Showing posts with label errors. Show all posts
Showing posts with label errors. Show all posts

Friday, November 14, 2008

James Hansen: Cooking the NASA Books for Climate Change



Your Ad Here


NASA's James Hansen:
Pimping Climate Change on the Public Dime








Meet James Hansen


In America, and perhaps the world, the pre-eminent source for global weather information is NASA. Blessed with three or more temperature measuring satellites, NASA also collects data from NOAA and foreign sources to get a fix on global temperatures. This convergence of resources is unparalleled , and thus much of the world uses NASA's continually-revised data and graphs to determine weather history and policy.

Which is unfortunate.

Particularly, because NASA simply cannot be trusted to provide scientifically unbiased information on this subject. When not demonstrating incomprehensible incompetence, NASA cooks the books.

Chef-in-chief is Dr. James Hansen.




James Hansen's name should sound familiar. He is the fellow who has been screaming about global warming for over 20 years. He famously claimed that the Bush Administration was trying to silence him (huh?).

He is the detached scientists that went to Congress and testified that oil executives should be tried for crimes against humanity. (Wonder what penal statute that is?)

In real life, as opposed to the imaginary one occupied by the marvelous Dr James Hansen, the man is like an incompetent, unthinking, dogmatic, dolt: systematically reducing NASA to a high school-level science fair.

The latest, as reported by the Daily Tech:

Amateur team finds NASA error similar to one they discovered a year ago.

GISS’ most recent data release originally reported last October as being extraordinarily warm-- a full 0.78C above normal. This would have made it the warmest October on record; a huge increase over the previous month's data.

Those results set off alarm bells with Steve McIntyre and his gang of Baker Street irregulars at Climateaudit.org. They noted that NASA's data didn't agree at all with the satellite temperature record, which showed October to be very mild, continuing the same trend of slight cooling that has persisted since 1998. So they dug a little deeper.

McIntyre, the same man who found errors last year in GISS's US temperature record, quickly noted that most of the temperature increase was coming from Russia. A chart of world temperatures showed that in October, most of Russia, the largest nation on Earth, was not only registering hot, but literally off the scale. Yet anecdotal reports were suggesting that worldwide, October was actually slightly colder than normal. Could there be another error in GISS's data?

An alert reader on McIntyre's blog revealed that there was a very large problem. Looking at the actual readings from individual stations in Russia showed a curious anomaly. The locations had all been assigned the exact temperatures from a month earlier-- the much warmer month of September. Russia cools very rapidly in the fall months, so recycling the data from the earlier month had led to a massive temperature increase."





[ABOVE: Russian October 2008]




I know what you are thinking. Anybody could have made the same mistake: using September data for October. And you might be right. Because the Wonder Boys and Girls at NASA do it all the time.

The really odd thing is: it is a one-way street.

Because such errors, inexplicably, always show the Earth warming.

Even if it isn't.

The correction forced upon NASA last year was even more dramatic because it altered the entire Global Warming premise (although I am sure you have not heard a word about this in the media).

Going over the NASA historical weather graph, Steve McKintyre noticed some severe and unlikely high temperature spikes. He asked NASA for its mathematical model in an attempt to understand the same. A model is necessary because weather averages and means are based upon widely divergent observations, with sparse reporting on the high seas (thus satellites), Antarctica, and Africa.

NASA refused (of course).


McKintyre reverse engineered the model and discovered NASA had fallen victim to a Y2K bug. The result:

"NASA has now silently released corrected figures, and the changes are truly astounding.

The warmest year on record is now 1934.

1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place. 1921 takes third. In fact, 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II.





Revision of data at NASA is all too common.

It works like this: if the data does not support global warming, it is wrong. So it must be revised. From the Wall Street Journal:

For years, records from surface thermometers showed a global warming trend beginning in the late 1970s. But temperatures sensed by satellites and weather balloons displayed no concurrent warming. These records have been revised a number of times, and I examined the two major revisions of these three records.....There have been six major revisions in the warming figures in recent years, all in the same direction.


That direction would be to make the past colder thus making the current temperature appear warmer. Why have surface temperatures warmed? As Dr Alan Watts has long since proved, because of urbanization and the deterioration of locations of the thermometers. They are located in heat wells, near AC vents or at airports.Ridiculous. The background radiation should be measured in a grassy field of an acre or so, with instrumentation in a vented shad shed at least 4 feet off the ground.

Try to find that anymore.

