Friday, August 10, 2007


It would seem that 1998 was NOT the warmest year on record after all. NASA has revised its figures:

"NASA has now silently released corrected figures, and the changes are truly astounding. The warmest year on record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place. 1921 takes third. In fact, 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II."

It's details such as this that keep me from buying into the whole Global Warming idea. How much more of its hypothesis is based on faulty data? (According to some, most of it.)

I'd be a little more inclined to believe the GW crowd, too, if they'd be willing to admit when they don't know everything. But I've seen no mention of this story in the paper. In fact today's paper was giving dire predictions that 2009 will be hotter than 1998. Yeah, just like last year was supposed to be the worst year ever for hurricanes?

Well, let's talk again in 2010, then. If they're right I'll be willing to listen. If they're wrong--and they call themselves on it--I'll at least treat them with some respect. Which is more than they're doing for me.

UPDATE: Oh yeah, and let's make sure all our official measurements are not unduly influenced:

"Two months ago, I reported on an effort to validate this network. A volunteer group headed by meteorologist Anthony Watts had found serious problems. Not only did sites fail to meet the NCDC’s requirements, but encroaching development had put many in ridiculously unsuitable locations — on hot black asphalt, next to trash burn barrels, beside heat exhaust vents, even attached to hot chimneys and above outdoor grills.

Soon thereafter, a Seattle radio station interviewed the head of the NCDC, Dr. Thomas Peterson, informed him of the effort and quizzed him about the problems. Three days later, the NCDC removed all website access to station site locations, citing “privacy concerns.” Without this data (which had been public for years), the validation effort was blocked. No more stations could be located."

At the very least, is it okay for me to still be doubtful without being called an extremist nutjob or heavily in denial?

No comments: