Hat tip to IBD for the latest in the long string of IPCC lies.
-----------
Another shoe has dropped from the IPCC centipede as scientists in Bangladesh say their country will not disappear below the waves. As usual, the U.N.'s climate charlatans forgot one tiny detail.
After fraudulent claims about Himalayan glaciers, African crop harvests and Amazon rain forests, plus a 2007 assessment report based on anecdotal evidence, student term papers and non-peer-reviewed magazine articles, the panel's doomsday forecast for Bangladesh has been exposed as its latest hoax.
According to the 2007 report, melting glaciers and polar ice would lead to rising sea levels and just a three-foot rise would flood 17% of the low-lying country of Bangladesh by 2050 and create 20 million refugees.
Now comes a study from the Dhaka-based Center for Environment and Geographic Information Services (CEGIS) that says the IPCC forgot to factor in the 1 billion tons of sediment carried by Himalayan rivers such as the Ganges and the Brahmaputra into Bangladesh every year.
CEGIS director Maminul Haque Sarker told AFP that "studies on the effects of climate change in Bangladesh, including those quoted by the IPCC, did not consider the role of sediment in the growth and adjustment process of the country's coast and rivers to the sea level rise." Even if sea levels rose according to IPCC predictions, Sarker says, natural sediment deposits would cancel the effect of any rise.
Apocalyptic changes forecast by climate change alarmists, according to Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Morner, former head of the International Commission on Sea Level Change, are not in the cards. Despite fluctuations down as well as up, "the sea is not rising," he says. "It hasn't risen in 50 years."
If there is any rise this century it will "not be more than 10 cm (four inches), with an uncertainty of plus or minus 10 cm."
Six times he and his expert team visited the Maldive Islands to confirm that the sea has not risen for half a century. Similarly in Tuvalu, where local leaders have been calling for the inhabitants to be evacuated for 20 years, the sea has, if anything, dropped in recent decades. Venice, Italy, has been sinking rather than the Adriatic rising, says Dr. Morner.
IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri defended his organization's predictions by warning that "on the basis of one study one cannot jump to conclusions." Yet he and the IPCC jumped to the conclusion that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035 based on unsubstantiated student theses and anecdotes from a magazine for mountain climbers. These claims have been withdrawn amid much laughter.
Still, Pachauri persists in his fables. "One single error doesn't take anything away from the major findings of the report," he said. "The fact is that the glaciers are melting." At least the glaciers in Iceland are, due to natural forces, namely volcanic activity. Even if real, not everything can be blamed on man.
In February, it was reported that India was pulling out of the IPCC because it could no longer trust the U.N. body's data or conclusions. The day after India's announcement, the Netherlands asked the U.N. to explain why the IPCC had said in its 2007 report, which helped it win its share of a Nobel Prize shared with Al Gore, that 55% of the country was below sea level, a figure the Dutch say is closer to 26%.
There's been a sea change in the consideration of the bogus claims of the IPCC, Gore, Britain's CRU and other climate charlatans. No longer accepted on faith, they are being challenged and disproven by scientific fact.
----------------
By the way, this is what happens to all scientists, like Mr. Morner, who shine the light of truth to what the environmentalists want you to believe - they become "former" heads of whatever organization they were heading.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Friday, April 23, 2010
The Other "Reform Shoe" About to Fall
It has long been my opinion that the health care reform was about one thing and one thing only: Eventual take-over of the health care sector of the economy. The critical mechanism that was accidentally missing from the recently enacted legislation (thanks to law makers who do not read the bills they vote on) was the direct authority of the government to control pricing of health insurance premiums. Well, enter Senator Dianne Feinstein.
The good senator introduced a bill that would give the secretary of health and human services the authority to review health plan premiums and block "any rate increase found to be unreasonable."
This, after the public was told many times over that the Democrats' health care legislation would bring down costs and rein in those troublesome health insurance companies that are making so much money - you know, the obscene 2% profit margin that put them in no. 86 as an industry.
It doesn't take a Ph.D. in economics to see where the Democrats are going with this. Their regulators will establish price controls, which will drive health plan providers out of business as the restrictions make it impossible or unreasonable for them to make profits. After all, if a company has to accept anyone with any pre-existing condition, where is the only place they can make up for the steep losses that will be incurred by those irresponsible new enrollees? Premium increases for everyone else. However, if you are not allowed to increase the premiums, what are the options? There really are two options. One is to cut down on approved treatments and reimbursement rates, or go out of business. Both of these options will run most insurance companies out of business one way or another because in the event of restricting treatments significantly, the government will be able to step in and force these insurance companies to comply or go out of business, with no one left but for government to take over.
To deal with the shortage of health plans, Democrats will then complete the government takeover of medicine by placing Washington in the position of being the sole provider of health care. Far fetched? Depends on your political view.
As usual, Democrats are demonstrating that they have little or no understanding of how markets work and the role profits play in business. Sen. Tom Harkin, who, as chairman of the Senate Health Committee, is ready to push Feinstein's bill, is the spokesman for the economically illiterate on this issue.
"Rate review authority," the Iowa Democrat told the New York Times, "is needed to protect consumers from insurance companies' jacking up premiums simply because they can."
No business raises its prices just because it can. Companies raise prices to generate profits, which they cannot stay in business without. They are not charities existing on the good will of contributors.
Nor are they agencies of the government that must do the bidding of self-serving lawmakers.
They are businesses that have to compensate employees and provide returns to investors. They have to pay their vendors, landlords and the lenders that advanced them funds to buy property and infrastructure. And they must compete against rivals.
They can do none of these things without profits.
Cynics would say that the Democrats understand markets and profits quite clearly and are laying out conditions under which businesses will fail so that they can respond with ever more government. As undoubtedly my uninformed progressive friends will say this is nothing but a conspiracy theory. A theory is by definition is an unproven assertion. This is no theory and the proof is plentiful and all around us.
The Democrats have been telegraphing their punches for years. President Obama, for instance, told AFL-CIO members in 2003 that he was a "proponent of a single-payer, universal health care coverage."
In 2007 he spoke at another union event — cosponsored by the SEIU and the Center for American Progress — this time talking about eliminating employer coverage, in the context of not being able to do it immediately.
More recently, Democrats were openly admitting that the public option for health insurance, which was in an early version of the Democrats' reform but not in the final bill, provided a path to a single-payer system.
But that's expected. In each session of Congress since 2003, Democratic Rep. John Conyers of Michigan has introduced a national health care bill that would establish a single-payer, universal scheme similar to the system in Canada. The bill went from 25 cosponsors the first year to 88 in 2009.
