In another blow to the Church of the Global Warming Moonbats e-mail messages obtained by a Freedom of Information Act request reveal that NASA felt that their own data/findings were inferior to those maintained by both the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (home of the climategate) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climatic Data Center. The real problem that leads to is everyone is using the same numbers and coming up with similar conclusions, so it really means everyone’s numbers stink.
The e-mails reveal that that when a USA Today reporter asked if NASA’s data “was more accurate” than other climate-change data, NASA’s Dr. Reto A. Ruedy replied with an unequivocal no. He said “the National Climatic Data Center’s procedure of only using the best stations is more accurate,” admitting that some of the NASA procedures led to less accurate readings.
“My recommendation to you is to continue using NCDC’s data for the U.S. means and [East Anglia] data for the global means,” Ruedy told the reporter.
“NASA’s temperature data is worse than the Climate-gate temperature data. According to NASA,” wrote Christopher Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute who uncovered the e-mails. Horner is skeptical of NCDC’s data as well, stating plainly: “Three out of the four temperature data sets stink.”
Global warming critics call this a crucial blow to advocates’ arguments that minor flaws in the “Climate-gate” data are unimportant, since all the major data sets arrive at the same conclusion — that the Earth is getting warmer. But there’s a good reason for that, the skeptics say: They all use the same data.
“There is far too much overlap among the surface temperature data sets to assert with a straight face that they independently verify each other’s results,” says James M. Taylor, senior fellow of environment policy at The Heartland Institute.
Earlier this month, in an updated analysis of the surface temperature data, GISS restated that the separate analyses by the different agencies “are not independent, as they must use much of the same input observations.”
What the bottom line is NASA is not happy with their temperature numbers and conclusions, but in the end everyone is using the same numbers and coming up with similar conclusions, all of which are lousy.
In an updated analysis of the surface temperature data released on March 19, NASA adjusted the raw temperature station data to account for inaccurate readings caused by heat-absorbing paved surfaces and buildings in a slightly different way. NASA determines which stations are urban with nighttime satellite photos, looking for stations near light sources as seen from space.
Of course, this doesn’t solve problems with NASA’s data, as the newest paper admits: “Much higher resolution would be needed to check for local problems with the placement of thermometers relative to possible building obstructions,” a problem repeatedly underscored
Senators John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) and David Vitter (R-La.) are not happy with these revelations. They have written a letter to NASA chief Charles Bolden demanding answers to questions surrounding newly uncovered irregularities in the space agency’s climate data.
“The American people deserve to learn the truth about the data,” Barrasso told FoxNews.com, stressing the risks of basing public policy on science that remains largely undecided.
FoxNews.com has obtained an advance copy of the letter — the third that Barrasso, ranking member of the Subcommittee on Oversight for the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, and Vitter, ranking member of the Committee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety, have written in the months following the Climate-gate scandal.
Writing that “American data is partially derived from the corrupted data set that has been criticized as too political and unscientific as a result of the Climate-gate scandal,” the senators have invited Bolden to testify before the Senate on the credibility of NASA’s data.
“Their efforts to attack the science of climate change may be politically motivated. I see nothing in the NASA/GISS data that suggests anything other than an honest effort to discover the scientific truth about the Earth’s temperature record,” Barrasso says.
The letter (embedded below) expresses concern with NASA’s newly revealed use of data from the East Anglia University’s Climatic Research Unit, cites interviews with CRU’s chief Phil Jones and programmer Ian “Harry” Harris, both of whom denigrated the quality of the CRU data. “No uniform data integrity, it’s just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they’re found. This whole project is SUCH A MESS,” Harris reportedly commented.
“We shouldn’t make decisions affecting millions of American jobs when the data isn’t credible,” Barrasso told FoxNews.com.
He said he’s particularly concerned with planned changes to public policy regarding carbon credits and so called “cap and trade” legislation, rules that are based on the assumption that man is at least partly responsible for global warming.
“If the president is successful in passing what I call a ‘cap and tax’ bill, which is something that’s already passed the House last year, I think all Americans will see their electricity rates go sky high,” he told FoxNews.com.
“When the administration is trying to make an endangerment finding on carbon dioxide, I think it’s reckless to make such huge decisions affecting American jobs and the American economy based on data that may not be reliable, and seems to be contaminated.”
“I don’t think the facts bear out, at this point,” he said. “You wonder if it’s more about politics than it is about science.”
Indeed, just like Obamacare, this has nothing to do with the legislation’s purported purpose and everything to do with government control.