What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Climategate Stunner: NASA Heads Knew NASA Data Was Poor

concept

Evil Mongering
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
2,040
Reaction score
344
Points
48
Location
West Mi
... so they used CRU data... :rolleyes:

Pajamas Media Climategate Stunner: NASA Heads Knew NASA Data Was Poor, Then Used Data from CRU
Email messages obtained by the Competitive Enterprise Institute via a Freedom of Information Act request reveal that the climate dataset of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) was considered — by the top climate scientists within NASA itself — to be inferior to the data maintained by the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU).

The NASA scientists also felt that NASA GISS data was inferior to the National Climate Data Center Global Historical Climate Network (NCDC GHCN) database.

These emails, obtained by Christopher Horner, also show that the NASA GISS dataset was not independent of CRU data.

Further, all of this information regarding the accuracy and independence of NASA GISS data was directly communicated to a reporter from USA Today in August 2007.

The reporter never published it.

Two implications of these emails: The data to which Phil Jones referred to as “independent” was not — it was being “corrected” and reused among various climate science groups, and the independence of the results was no longer assured; and the NASA GISS data was of lower quality than Jones’ embattled CRU data.

The NCDC GHCN dataset mentioned in the Ruedy email has also been called into question by Joe D’Aleo and Anthony Watts. D’Aleo and Watts showed in a January 2010 report that changes in available measurement sites and the selection criteria involved in “homogenizing” the GHCN climate data raised serious questions about the usefulness of that dataset as well.

These three datasets — from NASA GISS, NCDC GHCN, and CRU — are the basis of essentially all climate study supporting anthropogenic global warming.
So much for the talking point that NASA data is independant from the manipulated Hadley data.

Here is one of the emails...
http://pajamasmedia.com/files/2010/03/GISS-says-CRU-Better0001.pdf

How much more proof is needed that AGW is a massive hoax? :rolleyes:
 
Joined
Sep 12, 2008
Messages
14,201
Reaction score
3,563
Points
185
The facts are irrelevant. This is heresy against the religion, and facts have no place in religious discussion.
 

CrusaderFrank

Diamond Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
120,565
Reaction score
35,464
Points
2,220
NASA intentionally distorted the Face on Mars too, plus they found mind blowing artificats on the Moon as well.

NASA could teach the CIA how to lie.

They "lose" contact with space probes for reasons that make absolutely no sense. "Yeah, we built it using the American system, but somehow the way points were in metric system and then there was a swarm of locusts too, yeah, tha'ts the ticket"
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
C'mon, it's not the facts, they don't matter. Look at the source, pajamas who? LOL!

The oceans are rising, mountains sinking, doom is approaching.

Might all be true, but not based on those numbers that's for freaking sure!
 

code1211

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2009
Messages
5,999
Reaction score
854
Points
48
... so they used CRU data... :rolleyes:

Pajamas Media Climategate Stunner: NASA Heads Knew NASA Data Was Poor, Then Used Data from CRU
Email messages obtained by the Competitive Enterprise Institute via a Freedom of Information Act request reveal that the climate dataset of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) was considered — by the top climate scientists within NASA itself — to be inferior to the data maintained by the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU).

The NASA scientists also felt that NASA GISS data was inferior to the National Climate Data Center Global Historical Climate Network (NCDC GHCN) database.

These emails, obtained by Christopher Horner, also show that the NASA GISS dataset was not independent of CRU data.

Further, all of this information regarding the accuracy and independence of NASA GISS data was directly communicated to a reporter from USA Today in August 2007.

The reporter never published it.

Two implications of these emails: The data to which Phil Jones referred to as “independent” was not — it was being “corrected” and reused among various climate science groups, and the independence of the results was no longer assured; and the NASA GISS data was of lower quality than Jones’ embattled CRU data.

The NCDC GHCN dataset mentioned in the Ruedy email has also been called into question by Joe D’Aleo and Anthony Watts. D’Aleo and Watts showed in a January 2010 report that changes in available measurement sites and the selection criteria involved in “homogenizing” the GHCN climate data raised serious questions about the usefulness of that dataset as well.

