THIS PAGE HAS BEEN ACTIVATED AS THE NEW STATESMAN BLOG IS NOW CLOSED FOR COMMENTS
At 10am this morning, the New Statesman finally closed the Mark Lynas thread on their website after 1715 comments had been added over a period of five months. I don’t know whether this constitutes any kind of a record, but gratitude is certainly due to the editor of of the New Statesman for hosting the discussion so patiently and also for publishing articles from Dr David Whitehouse and Mark Lynas that have created so much interest.
This page is now live, and anyone who would like to continue the discussion here is welcome to do so. I have copied the most recent contributions at the New Statesman as the first comment for the sake of convenience. If you want to refer back to either of the original threads, then you can find them here:
Dr David Whitehouse’s article can be found here with all 1289 comments.
Mark Lynas’ attempted refutation can be found here with 1715 comments.
Welcome to Harmless Sky, and happy blogging.
(Click the ‘comments’ link below if the input box does not appear)
10,000 Responses to “Continuation of the New Statesman Whitehouse/Lynas blogs.”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Loosely on topic but frankly hilarious.
Profs: Human race must become Hobbits to save planet
British men 3’3″ tall would meet UK carbon pledges
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/20/more_bmi_foolery/
Hi Peter,
You mentioned S. Fred Singer as a founder of IceCap, and then made the rather weird statement (5767) that:
Let’s look at Singer’s scientific credentials:
http://www.sepp.org/about%20sepp/bios/singer/biosfs.html
The founders of RealClimate include Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann, Stefan Rahmstorf, Rasmus Benestad, Eric Steig, and a couple of others. Let’s take the first two.
Gavin Schmidt:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/extras/contributor-bios/
Michael Mann:
Best known as the lead author of the since discredited “hockey stick” (Scientific American magazine described him as the “Man behind the Hockey Stick”).
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=47
Sounds to me like IceCap is every bit as serious a scientific site as is RealClimate.
It just appears that the two sites represent two different scientific opinions on the suggestion that AGW is a serious threat.
Schmidt/Mann (etc.) believe that it is (agreeing with your personal opinion, as well)
Singer does not (thereby disagreeing with your personal opinion)
But Singer’s scientific credentials are every bit as well founded as those of Schmidt or Mann.
Maybe you feel that the reason IceCap is “just a disinformation site”, while RealClimate is “a proper scientific website” is because RealClimate happens to agree with your personal viewpoint (along with that of a “mainstream consensus community of 2,500 unnamed scientists”) while IceCap does not. Strange criteria, Peter.
Sorry to disprove your rather snide remark on this subject.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter and Brute,
In referring to the temperature curve, which Brute posted, you (Peter) asked (5765):
The chart Brute posted was taken from a recent presentation by Professor Don J. Easterbrook, at a climate conference in New York. I checked out this presentation, but unfortunately, no reference is given for the curve.
Easterbrook’s presentation is well worth seeing (for AGW-believers or AGW-skeptics). It is well thought out and presented. It tells us that many natural climate forcing factors such as ocean circulation oscillations, changes in solar activity, etc. point to a continuation of the most recent cooling trend for the next decades, rather than a return to the warming trend of the late 20th century.
Of course, it is anyone’s guess whether Easterbrook will be right or whether IPCC, with its concentration on human rather than natural forcing factors, will be right. Only time will tell.
But back to the temperature chart. Possibly it is some sort of composite of several records. If I take all four records (GISS, Hadley, RSS and UAH) and adjust them to the Hadley baseline, I get a good check with the green curve for the high point (1998) as well as the end point (2008):
1998 (as recorded):
0.577 GISS
0.515 Hadley
0.577 RSS
0.514 UAH
2008 (as recorded):
0.486 GISS
0.312 Hadley
0.095 RSS
0.048 UAH
1998 (adjusted to Hadley baseline)
0.577 – 0.105 = 0.472 GISS
0.515 Hadley
0.577 + 0.152 = 0.729 RSS
0.514 + 0.152 = 0.666 UAH
Average, all records: 0.595 (looks like the green curve is just below 0.6)
2008 (adjusted to Hadley baseline)
0.486 – 0.105 = 0.381 GISS
0.312 Hadley
0.095 + 0.152 = 0.247 RSS
0.048 + 0.152 = 0.200 UAH
Average, all records: 0.285 (looks like the green curve is at around 0.29)
Cannot get a check for the blue curve (the satellite readings alone are cooler and the surface readings are warmer).
