated by the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research. So will they recalculate the GAT or claim the revisions are too insignificant to affect their orginal calculations? (i.e. is their calculation actually mathematically based on Radical Math or Normal Math)
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. Marcus Aurelius
Nah, I think they use
August 9, 2007 - 12:19 ET by Sick-n-TiredNah, I think they use "fuzzy" math.
On another note, if this does make it to the media, they (the AGW'ers) will follow their 4 D's rule: Discredit, Deflect, Distract & Detract. The data will therefore fall on deaf ears....
So they're going to
August 9, 2007 - 12:26 ET by danboSo they're going to discredit, the same people they (and Al Bore) used to build their house of cards.
I for one want to watch this.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
Easy: I blame a "mole"
August 9, 2007 - 13:11 ET by dervishEasy:
I blame a "mole" from Big Oil, who entered false data into the database in order to be able later to discredit valiant Dr. Hansen and charismatic soon-to-be-Dr. Gore. We all know that global warming occurs, because it made that bridge fall down and what about the glaciers? Only now the data are contaminated, so we can't trust any numbers.
Someone from "big oil",
August 9, 2007 - 13:16 ET by danboSomeone from "big oil", caused the data that showed no warming to start showing warming?
That'll be fun to watch.
Makes as much sense as some of the other things that come from the libs.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
Yeah, they're smart, see?
August 9, 2007 - 13:22 ET by dervishYeah, they're smart, see? Nobody would have expected them to do that.
}}---> out of the loop dscott
August 9, 2007 - 12:22 ET by Cool ArrowMore importantly, what do they feeeel the mathmatical result should be.
Does this mean we have 20 years before we burn up and not 10?
Dang, I just lost my shirt on ice futures.
I will repeat what
August 9, 2007 - 12:42 ET by danboI will repeat what was pointed out elsewhere. The United States is large and has the best historical records on weather and climate. It's going to be difficult to sell global warming when there was none in one of their largest and best data sets.
Plus I'm sure Steve will go there if it isn't reworked. He can only work so fast.
I was thinking of making a contribution to Steve yesterday. Looks like I definately will now. He needs to continue his work. (And I'm not Exxon/Mobile)
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
Did anyone think to send a
August 9, 2007 - 12:15 ET by danboDid anyone think to send a copy to Barbara Boxer?
After all, it was just a week or 2 ago that she told us she watched Global Warming.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
I new something wasent being
August 9, 2007 - 12:21 ET by general companyI new something wasent being presented factualy. A global warming advocate and I had a few hours to discuses this topic a few months ago and as we would each goggle for info, it seemed that none of it jived, at least from his point of view. He is not as convinced as he once was, he sold his scooter a few weeks ago.
GLOBAL WHINING IS REAL!
August 9, 2007 - 12:34 ET by CrashI stopped in for a sandwhich at my local pub yesterday. JD, the owner, said, "I don't ever remember it being this hot in August."
I replied, "Two things. First, you're from Boston, not Atlanta. Second, you're an adult who's packing what, an extra forty pounds?"
As a kid, I distinctly recall all of the grown-ups B****ING about the weather. It didn't bother me. When I was a kid, I complained about matters of real importance like doing homework, dancing with girls, eating vegetables, or the annoyng tattle tale equivelent of Al Gore.
Face it, the Global Whiners want you notice the heat by getting you to pay attention to it. Quick! What's your favorite color? Chances are if it's red you see it more often than any other color. When actually you probably see more green (vegetation) and blue (sky), yet, we tend to dismiss them. Here's a neat link about observation:
http://www.youtube.c...
Enjoy!
Climate change fraud.
August 9, 2007 - 12:28 ET by Dave R..as it suggests that a government agency is actually participating in a fraud against the American people.
Well, it's not as though that would be a first or anything.
This whole "Climate Change" farce is beginning to move into what I consider the realm of criminality, particularly in the area of the use of public funds to not just study it, which is bad enough on its own, but it looks more and more that our tax dollars are being used to promote it.
It's one thing for Al and his mindless minions to seek private donations, they can do that from now until Hell freezes over for all I care, but I strenuously object to the fact that the federal government is forcing me, against my will, to "donate" funds to promote this scam.
It is truly unfortunate that we have a "Justice" Department that is run by someone who is nearly as incompetent as Janet Reno.
Global Warming as a theory
August 9, 2007 - 12:36 ET by dscottGlobal Warming as a theory due to this change has been officially discredited by the data. Now the debate is over!
This suggests that Mr. Hansen by his silence has engaged in misconduct via errors of omission and constitutes a huge scandal involving billions of dollars (50) in wasted research grants to study a non-existent problem. Billions of dollars that could have been used on roads, bridges and dams, billions of dollars that we as the tax payer would not have to finance via the national debt, etc.
The media needs to ask the appropriate questions of Mr. Hansen, what did know, when did he know it, who else knew it, etc. It's called investigative reporting. Mr. Hansen needs to resign immediately, if not, he needs to be fired for gross incompetence and malfeasance!!!!
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. Marcus Aurelius
Storm the Gates
August 9, 2007 - 12:46 ET by mattmWe ought to storm the gates of government, with pitchforks and pruning hooks, demanding retribution for the scam that has been played on us for the last two decades...
}}---> Storm the gates II
August 9, 2007 - 12:53 ET by Cool ArrowIt's like when Pope Gregory took away the 14 days to correct the calendar and the people came begging to have their days returned to them. Well, maybe not, but it's like something.
mattm,
August 9, 2007 - 13:31 ET by Dave RLOL-I can think of a couple dozen reasons to do what you suggest, and none of them have anything to do with the AGW scam.
Billions of dollars that
August 9, 2007 - 13:53 ET by Dave RBillions of dollars that could have been.....Returned to the people who earned it in the first place.
This whole thing is really beginning to emit a decidedly foul odor. If the gutless republicans weren't so, well, gutless, they'd be screaming for congressional hearings over some of this stuff (I know they wouldn't happen right now, but....), but, aside from a select few, most are strangely silent.
If there are people whithin the federal government who are messaging numbers (as in committing fraud) that involves billions of our tax dollars, I would like to think somebody might be interested in looking into it.
Something is very wrong here.
Amen D, amen. Could you
August 9, 2007 - 14:01 ET by Sick-n-TiredAmen D, amen.
Could you imagine if somebody had originally skewed the data in the opposite direction how much news coverage it would be getting right now? Sheeeeeeet, heads would roll!
Dave, Stick with "global
August 9, 2007 - 12:38 ET by Sick-n-TiredDave,
Stick with "global warming" as opposed to "climate change"---make them stick with their original hypothesis. They corner the market on the term "climate change" and we will be 'responsible' for all bad weather phenom---cold or hot---allowing the powers that be the angle to work in their socialistic agenda so they can control all of our lives.