As for NASA, you would think they would be pleased to have bloggers and casual observers correct their incompetence. Actually, we are kidding you there. Again from the Wall Street Journal:

So far this year NASA has issued at least five press releases that could be described as alarming on the pace of climate change. But the correction of its overestimate of global warming was merely posted on the agency's Web site. James Hansen, NASA's ubiquitous climate scientist and a man who has charged that the Bush Administration is censoring him on global warming, has been unapologetic about NASA's screw up. He claims that global warming skeptics -- "court jesters," he calls them -- are exploiting this incident to "confuse the public about the status of knowledge of global climate change, thus delaying effective action to mitigate climate change.


So having been proved wrong, James Hansen, Weather Clown, insists that what was just disproved is still correct.

Wonderful science there.

Hansen recently made headlines when he travelled to London to testify on behalf of a group of environmentalists who had damaged a coal plant in protest against global warming. Hansen also serves as science advisor to Al Gore.


Hansen is a crank. And he should be fired He is a media whore whose boundless ignorance and prejudice have endangered the economic future of this nation and has destroyed the reputation of NASA.



[ABOVE: Hansen Measuring precipitation?]




by pat
images:
dequalss
vladnews
dvdinmypants
sources:
http://www.dailytech.com/Deja+Vu+All+Over+Again+Blogger+Again+Finds+Error+in+NASA+Climate+Data/article13410.htm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/correct_the_corrections_the_giss_urban_adjustment/
http://www.dailytech.com/Blogger+Finds+Y2K+Bug+in+NASA+Climate+Data/article8383.htm
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118835472067611877.html?mod=most_emailed_day




Wednesday, November 12, 2008

Pew Pollster Admits Polls Unreliable: True Media Confessions Continue



Your Ad Here



Holy Gallup's Ghost !
Top Pollster Admits Early Election Polls Can’t Be Trusted

by David W. Moore






The Sunday before the election, the Director of Pew Research, Andrew Kohut, admitted on NPR's "All Things Considered" what we pollsters have known all along, but have been able to keep out of the general public's consciousness.

It was the polling equivalent of the little child saying out loud, The emperor has no clothes!

Except that it was a pollster admitting this truth.

When NPR's Andrea Seabrook asked Kohut why the polls had shown such divergent readings throughout the campaign season, Kohut admitted that pre-election polls simply couldn't be trusted - at least not until just before people actually started to vote!



LISTEN HERE ON NPR'S "ALL THINGS CONSIDERED"


Andrea Seabrook: "Why are the polls - the polls seem to be converging across the polls towards the sort of five-point lead for Obama, when they had been pretty disparate - there had been a lot of difference between them?"

Andrew Kohut: "The answer to that is that the closer we get to the election, the more crystallized public opinion is and therefore the more likely it is when we make a telephone call, we're going to get the same answers as another polling organization will get. These voters have made up their minds and there's not so many of 'I'll vote for this guy one day and if you call me tomorrow I'll vote for someone else.' So, it's pretty typical that the polls - rigorous polls - all come together in the final weeks."




It was especially fortuitous for Pew that the polls all came together toward Election Day, for as Kohut acknowledged in the interview, only a few days earlier the Pew poll had shown Obama with a "boxcar kind of lead" - up by 15 points over McCain, a real outlier. That wouldn't have looked good.

WILDLY DISPARATE POLLS CONVERGE JUST BEFORE ELECTION DAY


Some of the other polls were showing a much closer race and had been for many days. But just in time for the election, the Pew poll suddenly bounced into line. Other polls that had been off the mark also mysteriously bounced in the same direction.

The veteran pollster, a former president of the Gallup Organization, where he first cut his teeth on the art of polling, was surprisingly candid about the limitations of polls during the election campaign.

What did the veteran pollster admit? What do those early polls really measure?

Continue reading: Holy Gallup's Ghost ! Top Pollster Admits Early Election Polls Can’t Be Trusted


by David W. Moore
Source/images: Holy Gallup's Ghost ! Top Pollster Admits Early Election Polls Can’t Be Trusted




Friday, April 18, 2008

Time Magazine: Errors, Mistakes and Political Shilling

Time's Greatest Mistakes of the Past Two Years



Originally, this was to be a story on "Time magazine's greatest errors". After a little cursory research, it was determined that a book would have to be written to cover that subject.