But I think the exact numbers of the end point are not as important as the trends, which Easterbrook’s curve shows fairly plainly.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
As promised, let’s go through you last blurb on the Guardian site.
You started off with:
You added a silly comparison, which I will not repeat here.
I believe I have already refuted your statement that RealClimate has a “higher level of scientific credibility” than IceCap; it is just more in line with your personal opinion, that’s all.
You then went on with:
I cannot recall that I “always quote the UAH tropospheric satellite temperature record”. Can you bring examples (not just one isolated example, but enough to support your claim that I “always quote the UAH tropospheric satellite temperature record”? PUOSU (your signoff)
Your next line was (speaking of UAH):
Yes, UAH record was corrected for satellite drift errors a few years back. It now shows a warming trend of 0.128C per decade, as compared to 0.160C per decade for both Hadley and GISS over the period 1979-2008, since satellite records have been kept.
So the discrepancy is 0.032C per decade, but the troposphere should be warming faster than the surface (rather than slower), so the discrepancy between the records is as yet unresolved. Possibly a correction to the surface record to eliminate UHI distortions might bring them more closely in line.
Your suspicion that “sometimes you guys sneak the old temperature data in your graphs and hope no-one notices” is both unfounded and silly.
You wrote next:
I believe it is clear from all records that there has been no warming trend from 1998 through 2008, and that there has actually been a global cooling trend from 2001 through 2008. No more needs to be said about that, since the records speak for themselves.
You added:
Believe we have concluded our discussion of this topic (RealClimate trashing the fictional novel by Crichton). The curve you reference soes not show that “Hansen was pretty close”, Peter. Hansen’s “scenario A” (business as usual) prediction is around 0.3C higher than the actual measurement, so Hansen was way off rather than “pretty close”.
The rest of your post was addressed at Ian Fremantle, but I think I have covered the part you addressed to me.
Whether your “put up or shut up” (PUOSU) signoff was intended for both of use or just for him was unclear, but I have “put up” in any case. Now it’s your turn.
Regards,
Max
Thanks Max for your input. I was going to go along the same lines as you regarding Singer. I met him last summer…….very nice man.
Opening the pdf link below will get you to Easterbrook’s presentation…..
Apr 20, 2009
AMO and PDO- The Real Climate Makers In United States?
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/GLOBAL_COOLING.pdf
Graph of monthly global temperature anomalies 2002-2009
By the way Pete. Looks from the graph above that giss is the odd man out. That’s Hansen’s outfit, right?
Max,
You write “…..at a climate conference in New York. I checked out this presentation, but unfortunately, no reference is given for the curve.”
Well what a surprise! And at such a pestigious scientific conference as the Heartland Institute’s too. Who would have thought it?
….. it is just more in line with your personal opinion, that’s all.
Forget my personal opinion. Realclimate is ‘just more in line with’ mainstream science. Icecap and the Heartland Institute are just shill outfits. Paid for by the Energy body and right wing political pressure groups to spread disinformation.
Robin,
I believe that you asked what right wing pressure groups had to do with it. Or to be precise
“I intend to answer your question at 5705. But, before I do, please clarify one thing for me: what has “the right wing American ‘psyche’” got to do with it?”
Look up Joseph D’Aleo and Fred Singer for a start. Do a bit of your own research on how these guys operate.
Robin, Reur 5775 & TonyN your 5773; on Guardian deletions.
1) I have had posts deleted, (plural), that were replies to generative posts that were NOT deleted.
2) In their little drop down “delete menu” it is asked to choose one of eight different reasons for complaint, the last of which is “other”
3) When I examine my 1) for violation in 2), it is my firm belief that the only category that could have been used to delete them was “other”, but I know not what.
4) Remy 5746; Pete Hall posted entirely new information relating to climate change issues. It did not refer to any other post. It’s deletion appears to have been under the category of “other”. It is easy to think that maybe his observation that the April 09 post on the Guardian, was a rehash of a much older report, may have had something to do with that deletion.
