Right-wing media forward conspiracy theory that NASA, NOAA manipulate climate data
Investor's Business Daily and American Thinker are forwarding claims made by meteorologist Joseph D'Aleo and computer programmer Michael Smith that the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) have "cherry-picked" the locations of weather observation stations in order to bias their temperature records in favor of warmer temperatures and thus produce data that supports the existence of global climate change. But climate experts have stated that Smith and D'Aleo's claims are flawed and based on an inaccurate understanding of how global temperature data is calculated and compiled.
Right-wing media forward new conspiracy theory to deem climate change a "fraud"
D'Aleo and Smith reportedly accuse NASA and NOAA of "cherry-pick[ing]" the locations of weather observation stations to "creat[e] a strong bias toward warmer temperatures." On January 14, D'Aleo and Smith were featured in a KUSI News special report entitled "Global Warming: The Other Side." According to the special's host, they accused NASA and the NOAA of "creating a strong bias toward warmer temperatures through a system that dramatically trimmed the number and cherry-picked the locations of weather observation stations they use to produce the data set on which temperature record reports are based." In a previous report which drew on Smith's research and was posted to the website of the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project, of which D'Aleo is executive director, D'Aleo wrote:
There has clearly been some cyclical warming in recent decades most notably 1979 to 1998. However the global surface station based data is seriously compromised by major station dropout. There has been a clear bias towards removing higher elevation, higher latitude and rural stations. The data suffers contamination by urbanization and other local factors such as land-use/land-cover changes, and improper siting. There is missing data and uncertainties in ocean temperatures. These factors all lead to overestimation of temperatures. Numerous peer-reviewed papers in the last several years have shown this overestimation is the order of 30 to 50% just from the contamination issues alone. The cherry picking of observing sites and the increase of interpolation to vacant data grids makes these estimates very conservative.
NOAA appears to play a key role as a data gatherer/gatekeeper for the global data centers at NASA and CRU. Programmer E.M. Smith's analysis of NOAA's GHCN found they systematically eliminated 75% of the world's stations with a clear bias towards removing higher latitude, high altitude and rural locations, all of which had a tendency to be cooler. The thermometers in a sense marched towards the tropics, the sea and to airport tarmacs.
SHOULD YOU BELIEVE NOAA/NASA RANKINGS FOR MONTH AND YEAR
Definitively NO! Climate change is real, there are cooling and warming periods that can be shown to correlate nicely with solar and ocean cycles. You can trust in the data that shows there has been warming from 1979 to 1998, just as there was warming the around 1920 to 1940. But there has been cooling from 1940 to the late 1970s and since 2001. It is the long term trend on which this cyclical pattern is superimposed that is exaggerated.
The NOAA, NASA and the Hadley Center press releases should be ignored. The reason which is expanded on with case studies in the full report is that the surface based data sets have become seriously flawed and can no longer be trusted for climate trend or model forecast assessment in decision making by congress or the EPA.
Investor's Business Daily: Due to new information on climate center data manipulation, "the crack-up of the global warming fraud is picking up speed." In a January 25 editorial entitled "Climate Flimflam flaming out," to support its claim that "the crack-up of the global warming fraud is picking up speed," IBD stated that D'Aleo and Smith "say that the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies has 'reduced the total number of Canadian weather stations in the database' and has 'cherry-picked' the stations."
American Thinker: "[N]ew study has uncovered compelling evidence that our government's principal climate centers" are "manipulating worldwide temperature data." American Thinker cited D'Aleo and Smith's allegations in a January 22 post entitled "Climategate: CRU was but the tip of the iceberg":
Last Thursday, Certified Consulting Meteorologist Joseph D'Aleo and computer expert E. Michael Smith appeared together on KUSI TV [Video] to discuss the Climategate -- American Style scandal they had discovered. This time out, the alleged perpetrators are the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS).
