Hayden: Lies, Damned Lies, and Climate Alarmism

By Howard Hayden
February 11, 2012, JunkScience.com

I thought I had them dead-to-rights.

The IPCC tells us that the temperature rise of the earth is supposed to be directly proportional to a certain function of the CO2 concentration. The temperature data had been easily available, and so had the CO2 data, both from NASA-GISS. All I had to do was to make that plot—an actual cause-effect graph—and I’d have a bullet-proof case, with an IPCC-sanctioned formula, and NASA-GISS data.

Anybody who disagreed would have to quarrel with either the IPCC or NASA-GISS.

Well, the graph, with about 130 years’ worth of data, showed that a doubling of CO2 concentration would be associated with a 2 ºC temperature rise.

NASA-GISS did not quarrel with the graph. They ignored it.

All they did was change the temperature data.

NASA-GISS reported different historical temperatures in 2012 than they did in 2009. For example, the earth’s temperature anomaly in 1891 was given in the 2009 data as –0.28 ºC but at -0.51 ºC in the 2012 data set. But for 2007, the 2009 NASA-GISS temperature was 0.56 ºC, whereas the 2012 data set called it 0.79 ºC. Systematically, earlier temperatures were lowered and more recent ones were raised so as to increase the apparent temperature trend.

The graph below shows historical data sets from the NASA-GISS website as published in 2009 and in 2012. The manipulation is obvious. The larger temperature trend is more to the liking of the climate alarmists.

It’s not as if NASA-GISS erased the temperature records in all of the newspapers and the log books of meteorologists; they simply changed their way of calculating the average. They had no scientific criterion for the change, because there is no way to stuff a thermometer under the tongue of the earth and get a “right” answer. But they could have compared their musings with satellite temperature data that cover the earth entirely and uniformly.

The graph below shows exactly the comparison required. Sure enough, the NASA-GISS guesstimated “temperatures” are rising faster than the real temperature.

The capricious data manipulation and the failure to compare with honest data ought to have NASA-GISS dead to rights.

Oh, I forgot. They can create their own reality.

7 thoughts on “Hayden: Lies, Damned Lies, and Climate Alarmism”

  1. NASA has been going back through the temperature data – always revising downward – to create the illusion of a steady temperature rise throughout the 20th century. To me, that was the kicker. How Orwellian can you get? When your theory fails to deliver, you go back and change the records so that it works? NASA (GISS in particular) is no longer a legitimate science organization. James Hansen runs it with an iron fist. If anyone there isn’t a disciple, they would be afraid to speak their mind.

    Having Hansen in charge of temperature data collection and record keeping is like putting tobacco execs in charge of lung cancer data. However, one time someone pointed out a conflict with Hansen’s position and his advocacy, the media rallied to his defense and made him out to be some kind of Galileo martyr. Everyone is totaling cowed by Hansen and he now has the balls and lack of oversight to run GISS like a fiefdom.

    The truly sad part of this is that we already had more or less correct temp data for the past. Only a zealot would revise based on sloppy suppositions and convenient data manipulation. When the dust settles, we may have no clue of the historical trends thanks to Hansen and his brand of climoterrorism.

  2. I’m not so sure that all of the more accurate historical data downloaded over the years, making your comment possible, can be done away with like burned books, because, as in Fahrenheit 451, remaking the past by fiat does not work out in the long run unless you kill everyone with memory, and off-site backups, and also destroy all of their media. If we now have a “clue of the historical trends,” Hansen cannot do away with that, no matter what he does.

    I guess what I am saying is “Cheer up!” One of these days a judge who happens to know and respect the scientific method will decide it couldn’t hurt to hold EPA and all of its contributing “researchers” to the letter of the law and regulations, and enforce the requirement of due diligence before any costly policy change can be proposed and adopted. Once that happens, we can start to hold all of the other agencies to account, one at a time, and perhaps restore (or create?) some sanity in Washington.

  3. Not according to Phil Jones and others, the Royal Meteorological Society for one. Some say that temperatures stabilized starting in 1997, others like Phil Jones state “the past 15 years”, while the Royal Society states that temperatures have been stable for that past ten years. In any event, It appears that the relationship between global temperature rise and rise in CO2 levels does not exist, assuming CO2 levels have been increasing steadily for the past 15 years, in view of the expansions of the Indian and Chinese economies.

Comments are closed.