NASA, Hansen "Busted" for "Cherry-picking" Temperature Data

If AGW (anthropogenic global warming) was as much a fait accompli as those in the green movement would have the rest of us believe, then those who promulgate this theory wouldn't be forced to use dishonesty to promote their point of view.

Case in point, The Register is reporting that NASA's chief climate expert and his network of propagandists have been caught "cherry-picking" temperature data to make it appear as though the planet is warming up at a much greater pace than they originally claimed.

They have released a new graphic in which their chosen base-line centers around the cooling spell of the 1970's thus skewing the later temperature data to make it appear that change is occurring at a much greater rate than the overall data would imply.

Painting by numbers: NASA's peculiar thermometer

By Steven Goddard
Published Thursday 5th June 2008 12:11 GMT

Analysis: The story is that the world is heating up - fast. Prominent people at NASA warn us that unless we change our carbon producing ways, civilisation as we know it will come to an end. At the same time, there are new scientific studies showing that the earth is in a 20 year long cooling period. Which view is correct? Temperature data should be simple enough to record and analyze. We all know how to read a thermometer - it is not rocket science.

Previously we looked at how US temperature data sets have been adjusted - with more recent versions of historical data sets showing a steeper rise in temperature than they used to. Here, we'll be looking at current NASA data and why their temperature maps appear hot-red, even when others are cool-blue.

To recap the earlier article, the graph below shows additional adjustments to the data set since the big "correction" in 2000.



We observe that the data has been consistently adjusted towards a bias of greater warming. The years prior to the 1970s have again been adjusted to lower temperatures, and recent years have been adjusted towards higher temperatures.

NASA's published data is largely based on data from the US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN), which derives its data from thermometer readings across the country. According to USHCN literature, the raw temperature data is adjusted to compensate for geographical movements in the weather stations, changes in the 24-hour start/end times when the readings are taken, and other factors. USHCN is directly affiliated with the Oak Ridge National Laboratories' Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, an organisation which exists primarily to promote the idea of a link between CO2 and climate.

Perhaps Mr. Goddard could have more accurately entitled his article "Painting the Numbers."

It's not enough that the so-called "scientist" who are in the forefront of the war against reason and for the religion of Anthropogenic Global Warming "force data" in an attempt to make their highly biased and severely flawed computer models appear predictive and authoratative, now these same scientists are playing games with the data itself.

Once more we who are skeptics are confronted by "authorities" who wish us to believe in the religion of AGW and who attempt to convince us by "cooking the books."

I have commented on the dishonesty of those on the Left who are trying to force global warming dogma down our collective throats. If their "scientific evidence" is so compelling, why do they always find it necessary to misrepresent what their data show?

IN fact, the most compelling evidence they provide is that they themselves don't believe what they are finding and therefore must "fudge" their numbers in order to reassure themselves that theirs is the right path.

Real science does not have to "cook the books," or as I said, "Paint the numbers." Real science can stand on its own. The data speak for the scientist. They don't even have to make any case, either something is fact or it is not.

It is indeed unfortunate that so many people in this society are so gullible. They are blinded by the alphabet of letters following some "expert's" name that they leave the critical thinking portion of their brains behind in making decisions.

This information, as reported in the Register is a devastating endictment of one of AGW's most revered champions. This information ought to finish James Hansen as a scientist, and should ruin his career. In a sane world, it would, but in this alternate reality where Liberals accept dogma over hard science, Hansen's gross transgression will only serve to elevate his status as a cult figure in the religion of AGW.

It's a sad day for science when rigorous scientific examination is replaced by the religious AGW dogma of the Left.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below