Re: [asa] NASA quickly changes climate history data.

From: PvM <>
Date: Fri Aug 10 2007 - 01:55:56 EDT

These are not your posts, these are your cut and pastes for which you
seldomly take responsibility. In this case, the changes are minor, on
the order of 1-2% while not affecting the findings in any real manner.

Just thought you might want to know. But let's not confuse this with a
rebuttal of global warming.

It;s all about sowing doubt. Newsweek documented how this is big
business supported by some powerful players who are less interested in
the truth than in profits.

The question we all need to answer is: As Christians do we want to be
on the side of the truth or do we want to be on the dark side.
YMMV of course.

Seems to me that science has won and that some global warming deniers
are getting pretty desperate.

In other words, other than some minor adjustments there is nothing...

But then again, that's all global warming deniers had to offer anyway.

On 8/9/07, Janice Matchett <> wrote:
> At 01:10 AM 8/10/2007, PvM wrote:
> In fact the changes to the data are remarkably small, the only 'news worthy'
> aspect is that the hottest year in the US moved to the mid 1930's. Of
> course, the change was quite minor ~ Pim
> @ The answers to your questions are in both of my posts already. Do you
> ever stop rowing in circles?
> GISS Has Reranked US Temperature Anomalies
> [snip]
> Comment #36
> Re:#20, Among other things, the change refutes the claim by AGW alarmists
> that the temperatures at the end of the 20th century were the "warmest in a
> millllllion years!". In fact, the last decade of the 20th century wasn't
> even warmer than the 1930s.
> Also, as others have said, this was the low hanging fruit. The error noted
> by Steve M. was obvious, its source was obvious, and the fix was obvious.
> The keepers of the data could not argue against it and so they caved in and
> adjusted their data in less than a week.
> The fact that one error had such a profound impact on a key piece of hype
> that is used to push the need for drastic action should make everybody pause
> and wonder what the eventual outcome will be of the broader issues being
> looked at by Anthony Watts and his volunteer observers.
> What happens if there is another tenth of a degree (or more) taken out of
> the dataset by errors and biases uncovered there?
> Doesn't that begin to call into question the whole theory of AGW? If the
> models can account for warming up to the 1950s with natural forcings, but
> not all of the warming since 1980, then what happens if that chunk of the
> post-1980s warming is found to be error or measurement artifacts?
> Will the experts admit that the models can account for all warming with
> natural forcings? Then what? The wheels fall off the Algore
> snake-oil-mobile…
> Comment by Bill F ­ August 9, 2007 @ 2:39 pm
> ~ Janice

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Aug 10 01:56:13 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Aug 10 2007 - 01:56:13 EDT