NOAA stands accused by the two researchers of strategically deleting cherry-picked, cooler-reporting weather observation stations from the temperature data it provides the world through its National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). D'Aleo explained to show host and Weather Channel founder John Coleman that while the Hadley Center in the U.K. has been the subject of recent scrutiny, "[w]e think NOAA is complicit, if not the real ground zero for the issue."
And their primary accomplices are the scientists at GISS, who put the altered data through an even more biased regimen of alterations, including intentionally replacing the dropped NOAA readings with those of stations located in much warmer locales.
But climate experts say "accusations" based on "misunderstanding or misrepresentation" of temperature calculation methods
NASA climate scientist Schmidt: D'Aleo and Smith have "lack of understanding of where" global temperature "data actually comes from," has "absolutely nothing to do with NCDC or NASA." In a January 1 RealClimate.org post, Gavin A. Schmidt, a climate modeler at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, wrote of D'Aleo and Smith:
Their claim is apparently that coastal station absolute temperatures are being used to estimate the current absolute temperatures in mountain regions and that the anomalies there are warm because the coast is warmer than the mountain. This is simply wrong. What is actually done is that temperature anomalies are calculated locally from local baselines, and these anomalies can be interpolated over quite large distances. This is perfectly fine and checkable by looking at the pairwise correlations at the monthly stations between different stations (London-Paris or New York-Cleveland or LA-San Francisco). The second thread in their 'accusation' is that the agencies are deleting records, but this just underscores their lack of understanding of where the GHCN data set actually comes from. This is thoroughly discussed in Peterson and Vose (1997) which indicates where the data came from and which data streams give real time updates. The principle one is the CLIMAT updates of monthly mean temperature via the WMO network of reports. These are distributed by the Nat. Met. Services who have decided which stations they choose to produce monthly mean data for (and how it is calculated) and [has] absolutely nothing to do with NCDC or NASA.
Yale Forum on Climate Change & the Media: There is "certainly no evidence of deliberate manipulation." The Yale Forum on Climate Change & the Media, an online publication directed by the Yale Project on Climate Change, has stated that D'Aleo and Smith's accusations are either "a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the nature of the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) and methods used in calculating global temperatures."
- Yale Forum: Apparent station drop-off not "purposeful elimination," historical data was collected years later, not in real time. From the January 21 Yale Forum article:
When glancing at the chart showing the number of temperature stations used over time, it does appear rather odd to see the number of stations used in the GHCN network drop dramatically between the 1970s and present. D'Aleo and Smith point to purposeful elimination of those stations.
However, as Thomas Peterson and Russell Vose, the researchers who assembled much of GHCN, have explained:
The reasons why the number of stations in GHCN drop off in recent years are because some of GHCN's source datasets are retroactive data compilations (e.g., World Weather Records) and other data sources were created or exchanged years ago. Only three data sources are available in near-real time.
It's common to think of temperature stations as modern Internet-linked operations that instantly report temperature readings to readily accessible databases, but that is not particularly accurate for stations outside of the United States and Western Europe. For many of the world's stations, observations are still taken and recorded by hand, and assembling and digitizing records from thousands of stations worldwide is burdensome.
During that spike in station counts in the 1970s, those stations were not actively reporting to some central repository. Rather, those records were collected years and decades later through painstaking work by researchers. It is quite likely that, a decade or two from now, the number of stations available for the 1990s and 2000s will exceed the 6,000-station peak reached in the 1970s.
- Yale Forum: "[N]o significant difference between the temperature from discontinuous and continuous stations." According to the Yale Forum article:
There is no significant difference between the temperature from discontinuous and continuous stations, suggesting that there was no purposeful or selective "dropping" of stations to bias the data. If anything, discontinuous stations have a slightly higher trend over the century than continuous stations. This result strongly suggests that the discontinuity in station data results from having inadequate resources to gather those records, rather than from some pernicious plot to exaggerate warming trends.
by nerzog (January 27, 2010 5:08 pm ET)3And I thought NASA just faked Moon Landings...
Reply Report Abuse
by SLRTX (January 27, 2010 5:12 pm ET)6nerzog -
Of course it was faked! Can't you see the woman in the bikini in the background? This picture was taken on a beach in Hawaii!
