Climate data from NOAA and NASA found to have been deceptively manipulated

While attending the 2008 International Climate Conference in NYC, I had the distinct pleasure to sit down with John Coleman who is known as the father of modern meteorology. In the past he has been the meteorologist for Good Morning America and later founded the Weather Channel. He is currently employed by KUSI in San Diego. Our conversation centered around Al Gore and his infamous movie, "An Inconvenient Truth". He was encouraged by the British court ruling that there were eleven inaccuracies  in the film and it required that the movie could not be shown to British school children without pointing out the eleven inaccuracies. If this was not done, the teachers would be guilty of political indoctrination. Oh how we wished that there was such a law in the USA that would prevent political indoctrination here. I am afraid that would leave a scant curriculum for our public schools.

Anyway, John Coleman was interested in suing Al Gore but needed something to use, given the lack of a USA "child abuse" law. I am on his team to help with that effort should it ever get underway. So it was of great interest to me when I got a notice of a KUSI TV special, "Global Warming:The Other Side". It was on last night and of all the topics presented, the one that struck me was the manipulation of temperature data by US Government agencies. We should all be appalled that this is taking place but I suspect that there will be many who will make alibis. Let's look at some of the details.

The organizations cited in Part 4 of the special report are the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Climate Data Center (NCDC) in Ashville, NC and the National Atmospheric and Space Administration (NASA) Goddard Institute of Space Studies at Columbia University, NYC under the leadership of Dr.James Hansen. Of the several examples of data manipulation, there were no specifics of which was occurring where but suffice it to say, both were implicated.

Key to the manipulation was the reduction of monitoring stations worldwide from 6,000 to approximately 1,500 around 1990. The problem with this is that the stations are still mostly there. They are operational and measurements are taken every day. The data is just not used in the final determinations. In addition, the stations that are excluded from the data analysis are primarily in the cooler areas either in mountain regions or located in the more northern reaches. An example of this is California, where there are remaining only 4 temperature stations. One is in San Francisco while the remaining three are all in Los Angeles. Certainly no bias there. Well maybe just a little. 

Another really egregious example is Bolivia. If you look at the current results for Bolivia you will see a bright red area indicating significant warming. The only problem with these data is the temperatures are actually from a lower altitude monitoring station 1200km away. To compound this false recording, there has been no temperature data taken there in the past 20 years! So much for Bolivia Warming as well as the subsequent Global Warming.

To make matters worse, there has been no attempt to resolve the previous data set with the current abbreviated set. None whatsoever!

To put the cherry on top of this story, The raw data show no real warming. Old data were reduced to make it appear that there was a net warming.

Watch John's presentation. It is entertaining and factual. The end conclusion has to be that the US Government has nothing on the East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU).

And we pay dearly for this?

The cartoon may need to be saved to an image software in order for it to be properly appreciated.