In fact I heard Queen Latifah on the news this morning promoting a kids global warming movie that she narrates and I quickly picked up on the fact that she was using the term "climate change". In addition I heard some sound bites this morning of Leo--11th Hour--Dicap also refer to the same term (as opposed to global warming) if memory serves me correct. In addition, one of his comments (my abbreviation) was that he wants government to control our our habits towards the environment so "we don't even have to think about it". What an f'er; I already do that, I don't need him OR the government watching me over my back mandating what I do or don't do....
S&T
August 9, 2007 - 13:32 ET by Dave RLOL-Well, I was just trying to be, ahh, stylish?
I do see your point, though.
stick with global allright
August 9, 2007 - 14:14 ET by uncle_buckI find it interesting that McIntyre's graph showing 1934 as the hottest year was just for the US. - hmmmm.
Also interesting that the giss acknowledges his error find, but says it only applies to years after 2000 - hmmmmm
http://data.giss.nas...
Read the acknowledgement from giss - check their global charts and you'll see 1934 was nowhere near the top.
Before you take me for some alarmist - I am not in the least bit. What I do seek is knowledge. A claim like this needs to be dug down to the true source - and in this case - when you find that true source - the claim looks weak.
I've also read where a Hummer was better for the environment than a Prius - check the link and the discussion - started by dscott - and you'll find the original source for that was a college student from central connecticut state and in a later piece - he trashed his own original conclusions.
http://newsbusters.o...
moral - don't be so quick to gobble up everything you read. Dig for facts.
After being told. We have
August 9, 2007 - 14:34 ET by danboAfter being told. We have consensus. Hearing that youre prophet was wrong; is tough.
I'm going to get a bottle of CO2 loaded champagne.
Another hockey stick broken over the heads of warmers.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
very insightful danbo
August 9, 2007 - 14:42 ET by uncle_buckAs I said, I'm no alarmist and the inventor of the internet is far from my hero.
But it seems you are in denial yourself.
Have you examined the links from giss? Do you see where his adjustment only applies to post 2000? Do yousee where the data he cites for 1934 is for the US only? Do you see the giss charts that show GLOBAL trends and show 1934 as nowhere near a peak?
It's tough being gullible and eating up something you so want to be true. But given some knowledge from the actual source, do you cover your ears and deny?
It's tough being gullible
August 9, 2007 - 14:48 ET by dscottIt's tough being gullible and eating up something you so want to be true. But given some knowledge from the actual source, do you cover your ears and deny?
Everyone please observe a classic case of Projection. The standard tactic of the liberal when about to be caught in a inconsistency. Al Gore practiced this when he proclaimed a AGW denier conspiracy when in fact, SEJ was exposed for propaganda dissemination by two AT articles.
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. Marcus Aurelius
im still waiting
August 9, 2007 - 14:55 ET by uncle_buckI'm still waiting for you and whoever else to deny this :
McIntyre's correction in the data only effects post 2000 data.
Deny that!!!
I hope you are not holding
August 9, 2007 - 15:08 ET by dscottI hope you are not holding your breath.. Who needs to deny a vacuous argument? Because I have no intention of doing it. In the coming weeks, this is going to bury Al Gore, James Hansen and anyone who continues to push AGW. So go ahead, dig your hole nice and deep and jump in, be my guest.
BTW- the nickel hydride battery issue was not only as you falsely asserted attributed to a kid in CT, it was researched and in fact referenced in a thread here at NB. The place where they mine the nickel is in Canada, the environmental devastation is real and the fuel used to transport the ore overseas, then batteries to Japan and the cars back to here was used. All undenable facts, which you just attempted to cover up with an assertion of false credibility.
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. Marcus Aurelius
The student's final conclusion
August 9, 2007 - 15:26 ET by RJ"That being said, there is still fairly substantial evidence that hybrids are not nearly as efficient; nor are they as environmentally sound as one may think. There are many cleaner, faster and sleeker alternatives out there waiting to be picked up."
vacuos?
August 9, 2007 - 16:07 ET by uncle_buckThe story reads - McIntyre found an error in the data - 1934 is now the warmest year ever. The fact is McIntyre's error only applies to post 2000 data and 1934 has zero to do with it. Can it what you will. I call it misleading.
As for the college student - the "paper" he writes for is off for the summer - it's that prestigious. His original article may have been re-reported as fact - but this is the actual original story that he wrote.
http://forums.storag...
And here is his followup :
http://clubs.ccsu.ed...
He may conclude that a prius may not be as environmentally sound as it sounds on the surface - but he also cites the dust to dust article that he cited as "dubious at best". And he certainly was no longer claiming that the hummer was more environmentally friendly.
This link pretty much tears down the original story :
http://www.betterwor...
Which I summarized back then as follows :
Dubious assumptions :
A Hummer will last 300,000 miles and a Prius 100,000 miles - the manufacturer warranty for a Prius is 150,000 miles!
The development costs of a hummer are spread across many makes and models of cars - the Prius' not.
Conviently ignored :
The Hummer has twice as much nickel in it's composition than a Prius.
The 240 pound Hummer tires are shipped globally just as much as the 120 pound hybrid car batteries.
The nickel mine, the shipping - it's all true - but it's completely misleading ....... remember the story is hummer versus prius - and hummer tires of twice the weight are shipped all over the world and the hummer has twice as much nickel as a prius - both undeniable facts that were conveniently ignored!
"you just attempted to cover up with an assertion of false credibility."
No - I am just pointing out how totally misleading that story and this story is.
And when I want a slam dunk story to show an alarmist that global warming is overblown, I want to make sure the story cannot be torn down with a little research into the facts.
Hansen and you can try to
August 9, 2007 - 17:06 ET by danboHansen and you can try to minimize all you want. Prior to yesterday Hansen was stating 1998 was the hottest year ever. And even tried to pawn off 2005 with few takers.
McIntire found some funny math and pointed it out. Causing a revision of this. Which means this was ?
For the US I see no warming.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
Here are a list of links
August 9, 2007 - 15:03 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsHere are a list of links (about 100 or so) proving the falsity of the AGW groupthink part way down (about 5 comments) the page.
D
Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.
Yes I know it's for the
August 9, 2007 - 15:05 ET by danboYes I know it's for the US only. However as the US has one best systems of historical climate data. A change in this will be a major blow to AGW.
If the tempertures here show the 30's were as warm as today. Unless CO2 never levels in the US levels from the 1930's till today never rose. I don't see any warming being caused in the US due to CO2 levels.
It also means that when you warmers scream about how hot it is here. Your full of it.
Yes you do find it difficult to deal with your religion being challenged.