Denialists come in different packages, but the contents are the same - brainless twits. ;-)Reply Report Abuse
by SLRTX (January 27, 2010 5:10 pm ET)4Denialists are getting pretty desperate.
Their god of ignorance is under attack, so they pull the old "it's a conspiracy" rant out of their rear ends.
Wild claims, but nothing to back them up. The entire basis of denialism is rooted in a vast, complex, yet ill-defined conspiracy.
Let's consider the possibility that NASA and NOAA IS cherry-picking the data. Well, at least we can see the data, and locate gobs of papers backing that data up with proxy data. It really takes a lot of people to make this complex conspiracy work.
Now take a look at what the denialists have to back their claims. Crickets... Chirp.... Chirp.... Nothing. Nada. Zill.
Same old tired arguments used by the flat-earthers, the creationists, moon-landing denialists, and now the ACC denialists.
Denialists are goof-ball cranks.
http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2007/05/crank_howto.phpReply Report Abuse
by mmfa.fan (January 27, 2010 5:16 pm ET)4I look forward to more insight from Galileonardo...Reply Report Abuse
by Don Hussein Fabuloso (January 27, 2010 5:46 pm ET)4Har !, that guy went off the deep end the other day. More rancid, useless links than the dumpster behind the Jimmy Dean factory.Reply Report Abuse
by ScienceBuff (January 27, 2010 7:31 pm ET)3Now you've done it. You're doomed now to suffer a long, disjointed post from gallie with lots of insults and condescension. It'll use his patented scattershot approach with many varied assertions and multiple links that don't actually support the claims in which they are contained.
It'll be good when our one-world government takes control so we can have him silenced.Reply Report Abuse
by Don Hussein Fabuloso (January 27, 2010 8:11 pm ET)1That is an interesting technique, like playing every spot on the roulette wheel. Except without the ball. I think some of them have the idea that if they post 100 links, and one goes unanswered, the other 99 failures don't hurt their credibility at all.
Oh well, I guess that's no worse than gallie's old MO, when I first ran across him, he'd wait a couple days, then go back to a thread and deliver his death blows before comments were closed.
In fact, I should check back to that last thread when I have a chance, to see if I was on the receiving end of any of those devastating barbs.Reply Report Abuse
by galileonardo (January 28, 2010 6:52 am ET)2Good morning Vietnam! You rang? Before I launch into my long, disjointed post with lots of insults and condescension, I must thank you all first, especially given this tremendous opportunity with most of the high priests of the AGW cult present (Delly, go wake up Lawrence).
I am deeply touched by all the chatter, knowing my presence is felt even when I am not here. Thank you for the honor of electing me, galileonardo, MMfA's Top AGW Denier. I will wear the badge proudly and look forward to continuing my efforts to destroy your religious beliefs over the coming year, this the year of AGW's disintegration.
Top AGW Denier is a title I wear humbly, and despite having a life and family I care so deeply about, I shall do my best to visit you MMfA lifers as frequently as life allows and offer myself to you a la Bruce Lee.
So as long as you are willing to be disabused of your AGW foundations, I will serve you. And though I fight the noble fight for truth, the competition has been getting fierce as of late with many new deniers coming on board, and that is what makes this honor so special. You like me. You really like me. (Intentionally misquoted for you purists). Special thanks to Dully as I think she was first to recognize my special talents.
Now to good old Kernel Slanders, I thought we covered the old "late post" ground here and here and other times before.
Before going forward though, please take note that both of those links involve our old friend open_mind. I suppose, in your infinite fairness Kernel, you see no hypocrisy in his comments considering what he was up to last night on that very thread you mentioned. I guess he forgot mockingly using the term "have the place to yourself" just last week. So, you want to call him out for the late posts? I'm guessing not. No surprise given that cherry-picking is one of the AGW cornerstones among your clique at the cool table.
