The New York Times has just released the latest litany of lies from James E. Hansen, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Surprise, surprise NASA says, the decade ending in 2009 was the warmest on record. The new surface temperature figures were released Thursday by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The NASA numbers “prove” an upward temperature trend of about 0.36 degrees Fahrenheit (0.2 degrees Celsius) per decade over the past 30 years.
As usual, alarmist analysts have cherry-picked, homogenized and smoothed the data to death (PDF). Joseph D’Aleo’s over at ICECAP has done a thorough debunk on this “warmest decade” claim
D’Aleo couldn’t be more damning about it, “NOAA is seriously complicit in data manipulation and fraud.” Strong stuff and you’d think such an “illustrious” institution like NOAA would be filing lawsuits for such defamation. But the fact they haven’t and never will speaks volumes.
I have no faith whatsoever in the NASA’s latest claim that average global temperatures have risen by about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degrees Celsius) since 1880. I’m persuaded less by their public pronouncements and more by what the alarmist inner clique of climatologists have recently said in private.
For counter-balance to NOAA’s claims, take a gander at Tom Wigley’s reply to Kevin Trenberth (senior scientist and the head of the climate analysis section of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado) made as recently as October 2009. Tom Wigley is a climate scientist at the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR) and one of the world’s foremost experts on climate change and one of the most highly cited scientists in the discipline.
Wigley responds to Trenberth’s statement that there was a “lack of warming at the moment” and replies:
I didn’t mean to offend you. But what you said was “we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment”. Now you say “we are no where close to knowing where energy is going”. In my eyes these are two different things — the second relates to our level of understanding, and I agree that this is still lacking.
Yes, there’s a great many reasons to take NASA’s numbers with a pinch of salt. For a more detailed debunking of this latest hype see what Joseph D’Aleo’s says over at ICECAP.
Possibly related posts:
- 2001-2010 was snowiest decade on record
- Is the NOAA, not CRU, is ground zero for exaggerated warming data?
- Man who shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore now in charge of US Commerce Department’s new climate change office
- A U.S. climate panel: just another step in the wrong direction
- NASA’s James Hansen: What a nut!