The health care insurance industry is no more an angel than the automobile industry or the hotel industry. Nor is it a corrupt or monopolistic industry that can increase its profits simply by, in the words of the White House, jacking up rates as much as it wants.
What it does is provide a service that many Americans appreciate and don't want to lose. It operates through a system of voluntary exchange based on ground rules and actuarial calculations based on those rules, while government engages in coercion and is hopelessly corrupt when it doles out goods that it doesn't own.
Which is the better system? By any measure it's the one that the Democrats are trying to force out of business by choking its profits.
The good senator introduced a bill that would give the secretary of health and human services the authority to review health plan premiums and block "any rate increase found to be unreasonable."
This, after the public was told many times over that the Democrats' health care legislation would bring down costs and rein in those troublesome health insurance companies that are making so much money - you know, the obscene 2% profit margin that put them in no. 86 as an industry.
It doesn't take a Ph.D. in economics to see where the Democrats are going with this. Their regulators will establish price controls, which will drive health plan providers out of business as the restrictions make it impossible or unreasonable for them to make profits. After all, if a company has to accept anyone with any pre-existing condition, where is the only place they can make up for the steep losses that will be incurred by those irresponsible new enrollees? Premium increases for everyone else. However, if you are not allowed to increase the premiums, what are the options? There really are two options. One is to cut down on approved treatments and reimbursement rates, or go out of business. Both of these options will run most insurance companies out of business one way or another because in the event of restricting treatments significantly, the government will be able to step in and force these insurance companies to comply or go out of business, with no one left but for government to take over.
To deal with the shortage of health plans, Democrats will then complete the government takeover of medicine by placing Washington in the position of being the sole provider of health care. Far fetched? Depends on your political view.
As usual, Democrats are demonstrating that they have little or no understanding of how markets work and the role profits play in business. Sen. Tom Harkin, who, as chairman of the Senate Health Committee, is ready to push Feinstein's bill, is the spokesman for the economically illiterate on this issue.
"Rate review authority," the Iowa Democrat told the New York Times, "is needed to protect consumers from insurance companies' jacking up premiums simply because they can."
No business raises its prices just because it can. Companies raise prices to generate profits, which they cannot stay in business without. They are not charities existing on the good will of contributors.
Nor are they agencies of the government that must do the bidding of self-serving lawmakers.
They are businesses that have to compensate employees and provide returns to investors. They have to pay their vendors, landlords and the lenders that advanced them funds to buy property and infrastructure. And they must compete against rivals.
They can do none of these things without profits.
Cynics would say that the Democrats understand markets and profits quite clearly and are laying out conditions under which businesses will fail so that they can respond with ever more government. As undoubtedly my uninformed progressive friends will say this is nothing but a conspiracy theory. A theory is by definition is an unproven assertion. This is no theory and the proof is plentiful and all around us.
The Democrats have been telegraphing their punches for years. President Obama, for instance, told AFL-CIO members in 2003 that he was a "proponent of a single-payer, universal health care coverage."
In 2007 he spoke at another union event — cosponsored by the SEIU and the Center for American Progress — this time talking about eliminating employer coverage, in the context of not being able to do it immediately.
More recently, Democrats were openly admitting that the public option for health insurance, which was in an early version of the Democrats' reform but not in the final bill, provided a path to a single-payer system.
But that's expected. In each session of Congress since 2003, Democratic Rep. John Conyers of Michigan has introduced a national health care bill that would establish a single-payer, universal scheme similar to the system in Canada. The bill went from 25 cosponsors the first year to 88 in 2009.
The health care insurance industry is no more an angel than the automobile industry or the hotel industry. Nor is it a corrupt or monopolistic industry that can increase its profits simply by, in the words of the White House, jacking up rates as much as it wants.
What it does is provide a service that many Americans appreciate and don't want to lose. It operates through a system of voluntary exchange based on ground rules and actuarial calculations based on those rules, while government engages in coercion and is hopelessly corrupt when it doles out goods that it doesn't own.
Which is the better system? By any measure it's the one that the Democrats are trying to force out of business by choking its profits.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Politicizing Wall Street
I have been holding back on commenting on the customary Democrat hypocrisy when it comes to demonizing Wall Street for political ends. The straw that broke the camel's back for me was a story yesterday morning regarding a fellow, Paolo Pellegrini, who just happened to be the point man for Mr. Paulson and the middle man in the newly emerging scandal surrounding Goldman Sachs' role in playing both ends of the CDO game. Out of curiosity, and to see if my hunch was correct, I checked the OpenSecrets.org site to see Mr. Pellegrini's political leaning. In the 2008 election cycle, he donated to three candidates: Barrack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Christopher Dodd. This was no surprise to me since it is mainly the Democrat party (although both parties benefit from their largesse) that is in the back pocket of Wall Street giants Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Citigroup, and Morgan Stanley. In fact, of the $23.1 million given by these four in the top ten donor category, Democrats were recipients of $14.8 million, or roughly two thirds. Now, to be fair, I am not absolving Republican's of cozying up to Wall Street because they, on a certain level, also do. That is the ugly face of importance of special interest money in American politics. Call it what it is: Crony capitalism, or fascism of sorts in an electoral system that requires raising massive quantities of money to ensure political longevity. However, the important difference is that Republican's are not the ones demonizing Wall Street.
This must be puzzling to the average political novice out there. How can a political party be so deeply in the pocket of Wall Street and yet taking aim at it at the same time. Well, to those who are savvy in the ways of the tired old Democrat tactic of demonizing groups, it is really simple. Demonization, distortion, and polarization (as currently being witnessed regarding the TEA Party movement as well) are three of the basics of Aulinsky (of Rules for Radicals fame) like tactics that the left has always been so fond of and practiced to perfection going all the way back to the Russian revolution. Take a President whose popularity has sunk from 70% to mid 40s, a Democrat congress whose approval is the lowest of any congress in recent memory, a public who by a margin of 4:1 thinks (yes, that is nearly 80%) the government has grown too big and intrusive, and the generic ballot that for the first time in a while clearly favors the opposition - and all of a sudden the reasons become much clearer. The answer for Democrats? Create a bogeyman, isolate it, spread distortions and pit the public against it, and you will divert the attention of the voters from your failings and real motives. As master of propaganda Joseph Goebbels said: if you repeat a lie enough times, it eventually becomes the truth in the public's mind. I could always be wrong, of course, but that is only if all this has a much more ominous underlying goal - one of dismantling the financial system, or effectively nationalizing it. I will be generous and attribute it to political survival although there is also a convincing case that can be made otherwise.
