Free Markets, Free People


NASA/GISS Accused Of Data Mainpulation In Support Of Man-Made Global Warming Agenda

After the scandal concerning the CRU at the University of East Anglia, this may be the sound of the second shoe dropping.

Data from the National Climate Data Center (NCDC) in Asheville, North Carolina and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) at Columbia University in New York City, both associated with the US Government and the UN’s IPCC, have come under fire from two researchers. Programmer E. Michael Smith and Certified Consulting Meteorologis Joseph D’Aleo have combed through the data and the programming from which conclusions were made about man-made global warming and claim the data used was both cherry-picked and manipulated to produce findings that supported the hypothesis that man was responsible for climate change.

For E. Michael Smith this project was quite a test of his computer programming skills. “Opening, unraveling and understanding what is happening in a complex FORTRAN computer code, with 20 years of age and change in it, is a difficult and grueling task,” he says, “and the deeper I dug the more amazing the details revealed. When doing a benchmark test of the program, I found patterns in the input data from NCDC that looked like dramatic and selective deletions of thermometers from cold locations.” Smith says after awhile, it became clear this was not a random strange pattern he was finding, but a well designed and orchestrated manipulation process. “The more I looked, the more I found patterns of deletion that could not be accidental. Thermometers moved from cold mountains to warm beaches; from Siberian Arctic to more southerly locations and from pristine rural locations to jet airport tarmacs. The last remaining Arctic thermometer in Canada is in a place called ‘The Garden Spot of the Arctic,’ always moving away from the cold and toward the heat. I could not believe it was so blatant and it clearly looked like it was in support of an agenda,” Smith says.

Here are the numbers behind the startling findings of the new research paper. The number of actual weather observation points used as a starting point for world average temperatures has been reduced from about 6,000 in the 1970s to about 1,500 in the most recent years. Still, more stations are dropped out in related programs and in the final NASA/GIStemp data file, it drops to about 1,000. That leaves much of the world unaccounted for,” says Joseph D’Aleo of ICECAP.us and SPPI.org, who has released a research study of the global temperature pattern today. “Think of it this way,” he continues, “if Minneapolis and other northern cities suddenly disappeared but Kansas City and St. Louis were still available, would you think an average of Kansas City and St. Louis would provide an accurate replacement for Minneapolis and expect to use that to determine how Minneapolis’ temperature has changed with any hope of accuracy?”

E. Michael Smith pointed out that the November 2009 “anomaly map” from GISS shows a very hot Bolivia, which is covered by high mountains. “One small problem: there have been no temperatures recorded in the NCDC data set for Bolivia since 1990. NASA/GISS have to fill in or make up the numbers from up to 1200km away. This is on the beach in Peru or in the Amazon jungle,” he said.

Given these revelations, and assuming they’re accurate, it calls into question the entire AGW hypothesis since the supporting data is apparently invalid. I have to wonder, other than the sound of crickets, what reaction Al Gore and the rest of the warmist cabal will have to say about this?

~McQ

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • email
  • Print
  • Google Bookmarks

23 Responses to NASA/GISS Accused Of Data Mainpulation In Support Of Man-Made Global Warming Agenda

  • Meh…

    I don’t know.  More a shoelace than a shoe.
    First clod of dirt on a lowered casket?
    The thing is, we knew they were cooking their books already…

    • Really? Seems quite a few of the Elite/LapDog media deny that, or they say the difference is inconsequential.
      IOW, many in” denial[1]” have the same attitude you do.
      [1] Appropriate use of the word “denial”.

      • I’m just speaking of a) my personal reactions and b) “deniers” already knew they were lying.
        “Seems quite a few of the Elite/LapDog media deny that, or they say the difference is inconsequential.”
        They say and deny a lot don’t they…

        • It doesn’t matter what “deniers” think; this is matter with such wide spread BS, from schools to the media, that the FACTS must be wielded like a baseball bat over the heads of way too many.
          It may be your “opinion” but you sound like someone who was caught with his pants down and now doesn’t like having his nose rubbed in the poop pile.

           

  • But, but, but you’re all DENIERS!  It’s just like denying the HOLOCAUST!  How dare you question the truth of s/the coming ice age s/acid rain s/hole in the ozone layer s/global warming s/anthropogenic climate change?  You’re all RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACISTS!  You paranoid right-wing extremist militia terrorists!  How DARE you question us?  How DARE you?

  • Apparently Henke’s mouth is too full of crow to comment on all of this.

    • yeah, I suppose

    • He should really drop an Emily Litella “never mind”, just for form’s sake.

      • Let’s give Henke and others a break:
        1. It was a complicated scientific theory in any case, not easily understood.
        2. Its not implausible sounding.
        3. Most importantly, the evidence presented was faked – how are lay people supposed to catch that?
        We have to Thank Our Lucky Stars this happened in the internet age where an Army of Davids can take down Goliath.
         

        • The evidence should not have been a concluding factor for anyone.

          The reason I say that, is even the temperature swing that was reported was no where out of line with this thing we call “weather” that we’ve all seen in our lifetime.

          Then the science was ‘closed’.  A true scientific process should be open.  Granted there is perhaps a proprietary period of a few years, not decades.

          Then the model correlation started becoming more and more faulty.

          And then there’s the people who in the 70′s were selling the idea pollution was cooling the planet and we were headed for a frozen doom.  Then the temp trend changed.  And in no time at all the same group of people (many of the same specific people too) were saying the exact same claims of doom with warming heading towards the same solutions.  The two movements were identical with two exceptions, warming instead of cooling and CO2 instead of soot.  In fact, ‘global dimming’ if you haven’t heard has been dusted off ready to go if the trend become cooling again.  The machine is primed.

