Great Commentary On The GISS Flub

Since the GISS revised its data there's been debate, meaningful or not meaningful? A blip but irrelevant and warming is still happening, or a major blow to the Gore ilk? A blow to those oil-funded... ah whatever I am just still irked by the Newsweek flub.

The key argument here lies with the fact that the data is US-specific... and we're less than 5% of global landmass. The argument, then, is that its not relevant. The article makes a great case otherwise.

Anyway read the editorial and decide for yourself - only 2 pages - here's an excerpt (full article here):

But, notes Canadian mathematician Stephen McIntyre, who exposed the false figures, “The Hansen error . . . has a significant impact on the GISS estimate of U.S. temperature history . . .” (Emphasis added.) Is this important because we’re a major world power or that we produce the best fried chicken? No, it’s important because we have a far more sophisticated system of temperature monitoring than countries with far larger land masses. Hence, data from each of these nations affect the global model more than the American data.

“Many of the stations in China, Indonesia, Brazil and elsewhere are in urban areas,” observes McIntyre. This can produce hotter temperatures, yet some of the major trackers of the data from these countries, including the National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration, make no attempt to adjust for monitor placement errors. In any event, for some reason “the U.S. history has a rather minimal (warming) trend if any since the 1930s, while the ROW [rest of the world] has a very pronounced trend since the 1930s.”

Thus if the U.S. model, by far the most accurate one, became the model, it would be a gut punch to those claiming we must take drastic, horrifically expense measures right now to ameliorate warming.

----> FULL TEXT OF THE ARTICLE HERE

This One Is Important - Remember It

I am giddy...

So we've all read that the last decade has been the hottest on record, that 1998 was the hottest year on record and 2005 tied that record. Right?

WRONG

Yesterday NASA changed the data - now it seems 1934 was actually the hottest and the temperature spike recently was artifically high (NASA has acknowledged the mistake).

In the United States, the calendar year 1998 ranked as the hottest of them all – until someone checked the math. After a Toronto skeptic tipped NASA this month to one flaw in its climate calculations, the U.S. agency ordered a full data review. Days later, it put out a revised list of all-time hottest years. The Dust Bowl year of 1934 now ranks as hottest ever in the U.S. – not 1998. More significantly, the agency reduced the mean U.S. "temperature anomalies" for the years 2000 to 2006 by 0.15 degrees Celsius. (article here)

So what does this mean????? Here's what:

1934 is now the hottest, and 3 others from the 1930's are in the top 10. Furthermore, only 3 (not 9) took place since 1995 (1998, 1999, and 2006). The years 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004 are now below the year 1900 and no longer even in the top 20. (source)

Here's the raw data by the way straight from NASA...

All I can say is, WOW. Remember this one because it'll be out of the headlines (if it even gets there - maybe Newsweek will retract their article?) before you know it.

MSNBC Strikes Again... May Destroy Planet

Just click here and enjoy... Gotta love the tradeoffs between cooling the earth and setting off a global chain reaction that might kill us all in the process. My favorite is the solar umbarella... ella... ella... eh... eh... eh... No clouds in my storms.

The "Propaganda Machine" Rolls On...

First off sorry for the delay in posting - it was a crazy couple weeks at work. Anyway, I was traveling a lot... Somewhere between Indiana and Charlotte I was in a store at the airport and saw the following Newsweek Cover:
(note: if you can't read the asterisk it says: "Or so claim the well-funded naysayers who still reject the overwhelming evidence of climate change. Inside the denial machine.")

Now I have to say - this is awesome. Awesome why? Because its one of the best BS pitches to the mass and mindless audiences I've ever seen. I mean hall of fame good. The more exciting important thing though, in a perverse way, is that it suggests to me that I am on to something. I mean anyone with half a neuron invested in the global warming discussion knows that this is at least a debatable topic. Even the people out there pitching it say "look, its happening, and even if its not 100% fact right now we should invest ahead of the curve because once we know for sure it'll be too late". But there's Newsweek, all shiny and new, speaking to an audience of 3.2 million a week (and declining no doubt) pitching that the informed view is that there's a conspiracy afoot and that anyone questioning the mainstream is either on the payroll or brainwashed by those that are (i.e. me - but which one am I???!!!!!).

As usual, the article strated with the consensus science of the IPCC (see the full Newsweek article here by the way). Pity they decided not to quote all those scientists that were either elbowed out of the panel or left because they felt they were being railroaded (just ask Chris Landsea - I STRONGLY encourage you all to read his letter of resignation from the IPCC and his stated reasons by clicking HERE).

Have a great week - watch out for the brainwashing. Also watch out for that guy from Dangerous Confressions.