These three datasets — from NASA GISS, NCDC GHCN, and CRU — are the basis of essentially all climate study supporting anthropogenic global warming.
So much for the talking point that NASA data is independant from the manipulated Hadley data.

Here is one of the emails...
http://pajamasmedia.com/files/2010/03/GISS-says-CRU-Better0001.pdf

How much more proof is needed that AGW is a massive hoax? :rolleyes:


Well, this at least explains why GISS adjusts its data so much.
 

sparky

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
17,953
Reaction score
3,881
Points
280
Location
paradise
..."very rarely did we communicate to the press anything we didn't absolutely control"....
----Anita Dunn - Obama Communications Chief

they should have hired Anita.....
 

edthecynic

Censored for Cynicism
Joined
Oct 20, 2008
Messages
41,734
Reaction score
6,180
Points
1,830
... so they used CRU data... :rolleyes:

Pajamas Media Climategate Stunner: NASA Heads Knew NASA Data Was Poor, Then Used Data from CRU
Email messages obtained by the Competitive Enterprise Institute via a Freedom of Information Act request reveal that the climate dataset of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) was considered — by the top climate scientists within NASA itself — to be inferior to the data maintained by the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU).

The NASA scientists also felt that NASA GISS data was inferior to the National Climate Data Center Global Historical Climate Network (NCDC GHCN) database.

These emails, obtained by Christopher Horner, also show that the NASA GISS dataset was not independent of CRU data.

Further, all of this information regarding the accuracy and independence of NASA GISS data was directly communicated to a reporter from USA Today in August 2007.

The reporter never published it.
Two implications of these emails: The data to which Phil Jones referred to as “independent” was not — it was being “corrected” and reused among various climate science groups, and the independence of the results was no longer assured; and the NASA GISS data was of lower quality than Jones’ embattled CRU data.

The NCDC GHCN dataset mentioned in the Ruedy email has also been called into question by Joe D’Aleo and Anthony Watts. D’Aleo and Watts showed in a January 2010 report that changes in available measurement sites and the selection criteria involved in “homogenizing” the GHCN climate data raised serious questions about the usefulness of that dataset as well.

These three datasets — from NASA GISS, NCDC GHCN, and CRU — are the basis of essentially all climate study supporting anthropogenic global warming.
So much for the talking point that NASA data is independant from the manipulated Hadley data.

Here is one of the emails...
http://pajamasmedia.com/files/2010/03/GISS-says-CRU-Better0001.pdf

How much more proof is needed that AGW is a massive hoax? :rolleyes:
What more proof is needed that CON$ are pathological liars?

The emails show nothing that is claimed, that is why there are no quotes from the emails in the above rant. The parts that are marked as quotes are from the PREMEDITATED liars who PARAPHRASED the emails.

Here is an actual quote from the emails:

"Our method of analysis has features that are different than the analyses of the other groups. In some
cases the differences have a substantial impact.
For example, we extrapolate station measurements as much as 1200 km. This allows us to include
results for the full Arctic. In 2005 this turned out to be important, as the Arctic had a large positive
temperature anomaly. We thus found 2005 to be the warmest year in the record, while the British did
not and initially NOAA also did not. Independent satellite IR measurements showed that our
extrapolations of anomalies into the Arctic were conservative. I am very confident that our result was
the correct one in that instance.
Also, as we show in our 2001 paper, our urban warming correction in the U.S. differs from the NOAA
correction (we have a larger adjustment, which decreases recent temperatures relative to last century).
I would not claim that one is superior to the other, but the different results provide one conservative
measure of uncertainty. In general it has proven very useful to have more than one group do the
analysis.
Also it should be noted that the different groups have cooperated in a very friendly way to try to
understand different conclusions when they arise. You will see that we had co-authors from the other
groups on our 2001 paper. And in general it is a bad idea to anoint any group as being THE authority."
 
