Friday, March 12, 2010

AGW datasets discovery: 75% of all datasets corrupted

About Weather/Climate Events Data - There is an old saying that expresses the thought that 'climate is what you expect, weather is what you get.' This part of the NCDC web site provides summaries of weather and climate events. In essence, climate is a statistical analysis of weather. A basic example of climate would be to say that, for the month of June in a given location, temperatures should be near 80 degrees Fahrenheit and 5 inches of rain should fall. Such climate summaries are provided in a variety of formats, many based on a 'normal' base period of 30 years. Many U.S. businesses use climate and weather data to make informed economic decisions. Some examples of these businesses include agriculture, real estate, law firms, and research institutions. The links below offer climate and weather information for such parameters as temperature, precipitation, hurricane events, and snow extremes. Image and Caption Credit:

AGW datasets discovery: 75% of all datasets corrupted

It has been discovered ... or more properly, uncovered ... that the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) made a practice of doing what the principles of the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU) had been doing in their temperature data. The NCDC made a practice out of not including data from cooler temperature stations and thereby exaggerating a warming illusion in the datasets thus corrupting their data with a less than Scientific Method approach.

Reporters from USA Today had been sitting on this revealation for some time now just as the reporters from the BBC had been sitting on the knowledge that has now become known as Climategate.

Since proof of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) - human caused climate change - had become the coin of the rhelm with political progressives throughout the world upon which to create the justification to create laws to tax and limit human activity (read that as to CONTROL all humans in their pursuit of rights and happiness), and that the proof of AGW had been held by only four datasets worldwide, leaves the political progressives with only one dataset upon which to promote their agenda.

Logo of the Japan Meteorological Agency or JMA, the Japanese government's weather service. Charged with gathering and reporting weather data and forecasts in Japan, it is a semi-autonomous part of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport. It is also responsible for observation and warning of earthquakes, tsunamis, and volcanic eruptions. Image and Caption Credit: Wikipedia

This excerpted and edited from Pajamas Media -

Climategate: Three of the Four Temperature Datasets Now Irrevocably Tainted

With today’s revelation on Pajamas Media, only the Japan Meteorological Agency is left to save the warmists. Don’t bet on it.

March 11, 2010 - by Christopher Horner

The warmist response to Climategate — the discovery of the thoroughly corrupt practices of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) — was that the tainted CRU dataset was just one of four independent data sets. You know. So really there’s no big deal.

Thanks to a FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] request, the document production of which I am presently plowing through — and before that, thanks to the great work of Steve McIntyre, and particularly in their recent, comprehensive work, Joseph D’Aleo and Anthony Watts — we know that NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) passed no one’s test for credibility. Not even NASA’s.
NASA’s temperature data is so woeful that James Hansen’s colleague Reto Ruedy told the USA Today weather editor:

“My recommendation to you is to continue using … CRU data for the global mean [temperatures]. … “What we do is accurate enough” — left unspoken: for government work — “[but] we have no intention to compete with either of the other two organizations in what they do best.”
So — Climategate’s CRU was just “one of four organizations worldwide that have independently compiled thermometer measurements of local temperatures from around the world to reconstruct the history of average global surface temperature.”

But one of the three remaining sets is not credible either, and definitely not independent. - Two down, two to go.
But NCDC has been thoroughly debunked elsewhere — Joseph D’Aleo and Anthony Watts have found NCDC completely incredible, having made a practice out of not including cooler temperature stations over time, exaggerating the warming illusion.

Three out of the four temperature datasets stink, with corroboration from the alarmists. Second-sourced, no less.

Anyone know if Japan has a FOIA?
Reference Here>>

Why would reporters from major news organizations sit on information this damaging in the pursuit of the truth? Maybe these corporations that own the news outlets are heavily leveraged in one of Al Gore's carbon trading companies ... just speculating with a "follow the money" scenario.

No comments: