James Hansen on the Warmest Year Brouhaha

Jamie writes "In response to earlier reports, Dr. James Hansen, top climate scientist with NASA, has issued a statement on the recent global warming data correction. He points out 'the effect on global temperature was of order one-thousandth of a degree, so the corrected and uncorrected curves are indistinguishable.' In a second email he shows maps of U.S. temperatures relative to the world in 1934 and 1998, explains why the error occurred (it was not, as reported, a 'Y2K bug') and, in response to errors by 'Fox, Washington Times, and their like,' attacks the 'deceit' of those who 'are not stupid [but] seek to create a brouhaha and muddy the waters in the climate change story.'"

Comments

.001 degree?

[ArcherB]

He points out 'the effect on global temperature was of order one-thousandth of a degree

And .001 of a degreethis changed 1938 to the warmest year on record over 1998? Wait, is that Fahrenheit or Centigrade?

I think someone is trying to downplay the error.

Re:.001 degree?

[Russ Nelson]

I think someone is trying to downplay the error.

There are no errors in global warming science. If there were, people might doubt it, and people Must Not Doubt. Faith is essential. If we lose faith in Global Warming, we'll lose the greatest threat ever to grace the environmental movement. Without a civilization-endangering threat, how are we to maintain our control over the sheeple? Must ... Keep ... Faith. Global Warming is a fact. Do Not Doubt.

Ward Churchill of climate science

[amightywind]

James Hansen is the Ward Churchill of NASA scientists. He has lost all credibility.

Re:Honestly...

[Registered Coward v2]

Politics and Science make for a nasty mix.

What do you mean? Here in the US we call it Republicanism and it hasn't been a nasty..... Oh wait, never mind.

Re:Obligatory Firesign Theatre reference

[WED Fan]

No brouhaha, this is the guy that is covering his agency's shoddy work. Pure and simple. The real clarification would be that of the blogger and the guys who failed to correct the data without blaming news organizations for reporting it.

The problem with the religious fervor that surrounds the Church of Global Warming is that when key data they relied upon is shown to be in error, rather than act like scientists and admit to the error, they back peddle, obfuscate, blame those that caught them, and explain how the wrong results are still correct.

Consider these and find out why the Church is losing ground in the credibility race:

First

With that in mind, Bryce marvelously began with one of the world's greatest truisms (emphasis added throughout):
"It is the nature of civilization to use energy and it's the nature of liberalism to feel bad about it. "

And, one of the single most stupid lines uttered in a documentary...

"In fact, you can even reduce your carbon emissions to zero."

Second

"The biggest emissions-cutting projects under the Kyoto Protocol on global warming have directly contributed to an increase in the production of gases that destroy the ozone layer, a senior U.N. official says."

Third

The article, entitled, "Whose Carbon Footprint is the Smallest," found that globe-trotter "Josie," who "considers herself more eco-conscious than most people," had the largest carbon footprint.
Josie "recently earned a certificate in conservation biology from Columbia University" but "caught travel fever" last year and went to "China, Hong Kong, Germany Washington, Utah, Brazil, Ecuador and Costa Rica."
According to the judge of the competition, author of "The Rough Guide to Climate Change" Robert Henson, "Josie's wanderlust caused her footprint to balloon well above average."

The problem is, the movement has no substance, they have allowed the shrill and ideologues to take over.

This man's career

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

is staked on perpetrating the "Global Warming" hoax.

We were worried about the melting Greenland glacier, and dissapearing Arctic ice in the 1920's, too.

Re:It is not hip to hate Fox New

[d3ac0n]

Except that they go MUCH MUCH further than simply pointing out bias or agendas, which exist just as much if not more at other news agencies.

Honestly, how many here who readily bash Fox News (or "Faux News" as some gleefully exclaim) would then hold up Dan "Memogate" Rather, Keith Olbermann or the Daily Kos as pillars of "unbiased" journalism? I'd say quite a few.

I guess that when every news agency available leans to the left, whether slightly or strongly, having one that is centrist or slightly right-leaning is such a shock that some leftists have to scream about "bias" and "agenda".

Fox news doesn't have any more of an agenda than any other news agency. If anything, they have less of one. Yes, they do have a more centrist or slightly right bent than others, but those personalities on Fox that are "right wing" always say so right up front. Fox doesn't put on airs about objectivity when they are editorializing about a given issue. On the other hand, the other alphabet soup news agencies steadfastly proclaim their absolute lack of bias, when anyone with eyes to see can see the obvious liberal bias.

Maybe that's why Fox News is absolutely STOMPING the other news agencies in the open market. Not because they are necessarily better, but because people are more willing to trust someone who admits their general leanings UP FRONT, rather than someone who claims an absolute moral authority they clearly have no right to.

The liberal panic room continues

[libtardslasher]

Look at this site, linking Media Matters.... bwahahaha.... what sheep. Slashdot has nothing to do with tech, rather, its a low-budget mouthpiece for cheap socialist talking points with a few sciency articles here and there as a cover. Thats right, keep telling us to use 1 sheet of toilet paper, slashdot. Your saving the world!

Re:I don't think you're researched this much at al

[SIIHP]

"You mean, exactly what I wanted, and stated I was going to do."

No, actually I mean you're dancing for me because you can't help yourself.

Now reply again, because you know I caught you lying and have to try and drown the conversation so you're not outed.

DANCE PUPPET!

Re:I don't think you're researched this much at al

[SIIHP]

"Sorry, the opposite has already been established."

Except you're a proven liar, so that means what?

Oh that I'm right.

Again.

Keep in mind, YOU replied to ME originally. Owned.

DANCE FOR ME BITCH!!

Re:I don't think you're researched this much at al

[SIIHP]

"Keep in mind, YOU replied to ME originally. Owned.

DANCE FOR ME BITCH!!"

Get someone smarter than you to read that for you so you 'll know why I win.

Go ahead and reply, I know you can't help it.

Re:I don't think you're researched this much at al

[SIIHP]

"Keep in mind, YOU replied to ME originally. Owned"

I did stop. YOU replied.

OOPS! I win again.

Now go ahead and reply again, because you know I won.

Admit it by replying.

I'm glad you finally admitted I won

[SIIHP]

"Admit it by replying."

Thanks, I'm glad we agree we both know I won.

Very manly of you.