OP
concept

concept

Evil Mongering
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
2,040
Reaction score
344
Points
48
Location
West Mi
... so they used CRU data... :rolleyes:

Pajamas Media Climategate Stunner: NASA Heads Knew NASA Data Was Poor, Then Used Data from CRU
Email messages obtained by the Competitive Enterprise Institute via a Freedom of Information Act request reveal that the climate dataset of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) was considered — by the top climate scientists within NASA itself — to be inferior to the data maintained by the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU).

The NASA scientists also felt that NASA GISS data was inferior to the National Climate Data Center Global Historical Climate Network (NCDC GHCN) database.

These emails, obtained by Christopher Horner, also show that the NASA GISS dataset was not independent of CRU data.

Further, all of this information regarding the accuracy and independence of NASA GISS data was directly communicated to a reporter from USA Today in August 2007.

The reporter never published it.
Two implications of these emails: The data to which Phil Jones referred to as “independent” was not — it was being “corrected” and reused among various climate science groups, and the independence of the results was no longer assured; and the NASA GISS data was of lower quality than Jones’ embattled CRU data.

The NCDC GHCN dataset mentioned in the Ruedy email has also been called into question by Joe D’Aleo and Anthony Watts. D’Aleo and Watts showed in a January 2010 report that changes in available measurement sites and the selection criteria involved in “homogenizing” the GHCN climate data raised serious questions about the usefulness of that dataset as well.

These three datasets — from NASA GISS, NCDC GHCN, and CRU — are the basis of essentially all climate study supporting anthropogenic global warming.
So much for the talking point that NASA data is independant from the manipulated Hadley data.

Here is one of the emails...
http://pajamasmedia.com/files/2010/03/GISS-says-CRU-Better0001.pdf

How much more proof is needed that AGW is a massive hoax? :rolleyes:
What more proof is needed that CON$ are pathological liars?

The emails show nothing that is claimed, that is why there are no quotes from the emails in the above rant. The parts that are marked as quotes are from the PREMEDITATED liars who PARAPHRASED the emails.

****

:lol:

Hey there Sparky.

Here is one of the emails which I had linked to in my post.

Subject: RE: USA temperatures - question from USA TODAY
From: Reto Ruedy <rruedy@giss.nasa.gov>
. Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 14:45:41 -0400
To: "Rice, Doyle" <drice@usatoday.com> .
CC: James Hansen <jhansen@giss.nasa.gov>, Makiko Sato <makis@giss.nasa.gov>, Reto Ruedy
<cdrar@giss.nasa.gov>
Doyle,
Since this is a technical question and Dr. aansen is busy this
afternoon, I'll answer it: .
No, your statement is NOT correct; to get the US means, NCDC's procedure
of only using the best stations is more accurate. If that were our goal,
we would proceed in the same way. Actually, whenever we report on US
means in our publications, we recompute all US means using only USHCN
data.
My recommendation to you is to continue using NCDC's data for the US
means and Phil Jones' data for the global means. Our method is geared to
getting the global mean and large regional means correctly enough to
assess our model results.
We are basically a modeling group and were forced into rudimentary
analysis of global observed data in the 70's and early 80's since nobody
else was doing that job at the time. Now we happily combine NCDC's and
Hadley Center's data to get what we need to evaluate our model results.
For that purpose, what we do is more than accurate enough. But we have
no intention to compete with either of the other two organizations in
what they do best.
Sincerely,
Reto
Basically, get your head out of your ass and admit you were duped. it will hurt a little at first but then the hurt goes away and you will feel better.

:lol:

It is exactly as claimed in the op. Your talking point of NASA being independant has officially been blown out of the water and into a different time zone.

Deal with it.


But please keep typing out CON$... :lol:
OCB much?
 

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
59,656
Reaction score
7,437
Points
1,840
Location
Portland, Ore.
January 2010, warmest January on record. February 2010, second warmest February on record.

Going to be an interesting year.
 
Joined
Feb 28, 2009
Messages
12,404
Reaction score
1,936
Points
0
January 2010, warmest January on record. February 2010, second warmest February on record.