          We have people with a solution (impede industry especially in developed countries) looking for a problem.  They’ve been there since the 60′s and earlier and they will always looking for the next global catastrophe to link to industry.  So by now I assumed people had a warranted sense of skepticism.   Which Ironically is not an inherently negative quality but they tried to make it out as one.

        • 1. It was a complicated scientific theory in any case, not easily understood.
          It was perfectly easy to understand in it’s first iteration, in fact it was an, “it stands to reason” argument–CO2 is a greenhouse gas, so more of it will raise the global temperature.  The problem was that all the previous measurements of atmospheric CO2 had to be wrong, or manmade CO2 had to be something with a magically (meaning not understood and without an explicable mechanism) able to warm the planet, because we’ve had lot’s more CO2 with less warming.  Which encompasses #2.

          2. Its not implausible sounding.

          It’s only plausible sounding if past measurements of CO2 are wrong, such that we were introducing CO2 molecules that were much more effective than past CO2 molecules at producing warming, or much more CO2 than had ever been present.  The AGWarmers also claimed the invention of positive feedbacks for which there was no reproducible evidence, and used handwavium and corruption of the scientific method to cover for the lack of a new mechanism for positive feedback that only applied to man-made CO2.  Handwavium was also used to cover the claims that previous measures of past CO2 and temperature were both way too high for CO2 and had no particular correlation to each other.
          3. Most importantly, the evidence presented was faked – how are lay people supposed to catch that?
          Catching them red handed a la the mystery zipfile wasn’t even required, it was clear the AGWarmers were wrong without evidence of blatant collusive fraud.  All it required was the realisation that they were proposing that somehow, for some reason, either manmade CO2 was somehow drastically more effective than natural CO2 at producing greenhouse warming or; past measurements of CO2 were drastically and for no persuasive far too high and/or past measurements of temperature were  without persuasive evidence too warm (for example the Midieval Warm period didn’t exist or was somehow local to Europe).
          Couple that with the extraordinary claims of the damage AGWarming would somehow cause, and the own-throat-slitting measures proposed to deal with it, and skepticism should have ruled the day without the CRU data exposure.
          Henke’s not worse than others, but others owe a, “Never mind”, as well.

        • Harun,
          Really?  It would be one thing if these folks said things like “This is complicated, we should give it a good examination because the cost of dismissing AGW if true is high.”  But that’s not what anyone was saying.  All we heard – including from Jon – was that the evidence is overwhelming (it wasn’t), that reputable scientists said it was so, that we need to act.  PLEASE!  That sort of behavior, in the face of the enormous costs being tossed around by the advocates, does not need a break, it needs to be called out repeatedly so that there is some slim hope that a greater percentage of the population will stop and think the next time the political class tries to cloak it’s social agenda under the noble garb of science.  A guy can dream anyway.  I’m not sure what Jon’s motivation was (he seems to be the sort who aims to get along with everyone, which frankly I cannot respect) but most of the heavy hitting AGW crowd did not come to the table looking for an honest and open examination of the potential problem.  They wanted to cram it down our throats and bypass our brains.

  • I feel sorry for these guys.  This is unlike the e-mail scandal.  The exact people involved were never really found and likely have their asses covered by their government.  But with this scandal, there are names.

    These poor slobs are going to get their personal lives scrutinized for anything to discredit them and their careers destroyed.  Hope they have their tax data for the past 25 years.

  • The moment they have to coin the phrase “deniers’ is a big tip off.
    They almost had me. Now I am thoroughly agnostic.

  • I want a Congressional investigation … into why Congress never knew .. why they were deceived .. why the EPA lied to them

  • Ya wanna save the world? Eliminate all two-legged animals that rank above a chimpanzee.

  • It is freezing like always here.  Why is Al Gore not charged with a conspiracy scheme.  He did not say his books were fiction.
     

  • A WARNING that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 is likely to be retracted after a series of scientific blunders by the United Nations body that issued it.
    Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world’s glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.
    In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC’s 2007 report.
    It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.
    Hasnain has since admitted that the claim was “speculation” and was not supported by any formal research. If confirmed it would be one of the most serious failures yet seen in climate research. The IPCC was set up precisely to ensure that world leaders had the best possible scientific advice on climate change.
    Professor Murari Lal, who oversaw the chapter on glaciers in the IPCC report, said he would recommend that the claim about glaciers be dropped: “If Hasnain says officially that he never asserted this, or that it is a wrong presumption, than I will recommend that the assertion about Himalayan glaciers be removed from future IPCC assessments.”

  • In Popular Mechanics, Editor James Meigs pens the Myth of Clean Coal. Not a bad article if you buy into the CO2 as pollutant meme.  Further, it  relies on unstated assumptions that recent developments (Climatiquiddick and this QandO post among others) complicate.  (I’ve a subscription to PM and get the sense that Meigs is a congregant of the AGW church.)

    What I found interesting was a comment left by a high priest of the AGW church -   #18.  Using caricatures of his/her opposition, the author launches into a litany of assertions that even satire could not do justice.  The amount of projection is stunning.  Proto-fascists have erected the church, and the laity is on a mission to figuratively ‘cleanse’ all non-believers.  It will get ugly when the saints of consensus are outnumbered, out manned, and out-scienced by “deniers.”   Talk about a “tipping point…”

michael kors outlet michael kors handbags outlet michael kors factory outlet