Sunday, July 27, 2008

Warming brought to Booker

A few days ago, I quoted a post that noted that the James Hansen-run NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) was out of line with the other temperature agencies in maintaining that the world is still warming.
GISS are James Hansen's lot, and my last post (and many posts passim ad nauseam) show how accurate, truthful and unbiased they are.

And, entirely coincidentally and via The Englishman, here's Christopher Booker in today's Telegraph.
Considering that the measures recommended by the world's politicians to combat global warming will cost tens of trillions of dollars and involve very drastic changes to our way of life, it might be thought wise to check the reliability of the evidence on which they base their belief that our planet is actually getting hotter.

Yes, it might be, eh?
There are four internationally recognised sources of data on world temperatures, but the one most often cited by supporters of global warming is that run by James Hansen of Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS).

Hansen has been for 20 years the world's leading scientific advocate of global warming (and Al Gore's closest ally). But in the past year a number of expert US scientists have been conducting a public investigation, through scientific blogs, which raises large question marks over the methods used to arrive at his figures.

First they noted the increasingly glaring discrepancy between the figures given by GISS, which show temperatures continuing to race upwards, and those given by the other three main data sources, which all show temperatures having fallen since 1998, dropping dramatically in the past year to levels around the average of the past 30 years.

Two sets of data, from satellites, go back to 1979: one produced by Dr Roy Spencer, formerly of Nasa, now at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, the other by Remote Sensing Systems. Their figures correspond closely with those produced by the Hadley Centre for Climate Studies of our own Met Office, based on global surface temperature readings.

Right out on their own, however, are the quite different figures produced by GISS which, strangely for a body sponsored by Nasa, rely not on satellites but also on surface readings.

Very strange, isn't it? Could it be because the satellites do not show what Hansen wants them to show?

Do you know? I think it might be...

UPDATE: thanks to Tomrat who points me to this article, via Moonbattery.
On July 9, 1971, the Post published a story headlined "U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming." It told of a prediction by NASA and Columbia University scientist S.I. Rasool. The culprit: man's use of fossil fuels.

The Post reported that Rasool, writing in Science, argued that in "the next 50 years" fine dust that humans discharge into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuel will screen out so much of the sun's rays that the Earth's average temperature could fall by six degrees.

Sustained emissions over five to 10 years, Rasool claimed, "could be sufficient to trigger an ice age."

Aiding Rasool's research, the Post reported, was a "computer program developed by Dr. James Hansen," who was, according to his resume, a Columbia University research associate at the time.

So what about those greenhouse gases that man pumps into the skies? Weren't they worried about them causing a greenhouse effect that would heat the planet, as Hansen, Al Gore and a host of others so fervently believe today?

"They found no need to worry about the carbon dioxide fuel-burning puts in the atmosphere," the Post said in the story, which was spotted last week by Washington resident John Lockwood, who was doing research at the Library of Congress and alerted the Washington Times to his finding.

Hansen has some explaining to do.

No shit.

Oh, and this also rather gives the lie to those who have been popping up in the comments at The Kitchen, maintaining that it was always about "climate change" and definitely, absolutely, emphatically not ever about "global cooling".


Tomrat said...


Tomrat said...

Cheers DK,

I am starting to see a vicious fear cycle here - global cooling was the darling of the 70s, then we had overpopulation in the 80s when cooling was found to be bunkum, then in the 90s we had AIDs, now in the millenium we've had AGW; now it seems like overpopulation is coming back into fashion with a hint of AGW thrown in for good measure.

And you can dutifully expect noone to be any the wiser...

Oh, and doesn't that picture chill to the bone?

NHS Fail Wail

I think that we can all agree that the UK's response to coronavirus has been somewhat lacking. In fact, many people asserted that our de...