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 an economist, business owner, and Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
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."