Being you don't like Iceberg, from NASA
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
It sounds like someone is
August 9, 2007 - 14:43 ET by dscottIt sounds like someone is in full New Republic (Beauchamp) or Dan Rather (national guard/Mary Mapes) mode. Deny, deny, deny, proclaimations of integrity and truth, evasions, contortions, mental gymnastics and a whole host of diversions from the central facts. 1934 not 1998 is the warmest year on record in the US.
The Debate is over, get over it.
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. Marcus Aurelius
show me
August 9, 2007 - 14:54 ET by uncle_buckShow me where I denied 1934 as warmest in US. Didn't say it. My point is and was that 1934 GLOBALLY was far from a record year - and it is called global warming after all.
But what do I expect from someone who cites a central connecticut state college student's one page essay that a hummer is more environmentally friendly than a prius as a fact - when the college student himself derided his own initial conclusions.
And again - whether you believe it or not - I could care less - I don't care about gw in the least. But I do care about totally misleading. After all, this story is about how McIntyre discovered an error and now 1934 is warmest of all. Tha's a crock and these are unrelated. McIntyre discovered an error - but it only effects post 2000 data - no matter how much you deny it.
uncle buck's misplaced sarcasm
August 9, 2007 - 15:54 ET by RJI think you (accidently or deliberately) misrepresent the overall intent of dscott's original post. A poster had made a generalization, and he responded with an explanation. His first sentence was too definitive, but the rest can stand. Even the student who changed his mind finished with a statement (posted above) that hybrids aren't as great as generally believed.
Considering your own silly hyperbole, ("should I distrust the nickle in my pocket?") your self-satisfied sarcasm is misplaced.
-----------------
(dscott's original post)
"Driving a gas guzzling, emission-spewing vehicle DOES cause more problems than a hybrid."
Actually, that assertion has been demonstrated not to be true. A hybrid using the current nickel metal hydride batteries is extremely harmful to the environment as attested to environmental damage caused where the material is mined in Canada and then added the amount of fuel necessary to ship the material to Japan to put in cars just to be shipped back again to North America, in the US. Until the hybrid cars use lithium ion batteries, this current configuration is positively harmful to the environment on many levels!
Uncle Buck et al
August 9, 2007 - 19:47 ET by Noel SheppardUncle Buck et al,
I think this has generated more confusion than necessary because there are several issues at hand.
First, please look at the data provided by GISS for US temperatures as included in my post inside "crunching the numbers": http://data.giss.nas...
I believe what this shows is that according to GISS, 1934 saw an average temperature 1.25 degrees above normal, making it the warmest such in recorded American history. 1998 by comparison was only 1.23 above, making it the second. This was a change from prior datasets.
Now, in a previous post McIntyre made on Sunday I believe, he pointed out errors in how GISS calculated average temps from 2000 on. I think that's what the GISS website is referring to. As such, it seems these issues might be somewhat unrelated, though it is difficult to ascertain as Climate Audit continues to be down.
Regardless, the thrust of this piece is about the new climate data at GISS, which indeed shows that only three of the warmest years in US history are recent, while four are from the 30s with the warmest being 1934 instead of what had previously been reported as 1998.
I hope this clears the matter up. ns
Noel - thanks for the reply
August 9, 2007 - 20:15 ET by uncle_buckI stated in a later post the following - I respect your opinions - but I respectfully submit that this article is misleading :
Thanks to (I forget who) who posted this link ...
http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/08...
Concerning US temperatures before and after :
1998 and 1934 flip flopped #1 and #2 positions, 1921 and 2006 flip
flopped #3 and #4, 1931, 1999, and 1953 maintained positions 5, 6, and
7, 1990 jumped from 9 to 8, 1938 from 10 to 9, and 2001 fell out to be
replaced by 1939.
The US data is essentially the same as before.
The misleading in Noel's summary .... (sorry Noel - well McIntyre said it) "Four of the top 10 are now from the 1930s: 1934, 1931, 1938 and
1939, while only 3 of the top 10 are from the last 10 years (1998,
2006, 1999). Several years (2000, 2002, 2003, 2004) fell well down the leaderboard, behind even 1900.
Well, before the adjustment - 3 of the top 10's were from the 1930s,
and only 4 of the last 10 years were previously listed (now it's 3).
More misleading statements : "For some background, one of the key tenets of the global warming myth
being advanced by Hansen and soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore is that nine of the
ten warmest years in history have occurred since 1995."
Clearly, the "old data" of US temperatures is not what was cited as
the 9 of the last 10 years being the hottest - that claim was for
GLOBAL temperatures - and the giss charts still show that.
Unfortunately, this will not be added to my anti-gw toolbelt.
UB
August 9, 2007 - 21:14 ET by Noel SheppardUB,
The information at Norcal confirms what I posted: 1934, according to GISS, is now the warmest year on record in the US. Please demonstrate how my post said otherwise and therefore was misleading. Please do so by citing directly from my post. ns
Noel, Check the
August 9, 2007 - 21:28 ET by dscottNoel,
Check the comments below the article, Steve McIntyre believes his site has experienced a DDOS attack. See if you can confirm with Steve.
BTW-thanks for the link UB!!!!!
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. Marcus Aurelius
Gladly Noel
August 10, 2007 - 09:14 ET by uncle_buckFirst you say this :
"For some background, one of the key tenets of the global warming myth
being advanced by Hansen and soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore is that nine of the
ten warmest years in history have occurred since 1995."
Then you quote McIntyre and say this :
"Four of the top 10 are now from the 1930s: 1934, 1931, 1938 and
1939, while only 3 of the top 10 are from the last 10 years (1998,
2006, 1999)."
Emphasize the word NOW - you are strongly implying that McIntyre's work has changed the top 10 from 9 of last 10 years to NOW 3 of last 10 years.
That's misleading!!!
Uncle Buck
August 10, 2007 - 10:05 ET by Noel SheppardUncle Buck,
Forgive me, but it is only misleading to people with poor reading comprehension skills.
As you represented correctly, I wrote this (emphasis added throughout to help your comprehension):
Did you see any qualifier before the word "history" indicating "America?" No, correct? Yet, everywhere the new GISS data was referred to in this piece, such a qualifier existed:
Notice "American" there? Fortunately, 99 percent of readers did, and weren't misled. Let's continue:
Notice McIntyre wrote "U.S.?" Not world? Let's continue:
Notice once again the qualifier "American?" Now, as I received a few e-mails from people who also seemed to have poor reading comprehension skills, I even added an update less than an hour later which was present well before your first comment in this thread at 2:14 PM EST:
After all this, if you still feel misled, there really isn't anything I or anyone else can do. Yet, as 99 percent of the e-mail messages I received from around the world understood what was being addressed, I feel absolutely no need to change a thing in this post, or apologize to you for your confusion. ns
Noel, now that was
August 10, 2007 - 10:19 ET by JABNoel, now that was entertaining. Thanks for the morning chuckle :-)
"Too bad Ignorance isn't painful..."
