Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 4 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The expanding scandal - NOAA and NASA nailed
#21
Virginia Governor going after Mann for taxpayer fraud.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/05/c...d_inv.html
Reply
#22
Just a bit of history for all you young'uns who are just catching up to the
global warming hoax. You first have to understand how the global temperature record is created. NOAA collects the data from a global
network of weather reporting stations and provides it to other agencies,
primarily NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS), through its
National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). GISS compiles that data into the
Global and U.S. Historical Climatology Network datasets, after some
thorough massaging, of course The CRU of Climategate fame further
massages the data to create their own historical temperature record
that scientists and NGOs around the world use to project catastrophic
global warming. Are you following this? Just bear with me.

James Hansen, who headed-up GISS (and still does) appeared before Al Gores' Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works in June of
1988. Mark that date down as the birth of the global warming agenda.
Dr. Hansen's 1988 testimony would sound familiar ... the ice caps will
melt, the seas will rise, drought and pestilence will destroy mankind if
we don't stop burning fossil fuels. Well, maybe I'm exaggerating a little, but not much. Senator Gore jumped on the opportunity and promised to open the floodgates of public funding for Dr. Hansen to go prove his theories. And laid the foundations of a political career based on global warming.

Following the 1988 hearings, NOAA mysteriously began reducing the
number of weather reporting stations it collected temperature data
from (I know, it's a dangling participle, but I'm a chemist), eliminating
3/4 of them over the next three years. The number was reduced from
6,000 in 1988 to 1,500 in 1991, but more importantly, NOAA apparently
engaged in selective cherry-picking, dropping stations in cooler rural,
high-latitude and high-altitude locales while retaining warmer urban
and lower lattitude/altitude stations. For example, Canadian stations
were reduced from almost 500 to less than 40.

Had I engaged in such obvious data manipulation as an undergraduate
physics student, I would have flunked whatever course was involved,
if not actually thrown out of the program. I did a lot of advanced
heat transfer and thermodynamics computer modeling earlier in my
career, at least enough to understand some of the unbiased scientific
criticisms leveled at the GCMs used to predict global warming. I urge
the reader to Google Dr. Heinz Hug and ruminate on his analysis of
Carbon Dioxide heat absorption effects.

My problem with the whole global warming issue is - if global warming
is an undeniable fact, why did our government have to resort to manipulating the data used to compile the global temperature record. That, and the fact that the GCMs used to predict global warming don't work, i.e., they don't predict the current miniscule temperature increase (if there is one at all) when run from a starting point 150 years ago.
I don't mind admitting I'm not a climatologist, and haven't received any
grants to study global warming. I'm sorry if I made any global warming
believers uncomfortable.



Reply
#23
Quote:My problem with the whole global warming issue is - if global warming
is an undeniable fact, why did our government have to resort to manipulating the data used to compile the global temperature record.

Maybe because they know their AGW conjecture needs all the help it can get.

Quote:That, and the fact that the GCMs used to predict global warming don't work, i.e., they don't predict the current miniscule temperature increase (if there is one at all) when run from a starting point 150 years ago.


Repeated modeling failures are not stopping the AGW insanity.Just keep it going as long as they can to get those grant monies.

Big Grin
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)