Free Markets, Free People

NASA concludes its temperature data worse than CRU’s

Another brick falls from the crumbling facade of “climate science” in support of AGW:

E-mail messages obtained by a Freedom of Information Act request reveal that NASA concluded that its own climate findings were inferior to those maintained by both the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) — the scandalized source of the leaked Climate-gate e-mails — and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climatic Data Center.

The e-mails from 2007 reveal that when a USA Today reporter asked if NASA’s data “was more accurate” than other climate-change data sets, NASA’s Dr. Reto A. Ruedy replied with an unequivocal no. He said “the National Climatic Data Center’s procedure of only using the best stations is more accurate,” admitting that some of his own procedures led to less accurate readings.

“My recommendation to you is to continue using NCDC’s data for the U.S. means and [East Anglia] data for the global means,” Ruedy told the reporter.

And we all know the story about East Anglia’s CRU data. That’s a pretty damning admission by NASA. I think it should be fairly clear to anyone who isn’t a warmist zealot that there are multiple documented reasons to now doubt the “science” that supports the claim – and that’s all it is at this point, having never really been peer reviewed – that the globe is warming and man is the reason. The usual disclaimer is in order – the globe may very well be warming but it may just as easily be the result of natural cycles than man. And NASA and CRU do the AGW side no favors with their admittedly inaccurate and fudged data sets. NASA, at least, seems to understand the problem:

In an updated analysis of the surface temperature data released on March 19, NASA adjusted the raw temperature station data to account for inaccurate readings caused by heat-absorbing paved surfaces and buildings in a slightly different way. NASA determines which stations are urban with nighttime satellite photos, looking for stations near light sources as seen from space.

Of course, this doesn’t solve problems with NASA’s data, as the newest paper admits: “Much higher resolution would be needed to check for local problems with the placement of thermometers relative to possible building obstructions,” a problem repeatedly underscored by meteorologist Anthony Watts on his SurfaceStations.org Web site. Last month, Watts told FoxNews.com that “90 percent of them don’t meet [the government's] old, simple rule called the ‘100-foot rule’ for keeping thermometers 100 feet or more from biasing influence. Ninety percent of them failed that, and we’ve got documentation.”

In other related news, IPCC chief and railroad engineer Rajendra Pachauri has refused to resign, but is saying he plans to change his behavior:

He admitted it had been a mistake to give the impression, in many interviews, that he was advocating specific actions to cut emissions. Last year, he called for higher taxes on aviation and motoring, said people should eat less meat, and proposed that hotel rooms should have electricity meters to charge people extra for using air conditioning.

Speaking in London yesterday, he said he would focus in future on presenting the science on climate change rather than advocating policies.

“I will try to clarify that I’m not prescribing anything as a solution. Maybe I should be more careful [in media interviews] in laying down certain riders. One learns from that and I’m learning.”

Of course it is the “science” that is under fire and the IPCC report has been found to contain claims from non-scientific articles which were presented as science. Glacier melting and rainforest destruction claims both were found to be unsubstantiated scientifically. As noted above Pachauri has claimed people should eat less meat to lessen man’s effect on the climate. That too has been called into question:

In a presentation before the 239th national meeting of the American Chemical Society, Dr. Frank Mitloehner of the University of California said the misleading claims emanate from a 2006 U.N. report, which said that livestock was “responsible for 18 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions,” describing the figure as “a larger share than transportation.”

According to Mitloehner, the claim is inaccurate because the numbers for livestock were calculated differently from the transport figures.

In the report, the livestock emissions included gases produced by growing animal feed; animals’ digestive emissions; and processing meat and milk into foods. But the transportation analysis factored in only emissions from fossil fuels burned while driving, and not all other transport-lifecycle related factors.

“This lopsided analysis is a classical apples-and-oranges analogy that truly confused the issue,” he said.

[...]

“We certainly can reduce our greenhouse gas production, but not by consuming less meat and milk,’ he told the American Chemical Society meeting in San Francisco yesterday, reported The Daily Mail.

All of this has certainly had an effect. For instance, look at Germany:

Germans citizens are rapidly losing faith in global warming following the Climate-gate scandals, according to a new report in Der Spiegel.

The report indicates that just 42 percent of Germans are worried about global warming, down substantially from the 62 percent that expressed concern with the state of the environment in 2006.

German news site The Local analyzed the results from the poll, conducted by polling company Infratest for the German newsmagazine. Many people have little faith in the information and prognosis of climate researchers, The Local explained, with a third questioned in the survey not giving them much credence.

This is thought to be largely due to mistakes and exaggerations recently discovered in a report of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said the site.

Of course the last to understand how shoddy the science is seems to be our politicians.

Today, the President gives a speech on energy issues, focusing on expanded offshore oil and gas drilling, which has broad backing as one way to boost domestic energy production.