Yes, Noel, it was a proper Fisking
August 10, 2007 - 10:24 ET by RJYes, Noel, it was a proper Fisking....
OK Noel
August 10, 2007 - 10:30 ET by uncle_buckObviously you are flustered.
"For some background, one of the key tenets of the global warming
myth being advanced by Hansen and soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore is that nine
of the ten warmest years in history have occurred since 1995.
McIntyre has been crunching the numbers
used to determine such things as published by GISS, and has identified
that the data have recently changed such that four of the top ten
warmest years in American history occurred in the 1930s, with the
warmest now in 1934 instead of the much-publicized 1998."
I must have extremely poor reading comprehension. I mean I read "nine
of the ten warmest years in history have occurred since 1995." and "and has identified
that the data have recently changed such that four of the top ten
warmest years in American history occurred in the 1930s" 15 words later.
I'm really sorry that in my poor reading comprehension that I missed the key phrase "has been crunching the numbers" and should have realized that this meant you were now changing your discussion from global to US temperatures. I mean when you said history in the first paragraph and American history in the second paragraph - I should have known that you were saying the first statement was global and the second was not. I'm so stupid.
Noel - it's completely misleading - 99% of your readers gobbled this all up lock stock and barrel.
Now the Huntsville alabama research - now THERE'S a story to hang your hat on.
That the 1930's had 4 of the top 11 in US history and now have 4 of the top 10 in US history ...... that's a total non-story.
OVER AND OUT!
Can't resist this little tweak, Uncle Buck
August 10, 2007 - 10:36 ET by RJCan't resist this little tweak, Uncle Buck...
It's most fitting that your inaccurate interpretation of Noel's post ends with the phrase "over and out", because that phrase is an inaccurate (Hollywood) interpretation of correct radio communications terminology. It's either "over" or "out"....never "over and out." ;^>
Like I said before, there
August 10, 2007 - 10:44 ET by dscottLike I said before, there is no point responding to a VACUOUS specious argument.
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. Marcus Aurelius
and I must work with a bunch of idiots
August 10, 2007 - 10:41 ET by uncle_buckI just showed your summary article to 5 co-workers - 2 doctors, 2 nurses, and one technical writer - 3 are staunch Republicans, one screaming liberal, and one independent.
Each of them had poor reading comprehension skills too, because they interpreted just as I did. And the technical writer - she was the most appalled of all. She called it a classic case of misleading the reader.
And when I explained the real underlying data, they all groaned and asked why I waste my time reading this junk.
Uncle Buck, you must be from
August 10, 2007 - 10:56 ET by bassndudeUncle Buck, you must be from either San Francisco or Arkansas if this confuses you guys. Reading comprehension skills are not always easy to teach someone.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
This is getting old Buck
August 10, 2007 - 20:33 ET by PopularTechBuck you are clearly trying your best to discredit this story by playing the independent just trying to be "fair and balanced". I have been tracking your posts and you do not fool me.
Anyone and I mean anyone with half a brain can read the update if it was not clear enough already. He also clearly states "American history occurred in the 1930s," in his original post. The update confirms it is for AMERICAN temperature records. It also confirms the credibility of the author as he clearly addressed the allegations of deliberate misinformation. The update Noel added discredits your whole assertions. I challenge you to try finding updates like that to alarmist posts. What is sad is what you are doing is trying to force Noel to downplay his post as an alarmist would on say the DailyKos. Noel wrote this post with a tone that was needed - that this is a serious and significant find disputing AGW theory. An alarmist would dismiss it as you did in a tone emphasizing over and over that these are US vs Global temperature corrections. Which would downplay the significance for absolutely no reason other than to downplay it so people would think to ignore it or consider it not important when in fact it is incredibly important.
I don't know what is more insulting you attempting to blatantly discredit this article or the ignorance of the people who you showed this too who called it "junk".
I applaud Noel for not falling for these obvious tactics.
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
Uncle Buck
August 10, 2007 - 10:43 ET by Noel SheppardUB,
You finally wrote something accurate (emphasis added):
That's correct, especially when there was an update at the end of the post added well before your first comment here explaining exactly that. ns
you're the best
August 10, 2007 - 11:24 ET by uncle_buckYou're the best Noel.
Sorry I missed the added update - which was added long AFTER I started making many posts. You see - when I would come back - I scroll to the page and click on comments - and that takes me just to the point below your update. So this is the first I see it.
You did realize that your original post required clarification for us morons - and for that I commend you.
As for your jab at my accuracy, I suppose that means that I was inaccurate in my statements about the top 10 years in US history were juggled in that 2001 was dropped from the top 10 and 1939 was added. That is earth shattering news my friend. It shakes the entire foundation that alarmists have been perched on. I don't care what they say about you in wikipedia - your tops in my book.
slashdot
August 10, 2007 - 14:38 ET by uncle_buckThis article is now linked on slashdot.org and many interesting comments have come up. Here's a sample :
"Read the story above, which links to revised data:
http://data.giss.nas... [nasa.gov]
Initially, one one think that oh, we are not going to have a warming trend, or there is a conspiracy theory, or....
Import the data (ignore the column "5-year_Mean"; you can generate your own)
Use the Excel feature of "Trend Line", and look which direction it's going. (All trend lines show the same thing. And most important: Note the RATE that it's changing!"
"The effect of the correction on global temperatures is minor (some 1-2% less warming than originally thought)"
And my personal favorite :
"Can anyone offer an explanation for explicitly mentioning the '5 years before WW2' figure in the new data without mentioning that this is only one year more than previous, that doesn't involve a deliberate effort to spin the results?"
Are you representing that
August 10, 2007 - 15:10 ET by dscottAre you representing that 1934 is not the warmest year on record given the corrections??? Are you implying 1998 is the warmest year on record?
McIntyre states very clearly that his work documents 1934 not 1998 as the warmest on record, are you disputing his findings?
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. Marcus Aurelius
never did dscott
August 10, 2007 - 15:51 ET by uncle_buckNever said that once dscott.
Check slashdot.org for their comments. If you're not familiar with slashdot - it's tagline is "news for nerds - stuff that matters" - it is frequented by a very technical audience with many many scientists from many walks. It's my favorite website - really very interesting.
And when you check comments - you get a whole wide variety of opinions. Sure there are jokers and trolls - but just about every story, there will be very insightful comments that really breakdown a story, and show you what's important.
And the comments on this story are interesting. I'll point out that 2 prominent comments early on say - the data is US only and not global - my exact point. Try the excel chart thing - very interesting.