Moving on, you've afforded me yet another opportunity to try to finally get an answer in these regards from one of you AGW higher-ups. Every time I ask, I get no answer. Here goes for like the fifth time. I don't even need any new material, just quotes from those previous attempts at getting an answer to my question after a nice long quoted preface (you asked for it):
Blueneck said the following:
"Just an observation--I've noticed of late that you never stick around to engage in active exhange with anyone. You wait 8-12 hours till after a discussion has died down and return to spray the equivalent of pseudo-scientific graffiti (thinned with copious insolence) all over a thread. Great way to enhance you credibility."
Unlike some of the posters here (SLURTAX and DullDully immediately come to mind), I cannot spend the entirety of my day (and night in their specific cases) cruising MMfA looking for pats on the back from the AGW sheep here. I work more than full time and, having a 3-year-old son, by the time I am able to visit this wonderful backward world it is either very late at night or early in the morning (or hadn't you noticed that trend?).
I can count on one hand the number of times I have visited this site while on the job (something I am sure many posters here cannot say), so claiming that I "never stick around to engage in active exchange with anyone" or "wait till after a discussion has died down" would be badges I would wear proudly were they true since it seems that the majority of the comments made on MMfA are made during traditional working hours (in other words, on the company dime). I very rarely have posted while at work and even then almost exclusively during my lunch break. It's called "work ethic." Look it up.
But regardless, the claim that I don't engage in "active exchange" or wait "till after a discussion has died down" isn't true as can be attested to in the very thread Blueneck made that comment (my comments spawned over 20 replies and I'd say that I had a rather "active exchange" with Dully). And how exactly BTW would "wait[ing] 8-12 hours till after a discussion has died down" in any way "enhance you credibility?" Isn't that counter-intuitive since that would mean that the potential audience for my comments would be greatly reduced?
Anyway, I post when I get the opportunity and make no apologies for timing. I do have a life to lead (countering AGW propaganda on MMfA is just one of my side jobs)...Back to you Copen-mind, I find it especially ironic that you would make the "long after everyone has gone" claim considering you seem to mostly, like me, be a late night-early morning person. What's your excuse? You a working/family man? How dare you! I asked a similar question of SLURTAX before, but do any of the following apply to you as I believe they likely do to many an MMfA poster?
a) Retired (my guess before was that SLUR was a retired substitute biology teacher)
b) Trust-fund baby (never had a real job and don't care to start anytime soon)
c) Pilfering a paycheck from employer at "real job" while hammering away at the keys on MMfA (likely the case for most of the slack-jawed slackers here)
d) On the MMfA/AGW payroll
e) All of the above
So, Kernel, Bluff, fanatic, SLUR, Dully, and Copen, if you're out there, what's your story? I have seen most of you post at all hours of the day and night. Just looking at the thread Kernel referenced (still live if you want to take any more jabs) proves one of the above applies to most of you.
Kernel, you posted about 20 times to the thread over a 24-hour period, 2pm-2pm, many during "working hours." I'll go with (c) for you. Your boss must be proud. No wait. You're a boss, aren't you? A manager of some sort? Or maybe just a plain old control freak?
AGW-fan, you were good for almost 30 posts on that thread in a 13-hour stretch from 2pm-3am with barely an hour missed. Are you a (b) or a (d), or maybe a new category for "under-30, living at home, working part time?"
And Copen-mind, I'll try you once again since I expect you're lurking, afraid to enter the fray given your hypocrisy (though I expect the same lame answer). You posted nearly three dozen times to that thread over a 52-hour period during all waking hours. A true MMfA devotee, so predictable I can tell your sleeping schedule from your posting pattern. Are you one of the rare (e) folk? Actually, I'll go with (a) or (b) or a combination of both.
