IPCC Scientists Caught Producing False Data To Push Global Warming , page 1

IPCC Scientists Caught Producing False Data To Push Global Warming

www.prisonplanet.com

Climate scientists allied with the IPCC have been caught citing fake data to make the case that global warming is accelerating, a shocking example of mass public deception that could spell the beginning of the end for the acceptance of man-made climate change theories.

On Monday, NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), run by Al Gore’s chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, announced that last month was the hottest October on record.

“This was startling,” reports the London Telegraph. “Across the world there were reports of unseasonal snow and plummeting temperatures last month, from the American Great Plains to China, and from the Alps to New Zealand. China’s official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its “worst snowstorm ever”. In the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years.”

It soon came to light that the data produced by NASA to make the claim, and in particular temperature records covering large areas of Russia, was merely carried over from the previous month. NASA had used temperature records from the naturally hotter month of September and claimed they represented temperature figures in October.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.telegraph.co.uk

More scams,more false data being used to push the global warming/AGW agenda, and to benefit companies making a killing on "carbon credits"

The more we find out about this, the more it seems that they are trying to push this forwards at all costs.

It is time now for proper study, without political interference to be heard - but it never will be, because any data that does not support the agenda will be shouted down and discreditted, usually without addressing any of the issues raised.

The MSM, politicians and the looney left have all joined forces to condemn man as the driving force behind a theory that is simply not proven in any way shape or form, despite what they would have you believe.

It seems that the only inconvenient truth is the facts.

What makes it even worse is that this nonsense detracts from real environmental issues - issues which should worry every single one of us.

www.prisonplanet.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by melatonin

---

Come on mate, despite what you say, you know as well as anyone that skewed and false data has been presented for years to further the AGW agenda.

Things like the urban heat island effect, solar effects, the effects of other greenhouse gas producing species (especially methane producing, such as termites) have been consistently overlooked in the rush to make money off alleged AGW, particularly in the shape of carbon credits.

They'd still be pushing this data if they hadn't been caught out - and I have no doubt that the corporate MSM will continue to use this data in the hope that people who aren't as aware will believe it.

It's also far from the first time that GISS stats have been wrong - so why on earth should we believe any data they produce,especially when they are in on the scam.

Care to remind us all of the infamous hockey stick that you were so keen on when I first joined this site?

[edit on 17/11/2008 by budski]

reply to post by melatonin

Well, hello again mel. You do seem to like these Global Warming threads.

Heh, so you mean some dufus who fails to correctly enter data for one month leads to the whole scientific HOC falling?

Not the whole house of cards, but it does indicate some need to verify data a bit more accurately, don't you think? I'd also say it damages the credibility of any reports generated by the data which was admitted to be false.

GISS used the data produced by NOAA.

And by using the data, GISS was just as responsible for the veracity of the data as if they had gathered it themselves, would you not agree?

The fact that you jump straight to 'scams' and 'false data', rather than silly human error swiftly corrected shows why amateurs and the ideologically motivated are best kept away from the scientific toys.

Aw, mel, don't take our toys away!

All I see being suggested in this thread is that an episode of false data has been uncovered and publicly admitted to. That damages the credibility of the remaining data and suggests that some measure of verification of such data need to be considered to restore that credibility.

Hansen is an alarmist, and has been characterized as the 'chief scientific ally' of Al Gore, one of the most prominent profiteers of Global Warming and the carbon credit scam. I would say it is a bit on the insincere side to condemn someone for being an 'alarmist' when the opponent started it. Sort of like punishing one kid for not playing nice with the bully who just beat him up.

edit to add, re Budski's post above:
Yeah, mel! I wanna hear a bedtime story! Tell me about the hockey stick, please? Pretty please?

TheRedneck


[edit on 17-11-2008 by TheRedneck]

Originally posted by budski
reply to post by melatonin

---

Come on mate, despite what you say, you know as well as anyone that skewed and false data has been presented for years to further the AGW agenda.

No, I don't.

You would like it to be true, though.

Do you mean the UAH satellite data that showed no warming for years, lauded by certain groups, until an error was found in its code?

Do you mean the argo data that was released a couple of years or so back that showed no warming in the oceans, lauded by certain groups, until an error was found?

Errors happen. How we respond to them is most telling. I see no reason to think any of the above were anything more than silly errors, just like this faux sturm und drang.

Things like the urban heat island effect, solar effects, the effects of other greenhouse gas producing species (especially methane producing, such as termites) have been consistently overlooked in the rush to make money off alleged AGW, particularly in the shape of carbon credits.

Heh.

Yeah, solar effects ignored? Rubbish. UHI ignored? Rubbish. Termites? You are getting desperate now.

It's also far from the first time that GISS stats have been wrong - so why on earth should we believe any data they produce,especially when they are in on the scam.