And of course my favorite quote - which hits the nail right on the head and applies directly to Noel "Can anyone offer an explanation for explicitly mentioning the '5 years
before WW2' figure in the new data without mentioning that this is only
one year more than previous, that doesn't involve a deliberate effort
to spin the results?"
Very insightful indeed.
But seriously, take a few moments of your time - and read comments from both sides of the fence - I think you'll find it interesting.
That is unless of course you fall under this comment :
"both sides have established a religious level of conviction of their
position, and no compromise is possible or desired. Certainly
intelligent discussion, moderate debate, and consensus are discouraged
if not actually torpedoed by zealots of the Left and Right extremes."
Never said that once
August 10, 2007 - 16:09 ET by dscottNever said that once dscott.
So answer the question in your opinion, was 1934 the warmest year on record or not?
BTW-the year 2000 reference has to do with the Y2K bug they had which screwed with ALL the results thus making 1934 the warmest year, not that he only analyzed temperatures for 2000 to 2005. NASA at this point to my understanding has acknowledged that 1998 is no longer the warmest year on record.
Making these specious arguments is only showing your own denial of the facts.
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. Marcus Aurelius
to answer your question
August 10, 2007 - 17:00 ET by uncle_buck1934 is now on record as the warmest record in US history - yes. Never denied it.
So answer my question - are 9 of the last 10 years still the hottest recorded globally?
buncle uck... Why does it
August 10, 2007 - 17:05 ET by Clear thinkerbuncle uck...
Why does it even matter at this point. It looks as if the majority of neighboring planets have been warming at the same rate, so what?
Whatcha gonna do, BAN THE SUN?
Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html
just answer the question
August 10, 2007 - 17:10 ET by uncle_buckIt's a simple question with a yes or no answer - are 9 of the last 10 years the hottest recorded globally? Or would you prefer to demonstrate your denial of the facts?
We don't know
August 10, 2007 - 20:37 ET by PopularTechSince the US temperature records have been adjusted than the global temperatures also need to be adjusted. Nothing about global temperatures can be stated as fact now until they have been thoroughly checked and adjusted for these types of errors.
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
Poptech. We can't even
August 10, 2007 - 20:41 ET by Jack BauerPoptech. We can't even trust the so-called "temperature" stations in 2007.
And we are supposed to believe "stats" from 1901 onwards. Some people will believe anything they are told. God help us.
THE DEFAULT POSTION OF SCIENCE IS SKEPTICISM.
friendly wager
August 10, 2007 - 21:16 ET by uncle_buckWould you like to place a friendly wager of "you were right" that after the adjustments are thoroughly checked that the global data will remian the same?
You see, I'm no alarmist .... but I do take exception to Noel stating "For some background, one of the key tenets of the global warming myth
being advanced by Hansen and soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore is that nine of the
ten warmest years in history have occurred since 1995." at the very beginning of his summary when that statement is still true.
I do not pretend to know the intent of Noel's statement, and if he had discluded that single statement from his summary I would not still be here.
But nobody has answered the simple question - has anything in this story - or Noel's new story on moving thermometers - has anything changed the data to say that 9 of the last 10 years were the hottest recorded temps in history???
You Don't Get it!
August 10, 2007 - 22:10 ET by PopularTechWE DON'T KNOW! And I don't gamble.
All we know is that these US Temp records have been corrected and considering they are the largest single country datasets they should have a significance on the global mean. Now there are many things we do not know about the Global Temperature records such as how they are calculated. Hansen like Mann modifies the sets based on apparently his method of doing so for what he considers Bias and for his adjustment to that.
Take all the exception you want. Noel has every right to say this when we have just discovered the US Temp records to be in error. This puts in doubt the Global Records. Combined with further analysis of the worlds temperature monitoring stations there are simply too many unknowns to still declare what Gore has.
What are you trying to accomplish here Buck? Are you attempting to get people here to state something they do not believe to be true when the evidence keeps mounting against it? For what reason? So you can quote it? Sorry it is not going to happen.
We simply do not know until further investigations and analysis are completed.
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
we agree on more than you think
August 10, 2007 - 22:52 ET by uncle_buckI have no agenda and we agree more on this topic than you may think.
Good now we are getting
August 10, 2007 - 21:33 ET by dscottGood now we are getting somewhere. The entire article and thread is specificaly about the US. So to now answer your question, given that Global temperatures are dependent on ALL countries reporting accurate data, the answer is no one knows since ALL the calculations are supposedly based on accurate data.
Given the contraversies now with the IPCC data and the Chinese data problems, any meaningful comparison must be made on a regional basis such as the US. Given the US covers multiple time zones and all kinds of climate zones, it is reasonable to use the US data (accurate with out urban heat island effects) as a proxy for Global temperatures. Obviously since we are dealing with proxy data, it would be improper to draw any firm conclusions but just inferences from it. Given that the US temperature data indicates 1934 as the high and that viewed in isolation from Global temperature we can say there is no Global warming being induced in the US. If that is the case, AGW being a global theory is repudiated.
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. Marcus Aurelius
funny
August 10, 2007 - 22:33 ET by uncle_buckdscott,
this is hysterical dude.
I admitted - and never denied 1934 warmest in US - it was after all only 0.01 degrees celsius below #1 before.
Never once - ever - no matter how many people accused me - never said that.
But for me personally - having Noel calling me out - I say again - he makes the statement about 9 of 10 years right in the beginning of the summary - and NONE of this data disputes that - it's still true.
But will you admit that?
I'd like to think you're open minded enough - with all of the great points you make - that you can say - no - none of this change in data changes al gore's bullsh*t statements - al gore's still full of sh*t.
Then we can all agree!
I got knocked off line
August 10, 2007 - 23:51 ET by danboI got knocked off line also. but for me it was a bad wireless box. (Hopefully tomorrow.)
Just wanted to point out. I'm hearing from folks in Europe that their records are pretty much like the new US records.Warmer 30's with almost as warm 90's and 00's. Noel and I saw that a few weeks ago with the Greenland records. (And that was using these interesting GISS records. These may also have been changed.
As the US and Europe are the two best historical data sets. If both data sets show warmer 30's. this may be very interesting.
Gotta do this quick with this connection. Sorry if it's sketchy and loaded with typos and mis spells.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
Slashdot is frequented by Anti-Capitalist Open Source Fanatics
August 10, 2007 - 20:15 ET by PopularTechDon't give me that crap that Slashdot is frequented by a highly technical audience. It is frequented by a technical and a pseudo-technical audience + wannabes of which the far majority are anti-capitalists, open source junkies. And why I am not surprised - largely liberal.
I have had many debates with liberal pseudo-technical people and they attempt to overly word, overly excuse or overly but incorrectly analyze their arguments. Usually focusing on absurd conclusions to obvious facts and data. They add lengthly excuses and tirelessly repeat their already clearly dismissed non-points. Example in point here via Buck.