5) You may have noticed that I was able to copy-paste it over here, worrying about it‘s survival there. (based on my experience). It was subsequently deleted in a second round of edits. I recollect this happened after the blog was closed down.
Operate? You mean like this Pete?
GISS, Hansen Caught Doctoring More Data
NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, whose global temperature reports are frequently cited by the media as the definitive measurement of global temperature trends, has been caught doctoring raw temperature data in New Mexico to make a long-term cooling trend look like a warming trend.
The incident is another in a series of erroneous temperature reports by the agency that have invariably erred on the side of reporting more warming than has occurred in recent years.
Recorded Temps Contradict GISS
California meteorologist Anthony Watts examined the temperature history, as reported by the U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN), for Santa Rosa, New Mexico. The trend, he found, is one of long-term decline, especially since the 1930s, as shown in the accompanying figure. (See Figure 1.)
Watts then examined the temperature history for the same town, this time as reported by NASA’s Goddard Institute (GISS). The GISS chart was entirely different. As shown in Figure 2, GISS reports a long-term increase in Santa Rosa temperatures.
The difference between the two organizations’ temperature reports for Santa Rosa, New Mexico is obvious in Figure 3, in which the GISS temperature report is superimposed on the USHCN temperature report.
USHCN reports a decline of nearly one-half degree Celsius during the twentieth century, while GISS reports a temperature increase of one-half a degree.
The difference between the two organizations’ temperature reports for Santa Rosa, New Mexico is obvious in Figure 3, in which the GISS temperature report is superimposed on the USHCN temperature report.
USHCN reports a decline of nearly one-half degree Celsius during the twentieth century, while GISS reports a temperature increase of one-half a degree.
Even more strikingly, USHCN shows temperatures from 1996 to 2005 were significantly below the long-term average, and even the one-year anomaly of 2006 was up to a full degree Celsius cooler than several years in the 1920s and 1930s. GISS, by contrast, claims temperatures between 1996 and 2005 were warmer than the long-term average and that 2006 was nearly a full degree Celsius warmer than any other year on record.
GISS ‘Adjusting’ the Data
So how is it that the two organizations arrive at such different conclusions regarding the temperature trend for Santa Rosa? USHCN measures temperature by taking daily readings from an immobile temperature station. GISS compiles its reports by collecting the USHCN temperature readings and then subjecting them to secret adjustments, allegedly to correct for artificial influences such as land-use changes.
Santa Rosa, New Mexico was a small town with a population of slightly more than 10,000 people in 1905, two years before the USHCN temperature record began. It grew into a city of 113,000 people in 1991 and has a population of 158,000 today.
As scientists have extensively documented, and as most people who have lived near a city know, city centers produce a significant amount of heat that makes them warmer than the surrounding region.
In short, as a population center grows, so does its temperature, for reasons wholly unrelated to global temperature variations.
This urban heat island effect makes the GISS report especially curious. The growth of Santa Rosa and its urban heat island effect mean the long-term temperature record should be adjusted downward to compensate for the growth of the city’s heat signal.
Yet GISS, by adjusting the raw temperature data upward instead of downward, treats the city as if it has lost population since 1900 and especially since 1980.
Pete,
Why is Hansen’s data different than USHCN?
Brute,
“That’s [GISS/NASA] Hansen’s outfit, right?”
No, like NOAA, NSIDC, and all other publicly funded bodies, it’s yours. Paid for with your tax dollars. Accountable to all American voters via the US Congress and US democratic system generally.
One other thing Pete…………
Please defend Al Gore using Hollywood computer generated images (Styrofoam) for his Nobel Prize winning movie. Please defend this fraud as “science”. Please explain to all of us how trickery helps your cause……”raises awareness” no matter how the “evidence” comes to light?
Now lying is part of your scientific process?
Please defend Mann inverting historic temperature proxies to support his “science”.
Al Gore’s Film Found to be “Fake”
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=25225
Face it Pete, this is a con.
You’re just as guilty of this breach of public trust as they are because you condone, and go so far as to defend this deceit and you aware of it. You defend these swindlers and besmirch the reputation of legitimate scientists that truly possess integrity…….shameful.
Al Gore’s Film Found to be “Fake”
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=25225
Brute,
I would suspect that you can answer your own question if you dig a bit deeper into your phrase “allegedly to correct for artificial influences such as land-use changes.”