That's enough for now, though I welcome an answer from any one of the other AGW anti-science regulars. I guess none of these things matter to the in-crowd anyway. Inquisitors aren't to be questioned after all. Best to turn your attention onto the blasphemers. Cheers!Reply Report Abuse
by Johaely (January 28, 2010 7:28 am ET)Too Long; Didn't ReadReply Report Abuse
by mmfa.fan (January 28, 2010 9:17 pm ET)2To answer your question, I'm a student and I also work as a DJ and tend to keep late hours but my schedule varies from day to day. I like to visit this site in between other activities. If I find the discussion interesting then I pay more attention, as I did in that other thread. I'm not really sure what the point of telling you this is, but you did ask.
And a big LOL at your "anti-science" jab.Reply Report Abuse
by galileonardo (January 28, 2010 11:58 pm ET)1Thanks for sharing, really. I have asked it a number of times when people have broken out the "posting time of day" police routine. You are the first to answer. I guess I was pretty close. Maybe I'll go with "under-30, working part time, living at home or with roommates." My guess is most daytime posters do so on the company dime, choice (c).
So you're still young. You can fulfill the role of "spot on" pat-on-the-back SLURTAX lackey like you do below, but because you are young, you're not completely embedded like SLR and Dell. You still have hope. They made you watch AIT in high school though, right? JK. My nephew is a junior and has been subjected to it three times now.
Regardless, I'm sure you have ingested a sizable dose of AGW peer-pressure review literature through the present day and I would implore you to investigate the subject more deeply. Remove the politics (very difficult to do with AGW) and broaden your exposure to the available science. It is more than just interesting.
IMO, the theory is very weak. I think many independent-minded people share that opinion. I do believe that AGW is the path of zealots and sheep. The movement does represent anti-science to me. And I do think skeptic science will eventually reinsert sanity and we'll be able to refocus our energy back to real environmental issues instead of manufactured alarmist issues.
Until then, I will try to fight what I see as a mutilation of the scientific method by a flock of Neo-Inquisitors. May the truth win. Best of luck with your schooling.Reply Report Abuse
by mmfa.fan (January 29, 2010 1:27 am ET)Thanks for the good wishes. I should mention that I'm older than you probably think I am, and when I was in high school Al Gore was still in the White House.
Anyway, I appreciate your input (I mean that sincerely). You seem intelligent and you at least make the effort to back up your opinions with facts.
I do believe that AGW is the path of zealots and sheep.
It's unfortunate that you and others who share your point of view so often resort to this kind of patronizing talk and name-calling. If you present your case without talk of sheep, lemmings, kool-aid, cults, religion, etc. I for one would be a lot more receptive to the message. Otherwise it just seems like pretentious posturing. As if your taking this contrarian position is a form of invidious distinction intended to assert your own intellectual supremacy. It's off-putting and doesn't help your case.Reply Report Abuse
by galileonardo (January 29, 2010 7:46 pm ET)Your welcome, and thank you for the civil discourse. You said:
It's unfortunate that you and others who share your point of view so often resort to this kind of patronizing talk and name-calling.
That and your other points are well taken and I agree that this type of behavior does not help either side's credibility, but this is by no means a one-way street. I have tried the civil route with the likes of Dell and SLR and others, but in case you hadn't noticed, their discourse toward me and the regular attitude from the more zealous warmists toward any skeptic posts has been less than civil.
Just use this thread as an example. Skeptics, with most of this directed at me, are called or compared to moon-landing denialists, brainless twits, worshipers of a god of ignorance, conspiracy theorists, flat-earthers, creationists, off the deep end, discredited denier, discredited troll, trollster, troll denialist, slug, dunce, and crank (and with that last post you yourself responded, "Spot on, spot on.")
This is typical and has been since day one, not that I expected anything different. I suppose I could elevate above the fray and I agree it would do my case good, but I have never been known as one who rolls over when prodded. So throwing in AGW cultist, sheep, etc., while perhaps not conducive to message acceptance, is self-defense and gratifying. By and large, I treat people as they treat me or as I see them treat others. Am I pre-emptive with my barbs at times? Absolutely, but mostly with those who I have a track record with, though I concede that, after many months of negative conditioning, my civility tank is all but drained.
