Now We Have NASA-gate

Once again, we have to rely on Fox News and the British press to report these legitimate stories. Wonder why the lefty press is ignoring it? Hmmm? Anyone? Bueller?

Hansen's GISS at NASA is using the flawed data from another scandal (East Anglia) and thus making itself into another climate scandal. So, we now have three different but interrelated climate scandals: East Anglia's CRU (Climate-gate), U.N. IPCC's flawed climate report (too many "-gates" to mention), and now NASA's flawed climate data (based on CRU's climate data).

These morons represent the "consensus." The flaws are easy to see for anyone with a brain, but the Kool-Aid drinkers won't go quietly.

Not everyone is sipping the global warming Kool-Aid.

Concerns about the validity of NASA's climate research are being raised following revelations that the space agency admitted its data was less accurate than other weather trackers'. Disturbed by these reports, as well as the growing Climate-gate scandal that has left global-warming theorists reeling, Senators John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) and David Vitter (R-La.) have written a letter to space agency chief Charles Bolden demanding answers.

"The American people deserve to learn the truth about the data," Barrasso told FoxNews.com, stressing the risks of basing public policy on science that remains largely undecided.

***

The letter, expressing concern with NASA's newly revealed use of data from the East Anglia University's Climatic Research Unit, cites interviews with CRU's chief Phil Jones and programmer Ian "Harry" Harris, both of whom denigrated the quality of the CRU data. "No uniform data integrity, it's just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they're found. This whole project is SUCH A MESS," Harris reportedly commented.

[From FOXNews.com - Senators Demand Explanation of NASA's Flawed Climate Data]

NASA Climate Data Inferior to Climategate Data, Space Agency Says

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]

NASA Alarmist: Last Decade Warmest

So, how does this jibe with disgraced CRU (IPCC) scientist Phil Jones' admission just yesterday that there has been no significant warming for 15 years and other studies that show no warming since 1998 even with increasing CO2? Good question. Stories like these keep the warming alarmists out there believing in the myth, even after numerous scandals and empirical evidence to the contrary.

Let's look at the problems with the proclamations in this article (since alarmists will just accept what it says without question). The first problem is the source--alarmist radical Dr. James Hansen at NASA's GISS. Much has been written about him by skeptics, including in this blog. He is the one who said that oil executives should be put on trial and wrote a letter to Thulsa Doom Obama urging a carbon tax to redistribute wealth. Sound like a level-headed, unbiased climate scientist to you, whose only concern is scientific truth?

Next, let's look at his past assertions and the erroneous data behind them. Hansen is the scientist who called October 2008 the hottest October on record and then had to publicly recant that contention after mathematical mistakes were found in his data (and those errors were ONLY DISCOVERED because SKEPTICS SCRUTINIZED HIS NUMBERS). Hansen has proven time and again that he is a climate radical, and therefore, biased. Amazing that skeptics are often denigrated (even after being vindicated in their scrutiny of his work), while chumps like Hansen are just continually accepted as 'bringers of truth.' No one has put two-and-two together here. Why isn't the media questioning this proclamation after his past mistakes are a matter of record?

The problems with surface temperature measurements and sweeping contentions drawn from those data (such as the contention made here) were just recently discussed in the news. First, the "next climate scandal" discussed NOAA's >75% reduction in temperature monitoring stations that occurred in 1990 (and, surprise...most of those were stations in cooler areas). Second, the "urban island effect" is a factor, though it is often poo-poo'd away by alarmists as irrelevant. However, if you've ever watched professional tennis events like the Australian Open or U.S. Open, the players and commentators will often discuss how much warmer it is on the court, simply because of the reflected sun and heat energy coming off the concrete and onto players (this is almost common sense). If you live in a hot part of the country, do an experiment yourself; wait until the hottest part of the day (usually 1600 or so) and see which is warmer: your driveway or the grass in your yard? Use your hand or thermometer...doesn't matter. Clearly, urban areas will be hotter than non-urban areas, regardless of how alarmists might try to cover up that fact. An accurate temperature measurement in or around urban areas is problematic.

The next problem with Hansen and GISS is that, much like the scandal-ridden CRU's refusal to release data, Hansen has continually blocked attempts to release data for independent verification under the Freedom of Information Act. NASA is currently being sued to release more data. If they ever do, I assert that skeptical scrutiny will uncover more errors, just as they have before with Hansen and all the recent IPCC report errors.

The point here is that these calculations (or any others) by the radical alarmist, Dr. Hansen, should not be given full credence absent careful scrutiny. Unfortunately, the alarmists and media organizations with interests (like the BBC) in continuing the global warming myth will simply accept what GISS says without the slightest question. Much like the now debunked CRU data and IPCC reports, GISS's proclamations will be taken as gospel by those who don't want their religious-like belief in manmade climate change disrupted.

The 2000s were the warmest decade on record according to analysis by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS).

Goddard's surface temperature record shows an upward trend of about 0.2°C (0.36°F) per decade over the past three decades and a rise of 0.8°C (1.5°F) since 1880 since reliable record-keeping began in 1880.

2005 was the warmest year of the past decade and, by NASA's estimate, is the warmest year since 1880 (the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization gives 1998 that title). 2009 was only slightly cooler than 2005, although it was the warmest year on record in the Southern Hemisphere. 2010 is expected to be even warmer due, in part, to the return of El Niño, a cyclical phenomenon.

[From The warmest decade on record]