So why has Anthony Watts picked on Santa Rosa? Is that a typical change or just a cherry picked graph to suit his view? Are there others wich have been corrected in the opposite direction?
If you are alleging that the US records have been skewed to show warming where none exists, you might like to answer the question of why the GISS US temperature records show much less warming than the global average? However, as you’ll know, the US covers less than 2% of the earth’s surface, so the global warming that has been measured comes largely from non-US sources.
Brute,
So David Icke reckon’s that Al Gore’s a fake does he? It’s good that David Icke is on your side.
David Icke also thinks that
the world is ruled by a secret group called the “Global Elite” or “Illuminati,” which he has linked to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, an anti-Semitic hoax. and that that the Illuminati are a race of reptilian humanoids known as the Babylonian Brotherhood, and that many prominent figures are reptilian, including George W. Bush, Queen Elizabeth II, Kris Kristofferson, and Boxcar Willie.
PS. Don’t tell anyone, but I’m one of these humanoid reptilians too. We’ve all been rumbled at last!
Hey Brute,
You will never get Peter to admit that GISS (as well as Hadley) correct after the fact, massage, manipulate and variance adjust the numbers so they tell the desired story, no matter how much physical evidence you present.
If James E. Hansen and Phil Jones were neutral reporters of the data (rather than dedicated AGW-activists) one could trust the non-transparent secret changes they make to the record, but as it is now, one has to take these with a grain of salt and double-check them against the much more comprehensive satellite record, which truly covers the globe.
Since the satellite record shows around 0.032C per decade less warming than both the GISS and Hadley records (while greenhouse theory tells us that the troposphere should be warming more rapidly than the surface), one can assume that this discrepancy is either due to these manipulations or due to the UHI effect (or both).
But getting Peter to admit this is like nailing Jello to the wall. He doesn’t want to see it, (since it goes against his “belief system”) so he will not see it. It’s just that simple.
Regards,
Max
The special effects people that created the scenes for “The Day After Tomorrow”, the director and producer of that movie and ABC News all confirm that Algore stole the “virtual glacier” footage.
Not certain if they believe in alien reptilians or not.
You know Pete, over the last couple of years I’ve gained a certain respect for you, but you have this odd quirk……when you’re cornered you attack the source of the information instead of the information……why is that? (a rhetorical question).
At times you present valid arguments, but when your Queen is threatened, you always digress or resort to personal attacks, which means that you have no defense and you’ll lose the debate every time.
Hi Peter,
You opined:
Gues that just goes to show you can be right on some things and wrong on others.
Gore is a fake, who preaches curbing energy usage while blowing the BTUs and KWHs like a drunken sailor and preaches carbon cap and trade schemes from which he will personally benefit.
His movie is based on shoddy science, so it is also a fake.
The fact that this fake is being used by well-meaning but fuzzy-brained school administrators and teachers to frighten impressionable school children is a crime. Fortunately some school districts have been able to stop this.
So David Icke may be wrong on some stuff (with which I would disagree), but he is absolutely right on his assessment of Al Gore (with which I and many others would fully agree).
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
You asked Brute
This is a bogus statement, Peter. “WHY” Watts picked Santa Rosa, NM rather than Marysville, CA or any other spot is not important at all, and certainly provides no excuse for the manipulation made by GISS to the Santa Rosa record.
If there are well over a thousand temperature stations in the USA and Watts finds that 500 of these are poorly sited next to buildings, AC exhausts and asphalt parking lots that have been added over the past 30-40 years, all causing a spurious warming in the record, your response seems to be “why did Watts cherry pick these 500 stations rather than some other well-sited stations?”.
“Are there others which have been corrected in the opposite direction” is an even sillier question.
If there are others, find them and point them out, Peter, otherwise do not even mention them.
It’s like a thief, who has been caught stealing objects in a department store saying, “Yeah, but there is a lot of stuff here that I didn’t steal!”
Cheating is cheating. Lying is lying. It doesn’t have to be done every single time. Just evidence that it has been done at all is enough, and that is what Watts provided.
Get the point?