Scam, scam, Gore and Jam.

Care to remind us all of the infamous hockey stick that you were so keen on when I first joined this site?

Yeah, it's been validated almost a dozen times in other studies. Is that what you meant?

[edit on 17-11-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by melatonin

Well, hello again mel. You do seem to like these Global Warming threads.

Yeah, I sort of got into it 20 years ago. Followed the issue ever since.

All I see being suggested in this thread is that an episode of false data has been uncovered and publicly admitted to. That damages the credibility of the remaining data and suggests that some measure of verification of such data need to be considered to restore that credibility.

Yeah, the public admission of spreading 'false' information is actually a good thing. Admitting such things shows a degree of honour. Now look in the mirror, because by your own words your credibility is damaged.

It's an embarrassing situation. Both for NOAA and GISS. However, the response is much more important to me. They were showed the problem, they admitted and fixed it.

Now it becomes scraps for the denier blogosphere to whoop over and parade around like some sort of king's head. How funny.

Originally posted by melatonin

Yeah, the public admission of spreading 'false' information is actually a good thing. Admitting such things shows a degree of honour. Now look in the mirror, because by your own words your credibility is damaged.

It's an embarrassing situation. Both for NOAA and GISS. However, the response is much more important to me. They were showed the problem, they admitted and fixed it.

Really?

I assume then that you didn't read the whole article:

When NASA was confronted with this glaring error, they then attempted to compensate for the lower temperatures in Russia by claiming they had discovered a new “hotspot” in the Arctic, despite satellite imagery clearly showing that Arctic sea ice had massively expanded its coverage by 30 per cent, an area the size of Germany, since summer 2007.

source

They were showed the data, then tried to make up more lies to cover it up, and when they couldn't get away with THAT, finally admitted the error.



As for the hockey stick,that has been debunked as thoroughly as "the great global warming swindle"

Originally posted by budski
Really?

Yeah, really.

I assume then that you didn't read the whole article:

Nah, I just saw it didn't appear to fit with the events. But that's what you get when you prefer the 'truthiness' of prisonplanet.

Show me where NASA said they had discovered a new hotspot when this issue was pointed out. I've yet to see that.

When NASA was confronted with this glaring error, they then attempted to compensate for the lower temperatures in Russia by claiming they had discovered a new “hotspot” in the Arctic, despite satellite imagery clearly showing that Arctic sea ice had massively expanded its coverage by 30 per cent, an area the size of Germany, since summer 2007.

source

They were showed the data, then tried to make up more lies to cover it up, and when they couldn't get away with THAT, finally admitted the error.

Yeah, that's what the article says, and you take it as truth. How funny. I'd rather get the story from those involved. I don't see Watt complaining too much about Gavin Schmidt's outline of events...

You and McIntyre are mistaken. The first intimation of a problem was posted on Watt’s blog in the comments by ‘Chris’ at around 4pm EST. By 7pm in those comments John Goetz had confirmed that the NOAA file was the problem. Notifications to the GISTEMP team of a problem started arriving very shortly after that, and I personally emailed them that evening. However, no action was taken until the next morning because people had left work already. They had decided to take the analysis down before 8.14am (email time stamp to me) since the overnight update to the NOAA file (uploaded 4.30am) had not fixed the problem. McIntyre’s intervention sometime that morning is neither here nor there. Possibly he should consider that he is not the only person in the world with email, nor is he the only person that can read. The credit for first spotting this goes to the commentators on WUWT, and the first notification to GISTEMP was that evening. - gavin

Available at Realclimate or Watts' blog depending on your tastes. I think Budski would prefer Watts', as they are currently having a Mardi Gras based on this issue, but will be out hungover with cameras station-spotting in the morn.

Raised publically at around 4pm. At 7pm someone pointed out it was the NOAA data. E-mails start hitting GISS at that time, but even scientists need food, family, and sleep. Analysis down at around 8am next morning.

No mention of GISS lies from Watts. And trust me, he would be making a frilly pink carnival dress from it.

As for the hockey stick,that has been debunked as thoroughly as "the great global warming swindle"

Heh.

[edit on 17-11-2008 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin

Yeah, the public admission of spreading 'false' information is actually a good thing. Admitting such things shows a degree of honour. Now look in the mirror, because by your own words your credibility is damaged.

I can't disagree here; honesty, even when an error is found (and you are correct that errors will always happen) is indeed a sign of honor and, more importantly, integrity.

I am a bit confused over your mention of a mirror (highlighted in the quote). Can you expand on that?

It's an embarrassing situation. Both for NOAA and GISS. However, the response is much more important to me. They were showed the problem, they admitted and fixed it.

I would suggest one more thing that needs to be done: publicly indicated attempts to ensure that errors such as this will not happen in the future. Admission is an honorable action, correction is a necessary action, but compensation is also necessary to maintain confidence in the data. This may have happened, but I see no evidence of it to this point. If the data is to be used to affect public policy, it must be publicly verified.