Just in case you were still not connecting the dots: It is true that low interest environment aided the creation of the real estate bubble, but then again, going back to post WWII days, the same interest rate environment also existed before. As the ex-CEO of Fannie Mae testified last week to the congress that competitive pressures, combined with the political goal of increasing homeownership, were to blame for the company's decision to back riskier mortgages that fueled the housing bubble. That is in their own words.
Just who were the most ardent political forces behind the critical elements (CRA in 1977 and ensuing enabling legislation in 1997 promoting home ownership for everyone at any cost, repeal of Glass-Stegal Act thus removing the barrier between investment and commercial banks, resistance to GOP led attempts to reform the system in 2003 and 2007 to list a few) of this financial crisis? Who were mired knee deep with Countrywide scandal - you know, friends of Angelo? And, while at it, who were the darlings of Wall Street as well as Fannie and Freddie who backed the candidates (Obama and Dodd being by far the top recipients of their generous donations) who would best serve their interests? You got it. The same folks who now have Wall Street in their cross hairs. Why in almost a year and a half in office, this administration has not called for an investigation? For that matter, why hasn't the Democrat controlled Congress done the same since 2006? Why are Congressmen Dodd and Franks crafting the so-called financial reform when their involvements in the financial crisis should be the subject of the biggest investigation in recent memory? These are hard questions that need answers; but when the party that is by far most culpable of creating the conditions that avelanched in to the most destructive financial crisis of the past 80 years is in position of having sole power, they will never be answered.
This must be puzzling to the average political novice out there. How can a political party be so deeply in the pocket of Wall Street and yet taking aim at it at the same time. Well, to those who are savvy in the ways of the tired old Democrat tactic of demonizing groups, it is really simple. Demonization, distortion, and polarization (as currently being witnessed regarding the TEA Party movement as well) are three of the basics of Aulinsky (of Rules for Radicals fame) like tactics that the left has always been so fond of and practiced to perfection going all the way back to the Russian revolution. Take a President whose popularity has sunk from 70% to mid 40s, a Democrat congress whose approval is the lowest of any congress in recent memory, a public who by a margin of 4:1 thinks (yes, that is nearly 80%) the government has grown too big and intrusive, and the generic ballot that for the first time in a while clearly favors the opposition - and all of a sudden the reasons become much clearer. The answer for Democrats? Create a bogeyman, isolate it, spread distortions and pit the public against it, and you will divert the attention of the voters from your failings and real motives. As master of propaganda Joseph Goebbels said: if you repeat a lie enough times, it eventually becomes the truth in the public's mind. I could always be wrong, of course, but that is only if all this has a much more ominous underlying goal - one of dismantling the financial system, or effectively nationalizing it. I will be generous and attribute it to political survival although there is also a convincing case that can be made otherwise.
Just in case you were still not connecting the dots: It is true that low interest environment aided the creation of the real estate bubble, but then again, going back to post WWII days, the same interest rate environment also existed before. As the ex-CEO of Fannie Mae testified last week to the congress that competitive pressures, combined with the political goal of increasing homeownership, were to blame for the company's decision to back riskier mortgages that fueled the housing bubble. That is in their own words.
Just who were the most ardent political forces behind the critical elements (CRA in 1977 and ensuing enabling legislation in 1997 promoting home ownership for everyone at any cost, repeal of Glass-Stegal Act thus removing the barrier between investment and commercial banks, resistance to GOP led attempts to reform the system in 2003 and 2007 to list a few) of this financial crisis? Who were mired knee deep with Countrywide scandal - you know, friends of Angelo? And, while at it, who were the darlings of Wall Street as well as Fannie and Freddie who backed the candidates (Obama and Dodd being by far the top recipients of their generous donations) who would best serve their interests? You got it. The same folks who now have Wall Street in their cross hairs. Why in almost a year and a half in office, this administration has not called for an investigation? For that matter, why hasn't the Democrat controlled Congress done the same since 2006? Why are Congressmen Dodd and Franks crafting the so-called financial reform when their involvements in the financial crisis should be the subject of the biggest investigation in recent memory? These are hard questions that need answers; but when the party that is by far most culpable of creating the conditions that avelanched in to the most destructive financial crisis of the past 80 years is in position of having sole power, they will never be answered.
Friday, April 9, 2010
Future of ObamaCare
One needs to look no further than Massachusetts to see the unintended consequences of ObamaCare. Of course, Maine, Hawaii, and Tennessee are also examples to look at in the rear view mirror since they were all failures and were repealed in their proper states. Massachusetts, however, is the only living, breathing example to observe and learn from (which should have been done before passing the bill). I was able to research and learn from the Massachusetts experience, however unfortunately the congressional "progressives" did not. So, what should they have taken away from the Massachusetts example?
First of all, Mass Care in practice (since 2006) is a very close substitute to the federal law in design. Its goal was to cover all residents regardless of pre-existing conditions, be affordable, maintain quality, and bring the costs to the state down. The verdict? It is a total failure in the words of no less than Boston Globe, the defenders of everything progressive under the sun. This is not recent news as the article appeared over a year ago. More recently than that, and perhaps with much more credibility, Timothy Cahill said the U.S. would be bankrupted within four years by the health care bill if it passed. He should know since he was the Democrat treasurer of Massachusetts (now running for governor as an independent). The unpopular governor Deval Patrick seems to disagree but he is just about alone in that view, especially since it is not only the facts and figures along with the progressive Globe, but also just about anyone involved in the health care sector in Massachusetts that see the system as the disaster that it is - one where Mass now has the highest premiums in the nation (starting at nearly $10,000 for an individual policy); one where over 200,000 are without coverage even before the state recently had to throw over 30,000 off the health care rolls in a futile attempt to avert bankruptcy (2009 cost to the state: $1.3 billion); one where small businesses cannot afford the mandates and have stopped expanding.
It was a mere two weeks after President Obama signed ObamaCare into law, one result was that Governor Deval Patrick, "rejected 235 of 274 insurer requests for premium increases for individuals and small businesses over the coming year" -- requests made by that state's three largest nonprofit insurers, Blue Cross Blue Shield, Harvard Pilgrim, and Tufts Heath Plan. Later in the week, the insurers simply stopped selling policies. According to the Wall Street Journal, three of the four largest suffered net operating losses in 2009 and the Democrats' "arbitrary rate cap will result in another $100 million in collective losses this year [...making...] it impossible to pay the anticipated costs of claims, and threatening the near-term solvency of some companies." The Journal noted,
...state officials have demanded that the insurers-under the threat of fines and other regulatory punishments-resume offering quotes by today and to revert to year-old base premiums. Let that one sink in: Mr. Patrick has made the health insurance business so painful the government actually has to order private companies to sell their products (albeit at sub-market costs).