The fact that Buck thinks their comments are insightful only proves his lack of insight on all things obvious.
Example:
1+1 =2. "No!" Says Buck "your space between the 1 and the = implies that 2 is more equal than 1+1, are you implying 3 Noel?"
"Can anyone offer an explanation for explicitly mentioning the '5 years before WW2' figure in the new data without mentioning that this is only one year more than previous, that doesn't involve a deliberate effort to spin the results?"
"Insight" for the clueless and apparently the ones with reading comprehension problems, like you and your friends Buck. This idiot on Slashdot included 1930s: as one of the years: "1934, 1931, 1938 and 1939". There are only 4 years BUCK! Typical of Slashdot commentors = jumping to conclusions based on their failure to read clearly. They are more concerned with their preconceived arguments than looking at the facts. Buck you great analytical skills seemed to have failed you here. This guy and Buck are clearly looking to discredit this and I just proved it.
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
U the MAN poptech
August 10, 2007 - 22:07 ET by uncle_buckMay I correct you poptech - as you have link overload -
"1934, 1931, 1938 and 1939". There are only 4 years BUCK!"
But you missed that that thread was about the 1930's and the part which quoted "'5 years before WW2'" - well 1921 was before ww2
you might not have seen this one - chedk it out :
1998 and 1934 flip flopped #1 and #2 positions, 1921 and 2006 flip
flopped #3 and #4, 1931, 1999, and 1953 maintained positions 5, 6, and
7, 1990 jumped from 9 to 8, 1938 from 10 to 9, and 2001 fell out to be
replaced by 1939.
So count with me - 1921, 1931, 1934, 1938, 1939 - that's 5 years BEFORE WW2.
Tell me about " jumping to conclusions based on their failure to read clearly".
You just proved my point
August 10, 2007 - 22:30 ET by PopularTechI see so this article is not linked on Slashdot but the one from Dailytech is.
"This article is now linked on slashdot.org" - Buck
Because Noel does not "explicitly mentioning the '5 years before WW2' " or 1921 as you implied by stating that this article is linked to slashdot and then presenting a quote that has nothing to do with Noel's work. Who are you criticizing? Maybe any and all on this topic. I thought it was odd when you did not link to the Slashdot source.
Why did you post a response from Slashdot to a Dailytech article implying it was criticizing Noel's post on NewsBusters? Who is trying to misinform people here?
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
you da man
August 10, 2007 - 23:05 ET by uncle_buckJust like Noel put me in my place earlier - you drilled me dude!
BTW - totally agreed
August 10, 2007 - 23:14 ET by uncle_buckSlashdot is "frequented by a technical and a pseudo-technical audience + wannabes of
which the far majority are anti-capitalists, open source junkies. And
why I am not surprised - largely liberal."
100% agreed my friend.
But it is also frequented by many very smart people - and if you took the time to read the comments - hey I'm in IT, so many times I'm reading comments to get the REAL scoop on the technical scare story of the day - and I believe I am able to discern the good from the bad. And I trust you are able to do the same.
I don't read it
August 10, 2007 - 23:57 ET by PopularTechI don't read Slashdot because the stories they post usually have heavy anti- anything not open source bias as do the commentors. There are plenty of other tech news sites that do a better job and you can stay informed just the same.
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
ooops
August 11, 2007 - 23:51 ET by uncle_buckooops - sorry poptech
Sorry Buck
August 9, 2007 - 21:31 ET by PopularTechSorry Buck, the statements Noel made are accurate and not misleading. If the amount changed from 3 to 4 for the 1930s and 4 to 3 from the last 10 years and Noel (as he did) states this as such then the only person misleading anyone is you by claiming it is misleading.
Al Gore consistently points out that 1998 was the hottest year on record! Well guess what? At least for the US it was not anymore. That is very significant.
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
Queen Latifah = College Dropout
August 9, 2007 - 20:08 ET by PopularTechEducation of those who believe in "Man-Made" Global Warming Theory:
Alanis Morissette, High School Diploma
Alicia Keys, College Dropout
Alicia Silverstone, High School Dropout
Art Bell, College Dropout
Ben Stiller, College Dropout
Bill Maher, B.A. English (no science degree)
Bono (Paul Hewson), High School Diploma
Brad Pitt, College Dropout
Cameron Diaz, High School Dropout
Dana Elaine Owens (Queen Latifah), College Dropout
Daryl Hanna, B.F.A. Theater (no science degree)
Diane Keaton, College Dropout
Drew Barrymore, High School Dropout
Ed Begley Jr., High School Diploma
George Clooney, College Dropout
Gwyneth Paltrow, College Dropout
John Travolta, High School Dropout
Jon Bon Jovi (John Bongiovi), High School Diploma
Joshua Jackson, High School Dropout
Julia Louis-Dreyfus, College Dropout
Julia Roberts, College Dropout
Keanu Reeves, High School Dropout
Kevin Bacon, High School Dropout
Kiefer Sutherland, High School Dropout
Leonardo DiCaprio, High School Dropout
Madonna (Madonna Ciccone), College Dropout
Matt Damon, College Dropout
Michael Moore, College Dropout
Nicole Richie, College Dropout
Olivia Newton-John, High School Dropout
Oprah Winfrey, B.A. Speech and Drama (no science degree)
Orlando Bloom, High School Dropout, B.A. Drama (no science degree)
Paris Hilton, High School Dropout
Pierce Brosnan. High School Dropout
Richard Branson, High School Dropout
Robert Redford, College Dropout
Sean Penn, College Dropout
Sheryl Crow, B.A. Music Education (no science degree)
Sienna Miller, High School Diploma
Willie Nelson, High School Dropout + College Dropout
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
Outcome-based Education
August 10, 2007 - 10:10 ET by Sergeant ROCKThe 'dumbing down' of America shows continued success.
Whole Language - New Math - Revised History
August 10, 2007 - 10:19 ET by vrwc13The 'dumbing down' of America shows continued success. Indeed.
Thus we have a "real" truth from Al Gore...
Yeah, logic, reason, facts play less of a role now in the way we make decisions in America. – Al Gore
Whole Language or why Johnny can't read
August 10, 2007 - 10:36 ET by vrwc13Want to know why Johnny can't read...why there is such a fuss about learning disabilities (solved by drugging our kids)...
Rise of Whole Language and skepticism
After its introduction by Goodman, whole language rose in popularity dramatically. It became a major educational paradigm of the late 1980s and the 1990s. Despite its popularity during this period, educators who believed that skill instruction was important for students' learning and some researchers in education were skeptical of whole language claims and said so loudly. Whether it was associated with whole language or not, the 1990s saw statistically-significant declines in student achievement nationwide on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Much of the blame for these declines was pinned on whole language. Throughout the 1990s and into the 2000s, whole language skeptics generated considerable research that cast considerable doubt on features of whole language that de-emphasized skills, especially in phonics.