This is all part of an effort by the White House to stir more support for the work of three Senators, John Kerry (D-MA), Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Lindsay Graham (R-SC), who have been trying to put together what might best be described as a “grand compromise” on energy issues.

The reason that a different legislative plan of action was needed on energy was because the original drive for a Cap and Trade bill simply isn’t going anywhere in the Senate.

If President Obama is going to get an energy bill through the Congress, then it will have to be something that allows for more offshore energy exploration, more nuclear energy initiatives, and also some efforts to clamp down on carbon emissions that produce greenhouse gases.

You could call it Cap and Trade Lite, framed as an energy bill.

Of course, the off-shore drilling expansion is an attempt to draw that 60th vote from among Republicans (not that this administration wouldn’t slow walk any execution of that expansion as they’re doing now in the interior of the US). And, of course, there’s Lindsey Graham to oblige. The good news is a few Democrats are adamantly against such an expansion. So, for the wrong reason, they might end up blocking it.  But here’s the point – if the bill passes, cap-and-trade, even just applicable to utilities, is in place. It’s expansion, then, is much easier.

And based on what? The garbage science produced by those above – “science” that is constantly being questioned and disproved. Do you suppose if the Democrats ram this bill through (as they did health care) in the face of this growing proof of the questionable science (and it becomes clear that utilities will raise their prices to offset the tax) even while more and more of the public becomes aware of that questionable science (see Germany), that it will be any more popular a bill than HCR?

~McQ

[ad] Empty ad slot (#1)!

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

20 Responses to NASA concludes its temperature data worse than CRU’s

  • I guess the Germans can now be added to the list of scum who are trying to hurt Erb’s kids.

    • … and they wanted us to spend (with apologies to Carl Sagan) “billions and billions” on this.

    • Erb’s next trip to Germany will be interesting. I’d suggest he stick to campus and not step outside the academic safe zone where he might dead with German deniers.

  • Ah, come on.   The science is “settled” … like solids in a cesspit.

  • This sort of things just gives me oodles of confidence in any report that NASA publishes about out-of-control Priuses (Prii?)!

    NASA determines which stations are urban with nighttime satellite photos, looking for stations near light sources as seen from space.

    Call me old-fashioned, but wouldn’t it be easier (and probably cheaper) just to ask the people who maintain the stations if there are buildings, pavement, or other heat sources within a certain distance?  How much did this satellite study cost?

  • “the off-shore drilling expansion is an attempt to draw that 60th vote from among Republicans”

    Just like heathcare…

    R. “That sure is a shit sandwich you got there!”

    D. “You said you like ketchup didn’t you?” “How about we put a little ketchup on it”

    R.  “Still a shit sandwich…”

    MSM. “Republicans still refuse to co-operate even after Democrats offered a major concession.”

    • I’m sorry to say that it’d go more like this:

      R. “That sure is a shit sandwich you got there!”
      D. “You said you like ketchup didn’t you?  How about we put a little ketchup on it?”
      R.  “Throw in some mustard and put it on a sesame seed bun made in my district and we’ve got a deal.”

      MiniTru. “Obama secures bipartisan support for vital legislation.”

  • On the bright side, the IPCC’s 5th Assessment Report will be much, much thinner than the 4th one.

  • Not a month seems to go by without some other revelation about the screwed up scare hoax of AGW.
     
    And yet, I have yet to get an apology from any of the whining losers who ridiculed me for being skeptical.

    • Skeptics?  There are no skeptics!  There are only those who worship Gaia, and…..DENIERS!…..BARBARIAN APOSTATES AND INFIDELS!

  • The good news is a few Democrats are adamantly against such an expansion. So, for the wrong reason, they might end up blocking it.

    Please.   If we end up counting on Dems, we’ll get stupaked again.

    Well, except for maybe the coal state Dems.  Maybe.

    Oh, who am I kidding.  Definately stupaked.

    • I am sure a few billion for “clean coal” technology will work wonders. Its not as if we don’t have the money.
      Green Jobs!

  • Sorry, that first sentence was a direct quote and should have been italicized to distinguish it.

    Or put in quotation marks, since they are not only grammatically correct, but don’t disappear when I hit submit.

  • If the island is “floating” then there would be no threat from Global Warming because it would just float a bit higher in the water as the poles melt.

  • I read someplace that NASA decided to do a manned mission to Mars by August, 1982, but the fact that the Viet Nam war was way too costly. This type of mission could have been a drop inside the fiscal bucket, when compared to military spending back then. Comparing the value of a manned mission to Mars to that of slugging it out in Southeast Asia, I vote Mars, entirely. We lost Viet Nam; what a waste. We lost our early trip to Mars; what a waste. Now, we certainly have economic woes and budget cuts. Once more, Mars usually takes the back seat simply to fall out of the vehicle. What can we do to stop strike three?