The article also reveals a number of interesting facts, including:
- Massachusetts' "insurance regulators have concluded the reason [that state's] premiums are the highest in the nation is the underlying cost of health care, not the supposed industry abuses" imagined by President Obama and Governor Patrick.
- The unsurprising fact that because Massachusetts' universal health care mandate prohibits exclusion for pre-existing conditions, people simply "wait until they're about to incur major medical expenses before buying insurance and transfer the costs to everyone else."
- Once the medical emergency has passed, short-term enrollees drop their coverage - because they know they can demand "insurance" the next time they want it.
- Blue Cross reported "short-term customers ... ran up costs more than four times the average" and dropped coverage "within three months." Harvard Pilgrim's experience with such hit-and-run enrollees is that they remained with the plan "fewer than five months and on average incurred costs about 600% higher."
Of course, when their next medical stubbed toe happens, such short-term "purchasers" will return.
That is reality in Massachusetts, and under ObamaCare, it foreshadows the future of all Americans - with a socialist inspired financial vengeance.
It was clear to all of us who effortlessly saw the unintended as well as intended consequences of ObamaCare. After all, what does it take to see that a $2,000 fine for not having health insurance is heck of a lot cheaper than the premiums, especially when pre-existing conditions no longer preclude anyone from obtaining a policy for the duration of their medical condition? Answer is: not much intellect - of course unless you are a progressive. As for intended consequences, as no less than Senator Bauckus, Nancy Pelosi, and Howard Dean among legions of other progressives have admitted, ObamaCare will be the proverbial doorway to a single payer health care system that Democrats have longed for for almost a century now. I will lay out the reasons and the unmistakable road map to socialized medicine in my next post.
First of all, Mass Care in practice (since 2006) is a very close substitute to the federal law in design. Its goal was to cover all residents regardless of pre-existing conditions, be affordable, maintain quality, and bring the costs to the state down. The verdict? It is a total failure in the words of no less than Boston Globe, the defenders of everything progressive under the sun. This is not recent news as the article appeared over a year ago. More recently than that, and perhaps with much more credibility, Timothy Cahill said the U.S. would be bankrupted within four years by the health care bill if it passed. He should know since he was the Democrat treasurer of Massachusetts (now running for governor as an independent). The unpopular governor Deval Patrick seems to disagree but he is just about alone in that view, especially since it is not only the facts and figures along with the progressive Globe, but also just about anyone involved in the health care sector in Massachusetts that see the system as the disaster that it is - one where Mass now has the highest premiums in the nation (starting at nearly $10,000 for an individual policy); one where over 200,000 are without coverage even before the state recently had to throw over 30,000 off the health care rolls in a futile attempt to avert bankruptcy (2009 cost to the state: $1.3 billion); one where small businesses cannot afford the mandates and have stopped expanding.
It was a mere two weeks after President Obama signed ObamaCare into law, one result was that Governor Deval Patrick, "rejected 235 of 274 insurer requests for premium increases for individuals and small businesses over the coming year" -- requests made by that state's three largest nonprofit insurers, Blue Cross Blue Shield, Harvard Pilgrim, and Tufts Heath Plan. Later in the week, the insurers simply stopped selling policies. According to the Wall Street Journal, three of the four largest suffered net operating losses in 2009 and the Democrats' "arbitrary rate cap will result in another $100 million in collective losses this year [...making...] it impossible to pay the anticipated costs of claims, and threatening the near-term solvency of some companies." The Journal noted,
...state officials have demanded that the insurers-under the threat of fines and other regulatory punishments-resume offering quotes by today and to revert to year-old base premiums. Let that one sink in: Mr. Patrick has made the health insurance business so painful the government actually has to order private companies to sell their products (albeit at sub-market costs).
The article also reveals a number of interesting facts, including:
- Massachusetts' "insurance regulators have concluded the reason [that state's] premiums are the highest in the nation is the underlying cost of health care, not the supposed industry abuses" imagined by President Obama and Governor Patrick.
- The unsurprising fact that because Massachusetts' universal health care mandate prohibits exclusion for pre-existing conditions, people simply "wait until they're about to incur major medical expenses before buying insurance and transfer the costs to everyone else."
- Once the medical emergency has passed, short-term enrollees drop their coverage - because they know they can demand "insurance" the next time they want it.
- Blue Cross reported "short-term customers ... ran up costs more than four times the average" and dropped coverage "within three months." Harvard Pilgrim's experience with such hit-and-run enrollees is that they remained with the plan "fewer than five months and on average incurred costs about 600% higher."
Of course, when their next medical stubbed toe happens, such short-term "purchasers" will return.
That is reality in Massachusetts, and under ObamaCare, it foreshadows the future of all Americans - with a socialist inspired financial vengeance.
It was clear to all of us who effortlessly saw the unintended as well as intended consequences of ObamaCare. After all, what does it take to see that a $2,000 fine for not having health insurance is heck of a lot cheaper than the premiums, especially when pre-existing conditions no longer preclude anyone from obtaining a policy for the duration of their medical condition? Answer is: not much intellect - of course unless you are a progressive. As for intended consequences, as no less than Senator Bauckus, Nancy Pelosi, and Howard Dean among legions of other progressives have admitted, ObamaCare will be the proverbial doorway to a single payer health care system that Democrats have longed for for almost a century now. I will lay out the reasons and the unmistakable road map to socialized medicine in my next post.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Was the Arctic Ice Cap 'Adjusted'? (Reprint)
Although I had decided from the beginning that this blog would be solely dedicated to my opinions and analysis, I decided to make an exception and reprint others' articles ragarding what I view as the AGW hoax. The following is a reprint of a recent article by Prof./Inventor/Scientist Randall Hoven. It is informative in that it demonstrates once again how data can be used selectively to make things appear what they are not (like the arbitrary adjustments to the surface temperatures that skew the data to the point that the set no longer resembles actual data collected by either the sattelites or surface stations). To those who choose to believe in the existence of man made global warming, just take in the data and disregard any opinions.
------------------------------------------
There is an entity called the National Snow and Ice Data Center. If you go to its web site, you can find data and plots of sea ice extent. In particular, you can find the size of the Arctic ice cap, or what the NSIDC calls Northern Hemisphere sea ice. The graph shown on April 2, 2010 is reproduced below.
