Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Originally posted by: shira
Of course I care. But I've checked the web on this September/October data issue you mentioned, and nowhere is there credible evidence that this was a willful act, or that Hansen's played any role in it.
The official explanation given by GISS is that the Russian data was (naturally) obtained from another body, and NASA doesn't have the resources to quality-control all of the data it receives. And note the mistake was identified and corrected within a few weeks.
I'm sure you can find people who read all sorts of nefarious intent into this event, but it's fair to ask: Why do YOU accept such explanations when there's a completely reasonable alternate explanation offered by the source?
Well...perhaps there wasn't nefarious intent...maybe it was just plain incompetence. Bottomline,
Hansen is responsible for the integrity of the data. He made bold claims based on faulty data. Most responsible scientists check and double check their facts before going public with 'sensational' announcements. I assume that you've done enough research to find out exactly who found the mistake. Perhaps that will help you think outside your little box for a few seconds.
Look...Hansen's integrity is highly suspect...I gave you a clue...see what his boss said about him. Here's another....he's manipulated data and has refused to release his methodology. Google that. Perhaps you do care...I hope so.
NASA receives weather data from literally tens of thousands of weather stations across the planet (take a look at the station data site I posted). I'm sure NASA has standard processes that they enforce on the data sources to improve the reliability of the data, but ultimately the accuracy of the data can come only from the sources - the stations that report the data.
And how would NASA "double-check" the data? Have the stations send the data twice and make sure the results are the same? Or compare earlier data with new data and look for duplication? That might work some of the time, but there are various ways that data corruption can occur (for example, a half-degree bias that increases all of the reading from an area) that probably can't be identified by the recipient. Hopefully, the stations doing the reporting double-check their data before they send it, and re-check when they see the data listed on the NASA site.
I think NASA's current approach of making the data available for review until the new report is generated, and inviting comments, is about as open and reasonable a process as one can expect.
Finally, I've googled on
James Hansen data
and visited the various sites returned. I see many references to the September/October 2008 issue, which I've already addressed. And I see allegations that Hansen cooks his data that trace back to the Heartland Institute
Wiki
which is about as ideologically-driven an organization as one could imagine. According to Wiki, Heartland claims:
Most scientists do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earth's climate.
The most reliable temperature data show no global warming trend.
A modest amount of global warming, should it occur, would be beneficial to the natural world and to human civilization.
The best strategy to pursue is one of 'no regrets'.
Furthermore:
In April 2008, environmental journalist Richard Littlemore wrote that a bibliography written by Dennis Avery and posted on Heartland?s Web site, titled "500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares,? included at least 45 scientists who neither knew of their inclusion as "coauthors" of the article, nor agreed with its claims regarding global warming. Dozens of the scientists asked the Heartland Institute to remove their names from the list; for instance, Gregory Cutter of Old Dominion University wrote, "I have NO doubts... the recent changes in global climate ARE man-induced. I insist that you immediately remove my name from this list since I did not give you permission to put it there." Dr. Robert Whittaker, Professor of Biogeography, University of Oxford wrote "Please remove my name. What you have done is totally unethical!"
In response, the Heartland Institute refused to remove any names from the list.
and
The Heartland Institute received $561,500 from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2005. This included $119,000 in 2005, its largest gift to Heartland in that period. Nearly 40% of funds from ExxonMobil were specifically designated for climate change projects
I'm sorry, I can't take allegations made by such an EXTREMIST ideologically-driven - and apparently dishonest - organization seriously.