Going to be an interesting year.
If you puerile dupes continue to mindlessly parrot the exaggerations and outright lies of your religion, no.... that's not interesting. It's amusing in a sick sort of way.

Sort of like having Jehovah's Witnesses at one's door. Except you warmers are "Gore's Witlesses."
 

edthecynic

Censored for Cynicism
Joined
Oct 20, 2008
Messages
41,734
Reaction score
6,180
Points
1,830
... so they used CRU data... :rolleyes:

Pajamas Media Climategate Stunner: NASA Heads Knew NASA Data Was Poor, Then Used Data from CRU
Email messages obtained by the Competitive Enterprise Institute via a Freedom of Information Act request reveal that the climate dataset of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) was considered — by the top climate scientists within NASA itself — to be inferior to the data maintained by the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU).

The NASA scientists also felt that NASA GISS data was inferior to the National Climate Data Center Global Historical Climate Network (NCDC GHCN) database.

These emails, obtained by Christopher Horner, also show that the NASA GISS dataset was not independent of CRU data.

Further, all of this information regarding the accuracy and independence of NASA GISS data was directly communicated to a reporter from USA Today in August 2007.

The reporter never published it.
Two implications of these emails: The data to which Phil Jones referred to as “independent” was not — it was being “corrected” and reused among various climate science groups, and the independence of the results was no longer assured; and the NASA GISS data was of lower quality than Jones’ embattled CRU data.

The NCDC GHCN dataset mentioned in the Ruedy email has also been called into question by Joe D’Aleo and Anthony Watts. D’Aleo and Watts showed in a January 2010 report that changes in available measurement sites and the selection criteria involved in “homogenizing” the GHCN climate data raised serious questions about the usefulness of that dataset as well.

These three datasets — from NASA GISS, NCDC GHCN, and CRU — are the basis of essentially all climate study supporting anthropogenic global warming.
So much for the talking point that NASA data is independant from the manipulated Hadley data.

Here is one of the emails...
http://pajamasmedia.com/files/2010/03/GISS-says-CRU-Better0001.pdf

How much more proof is needed that AGW is a massive hoax? :rolleyes:

... so they used CRU data... :rolleyes:

Pajamas Media Climategate Stunner: NASA Heads Knew NASA Data Was Poor, Then Used Data from CRU
So much for the talking point that NASA data is independant from the manipulated Hadley data.

Here is one of the emails...
http://pajamasmedia.com/files/2010/03/GISS-says-CRU-Better0001.pdf

How much more proof is needed that AGW is a massive hoax? :rolleyes:
What more proof is needed that CON$ are pathological liars?

The emails show nothing that is claimed, that is why there are no quotes from the emails in the above rant. The parts that are marked as quotes are from the PREMEDITATED liars who PARAPHRASED the emails.

Here is an actual quote from the emails:

"Our method of analysis has features that are different than the analyses of the other groups. In some
cases the differences have a substantial impact.
For example, we extrapolate station measurements as much as 1200 km. This allows us to include
results for the full Arctic. In 2005 this turned out to be important, as the Arctic had a large positive
temperature anomaly. We thus found 2005 to be the warmest year in the record, while the British did
not and initially NOAA also did not. Independent satellite IR measurements showed that our
extrapolations of anomalies into the Arctic were conservative. I am very confident that our result was
the correct one in that instance.
Also, as we show in our 2001 paper, our urban warming correction in the U.S. differs from the NOAA
correction (we have a larger adjustment, which decreases recent temperatures relative to last century).
I would not claim that one is superior to the other, but the different results provide one conservative
measure of uncertainty. In general it has proven very useful to have more than one group do the
analysis.
Also it should be noted that the different groups have cooperated in a very friendly way to try to
understand different conclusions when they arise. You will see that we had co-authors from the other
groups on our 2001 paper. And in general it is a bad idea to anoint any group as being THE authority."

:lol:

Hey there Sparky.

Here is one of the emails which I had linked to in my post.

