NASA Climate Data Inferior to Discredited East Anglia CRU
When Phil Jones (the now disgraced and suspended director of the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia) claimed that he had lost most of the raw data that he and others have used to pronounce the impending doom of our little planet from anthropogenic global warming (AGW), the official word from the warmists was that it made no difference because the completely separate databases of NASA and NOAA showed the same results. The fact that CRU’s raw data had been randomly and arbitrarily twisted to fit their goals of getting massive grants to continue their “research” supposedly didn’t alter the fact that the science was settled.In light of those pronouncements, today’s revelation is explosive. It turns out that NASA has only been using their own data for U.S. climate modeling — they have been using the CRU data for world climate modeling because they consider their own data to be inferior. It further turns out that NASA has routinely been adjusting its modeling based on the models of the CRU and NOAA — there’s nothing remotely independent about NASA’s climate models.
The AGW scam unravels more every day.
PS I just found this great video that is a perfect intro for those who want a very simple explanation of why the global warming we are experiencing right now is natural, not anthropogenic.
Filed under: Uncategorized
Safe to say that some NASA and NOAA folks should be hauled into Congressional hearings – or maybe in front of an independent prosecutor – for some rather pointed questioning. This constitutes fraud.
And another thing – seeing as though Obama has essentially reduced NASA to nothing more than a shill for global warming advocacy, if it is proved that James Hansen is nothing more than a fraudster can we then justify eliminating it altogether?
Sen. Inhofe has been working on that for a while, calling for congressional hearings and criminal charges. I'm sure that he has an extra spring in his step this morning.
[...] the fundamental science that supports it has been demonstrated to not be credible. (See here for our most recent report.) Carbon emissions from man-made sources are no longer perceived as [...]