Regards,
Max
Max,
Good analogy……I always liked the triple murderer his stood at sentencing and exclaimed “look at all of the people I didn’t kill!” Same with CO2 and Temperatures. Alarmists come up with an unproven theory……and then ask the world to disprove the unproven theory…….a circular argument.
Pete,
So are you now writing that global warming is occurring everywhere in the world except the U.S?
My God Peter……… State some facts. I’ve pointed to several instances of proven scientific fraud…..and incredibly, you excuse/defend it.
Point it out, condemn it and move on. Don’t carry a torch for these guys just because you agree with their politics or think they’re pretty. Find some valid evidence to support……don’t compromise your intellectual honesty by defending politically/populist driven groupthink.
Take a few minutes and ponder honesty, integrity and honor. Please, call a spade a spade when necessary but argue the points, not the personalities.
You’re better than that.
Hi Peter,
You set yourself up once more with your statement to Brute:
Yes. The GISS US temperature records, despite all their non-transparent variance adjustments, manipulations, ex post facto corrections, etc. and some obvious “upward fudging” as reported by Watts, show less warming than some other locations.
Why is this?
The US historical record has had some shutting down of rural stations, urban encroachment of previously rural stations, poor siting problems as buildings and asphalt parking lots were built, AC units installed, etc. over the years, so there is a spurious warming signal as a result.
Now Siberia is much larger than the USA, covering a significant portion of the NH land mass. It also shows a much higher late 20th century warming (just look at the temperature map, and you’ll see the dark brown areas there). It is no coincidence that there was a major increase in recorded temperature just at exactly the same time as the USSR collapsed and a majority of the Siberian stations were shut down. It is also known that in the past Soviet days the Siberian communities were given special “cold weather” subsidies (a major incentive to understate the temperatures). So, yes, other larger areas showed even more warming than the USA.
(If you want a reference to this, I can post it again)
This just means that the spurious warming signal in other places is likely higher than the spurious warming signal in the USA. But it is there in both the USA and elsewhere.
Makes sense to me.
Regards,
Max
Apr 20, 2009
Sec. Chu’s Assertions ‘Quite Simply Being Proven Wrong by the Latest Climate Data’
Energy Secretary Offers Dire Global Warming Prediction. Speaking at the Summit of the Americas in the Caribbean nation of Trinidad and Tobago, Steven Chu says some islands could disappear if water levels rise as a result of greenhouse-gas induced climate change. –
– April 19, 2009
Caribbean nations face “very, very scary” rises in sea level and intensifying hurricanes, and Florida, Louisiana and even northern California could be overrun with rising water levels due to global warming triggered by carbon-based greenhouse gases, Energy Secretary Steven Chu said Saturday.
Conservative climate change skeptics immediately denounced Chu’s assessment of the threat and potential consequences of global warming. “Secretary Chu still seems to believe that computer model predictions decades or 100 years from now are some sort of ‘evidence’ of a looming climate catastrophe
“Secretary Chu’s assertions on sea level rise and hurricanes are quite simply being proven wrong by the latest climate data. As the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute reported in December 12, 2008: There is ‘no evidence for accelerated sea-level rise.’”
Hurricane activity levels in both hemispheres of the globe are at 30 year lows and hurricane experts like MIT’s Kerry Emanuel and [NOAA’s] Tom Knutson “are now backing off their previous dire predictions.” He said Chu is out of date on the science and is promoting unverified and alarming predictions that have already been proven contrary. Sampling of scientific background of the latest sea level and hurricane data:
Sea Level: ‘No evidence for accelerated sea-level rise’ says Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute – December 12, 2008.
http://climatesci.org/2008/12/12/holland-inundated-no-way-guest-weblog-by-hendrik-tennekes/
Excerpt: In an op-ed piece in the December 11 issue of NRC/Handelsblad, Wilco Hazeleger, a senior scientist in the global climate research group at KNMI, writes: “In the past century the sea level has risen twenty centimeters. There is no evidence for accelerated sea-level rise. It is my opinion that there is no need for drastic measures. It is wise to adopt a flexible, step-by-step adaptation strategy. By all means, let us not respond precipitously.”
U.S. Senate Report on Scientists Counter Computer Model Sea Level Rise Fears – September 26, 2007.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=435FB939-802A-23AD-40C2-677F4B36EDBF
Excerpt: Nearly two dozen prominent scientists from around the world have denounced a recent Associated Press article promoting sea level fears in the year 2100 and beyond based on unproven computer models predictions.