I also am seeing a disconcerting pattern of these errors recurring. Reports of thermometers placed improperly, reports of initial cover-ups (as budski has mentioned above), and an apparent arrogance when called upon to verify accuracy only harm public acceptance of the data. I know it makes me question the accuracy of anything I hear coming from the GISS.

In any case, it's nice to have a pleasant conversation with you on this topic. Far too often, our conversations have been less than such in the past.

TheRedneck

reply to post by melatonin

---

Actually, that quote is also in The Telegraph - which is where the original PP article was taken from.
It just made more sense to link it to the story from PP in the OP.

Now, if you'd like to debunk the telegraphs version of events, I suggest you write to them and let them know your version, and carry on a discourse with them, rather than trying to CYA

The article also mentions Steve McIntyre, who I see you failed to mention - no surprise there considering he is the one who debunked your previous pet theory.

Alas, the Church of Gore is alive and well and thriving on ATS!

Originally posted by budski
reply to post by melatonin

---

Actually, that quote is also in The Telegraph - which is where the original PP article was taken from.
It just made more sense to link it to the story from PP in the OP.

So I now need to read two naff media articles?

Now, if you'd like to debunk the telegraphs version of events, I suggest you write to them and let them know your version, and carry on a discourse with them, rather than trying to CYA

Heh, why would I bother. I outlined the timeline of events. At 4pm a comment on Watts' blog figures out a problem with the Russian data. At 7pm a comment suggests it's NOAA's data. At that time, e-mails point out an issue to GISS. They fix it as soon as they hit the lab next day.

I don't need to 'debunk', I outlined the events from someone involved and others who pinpointed the problem don't appear to really challenge it. As I noted, the problem was highlighted, it was admitted and rapidly fixed.

The article also mentions Steve McIntyre, who I see you failed to mention - no surprise there considering he is the one who debunked your previous pet theory.

Alas, the Church of Gore is alive and well and thriving on ATS!

Heh, Steve is mentioned in the Schmidt quote.

Budski, I'm not the one praying for miracles. The whole thread is pretty weak. From the top with the IPCC scientists to the chubby Gorelax, Hansen, GISS; scams, scams, taxes, scams; lies, solar, mardi gras tombola.

Barely a mention of the true source of the error - NOAA. Harder to build faux indignation around, as few associate them with the climate bogeymen.

[edit on 17-11-2008 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin

Oh, all our discussions are pleasant enough. Don't take anything personal, I actually appreciate someone who can give and take. Indeed, some of my favourite posters are 'sparring partners'.

Oh, I didn't mean to imply we had knock-down drag-outs, just that we hhave a history of not agreeing easily. This time, I saw some agreement, even if on details.

And a favorite sparring partner? Gee, mel, you're gonna make a redneck blush. Unlike CO2 levels, that could wipe out life on the planet, from the glare alone.

Watch those UV waves, wouldn't want you fall and break a neuron.

TheRedneck

reply to post by melatonin

---

You may have outlined the timelines, but I haven't seen any links to sources - let alone a source more credible than the telegraph.

And so the dance begins

reply to post by Essan

If UHIs mean some parts of the planet are a little warmer than they would otherwise be, and there is no equal and opposite cooling elsewhere, then the net result is global warming. And since UHIs are caused by humans, that means AGW

Wow, flawless reasoning! Bravo!

Now, let us take this one step further: if UHIs are responsible for AGW, then exactly why would we spend our resources on combating CO2? Isn't that a bit like attacking Iraq because a Saudi national attacked us?

Actually, it's more like attacking Canada for the same reason... but my point holds: too much attention and misinformation about CO2 concentrations, and not enough aimed at finding out what's really happening.

Which means to me that someone doesn't want us to know what's really happening. Starred

TheRedneck

Russian scientists reach buried Antarctic Lake Vostok
  Posted 6 days ago with 83 member flags

Google announces privacy settings change across products; users can\'t opt out
  Posted 18 days ago with 78 member flags

BREAKING: Israel teams with terror group to kill Iran\'s nuclear scientists, U.S. officials tell NBC
  Posted 3 days ago with 74 member flags

Monsanto quits as GM results announced (EUROPE)
  Posted 7 days ago with 72 member flags

Strange noises reported around North Battleford
  Posted 18 days ago with 67 member flags

FDA\'s New Claim: "Your Body Is a Drug—and We Have the Authority to Regulate It"
  Posted 10 days ago with 53 member flags

Ayatollah: Kill all Jews, annihilate Israel
  Posted 6 days ago with 49 member flags

Bill Gates Backs Climate Scientists Lobbying For Large-Scale Geoengineering
  Posted 6 days ago with 41 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: