The NBC Nightly News did another all too familiar segment last night on Greenland warming and icecap melting. Marc Marano of the EPW responded back to Anne Thompson, the reporter in an email which started “The NBC Nightly News segment tonight was a classic case of skewed reporting. Why did you not mention that Greenland temps were highest in 1941 or that the 30ís and 40ís were the warmest decades according to multiple peer reviewed studies. You made no mention that the rate of warming was twice as fast in the early part of 20th century (long before man-made CO2 could have been responsible?). You only interviewed one activist scientist who is an advisor to Gore? There are many ice and sea level experts they could have contacted.”
See the rest of Marc’s mail to Anne on her alarmist serving reporting and a link to a long list of peer reviewed papers challenging or refuting this so called threat here. Icecap also replied back to Anne with information from a number of earlier stories and blogs on Icecap some of which is also included in the attached document.
Paul Georgia reporting on Professor Scott Armstrong’s Capitol Hill Briefing
On September 13, Professor Scott Armstrong presented his research on climate forecasting on Capitol Hill. His power point slides and video are now available for viewing.
Al Gore’s film, An Inconvenient Truth, has initiated a backlash as scientists, heretofore absent from the global warming debate, have begun to criticize Mr. Gore, and by extension, much of the underpinnings of the global warming hypothesis. One such critic is Professor Scott Armstrong, a leading expert on forecasting at the University of Pennsylvania. Professor Armstrong hasn’t just criticized Mr. Gore; he has put his money where his mouth is by challenging the former VP to a $10,000 bet, based on climate predictions.
Professor Armstrong, along with his colleague Professor Kesten Green with Monash University’s Business and Economic Forecasting Unit in New Zealand, conducted an audit of Chapter 8 of the IPCC’s Working Groups I report, The Physical Science Basis. They found no evidence that the IPCC authors were aware of the primary sources of information on forecasting. They also found that there was only enough information within the IPCC report to make a judgment on 89 of the total 140 forecasting principles as described in Professor Armstrong’s book, Principles of Forecasting. Of these 89 principles, the IPCC violated 72.
They conclude that, “We have been unable to identify any scientific forecasts of global warming.” They also concluded, “Prior research on forecasting suggests that in such situations a naÔve (no change) forecast would be superior to current predictions.”
By Noel Sheppard, Newsbusters
Since NASA’s James Hansen finally released computer codes related to how climate data are collected and adjusted, anthropogenic global warming skeptics around the world have been waiting to see what a scientific examination of this information would produce. On Monday, Canada’s Steve McIntyre, who himself debunked Michael Mann’s ridiculous “Hockey Stick” theory as well as identified Hansen’s Y2K bug, released information identifying that Hansen recently made additional changes to climate data akin to how companies like Enron used creative accounting to exaggerate earnings and defraud investors.
As published at Climate Audit, shortly after, NASA published their source code on Sept 7, we started noticing puzzling discrepancies in the new data set. On Sept 15, Jerry Brennan observed that the NASA U.S. temperature history had changed and that 1998 was now co-leader atop the U.S. leaderboard. By this time, we’d figured out exactly what Hansen had done: they’d switched from using the SHAP version - which had been what they’d used for the past decade or so - to the FILNET version. The impact at Detroit Lakes was relatively large - which was why we’d noticed it, but in the network as a whole the impact of the change was to increase the trend slightly - enough obviously to make a difference between 1934 and 1998 - even though this supposedly was of no interest to anyone.
In very simplistic terms, SHAP and FILNET are computer programs used by climatologists to assist in the collation and interpretation of climate data. Each program does so differently, and, therefore, yields different final results. As such, by suddenly switching from SHAP - which NASA had been using for decades - to FILNET, NASA was able to once again claim that 1998 and 1934 are now tied for the warmest years on record in the U.S. This despite Hansen’s claim in August that climate record changes precipitated by McIntyre’s Y2K bug find were irrelevant.
As McIntyre pointed out, what’s now happening at NASA is akin to companies changing from Generally Accepting Accounting Principles (GAAP) to what produced a lot of faulty earnings in the late ‘90s and early ‘00s, Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization (EBITDA).
While you ponder, Surface Stations’ Anthony Watts accurately depicted the gravity of this issue that somehow will elude press outlets coast to coast. “My first indication that something changed came from surfacestations.org volunteer Chris Dunn who wrote to me complaining that one of the sites he’d recently surveyed, Walhalla, SC had been greatly adjusted at GISS for no good reason that he could ascertain, since the site is pristine by climate monitoring standards, and has not gone through any significant changes in the past, and has been operated at the same location (by the same family) since 1916. He wondered why NASA would have to adjust the data for a “good” station. The way I view it, shouldn’t good data stand on it’s own? That was September 7th. He was using data from NASA GISS published on 8/28. So he continued to look at the data, and the site. The [sic] on Sept 11th he noticed a change when he downloaded the data again. Something had changed, the data was different. Not only the adjusted data but the “raw” data too.”
Read more here.