Part of the reason is Time's been around since 1923. But a larger part of the problem can be traced to the moment when Time's management made the decision that liberal political shilling--whether for global warming, taxes, the latest Democrat "next big thing"--would be an acceptable substitute for objective news reporting.

So the subject was limited to the last couple of years, a more manageable topic.



NOVEMBER 2007: FISA Falsehoods by Joe Klein

Joe Klein tells outright falsehoods--we called them "lies" when I was a kid--about the FISA bill and misleads his readers about what the bill contains.

We don't often agree with Glenn Greenwald, but he does a pretty good job of calling Klein on it and then following up when Klein responds in typical MSM fashion.
On Wednesday, I documented that Joe Klein's column in this week's Time Magazine contained multiple false statements about the new FISA bill -- The RESTORE Act -- passed by House Democrats last week. The most obvious and harmful inaccuracy was his claim that that bill "would require the surveillance of every foreign-terrorist target's calls to be approved by the FISA court" and that it therefore "would give terrorists the same legal protections as Americans." Based on those outright falsehoods, Klein called the House Democrats' bill "well beyond stupid."

Greenwald documents the twists and turn that Klein embarks upon in order to avoid admitting he was wrong--or apologizing for it. Both concepts are foreign to most of the MSM: the substitution of faux facts to support the writer's viewpoint and apologies.
That day, Klein responded on his blog to what I wrote without acknowledging that he was doing so and without even telling his readers what the criticisms were. He insisted that everything he wrote was accurate ("as I reported, [the bill] obliquely gives foreign terrorists the same procedures as American citizens, if not the same rights"). He also said that the RESTORE Act was just "a partisan waste of time, fodder for lawyers and civil liberties extremists."

Yesterday -- Saturday night on Thanksgiving weekend -- Klein returned to the Time blog to write an extremely conditional, weaselly, self-justifying and partial "correction" to what he wrote in the print magazine.


This article also posted at DBKP.com: "Time: Little News, Plenty of Mistakes and Political Statements".

FEAR SELLS



DECEMBER 1979: The Cooling of America

Showing the same deep scientific understanding that Time exhibits in their many Global Warming articles of late, Time sounds the alarm for global cooling.



Charlotte Conservative assesses Time's climate change agenda--warming or cooling.

"Nothing says “liberal” like crowd control through paranoia."



Time obviously subscribes to the motto that "Nothing sells like a good climate panic".



Global Warming is the fear d'jour at Time; it one of Time's most popular cover stories: four in the last two years. Including this cover for the upcoming week.



WWII vets have already registered their outrage over another Time Photo Shop job.

When the oceans don't rise and the residents of coastal mega-cities have moved on to their next worry, Time's covers of the past two years will be reminders of what happens to a once-great magazine that replaces news with political activism.

Time has lost over half a million paid subscribers 1997-2007.




TIME's ASSESSMENT of REAGAN in 1987

Time breathlessly reports on Iran-Contra, asking the cover question about President Reagan, "Can He Recover?" Famously, and on cue, Time answered its own question then with a "NO!"



Reagan did just fine: Reagan is considered one of the Top Ten Greatest Presidents in almost every historian's list.

Time, on the other hand has watched it's subscription base and stock price go into steady decline since the Reagan years. It recovered briefly and it's high stock price (91.75 in 1999) has since tumbled. A share of Time stock can now be had for $14.70 today.

MARCH 2007: Reagan's PhotoShopped Tear



Time Photo Shopped a tear onto their cover picture of Ronald Reagan. It took the intrepid digger to find that the photo was a fake: the original picture of Reagan taken by one photographer; the tear added by another person at Time.



The March 2006 Time story about the U.S. Marines at Haditha was going to also be included, but Time was forced to make so many retractions and corrections to their original storyine of "evil U.S. soldiers massacring innocent civilians", that this particular subject would have made for a post of its own.

Atlas Shrugged asks a pertinent (rhetorical) question: "You think TIME will run another cover?"

The fact that the question is a rhetorical one helps explain why more and more people have abandoned Time as a reliable news source.

So these are our picks of Time's biggest mistakes of the past three years.

Impressive.

Were any stories left out that should have been included?

by Mondoreb
images/Sources:
* When a story goes terribly wrong
* amadeo
* Time magazine's FISA fiasco shows how Beltway reporters mislead the country
* Global Warming Strikes Back
* Time
* Time archives
* Timesonline

Digg!

DBKP.com - Bigger, Better!.
Back to DBKP at Blogger Front Page