Comparison with math instruction
The concept of whole language has been linked with reform mathematics approaches, as well as other standards for education reform in science and history. These similarly emphasize global understanding and de-emphasize skills instruction, as has been noted by critics. Proponents have responded vociferously to such charges. These instructional approaches are linked by a holistic epistemology and constructivist theory of learning, as described above. WIKI
reform = politicized = secular humanism = socialism = communism = the party of hillary, john, john, al, and barak
Men stumble over the truth from time to time, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing happened. -Winston Churchill.
Call to Action
August 9, 2007 - 12:47 ET by dscottpresident@whitehouse.gov Alert everyone you know, email President Bush and demand Hansen's resignation.
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. Marcus Aurelius
Someone inside NASA, some
August 9, 2007 - 13:07 ET by sarcasmoSomeone inside NASA, some sort of low-level web-tech, HAD to know he/she was changing these numbers in order to change them. The "inside story" on this one will be very interesting, if it's ever investigated. Did the change happen Wednesday, or was it only noticed Wednesday? I can't hit the climate-audit page, but the NASA page doesn't indicate when it was last changed. (And considering the somewhat-infamous 1934 date, I suppose now's as good a time as any to promote my theory that bigger-government causes global warming!).
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Milankovitch cycles
August 9, 2007 - 14:47 ET by PaulJafThe following question was sent to askgwt.com (globalwarmthis.com) and we're struggling to find the answer. Here’s the question: "Why don't global warming experts reference the Milankovitch cycles?"
Go to http://www.globalwarmthis.com/Classroom.html to learn about the Milankovitch cycles.
Thanks!
Milankovitch Cycles Better Link
August 9, 2007 - 20:49 ET by PopularTechIf they looked at this then they would have to admit climate change is caused by the earths distance, rotation and axis to the the sun.
Milankovitch Cycles (NASA)
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
Uncle B, What I will
August 9, 2007 - 15:31 ET by Sick-n-TiredUncle B,
What I will acknowledge is that yes, according to NASA, Hansen et al., McIntyre made an "adjustment necessary to prevent creating an artificial jump in year 2000". However, how exactly does this affect the other data prior to 2000. They say it doesn't affect those temperatures, but if that is true why would McIntyre publish his works elsewhere (ICECAP, CLIMATE AUDIT etc.) to show the contrary? Furthermore, at the bottom of the page there are numerous contacts for technical and scientific inquiries---notice who's name is missing? Correct, McIntyre.
It seems to me that this NASA page was published, with their * next to McIntyres name to save face, and how would you say, smooth their data perhaps?
good questions
August 9, 2007 - 16:28 ET by uncle_buckWell, I don't see the climateaudit stories - the site is currently down and I'm very curious as to exactly what he says.
I can say what I saw on icecap is simply a chart with temperatures - I see zero that claims McIntyre's error discovery led to these as new charts.
It looks totally misleading IMHO.
As for McIntyre's anme being missing from the NASA page - well he doesn't work for NASA. He found an error, reported it, they noted it, thanked him publicly, but decided not to offer him a job.
And hey, if McIntyre's pages arguments are expanded on and it turns out he found some other error or that the post 2000 data error somehow effects 1934, I'll be glad to eat crow and send it on to some alarmists I know as facts that I can hang my hat on. But right now, unfortunately, this story looks completely misleading.
What did that chart say? Or
August 9, 2007 - 17:04 ET by danboWhat did that chart say? Or show?
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
I know this is somewhat
August 9, 2007 - 16:00 ET by fitzfongI know this is somewhat off-topic, but take a look at the picture on this post. If you shaved Al Gore's head, he'd look like exactly like Dr. Evil from the Austin Powers movies. "Breathtaking."
Since the
August 9, 2007 - 16:33 ET by dscottSince the Climate Audit site seems to be down for some reason, (I have to wonder if it is a DNS attack) I have this link via Dr. Pielke's site to Steve's comments on the situation including the PRIOR to 2000 data.
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007/08/08/giss-has-reranked-us-temperature-anomalies/#comments
#9 I have made my 3rd request for access to GISS source code to try to decode what they do. They have refused prior requests. Lack of access to source code makes this sort of exercise far more time consuming than it ought to be.
Yesterday they completely overwrote their US data set, changing virtually every number prior to 2000, explaining this only with a cursory comment on their webpage. In addition, they have changed their UHI adjustments so that in many cases the changed UHI adjustments offset the error in their “raw” data.
Even before these change, I was unable to track their pre-2000 data to any archive. It was sort of like USHCN adjusted data in the 1990s but diverged in earlier periods. I’ve requested a copy of the original data set or information on its provenance.
I would welcome letters to GISS urging them to fully disclose their source code.
BTW the CRU situation is much worse as they have refused to even identify the stations that they use. In fairness to GISS, they provided enough information that you could leverage on it, but CRU has resolutely refused such information.
Comment by Steve McIntyre — August 8, 2007 @ 10:03 pm
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. Marcus Aurelius
If my memory is correcrt.
August 9, 2007 - 17:00 ET by danboIf my memory is correcrt. They've been the object of cyber attacks. But today may be just problems with bandwidth. Too many requests.
Steve is pretty open. So warmers may be there looking for fudge factors. And we're there to celebrate.
I was there early this morning and yesterday for totally different reasons. It was operational then.
If I read Steve right as you pointed out he's been hitting brick walls getting information from GISS. And was discussing request under the freedom of information act.
There may be some pre emptive adjustments.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
good info
August 9, 2007 - 18:34 ET by uncle_buckGood info dscott.
I think McIntyre will hit a brick wall asking for source code from giss - being in IT - I know there is good reason for that. But the raw data - they should give that up and I hope he succeeds in that venture.
The question I have for McIntyre is show me the US data before the adjustments. Did it show something similar?
Because if you check this link :
http://data.giss.nas...
The graphs for global land and global land and water measurements all show a clear upward trend especially in the last 20 years.
The US chart does show differences - but what did it look like before the adjustments McIntyre claims were just made on all pre 2000 data.
If he wants to make a truly solid claim that I can put in my anti-gw toolbelt, he would show that US chart as it was before the adjustment - it would make his argument much much stronger and is something I WOULD hang my hat on.
But if he chooses not to provide that, the adjusted giss global charts still show significant warming in the last 20 years and it would be difficult to argue to an alarmist. The global charts still show the last 2 decades as the warmest by far in the charts.
i've found the answer to my questions in the above post
August 9, 2007 - 20:05 ET by uncle_buckThanks to (I forget who) who posted this link ...
http://www.norcalblo...