You see that "extent" always shows more shrinkage than "area." In the months of maximum sea ice, February and March, the area trend is upward. And for winter months generally, December through May, any trend in area is statistically insignificant. For summer months, July through October, the trend is downward and statistically significant.
Katie Couric should have used the month of September as her example. In three decades, the Arctic sea ice "extent" shrank by 34%. She could make such claims while stating, truthfully, that the data come from NSIDC/NOAA and the trend is statistically significant. It's science.
If she had wanted to stretch the truth even further, she could have compared September of 1980 (extent of 7.85 million sq km) to September of 2007 (extent of 4.3 million sq km). That's a decline of 45%, almost half! (Katie needs a better cherry picker.)
Let's look more closely at those summer months. Below is the graph for September, the month showing the most shrinkage.
------------------------------------------
There is an entity called the National Snow and Ice Data Center. If you go to its web site, you can find data and plots of sea ice extent. In particular, you can find the size of the Arctic ice cap, or what the NSIDC calls Northern Hemisphere sea ice. The graph shown on April 2, 2010 is reproduced below.
The data points in this chart reflect the extent of northern hemisphere sea ice in March of each year. The chart indicates that the arctic ice cap is melting - at a rate of 2.6% per decade (about 0.41 million square kilometers). At that rate, the polar ice cap would be gone in 385 years.
Such data have a lot of folks dismissing the CRUgate shenanigans as not all that relevant. Who cares about temperature data when you have the Arctic ice cap staring you in the face? For example, Katie Couric said, "A picture is worth a thousand emails and pictures of the polar ice caps show a 20% decrease since 1979."
First off, the above graph shows only an 8% decrease over the last 31 years, not a 20% decrease. So Katie would seem to have exaggerated.
But things get really interesting if you look at NSIDC's raw data, which come from the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). You will notice that the above chart is of sea ice "extent." The data actually come in two versions: "extent" and "area," which are not quite the same. Here is how the NSIDC explains it.
"Important Note: The ‘extent' column includes the area near the pole not imaged by the sensor. It is assumed to be entirely ice covered with at least 15% concentration. However, the ‘area' column excludes the area not imaged by the sensor. This area is 1.19 million square kilometers for SMMR (from the beginning of the series through June 1987) and 0.31 million square kilometers for SSM/I (from July 1987 to present). Therefore, there is a discontinuity in the ‘area' data values in this file at the June/July 1987 boundary."
My reading of those "important" words is that the only thing really measured by satellites was "area." Yet the plot showed "extent," something more than was measured. And the difference is something they "assumed." (If you have a better explanation of that "Important Note," please enlighten me.)
What were the differences? From the above words from NSIDC, you would think the differences would be constant offsets (1.19 million sq km from 1979 through June of 1987, and 0.31 million since). But the actual differences in the data file were not constant at all; they varied between 1.93 and 3.42 million sq km.
Why is the area of an assumed region included in the NSIDC's graph? More importantly, why does that assumed, non-measured, area vary from year to year and month to month in no apparent pattern?
The NSIDC does not provide a plot of the one thing that is measured: area. But I do, below, all based on the raw data provided at NSIDC's web site.
Such data have a lot of folks dismissing the CRUgate shenanigans as not all that relevant. Who cares about temperature data when you have the Arctic ice cap staring you in the face? For example, Katie Couric said, "A picture is worth a thousand emails and pictures of the polar ice caps show a 20% decrease since 1979."
First off, the above graph shows only an 8% decrease over the last 31 years, not a 20% decrease. So Katie would seem to have exaggerated.
But things get really interesting if you look at NSIDC's raw data, which come from the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). You will notice that the above chart is of sea ice "extent." The data actually come in two versions: "extent" and "area," which are not quite the same. Here is how the NSIDC explains it.
"Important Note: The ‘extent' column includes the area near the pole not imaged by the sensor. It is assumed to be entirely ice covered with at least 15% concentration. However, the ‘area' column excludes the area not imaged by the sensor. This area is 1.19 million square kilometers for SMMR (from the beginning of the series through June 1987) and 0.31 million square kilometers for SSM/I (from July 1987 to present). Therefore, there is a discontinuity in the ‘area' data values in this file at the June/July 1987 boundary."
My reading of those "important" words is that the only thing really measured by satellites was "area." Yet the plot showed "extent," something more than was measured. And the difference is something they "assumed." (If you have a better explanation of that "Important Note," please enlighten me.)
What were the differences? From the above words from NSIDC, you would think the differences would be constant offsets (1.19 million sq km from 1979 through June of 1987, and 0.31 million since). But the actual differences in the data file were not constant at all; they varied between 1.93 and 3.42 million sq km.
Why is the area of an assumed region included in the NSIDC's graph? More importantly, why does that assumed, non-measured, area vary from year to year and month to month in no apparent pattern?
The NSIDC does not provide a plot of the one thing that is measured: area. But I do, below, all based on the raw data provided at NSIDC's web site.
Using the raw data from NSIDC, I was able to reproduce its results for "extent." My calculations using the raw data showed a decline of 2.6% per decade, just as NSIDC said. So far, so good. (Or bad, depending on your point of view.)
However, the "area" is a different story. Just by eyeball, no trend is apparent. In fact, calculations say it is growing 0.3% per decade!
That is simply astounding. The Arctic sea ice that is actually measured by imaging sensors is growing, not shrinking at all. Shout it from the rooftops: we are saved!
Actually, the rate of growth is statistically insignificant, meaning a statistician would say it is neither growing nor shrinking; it just bobs up and down randomly. More good news: no coming ice age either.
All the above data was only for the month of March. What about other months? I tabulate below the growth rates (% per decade) for each of the months of the year.
However, the "area" is a different story. Just by eyeball, no trend is apparent. In fact, calculations say it is growing 0.3% per decade!
That is simply astounding. The Arctic sea ice that is actually measured by imaging sensors is growing, not shrinking at all. Shout it from the rooftops: we are saved!
Actually, the rate of growth is statistically insignificant, meaning a statistician would say it is neither growing nor shrinking; it just bobs up and down randomly. More good news: no coming ice age either.
All the above data was only for the month of March. What about other months? I tabulate below the growth rates (% per decade) for each of the months of the year.
Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Growth 1978-2010, by Month
As a Percentage of the 1979-2000 Average
Month Growth of "Extent" Growth of "Area"
January -3.2%/decade -0.3%/decade
February -2.8 +0.1
March -2.6 +0.3
April -2.8 -0.1
May -2.5 -0.2
June -3.3 -2.1
July -6.1 -4.5
August -8.7 -4.2
September -11.2 -8.2
October -5.9 -5.7
November -4.5 -1.3
December -3.3 -0.8
As a Percentage of the 1979-2000 Average
Month Growth of "Extent" Growth of "Area"
January -3.2%/decade -0.3%/decade
February -2.8 +0.1
March -2.6 +0.3
April -2.8 -0.1
May -2.5 -0.2
June -3.3 -2.1
July -6.1 -4.5
August -8.7 -4.2
September -11.2 -8.2
October -5.9 -5.7
November -4.5 -1.3
December -3.3 -0.8
You see that "extent" always shows more shrinkage than "area." In the months of maximum sea ice, February and March, the area trend is upward. And for winter months generally, December through May, any trend in area is statistically insignificant. For summer months, July through October, the trend is downward and statistically significant.
Katie Couric should have used the month of September as her example. In three decades, the Arctic sea ice "extent" shrank by 34%. She could make such claims while stating, truthfully, that the data come from NSIDC/NOAA and the trend is statistically significant. It's science.
If she had wanted to stretch the truth even further, she could have compared September of 1980 (extent of 7.85 million sq km) to September of 2007 (extent of 4.3 million sq km). That's a decline of 45%, almost half! (Katie needs a better cherry picker.)
Let's look more closely at those summer months. Below is the graph for September, the month showing the most shrinkage.
Again, the red line represents "area," the only thing actually measured. A downward trend is evident to the eyeball. But look closely and that downward trend is fairly recent, say since 2000. Indeed, the calculated trend was slightly upward through 2001. That is, the entire decline is explained by measurements since 2002, a time span of just eight years.
We are told by climate scientists themselves to ignore short-term anomalies. If we do, then even the more alarming ice cap shrinkage numbers, which were only for the summer months in the first place, disappear as well; they are short-term blips. In fact, September's sea ice area has gone up in the most recent two years of data.
Moreover, the verb "measured" is overly simplistic. The numbers result from computer algorithms working with satellite images. NSDIC has a section of its documentation called "Error Sources."
"There are a number of algorithms in use that convert channel brightness temperatures to sea ice concentration. All perform slightly differently under varying weather and ice conditions. Relatively few papers were published that compare algorithms or compare results with validation data... In summer, passive microwave overestimates open water by a larger amount, as the instrument cannot distinguish open water between ice floes with melt ponds on the floes, and other factors such as the ice-snow interface come into play (Comiso and Kwok 1996) and (Fetterer and Untersteiner 1998). This makes it difficult to interpret trends and anomalies for the summer months."
Well how about that? The very months where we found the most apparent shrinkage were the months that are the most "difficult to interpret trends and anomalies" and where the error would tend to underestimate ice.
This little Northern Hemisphere sea ice example captures so much of the climate change tempest in microcosm.
When presenting data, the "scientists" include an unexplained adjustment to the measured data. In this case, the adjustments explain the entire evidence for Arctic ice cap shrinkage in winter months.
Measurement processes depend on computer algorithms with scant validation -- "few papers were published that compare algorithms or compare results with validation data."
Using only measured data, and all the data, there are no alarming trends. Winter months show no ice cap shrinkage at all. While there is shrinkage in summer months, that shrinkage is only evident in the last eight years, a time span too short to make a long-term conclusion, and in the months of least confidence in measurement techniques.
The data allow cherry-picking. A Katie Couric, if she were cleverer, could say the Arctic ice cap shrank almost in half in the last three decades. On the other hand, I could say it grew 6% in that time period. We would both be telling the truth, by comparing cherry-picked months and years.
And all this was only for the north polar ice cap. The south one was more obviously growing over the last three decades. The Katie Courics of the world completely ignore that one.
We are told by climate scientists themselves to ignore short-term anomalies. If we do, then even the more alarming ice cap shrinkage numbers, which were only for the summer months in the first place, disappear as well; they are short-term blips. In fact, September's sea ice area has gone up in the most recent two years of data.
Moreover, the verb "measured" is overly simplistic. The numbers result from computer algorithms working with satellite images. NSDIC has a section of its documentation called "Error Sources."
"There are a number of algorithms in use that convert channel brightness temperatures to sea ice concentration. All perform slightly differently under varying weather and ice conditions. Relatively few papers were published that compare algorithms or compare results with validation data... In summer, passive microwave overestimates open water by a larger amount, as the instrument cannot distinguish open water between ice floes with melt ponds on the floes, and other factors such as the ice-snow interface come into play (Comiso and Kwok 1996) and (Fetterer and Untersteiner 1998). This makes it difficult to interpret trends and anomalies for the summer months."
Well how about that? The very months where we found the most apparent shrinkage were the months that are the most "difficult to interpret trends and anomalies" and where the error would tend to underestimate ice.
This little Northern Hemisphere sea ice example captures so much of the climate change tempest in microcosm.
When presenting data, the "scientists" include an unexplained adjustment to the measured data. In this case, the adjustments explain the entire evidence for Arctic ice cap shrinkage in winter months.
Measurement processes depend on computer algorithms with scant validation -- "few papers were published that compare algorithms or compare results with validation data."
Using only measured data, and all the data, there are no alarming trends. Winter months show no ice cap shrinkage at all. While there is shrinkage in summer months, that shrinkage is only evident in the last eight years, a time span too short to make a long-term conclusion, and in the months of least confidence in measurement techniques.
The data allow cherry-picking. A Katie Couric, if she were cleverer, could say the Arctic ice cap shrank almost in half in the last three decades. On the other hand, I could say it grew 6% in that time period. We would both be telling the truth, by comparing cherry-picked months and years.
And all this was only for the north polar ice cap. The south one was more obviously growing over the last three decades. The Katie Courics of the world completely ignore that one.
And remember, even if we could clearly show that the planet is getting warmer, we would still need to show that such warming is bad, that it is caused by man and that the best cure is drastic cuts in fossil fuel usage. We are not even through step one of such an analysis.
By the way, I have not received a penny from Big Oil. But Big Oil can contact me.
By the way, I have not received a penny from Big Oil. But Big Oil can contact me.
-----------------------------------
Patriots note:
I am starting to work on a lengthy article that will amaze those who are in the dark because they simply get their information that is fed to them by the likes of Katie Couric or Al Gore. It will simply show how money, politics, and self preservation interest of scientists combined to give birth to the AGW movement and how the desired outcome was ensured by falsehoods, use of propaganda with the assistance of some in academia and media, and outright blackmail.