I do wish more people would thoroughly investigate this topic as the implications are indeed far reaching. And since IMO the debate has been unfairly one-sided, I want to try to get at least some people to revisit the idea that AGW science is settled. It most certainly is not as is proven on a nearly daily basis. Again IMO, if anything the evidence against AGW is far stronger than the evidence for it. But that message falls mostly on deaf ears in this forum as most here are deeply entrenched in their beliefs.
The irony to me is I am somehow lumped together with the far right. I am unaffiliated, fiscally conservative, and socially liberal. I am a naturalist and environmentalist and have been for a long time, and therein is the dig. This whole business of AGW has taken our focus away from the true environmental degradation taking place as we speak, degradation that could be impacted upon almost immediately (versus the supposed long-term benefits of CO2 mitigation).
When the AGW theory goes belly up as I have long predicted it would, the damage done by the politicizing of climate science and environmentalism will set back both fields for decades. And to me that is a crime.Reply Report Abuse
by mmfa.fan (January 29, 2010 8:38 pm ET)I guess that's where we disagree - in my opinion the evidence for it is stronger than the evidence against it. Mind you, I'm not an expert and don't claim to know the answer. But when you look at the balance of opinion within the scientific community, it seems to me fairly incredible that the vast majority is wrong at this point. That doesn't mean they aren't, but it makes it a pretty uphill battle for people like yourself to convince people like me of your point of view. That being said, I'm glad we can have a constructive discussion, and I'll try not to be dismissive if there are legitimate points of disagreement.Reply Report Abuse
by galileonardo (January 28, 2010 7:07 am ET)1There are even more links now. You should come back and pay a visit. Delly, open_mind, and I were still having fun over there last night. Even Bluff and mmfanatic came back yesterday morning for another round. Good times were had by all. Wish you were there. Before I go, one more useless link: "dangerous crossing". Intrigued?Reply Report Abuse
by mmfa.fan (January 28, 2010 9:18 pm ET)1One more link that's an opinion piece in the good old National Post. Sounds very scientific indeed!Reply Report Abuse
by galileonardo (January 29, 2010 12:04 am ET)1You don't have to worry about what it sounds like. Use your eyes and brain and tell me what it looks and feels like.
Tell me you went and independently found out who Andrew Weaver is and learned his stance on AGW.
Then tell me that Weaver's call for Pachauri's resignation, his claim that "there's been a dangerous crossing of that line" between neutral science and political advocacy, and his contention that "the IPCC needs a fundamental shift" are irrelevant.Reply Report Abuse
by galileonardo (January 28, 2010 6:55 am ET)1Here's some insight:
The "little ice age" corresponds to a drop in human economic activity following the outbreak of bubonic plague. Look it up.
Food for thought. Swell.
Reply Report Abuse
by mmfa.fan (January 28, 2010 9:21 pm ET)1So let me get this straight. I state a simple fact, and you're doing what, denying it? Are you denying that there was a drop in human economic activity following the bubonic plague? Are you denying that this occurred during the same period of time as the little ice age? Remember, I never advanced any claim about causation. I'd like to know what you're so up in arms about vis-a-vis that post.Reply Report Abuse
by galileonardo (January 29, 2010 12:05 am ET)1Hold up a sec here. You say you "look forward to more insight from Galileonardo" and I reply in kind with a replication of one of your insights. Pretty simple equation. Not sure why it needs to be more complicated than that, or do you think you shouldn't get any stick back?Reply Report Abuse
by mmfa.fan (January 29, 2010 1:30 am ET)That's fine. I just don't understand your reaction to that post of mine. I was just pointing out an (imo) interesting fact and for some reason you took exception to it.Reply Report Abuse
by galileonardo (January 29, 2010 7:48 pm ET)Although you may not have intended it, your statement read like you were implying a connection between the resulting drop in plague-related economic activity with the Little Ice Age. While these stories are more blatant in their insinuations, I took your statement the same way I do stories like this and this.Reply Report Abuse
by DellDolly (January 27, 2010 5:45 pm ET)2Imagine that - the late-breaking news that discredited troll poster Galileonardo was so excited about in a previous thread, the stuff that I called a misrepresentation, is actually a misrepresentation!Reply Report Abuse
by galileonardo (January 28, 2010 7:18 am ET)1My word Dully you are funny. Speaking of misrepresentation, why don't we revisit the topic, but insert reality into the equation instead of your typical hefty dose of delusion?
