Toronto blogger turns up NASA climate error:

[Praxius]

CTV.ca | Toronto blogger turns up NASA climate error

A Toronto blogger's number-crunching skills turned up an error in the math NASA used to determine historic temperatures, forcing the agency to own up to an embarrassing mistake. NASA had said 1998 was the hottest year on record in the U.S. but later revised the statistics, issuing a new list that instead named 1934 as the hottest year on the books. Toronto-based blogger Steve McIntyre found the error. In a tongue-in-cheek posting on his blog climateaudit.org, he compared the race for the top spot to the leaderboard results from the U.S. Open. "There has been some turmoil yesterday on the leaderboard of the U.S. (Temperature) Open and there is a new leader," he wrote on Aug. 8. "Four of the top 10 are now from the 1930s: 1934, 1931, 1938 and 1939, while only 3 of the top 10 are from the last 10 years (1998, 2006, 1999). Several years (2000, 2002, 2003, 2004) fell well down the leaderboard, behind even 1900. McIntyre scrutinized NASA's numbers, looking closely at data that recorded how warm a place is at a specific time, compared to its 30-year average. He found that the numbers for 1999 to 2000 seemed abnormally high, and discovered that after 1999, the data wasn't being adjusted to figure in the times of day the readings were taken or the locations where they were taken. He forwarded his findings to NASA, and the review was ordered. Eventually, NASA released a new list of the hottest years on record. In addition to naming a new year as the hottest, NASA also reduced the mean U.S. temperature anomalies by .15 C for the years 2000 to 2006. Some consider the adjustment a blow to Al Gore and others who maintain the planet is heating up as the result of global warming. But NASA has downplayed the corrections and even McIntyre has suggested the new numbers would have little impact on climate policy. McIntyre has said he had fun discovering the flaws, but called the adjustment a "micro-change." Those who doubt the science behind climate change theory, however, have used the new information as ammunition. Conservative U.S. radio host Rush Limbaugh called it evidence that global warming is a man-made phenomenon that has been artificially trumped up by liberal scientists. Others say that proof of errors within the system NASA uses to determine accurate temperature data, means the global warming camp has suffered a significant blow. The 59-year-old McIntyre is a former mining executive. In 2003 he released data that called into question the accuracy of the "hockey stick" graph used to show rising global temperatures.

Man, NASA sure is screwing up a lot as of late.... but how does this change your views?

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Praxius Man, NASA sure is screwing up a lot as of late.... but how does this change your views?

This does not change my view of NASA, but only because I suspect a Bushbot appointee in there helping to skew things in favor of the President, or the Presidents policies.

[Praxius]

I'd believe it.... that and as of Late, NASA has been not getting as much attention as it once did.... so now they're trying to get the spot light on them again, but all in the wrong ways it seems these days.

I'd love to see NASA start showing production towards the new shuttles, or some new experiments that are of interest to most that can benifit many. However all I have seen as of late are accidents, sabbotage, love triangles, incorrect reports, etc.....

It's like NASA turned into a soap opera, lol.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Quote by: Milton Bradley This does not change my view of NASA, but only because I suspect a Bushbot appointee in there helping to skew things in favor of the President, or the Presidents policies.

Of course! It couldn't be an error with climate science, it HAS to be a Bushbot.

YEAH....

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Of course! It couldn't be an error with climate science, it HAS to be a Bushbot. YEAH....

What can I say, that shit stinks at an increrdible distance.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Of course! It couldn't be an error with climate science, it HAS to be a Bushbot. YEAH....

Why is it specifically just Climate science? Are you saying that NASA doesn't make mistakes in other areas?

[Separated Unity]

Quote by: Milton Bradley This does not change my view of NASA, but only because I suspect a Bushbot appointee in there helping to skew things in favor of the President, or the Presidents policies.

Ah, of course, after all, since people don't like our president, it only makes sense that everything must be a conspiracy to benefit him!

Come on, people, NASA made a mistake. Believe it or not, there CAN be flaws in our weak evidences suporrting theories! Not everything is a lie made by the people that could benefit from it. We should stop trying to stir up sensationalism and just be glad that there's a chance that we might not be in such great danger as we thought we were.

[Praxius]

Quote by: Separated Unity Ah, of course, after all, since people don't like our president, it only makes sense that everything must be a conspiracy to benefit him! Come on, people, NASA made a mistake. Believe it or not, there CAN be flaws in our weak evidences suporrting theories! Not everything is a lie made by the people that could benefit from it. We should stop trying to stir up sensationalism and just be glad that there's a chance that we might not be in such great danger as we thought we were.

I agree... I didn't post this to make a Bush conspiracy.... just to point out another screw up by NASA.... nothing more :)

I also posted this to show how statistics and studies can be wrong, depending on who's crunching the numbers and how..... which is why I don't hold to Stats very religiously.... I use real life example and average them out in my lifetime...... seems to be more accurate for me thus far.

[Separated Unity]

Quote by: Praxius I agree... I didn't post this to make a Bush conspiracy.... just to point out another screw up by NASA.... nothing more :)

Well, good to see that you aren't paranoid about government involvement, then :)

[Praxius]

Quote by: Separated Unity Well, good to see that you aren't paranoid about government involvement, then :)

Well I suppose I should correct myself.... I did respond that I would believe that Bush was involved somehow...... but I forgot to add I'd believe it if there was any connection. But I don't see one yet...... no evidence.

[Separated Unity]

Quote by: Praxius Well I suppose I should correct myself.... I did respond that I would believe that Bush was involved somehow...... but I forgot to add I'd believe it if there was any connection. But I don't see one yet...... no evidence.

Ah, well then... in that case... good to see that you're not... sure of... yourself in your... conspiracy beliefs... eh well, I can't think of how to put it, but you get my point.

Hopefully

[another day]

Quote by: Praxius Well I suppose I should correct myself.... I did respond that I would believe that Bush was involved somehow...... but I forgot to add I'd believe it if there was any connection. But I don't see one yet...... no evidence.

People need to stop using "Bush" or "George Bush" as a synonym for anything US government related, as if he's some giant all powerful super god that controls everything in the world. It's that kind of small thinking that will make people think everything is alright when 2008 comes along and they "elect" another president.

The man is just a figurehead for the huge corporation that is the government. He's a talking logo, nothing more. It's the people behind the scenes that are running the show, and they aren't going to disappear no matter what fancy new graphic you put on the front page.