Did We Land on the Moon?

just before lunchtime on Friday, the 2nd of May 2008 by Chad

I have to wonder now, since the data seems to show that NASA is lying about global warming.

Confusing? How can scientists who report measurements of the earth’s temperature within one one-hundredth of a degree be unable to concur if the temperature is going up or down over a ten year period? Something appears to be inconsistent with the NASA data - but what is it?

One clue we can see is that NASA has been reworking recent temperatures upwards and older temperatures downwards - which creates a greater slope and the appearance of warming. Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre has been tracking the changes closely on his Climate Audit site, and reports that NASA is Rewriting History, Time and Time Again. The recent changes can be seen by comparing the NASA 1999 and 2007 US temperature graphs. Below is the 1999 version, and below that is the reworked 2007 version.

NASA’s original data: 1999

NASA’s reworked data: 2007

In order to visualize the changes, I overlaid the 2007 version on top of the 1999 version, above, and a clear pattern emerged. The pre-1970 temperatures have been nearly uniformly adjusted downwards (red below green) - and the post 1970 temperatures have been adjusted upwards (red above green.) Some of the yearly temperatures have been adjusted by as much as 0.5 degrees. That is a huge total change for a country the size of the US with thousands of separate temperature records.

via The Register.

Further information shows that satellite data, which is more reliable than the thermometers that are affected by local conditions such as heat islands in cities, show decreasing temperatures over the last decade.

See here’s the thing. I’ve loved science my entire life. I work as an engineer. And for some reason I can’t quite put my finger on, nothing coming from the pro-global warming camp ever passed the sniff test with me. Something has always seemed wrong. Little things never added up. Processes that make perfect sense that would cause the data are discounted by these folks. Everything seemed to be where the data is made to fit the conclusions.

Should there be less pollution? Of course, but for the sake of less pollution. Same thing with saving energy and resources. Those are great laudable goals in and of themselves. Should there be research into alternative fuels? Damn straight, but not at the point of starving people in other countries.

Now, if the new wave of things that are now getting published about the solar cycle meaning we’re going to be freezing in 20 years pans out, what then? Tell me there aren’t going to be circumstances where countries like Russia start invading south for the remaining arable land. Will we here in the US get invaded by the Canucks?