Here is my first mention of the paper from the thread you alluded to in my response to open_mind. Quote:
Here then. You can hear about it from all sides, even starring Schmidtty lashing out about "profound ignorance." Then explore further at your leisure.
I haven't given this a read yet, but it's hot off the presses. I'm guessing page 4 pretty much covers it. They're coming out swinging. Maybe we can both give that a read as well and see if they can back it up.
The second link is to the paper itself but you may have missed the first link while your head was rotating. Not only does it talk about D'Aleo's claims, but lo and behold, it also discusses Schmidt's rebuttal and, you guessed it, the findings of The Yale Forum. Go figure.
Maybe MMfA was inspired by my post to write this story. You think they'd hire me?
Here is my other comment about the paper in response to Bluff (the one you responded to 15 minutes later spewing your standard venom). You may want to note that Bluff and I were talking about D'Aleo and again I noted I hadn't yet read it. So there I am, "so excited" about the paper I hadn't (and still haven't) read to "see if they can back it up." Wow. You got me. Cheers!Reply Report Abuse
by SLRTX (January 28, 2010 9:42 am ET)1Dell -
I ignore tollster galileotardo.
Gotta hand it to that thing. It is persistent.
But, so is a slug.Reply Report Abuse
by SLRTX (January 28, 2010 2:54 pm ET)Typo..
That's: "I ignore trollster galileotardo."Reply Report Abuse
by DellDolly (January 28, 2010 3:30 pm ET)Thanks for that clarification.
And thanks to all for mostly ignoring Galileonardo's troll posts. There's nothing wrong with occasionally replying to him, and debunking what he says, but following him down a winding off-topic path, or replying to each one of his repetitive links, is not fruitful nor wise.Reply Report Abuse
by ABBA|Proudly teaBAGGING Liberals (January 27, 2010 10:25 pm ET)1Sorry folks, the truth is out, the walls are coming down... talk about deniers. pathetic....Reply Report Abuse
by SLRTX (January 27, 2010 10:37 pm ET)1So hmmmmmmmm, nothing of substance to post?
Where's the conspiracy?
Typical denialist response. Chirp, chirp, chirp....Reply Report Abuse
by DellDolly (January 28, 2010 11:35 am ET)1Just amazing - the discredited troll links to the discredited denier Stephen McIntyre once again! Like McIntyre suddenly regained some credibility.
He hasn't, dunce.Reply Report Abuse
by SLRTX (January 28, 2010 3:04 pm ET)2Dolly -
How to tell if someone's a troll denialist:
They discount ALL the published papers by credible sources, from numerous journals, but cling to everyone word posted by some crank blogger.
Then they repeat their failed rants over and over and over. And to prove what? The best thing to do with these cranks is to just ignore them.
Remember, this is the same idiotic mindset that claim the moon landings were faked, evolution's "just a theory", the earth is flat, etc.
galileotardo is a crank, and not worth the effort.
I like this site:
Some quotes from that url. Gives you and idea why "tardo" tries to apply the "galileo" moniker.
Accusation: "You haven't published in a real peer-reviewed journal"
Response: Either say "Peer review is just an old-boys network for peon scientists to pat each other on the back", or accuse journal editors of persecuting you. Compare yourself to Galileo.
Accusation: "You don't have solid proof"
Response: Either restate what you said already, restate it slightly differently, call your accuser a name, or suggest they are part of the conspiracy to hide the truth. Compare yourself to Galileo.