Kindergarten Foreign Policy
What do we get in return for our largess to the international community of various tin horn dictators and otherwise not-so-thinly disguised tyrants?
Nothing, to be sure.
The reward for abandoning Poland and the Czech Republic by giving away the missile shield last year was even more fervent Russian cooperation with Iran in their goal of obtaining nuclear weapons, as well as Mr. Putin’s recent visit to Venezuela to make arms deals with that hotbed of democracy. The price for abandoning Dalai Lama was China’s furtherance of their human rights violations as well as continued cooperation with Iran. Not only these two adversaries have steadfastly refused to prevent Iran from forging ahead with their nuclear ambitions, we have not even got the Chinese to commit to keeping us on our feet by continuing to finance our multi-trillion dollar indebtedness. How many out there have noticed that China who was the single largest holder of U.S. debt, having sold $34 billion in treasuries, has been recently replaced by Japan?
Then, of course, we have the troubling case of Honduras. Turning our back to democracy and backing a socialist who was planning to make his country the next domino to fall in the renewed zeal to bring Marxism to the world certainly sent a troubling message to the world, just like when we turned our backs to the oppressed or otherwise struggling peoples of Iran, Burma, Colombia, Cuba,….. ; and our allies in Israel and Taiwan (the list is sadly too long for a 14 month presidency!) While condemning the arrest of Zelaya, we have fervently backed likes of Chavez, Ortega, and Castro brothers to the point that our esteemed president has been put on a pedestal by these evil doers who actively plan on turning the hemisphere into the new cradle of Marxism in the world.
And now, we are ready to unilaterally disarm and, according to the administration, restrict our nuclear weapons policy like never before. Call it arms control amnesia, if you must. All the lessons learned from 40 years of arms control history seem to have been cast aside. The obvious danger of the situation is apparent only to those savvy enough to know the keen ability of the Russians to sense opponents' weaknesses and take advantage of them. It is an understatement, perhaps, to call Obama Putin's patsy. Giving up our missile defense shield for absolutely nothing in return, while our adversary is busy dealing with our enemies and threatening us with building up their nuclear stock piles further unless we share our missile defense technology with them is beyond comprehension and precedence.
The bedrock principle of good foreign policy never changes. Good intentions do not universally produce good actions. The misguided liberal belief that everyone must be trusted and treated equally to absolve the evils of the world has gotten the world nothing short of over 200 million dead people during the past century alone between Mao, Stalin, and Hitler (not to mention second and third class tyrants like Fidel).
In my view, the world is a playground and the United States is the adult supervision. The trouble is that the teacher has just left the premises and abandoned the playground to a bunch of kindergarten misfits. Those who called President Carter’s foreign policy disastrous must be wishing we had him back all over again.
My, my, how the mighty has fallen!
Nothing, to be sure.
The reward for abandoning Poland and the Czech Republic by giving away the missile shield last year was even more fervent Russian cooperation with Iran in their goal of obtaining nuclear weapons, as well as Mr. Putin’s recent visit to Venezuela to make arms deals with that hotbed of democracy. The price for abandoning Dalai Lama was China’s furtherance of their human rights violations as well as continued cooperation with Iran. Not only these two adversaries have steadfastly refused to prevent Iran from forging ahead with their nuclear ambitions, we have not even got the Chinese to commit to keeping us on our feet by continuing to finance our multi-trillion dollar indebtedness. How many out there have noticed that China who was the single largest holder of U.S. debt, having sold $34 billion in treasuries, has been recently replaced by Japan?
Then, of course, we have the troubling case of Honduras. Turning our back to democracy and backing a socialist who was planning to make his country the next domino to fall in the renewed zeal to bring Marxism to the world certainly sent a troubling message to the world, just like when we turned our backs to the oppressed or otherwise struggling peoples of Iran, Burma, Colombia, Cuba,….. ; and our allies in Israel and Taiwan (the list is sadly too long for a 14 month presidency!) While condemning the arrest of Zelaya, we have fervently backed likes of Chavez, Ortega, and Castro brothers to the point that our esteemed president has been put on a pedestal by these evil doers who actively plan on turning the hemisphere into the new cradle of Marxism in the world.
And now, we are ready to unilaterally disarm and, according to the administration, restrict our nuclear weapons policy like never before. Call it arms control amnesia, if you must. All the lessons learned from 40 years of arms control history seem to have been cast aside. The obvious danger of the situation is apparent only to those savvy enough to know the keen ability of the Russians to sense opponents' weaknesses and take advantage of them. It is an understatement, perhaps, to call Obama Putin's patsy. Giving up our missile defense shield for absolutely nothing in return, while our adversary is busy dealing with our enemies and threatening us with building up their nuclear stock piles further unless we share our missile defense technology with them is beyond comprehension and precedence.
The bedrock principle of good foreign policy never changes. Good intentions do not universally produce good actions. The misguided liberal belief that everyone must be trusted and treated equally to absolve the evils of the world has gotten the world nothing short of over 200 million dead people during the past century alone between Mao, Stalin, and Hitler (not to mention second and third class tyrants like Fidel).
In my view, the world is a playground and the United States is the adult supervision. The trouble is that the teacher has just left the premises and abandoned the playground to a bunch of kindergarten misfits. Those who called President Carter’s foreign policy disastrous must be wishing we had him back all over again.
My, my, how the mighty has fallen!
Friday, April 2, 2010
NASA - The sad joke that it has become!
Leaving aside the international avalanche of climate related scandals of recent - from CRU to the Himalayan glaciers and beyond; the reluctant but nevertheless unmistakably clear admission of IPPC's Phil jones to the BBC that AGW is far from certain; and many other embarrassments that would take a book to list - perhaps the saddest is how far NASA has sunk since its heyday.
Here is a reprint of the latest from Investors Business Daily:
Hiding NASA Decline
Posted 04/01/2010 07:12 PM ET
The agency that put Americans on the moon can't tell you the temperature that day. It isn't returning to the moon, but it will fix the brakes on your car. Two senators want to know what's going on.
The scandal unfolding at the nation's space agency is worse than the climate scandal, where researchers with Britain's Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia manipulated, destroyed and doctored climate data so that it supported the preordained conclusion that climate change was an imminent threat caused by man.
If there is any doubt, just ask NASA.
E-mail messages obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request reveal that NASA concluded its own climate findings were inferior to the CRU analysis. In one e-mail from 2007, when a USA Today reporter asked if NASA's data "was more accurate," NASA's Dr. Reto Ruedy responded with an emphatic no.