Concerning US temperatures before and after :
1998 and 1934 flip flopped #1 and #2 positions, 1921 and 2006 flip flopped #3 and #4, 1931, 1999, and 1953 maintained positions 5, 6, and 7, 1990 jumped from 9 to 8, 1938 from 10 to 9, and 2001 fell out to be replaced by 1939.
The US data is essentially the same as before.
The misleading in Noel's summary .... (sorry Noel - well McIntyre said it) "Four of the top 10 are now from the 1930s: 1934, 1931, 1938 and
1939, while only 3 of the top 10 are from the last 10 years (1998,
2006, 1999). Several years (2000, 2002, 2003, 2004) fell well down the leaderboard, behind even 1900.
Well, before the adjustment - 3 of the top 10's were from the 1930s, and only 4 of the last 10 years were previously listed (now it's 3).
More misleading statements : "For some background, one of the key tenets of the global warming myth
being advanced by Hansen and soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore is that nine of the
ten warmest years in history have occurred since 1995."
Clearly, the "old data" of US temperatures is not what was cited as the 9 of the last 10 years being the hottest - that claim was for GLOBAL temperatures - and the giss charts still show that.
Unfortunately, this will not be added to my anti-gw toolbelt.
Debunk slam dunk!
Duplicate Post
August 9, 2007 - 21:34 ET by PopularTechThis is a duplicate post you made to the one above.
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
Temperature Fraud
August 9, 2007 - 17:00 ET by Mike From CanmoreAs long as honest people like Steve keep digging up the truth, we'll have a nice cue stick instead of the hockey stick. Let's hope the idea of carbon taxes/penalties along with soon to be Dr. Al Gore's road show go the way of the dodo bird,. I wonder if Al will refund any of the millions he's made spewing carbon from planes, limousines and mouth. Yea, right.
Cheers
AGW`ers will laugh this
August 9, 2007 - 17:57 ET by chessplayerAGW`ers will laugh this off as meaningless. Thats if the msm even reports it, that is.
Quote: I've been
August 9, 2007 - 19:54 ET by KhyrisQuote:
I've been told that climateaudit.org has been disabled by a DDOS attack. It may be a week before it's back up. Posted by: Steve McIntyre | August 9, 2007 11:40 AM
Source please, link needed
August 9, 2007 - 20:48 ET by dscottSource please, link needed for that quote. If Steve McIntyre's site has been attacked this needs to brought to Sen. Inhoffe's attention to publicize the AGW cultists attempts to silence this extremely damaging info. The attack in itself is proof of a organized attempt to suppress information and exposing the AGW hoax.
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. Marcus Aurelius
Sorry duplicate
August 9, 2007 - 20:59 ET by danboSorry duplicate.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
I ran into the same thing.
August 9, 2007 - 20:58 ET by danboI ran into the same thing.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
I found it here, in the
August 10, 2007 - 02:26 ET by KhyrisI found it here, in the comments section:
http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/08/1998_no_longer_the_hottest_yea.html
Sheppard Grand Slam
August 10, 2007 - 08:30 ET by dscottLooks like Bro just hit the grand slam with bases loaded. Excellent piece again on AT:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/08/revised_temp_data_reduces_glob.html
You see, as Warren Meyer of Coyoteblog.com (whose recent email expressed a delight we share in the irony of this correction taking place the week of the Gore / Newsweek story) points out:
It was the gross folly of these "fudge factors" McIntyre challenged NASA on. And won.
Today, not only have the charts and graphs been modified, but the GISS website includes thisacknowledgement that:
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. Marcus Aurelius
Climate Audit and surfacestations.org are down
August 9, 2007 - 22:46 ET by PopularTechClimate Audit and surfacestations.org are down
"Steve
McIntyre's Climate Audit is down due to excessive traffic that may have
been caused by either or a combination of these things:
1- Rush Limbaugh mentioning the website in Thursday's Show
2- Denial of Service (DOS) attacks
3- All of the above
A new server is being deployed, in the meantime, the story on how
Steve McIntyre discovered NASA's Y2K data processing error is below.
As for surfacestations.org, we are still trying to determine what has occurred."
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
Last comment on the link
August 10, 2007 - 08:40 ET by dscottLast comment on the link you gave:
It wasn't just the blog hits. The webmaster for http://climateaudit.org says the blog has been knocked off the internet by a DDOS attack. They're moving to a different server, and should be back up in a few days.
Posted by: Chris Chittleborough | August 10, 2007 12:10 AM
The end is nigh for AGW, Al Gore and his cult following are doing everything they can to stop this most inconvenient truth from going public. With billions of dollars at stake, they have powerful incentive to silence anyone who would ruin their plans and most importantly challenge their belief system. If AGW is wrong, then what else is wrong with liberal pet agendas???? It's a thread we are pulling upon with all our might.
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. Marcus Aurelius
no official announcement from GISS head James Hansen
August 10, 2007 - 06:57 ET by HarbingerIs it possible he has been muzzled by the White House??
"web site down" Here is HELP
August 10, 2007 - 08:37 ET by judahisThe "website down" problem has an easy fix:
The
wayback machine can take you back there, and you can even track changes
by dates, ie, see how it looked at different dates. Too
wonderful.
WAYBACK MACHINE
Judahbenheard.com
Not
a Democrap or a lip-brawl, mostly a conserve-a-tiff. Famous words of
elderly from movie "Moonstruck: "Somebody tell a joke" .
Re 57,61 I know the
August 11, 2007 - 10:16 ET by dscottRe 57,61
I know the DOS attack on ClimateAudit.org was real, as I helped them try to troubleshoot the problem, and the attack continues even now. The server is getting constant DOS attacks and anytime they try to reconnect the SQL server to the Wordpress blog engine, it gets overwhelmed with requests. The nature and speed of the requests have not abated as eastern time zone goes home from work as would be expected with interest driven requests.
DOS attacks are easy to do, anybody can get some freely available software to launch them.
My problem with surfacetstations.org is different, my dual T1 circuit to my office went dead about 2 hours after CA’s DOS attacks started. The problem is somewhere in the SFO Bay Area. We don’t know what it is and the ISP is trying to track it down.
Its not just the one server that is offline, its my entire business. I’m writing from home while I wait for word from the telco/ISP on what the problem is.
For now I’m going to assume my circuit problem is coincidental until I hear otherwise.
Comment by Anthony Watts — August 9, 2007 @ 9:40 pm
Re63 I would add that we had a DOS attack on surfacestations.org about two weeks ago. We stopped it by installing security software and doing firewall adjustments.
Comment by Anthony Watts — August 9, 2007 @ 9:44 pm
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007/08/08/giss-has-reranked-us-temperature-anomalies/#comments
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. Marcus Aurelius