So much for James Hansen's GISS data and the NOAA data that predicts gloom and doom on a monthly basis; we've already seen multiple instances where this data has been proven untrustworthy.
Scandal-ridden UEA CRU data is 'more accurate' than the data invalidated by the Climategate scandal.
It doesn't take a scientist to look at this mess and discern that it's nothing but a political propaganda campaign and witch hunt against all scientists not willing to go along with the imaginary "consensus."
NASA was able to put a man on the moon, but the space agency can't tell you what the temperature was when it did. By its own admission, NASA's temperature records are in even worse shape than the besmirched Climate-gate data.
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.
[From FOXNews.com - NASA Data Worse Than Climate-Gate Data, Space Agency Admits]