Hurricane/Warming Link: Florida State University: “Global [both Southern and Northern Hemisphere] Tropical Cyclone Activity [still] lowest in 30-years” – Updated April 17, 2009
http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/
Ryan N. Maue – Department of Meteorology – COAPS – Florida State University
Hurricane expert reconsiders global warming’s impact – Houston Chronicle – April 12, 2008.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/tech/news/5693436.html
Excerpt: One of the most influential scientists behind the theory that global warming has intensified recent hurricane activity says he will reconsider his stand. The hurricane expert, Kerry Emanuel of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, unveiled a novel technique for predicting future hurricane activity this week. The new work suggests that, even in a dramatically warming world, hurricane frequency and intensity may not substantially rise during the next two centuries.
Another Hurricane Expert Reconsiders Warming/Hurricane Link – Associated Press – May 19, 2008.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/05/19/hurricanes-to-global-warming-link-blown-away/
Global warming isn?t to blame for the recent jump in hurricanes in the Atlantic, concludes a study by a prominent federal scientist whose position has shifted on the subject. Not only that, warmer temperatures will actually reduce the number of hurricanes in the Atlantic and those making landfall, research meteorologist Tom Knutson [Note: Research Meteorologist Tom Knutson is with NOAA] reported in a study released Sunday. In the past, Knutson has raised concerns about the effects of climate change on storms. His new paper has the potential to heat up a simmering debate among meteorologists about current and future effects of global warming in the Atlantic.
Peter re your 5782:
Yes, I said I would answer your 5705 when you explained why “the right wing American ‘psyche’” was relevant to my view on how a hypothesis should be tested. I’m still waiting. Better still would be to withdraw the comment.
There’s good reason for asking this. You have asked an important question and I wish to give you a serious reply. But I see no point in doing so if you are intent on misrepresenting my view – see you 5732, your 5745 (where you accused me of lining up with “reaction. bigotry, irrational thought and superstition) and your 5748. If you are unable to treat my views seriously, I see no point in wasting my time giving you a serious answer.
Max and Brute,
I don’t think there is anything secret about how NASA calculates its temperature anomalay data.
The source code can be found at:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources/
There is more description on:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources/gistemp.html
I guess what you are complaining about is what NASA term as “peri-urban adjustment”. This is explained as:
“The GHCN/USHCN/SCAR data are modified in two steps to obtain station data from which our tables, graphs, and maps are constructed. In step 1, if there are multiple records at a given location, these are combined into one record; in step 2, the urban and peri-urban (i.e., other than rural) stations are adjusted so that their long-term trend matches that of the mean of neighboring rural stations. Urban stations without nearby rural stations are dropped.”
I don’t pretend to be an expert in the exact workings of either the GISS or Hadley temperature data but their methods are well documented.
No method will be absolutely perfect which is why the Hadcrut and Giss results are always slightly different but providing the rules are set and they stick to them from one year to the next you can hardly accuse them of cheating.
I suppose you still will though.
PS Can you give me the link from the WUWT site. I couldn’t find it.
Max and Brute,
I found the article you’d copied all this from on the Heartland website. Where else? Were you a bit shy of mentioning them by name? You should be!
There don’t seem to be any comments allowed. Nevertheless I have emailed jtaylor@heartland.org
with the same comments as in my last posting. We’ll see if he replies.
The correction that NASA apply is usually the other way as the article suggests it should be. This is to remove the effects of the so called UHI. Occasionally it will turn out to be a negative correction but that’s only to be expected. I would suggest that they have deliberately chosen one that is the other way to provide disinformation and deliberately try to discredit NASA.
I have them if they had asked NASA for any explanation and if they would publish one if it was supplied. I think Anthony Watts already knows the answer which is why he hasn’t put up the accusation on his own site. At least I didn’t find it if he has.
Re The Guardian Pen Haddow (haddock?) thingy.
I went browsing for new entertainment over at the Guardian, and found the Catlin survey blog.
I was about to comment on the following gem from one PHE1
I was about to enquire, among other things; how does one compare B with A, when there is no data for A available, when I noticed that the blog was closed after only 19 comments.