"NASA's temperature data is worse than the Climate-gate temperature data. According to NASA," writes Christopher Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute who uncovered the e-mails. Indeed, NASA's record shows it fudged data and cherry-picked data sources.
Concerned about the validity of NASA's climate research data, Sens. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., and David Vitter, R-La., sent a letter to space agency chief Charles Bolden demanding answers and inviting Bolden to testify to the Senate on the credibility of NASA's data.
"The American people deserve to learn the truth about the data," Barrasso told FoxNews.com. "We shouldn't make decisions affecting millions of American jobs when the data isn't credible."
Particularly when NASA is admitting it isn't.
Barrasso and Vitter refer to a Feb. 27 study by former NASA physicist Edward Long. Long concluded that NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), run by Al Gore's favorite scientist, Dr. James Hansen, had been modifying data, "lowering temperature values for far-back dates and raising those in the more recent past."
Meteorologist Anthony Watts, on his SurfaceStations.org, has documented the inaccuracy of weather station data used by NASA. Watts says that "90% of them don't meet (the government's) old, simple rule called the '100-foot rule' for keeping thermometers 100 feet or more from biasing influence."
As we've reported, many U.S. stations are in places such as paved driveways, near rooftop exhaust vents, even near idling jet engines.
The number of weather stations used to calculate average global temperatures has declined from about 6,000 in the 1970s to about 1,500 currently. The number of reporting stations in Canada dropped from 600 to 35. The stations remaining tend to be in warmer, urbanized areas, distorting the climate picture. Data for unmonitored areas are simply extrapolated from other, often far away, stations.
NASA was caught with its thermometers down when Hansen breathlessly announced in 2007 that 1998 was the hottest year on record, with 2006 the third hottest. NASA and GISS were forced to correct their report in 2007 when ClimateAudit.com's Steve McIntyre questioned the underlying data.
NASA then announced that 1934, decades before the SUV, was in fact the warmest. The new numbers show that four of the country's 10 warmest years were in the 1930s: 1934, 1931, 1938 and 1939. Five of the hottest 10 occurred before World War II.
Hansen, who began the climate scare some two decades ago, was caught fudging the numbers again in declaring October 2008 the warmest on record. This was despite the fact the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration had registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month and ranked it as only the 70th warmest October in 114 years.
Meanwhile, NASA, where budget cuts have shelved plans to return to the moon, has announced it will help investigate Toyota's unintended acceleration problems.
If there's anything we should be applying the brakes on, it should be NASA's continued fudging of climate truth.
---------------------------------
As much as I'd love to vent on the sham of man made global warming - from its dubious beginnings (by its godfather - Maurice Strong of the U.N.'s Oil for Food scandal fame) to its present day champions (like George Soros of socialist one world government fame and Albert Gore of Hockey Stick graph fame), I do not have the time to write a book from the mountain of scientific and political articles I have accumulated. For those who have not had the time to watch it, I recommend this.
Here is a reprint of the latest from Investors Business Daily:
Hiding NASA Decline
Posted 04/01/2010 07:12 PM ET
The agency that put Americans on the moon can't tell you the temperature that day. It isn't returning to the moon, but it will fix the brakes on your car. Two senators want to know what's going on.
The scandal unfolding at the nation's space agency is worse than the climate scandal, where researchers with Britain's Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia manipulated, destroyed and doctored climate data so that it supported the preordained conclusion that climate change was an imminent threat caused by man.
If there is any doubt, just ask NASA.
E-mail messages obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request reveal that NASA concluded its own climate findings were inferior to the CRU analysis. In one e-mail from 2007, when a USA Today reporter asked if NASA's data "was more accurate," NASA's Dr. Reto Ruedy responded with an emphatic no.
"NASA's temperature data is worse than the Climate-gate temperature data. According to NASA," writes Christopher Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute who uncovered the e-mails. Indeed, NASA's record shows it fudged data and cherry-picked data sources.
Concerned about the validity of NASA's climate research data, Sens. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., and David Vitter, R-La., sent a letter to space agency chief Charles Bolden demanding answers and inviting Bolden to testify to the Senate on the credibility of NASA's data.
"The American people deserve to learn the truth about the data," Barrasso told FoxNews.com. "We shouldn't make decisions affecting millions of American jobs when the data isn't credible."
Particularly when NASA is admitting it isn't.
Barrasso and Vitter refer to a Feb. 27 study by former NASA physicist Edward Long. Long concluded that NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), run by Al Gore's favorite scientist, Dr. James Hansen, had been modifying data, "lowering temperature values for far-back dates and raising those in the more recent past."
Meteorologist Anthony Watts, on his SurfaceStations.org, has documented the inaccuracy of weather station data used by NASA. Watts says that "90% of them don't meet (the government's) old, simple rule called the '100-foot rule' for keeping thermometers 100 feet or more from biasing influence."
As we've reported, many U.S. stations are in places such as paved driveways, near rooftop exhaust vents, even near idling jet engines.
The number of weather stations used to calculate average global temperatures has declined from about 6,000 in the 1970s to about 1,500 currently. The number of reporting stations in Canada dropped from 600 to 35. The stations remaining tend to be in warmer, urbanized areas, distorting the climate picture. Data for unmonitored areas are simply extrapolated from other, often far away, stations.
NASA was caught with its thermometers down when Hansen breathlessly announced in 2007 that 1998 was the hottest year on record, with 2006 the third hottest. NASA and GISS were forced to correct their report in 2007 when ClimateAudit.com's Steve McIntyre questioned the underlying data.
NASA then announced that 1934, decades before the SUV, was in fact the warmest. The new numbers show that four of the country's 10 warmest years were in the 1930s: 1934, 1931, 1938 and 1939. Five of the hottest 10 occurred before World War II.
Hansen, who began the climate scare some two decades ago, was caught fudging the numbers again in declaring October 2008 the warmest on record. This was despite the fact the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration had registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month and ranked it as only the 70th warmest October in 114 years.
Meanwhile, NASA, where budget cuts have shelved plans to return to the moon, has announced it will help investigate Toyota's unintended acceleration problems.
If there's anything we should be applying the brakes on, it should be NASA's continued fudging of climate truth.
---------------------------------
As much as I'd love to vent on the sham of man made global warming - from its dubious beginnings (by its godfather - Maurice Strong of the U.N.'s Oil for Food scandal fame) to its present day champions (like George Soros of socialist one world government fame and Albert Gore of Hockey Stick graph fame), I do not have the time to write a book from the mountain of scientific and political articles I have accumulated. For those who have not had the time to watch it, I recommend this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)