{"id":424007,"date":"2010-03-12T07:37:12","date_gmt":"2010-03-12T12:37:12","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.prisonplanet.com\/?p=36615"},"modified":"2010-03-12T07:37:12","modified_gmt":"2010-03-12T12:37:12","slug":"climategate-three-of-the-four-temperature-datasets-now-irrevocably-tainted","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/424007","title":{"rendered":"Climategate: Three of the Four Temperature Datasets Now Irrevocably Tainted"},"content":{"rendered":"

Christopher Horner
\nPajamas Media<\/a>
\n<\/a>March<\/a> 12, 2010<\/p>\n

The warmist response to Climategate \u2014 the discovery of the thoroughly corrupt practices of the Climate Research Unit<\/a> (CRU) \u2014 was that the tainted CRU dataset was just one of four<\/a> independent data sets. You know. So really there\u2019s no big deal.<\/p>\n

Thanks to a FOIA request, the document production of which I am presently plowing through \u2014 and before that, thanks to the great work of Steve McIntyre, and particularly in their recent, comprehensive work, Joseph D\u2019Aleo and Anthony Watts<\/a><\/a> \u2014 we know that NASA\u2019s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) passed no one\u2019s test for credibility. Not even NASA\u2019s.<\/p>\n

In fact, CRU\u2019s former head, Phil Jones, even told his buddies that while people may think his dataset \u2014 which required all of those \u201cfudge factors\u201d (their words) \u2014 is troubled, \u201cGISS is inferior\u201d to CRU. <\/a><\/p>\n

Really<\/a>.<\/p>\n

NASA\u2019s temperature data is so woeful that James Hansen<\/a>\u2019s colleague Reto Ruedy told the USA Today<\/em> weather editor:<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cMy recommendation to you is to continue using \u2026 CRU data for the global mean [temperatures]. \u2026 \u201cWhat we do is accurate enough\u201d \u2014 left unspoken: for government<\/a> work<\/em> \u2014 \u201c[but] we have no intention to compete with either of the other two organizations in what they do best.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

To reiterate, NASA\u2019s temperature data is worse than the Climategate temperature data. According to NASA.<\/p>\n

And apparently, although these points were never stressed publicly before, NASA GISS is just \u201cbasically a modeling group forced into rudimentary analysis of global observed data.\u201d But now, however, NASA GISS \u201chappily [combines the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) data] and Hadley Center\u2019s data\u201d for the purpose of evaluating NASA\u2019s models.<\/p>\n

So \u2014 Climategate\u2019s CRU was just \u201cone of four organizations worldwide that have independently compiled thermometer measurements of local temperatures from around the world to reconstruct the history<\/a> of average global surface temperature.\u201d<\/p>\n

But one of the three remaining sets is not credible either, and definitely not independent.<\/p>\n

Two down, two to go.<\/p>\n

Reto Ruedy refers his inquiring (ok, credulous) reporter to NCDC \u2014 the third of the four data sets \u2014 as being the gold<\/a> standard for U.S. temperatures.<\/p>\n

But NCDC has been thoroughly debunked elsewhere \u2014 Joseph D\u2019Aleo and Anthony Watts<\/a> have found NCDC completely incredible, having made a practice out of not including cooler temperature stations over time<\/a>, exaggerating the warming illusion.<\/p>\n

Three out of the four temperature datasets stink, with corroboration from the alarmists. Second-sourced, no less.<\/p>\n

Anyone know if Japan<\/a> has a FOIA?<\/p>\n

\n

Possibly Related Posts:<\/h3>\n