Subject: RE: USA temperatures - question from USA TODAY
From: Reto Ruedy <rruedy@giss.nasa.gov>
. Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 14:45:41 -0400
To: "Rice, Doyle" <drice@usatoday.com> .
CC: James Hansen <jhansen@giss.nasa.gov>, Makiko Sato <makis@giss.nasa.gov>, Reto Ruedy
<cdrar@giss.nasa.gov>
Doyle,
Since this is a technical question and Dr. aansen is busy this
afternoon, I'll answer it: .
No, your statement is NOT correct; to get the US means, NCDC's procedure
of only using the best stations is more accurate.
If that were our goal,
we would proceed in the same way. Actually, whenever we report on US
means in our publications, we recompute all US means using only USHCN
data.
My recommendation to you is to continue using NCDC's data for the US
means and Phil Jones' data for the global means. Our method is geared to
getting the global mean and large regional means correctly enough to
assess our model results.

We are basically a modeling group and were forced into rudimentary
analysis of global observed data in the 70's and early 80's since nobody
else was doing that job at the time. Now we happily combine NCDC's and
Hadley Center's data to get what we need to evaluate our model results.
For that purpose, what we do is more than accurate enough. But we have
no intention to compete with either of the other two organizations in
what they do best.
Sincerely,
Reto
Basically, get your head out of your ass and admit you were duped. it will hurt a little at first but then the hurt goes away and you will feel better.

:lol:

It is exactly as claimed in the op. Your talking point of NASA being independant has officially been blown out of the water and into a different time zone.

Deal with it.


But please keep typing out CON$... :lol:
OCB much?
Admit it, you are soooooooooo gullible you can no longer read english. :rofl:

Nowhere did the the email compare NASA or NCDC to CRU, nor did it discuss using the data for anything other than checking their models.

Notice how you left out the question that was answered by the email you posted! The desperation of deniers is exposed by your deliberate perversion of the context of the emails.
Thank you.

Here is the question you left out:

" So is it correct to say that NASA's data is more accurate than NCDC's
> since it has more sources?
In the media, it would be ideal to refer
> to one source rather than two. Traditionally we've used NCDC's data.
>
>
>
> And globally, we usually use the Hadley Centre data ... "

So to summarize, the question was, is NASA more accurate than NCDC and the answer was, one is NOT superior to the other. This was perverted by pathological liars into the answer, CRU is superior to all.
The perversion was swallowed whole by gullible deniers. :cuckoo: :rofl:
 

CrusaderFrank

Diamond Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
120,565
Reaction score
35,464
Points
2,220
It's like a scene from"Spinal Tap" except NASA expects you to believe it

"Unknown to the navigation team, the ground Small Forces software operated in English units, while other software was metric-based."

http://pbma.nasa.gov/docs/public/pbma/images/msm/MCO_SFCS.pdf

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7wcyLrPqC4]YouTube - Spinal Tap - Stonehenge (With Lyrics)[/ame]
 
OP
concept

concept

Evil Mongering
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
2,040
Reaction score
344
Points
48
Location
West Mi
January 2010, warmest January on record. February 2010, second warmest February on record.

Going to be an interesting year.

You've been duped.

Any normal person would be really angry but by your posts and comments, you were willfully duped and continue to be.

Sucks to be you I guess.
 
OP
concept

concept

Evil Mongering
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
2,040
Reaction score
344
Points
48
Location
West Mi
... so they used CRU data... :rolleyes:

Pajamas Media Climategate Stunner: NASA Heads Knew NASA Data Was Poor, Then Used Data from CRU
Email messages obtained by the Competitive Enterprise Institute via a Freedom of Information Act request reveal that the climate dataset of NASA&#8217;s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) was considered &#8212; by the top climate scientists within NASA itself &#8212; to be inferior to the data maintained by the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU).

The NASA scientists also felt that NASA GISS data was inferior to the National Climate Data Center Global Historical Climate Network (NCDC GHCN) database.

These emails, obtained by Christopher Horner, also show that the NASA GISS dataset was not independent of CRU data.

Further, all of this information regarding the accuracy and independence of NASA GISS data was directly communicated to a reporter from USA Today in August 2007.