Accusation: "No credible scientists or scientific agencies believe this theory"
Response: "That's because they're part of a conspiracy to hide the truth!" In addition assert motives for the conspiracy like maintaining control over the populace, spreading materialistic atheist dogma, acquiring grant money, etc. Don't forget to challenge orthodoxy and compare yourself to Galileo! He was persecuted by the orthodoxy too! Remember, whenever a majority of scientists believe anything, that means it's wrong. Cite Kuhn, compare yourself to Galileo again.Reply Report Abuse
by mmfa.fan (January 28, 2010 9:23 pm ET)1Spot on, spot on.Reply Report Abuse
by galileonardo (January 29, 2010 12:31 am ET)Chirp. One of yours, and in Nature no less. A step up from this for sure.
You guys realize that every time you post an unhinged response and proudly and publicly display your arrogant, anti-science behavior, you lose another chip off of your kernel of credibility.
Put yourself in the shoes of an AGW-undecided who stumbles upon these threads. They visit a McIntyre or Pielke article and dig in a bit through the references, and maybe even read the comments.
Then they come back here to you and Delly, and they see descriptions like "discredited denier" and "dunce" being made by accredited warmists. How do you think the objective, more science-grounded person perceives the scene?
You are a skeptic's most effective PR campaign. Keep up the good work. I don't know how Larry feels about it, but you two are made for each other. It's Valentine's Day soon, SLUR. The following links are dedicated to Dully, the last one especially:
"You haven't published in a real peer-reviewed journal"
"You don't have solid proof"
"No credible scientists or scientific agencies believe this theory"Reply Report Abuse
by gpp (January 28, 2010 5:54 pm ET)A WARNING that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 is likely to be retracted after a series of scientific blunders by the United Nations body that issued it.
Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world’s glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.
In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC’s 2007 report.
It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.
Hasnain has since admitted that the claim was “speculation” and was not supported by any formal research. If confirmed it would be one of the most serious failures yet seen in climate research. The IPCC was set up precisely to ensure that world leaders had the best possible scientific advice on climate change.Reply Report Abuse
by gpp (January 28, 2010 5:58 pm ET)I think your title is correct, NASA, NOAA manipulated data.
26 Jan 10 - Joseph D'Aleo and Anthony Watts came out today with a stunning 111-page exposé that just simply trashes any credibility that that may have remained with NOAA, NASA, and CRU.
In this paper, the two long-time meteorologists explain "why all press releases form NOAA's NCDC, NASA's GISS, and Hadley/CRU should henceforth be ignored. The terrestrial data sets have become seriously flawed and can no longer be trusted for climate trend assessment."
"Around 1990, NOAA began weeding out more than three-quarters of the climate-measuring stations around the world. It can be shown that they systematically and purposefully, country by country, removed higher-latitude, higher-altitude and rural locations, all of which had a tendency to be cooler."
"Perhaps one of the biggest issues with the global data is the disappearance of temperature monitoring stations from the networks after 1990. More than 6000 stations were active in the mid-1970s. 1500 or less are in use today."
In Russia, the Ria Novosti agency reported that the Hadley Center for Climate Change had used data from only 25% of the Russian reporting stations, thereby creating a far greater warming than was exhibited by using 100% of the raw data.
In Canada, the number of stations dropped from 600 to less than 50. Just one thermometer remains for everything north of the 65th parallel. That station is Eureka, which has been described as "The Garden Spot of the Artic," because though winters are frigid, summers are slightly warmer than at other places in the Arctic.
They cherry-picked the data, in other words.
"In Europe, higher mountain stations were dropped, leaving behind more coastal cities. The dropout in Europe as a whole was almost 65%. In Nordic countries it was 50%."
D'Aleo and Watts continue their scathing attack: "Instrumental temperature data for the pre-satellite era (1850-1980) have been so widely, systematically, and unidirectionally tampered with that it cannot be credibly asserted there has been any significant "global warming" in the 20th century."
The flaws are so great that the surface-temperature databases are "useless." They are "skewed," "overstated," "gravely-compromised."
"Global terrestrial data bases are seriously flawed and can no longer be trusted to assess climate trends or VALIDATE model forecasts."Reply Report Abuse