The reporter never published it.
So much for the talking point that NASA data is independant from the manipulated Hadley data.

Here is one of the emails...
http://pajamasmedia.com/files/2010/03/GISS-says-CRU-Better0001.pdf

How much more proof is needed that AGW is a massive hoax? :rolleyes:

:lol:

Hey there Sparky.

Here is one of the emails which I had linked to in my post.

Subject: RE: USA temperatures - question from USA TODAY
From: Reto Ruedy <rruedy@giss.nasa.gov>
. Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 14:45:41 -0400
To: "Rice, Doyle" <drice@usatoday.com> .
CC: James Hansen <jhansen@giss.nasa.gov>, Makiko Sato <makis@giss.nasa.gov>, Reto Ruedy
<cdrar@giss.nasa.gov>
Doyle,
Since this is a technical question and Dr. aansen is busy this
afternoon, I'll answer it: .
No, your statement is NOT correct; to get the US means, NCDC's procedure
of only using the best stations is more accurate.
If that were our goal,
we would proceed in the same way. Actually, whenever we report on US
means in our publications, we recompute all US means using only USHCN
data.
My recommendation to you is to continue using NCDC's data for the US
means and Phil Jones' data for the global means. Our method is geared to
getting the global mean and large regional means correctly enough to
assess our model results.

We are basically a modeling group and were forced into rudimentary
analysis of global observed data in the 70's and early 80's since nobody
else was doing that job at the time. Now we happily combine NCDC's and
Hadley Center's data to get what we need to evaluate our model results.
For that purpose, what we do is more than accurate enough. But we have
no intention to compete with either of the other two organizations in
what they do best.
Sincerely,
Reto
Basically, get your head out of your ass and admit you were duped. it will hurt a little at first but then the hurt goes away and you will feel better.

:lol:

It is exactly as claimed in the op. Your talking point of NASA being independant has officially been blown out of the water and into a different time zone.

Deal with it.


But please keep typing out CON$... :lol:
OCB much?
Admit it, you are soooooooooo gullible you can no longer read english. :rofl:

Nowhere did the the email compare NASA or NCDC to CRU, nor did it discuss using the data for anything other than checking their models.

Notice how you left out the question that was answered by the email you posted! The desperation of deniers is exposed by your deliberate perversion of the context of the emails.
Thank you.

Here is the question you left out:

" So is it correct to say that NASA's data is more accurate than NCDC's
> since it has more sources?
In the media, it would be ideal to refer
> to one source rather than two. Traditionally we've used NCDC's data.
>
>
>
> And globally, we usually use the Hadley Centre data ... "

So to summarize, the question was, is NASA more accurate than NCDC and the answer was, one is NOT superior to the other. This was perverted by pathological liars into the answer, CRU is superior to all.
The perversion was swallowed whole by gullible deniers. :cuckoo: :rofl:
:lol:

Traditionally we've used NCDC's data. And globally, we usually use the Hadley Centre data

It's getting embarrassing now. It started with the East Anglia data getting outed and shown to be a farce.
The hockey stick was a farce.
Glaciers melting? Ooops, FARCE.
Temperatures rising? DOH.. FARCE.
Polar Bears drowning? Wahh.. FARCE
Ice caps disappearing? Oh noes... FARCE
Oceans rising? Yeargh... FARCE.


The only truth in this whole ponzi scheme is that liberals are suckers.

:lol: :lol: :lol:
 
Last edited:
OP
concept

concept

Evil Mongering
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
2,040
Reaction score
344
Points
48
Location
West Mi
It's like a scene from"Spinal Tap" except NASA expects you to believe it

"Unknown to the navigation team, the ground Small Forces software operated in English units, while other software was metric-based."

http://pbma.nasa.gov/docs/public/pbma/images/msm/MCO_SFCS.pdf

YouTube - Spinal Tap - Stonehenge (With Lyrics)

I used to think libs were just so stupid to be duped like this but I am beginning to believe that they are willfully bending over and grabbing their own ankles.

It's hilarious and pathetic at the same time.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$350.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top