Climategate Continues. NASA

[rushmc 23]

Quote

NASA Data Worse Than Climate-Gate Data, Space Agency Admits

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/03/30/nasa-data-worse-than-climategate-data/

Quote

E-mail messages obtained by a Freedom of Information Act request reveal that NASA concluded that its own climate findings were inferior to those maintained by both the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) -- the scandalized source of the leaked Climate-gate e-mails -- and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center.

Quote

In an updated analysis of the surface temperature data released on March 19, NASA adjusted the raw temperature station data to account for inaccurate readings caused by heat-absorbing paved surfaces and buildings in a slightly different way. NASA determines which stations are urban with nighttime satellite photos, looking for stations near light sources as seen from space.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[maxmadmax 8]

Ran across this site......got some good stuff in there:

MalGore

Don't go away mad....just go away!

[champu 1]

Quote

MalGore

That website design really takes me back to 1996.

It's also interesting to me that the author used a $50 program to create that.

[kallend 2,146]

Why don't you tell us in your own words what YOU think the gist of the article is, (since I believe you have misunderstood it, courtesy of the usual FOX spin).

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Why don't you tell us in your own words what YOU think the gist of the article is, (since I believe you have misunderstood it, courtesy of the usual FOX spin).

They did not put that information in the company newsletter, just the link to FAUX News.

[lawrocket 3]

In other news, the British Parliament has released the first of three reports on the CRU scandal. From what I gathered:
(1) The references to Mann's "trick" and "hide the decline were non-issues and just choice of words;
(2) Professor Jones was pretty much absolved of blame;
(3) Jones was absolved of blame because the university should have given the guy more support; and
(4) Climate scientists need to rethink their culture, be more open with releasing their raw data and codes, and knock off the buddy buddy exclusionary club shit; and
(5) The scientisic conclusion look okay.

The first report seems more like an indictment of ivory tower snobbery. It was like it said their conclusions look okay,but they are a bunch of assholes - like a group of rich frat dicks.

It called them out that it's not their data - it's public data. It's public code under the FOI.

However, the report was careful in reiterating that the peer review looked valid. But they should put their data and methodology for anyone who asks for it.

My spin? It identified them as humans, subject to human foible. They can be fuckups and dicks and defensive about their work. Their friends like their work. Anyone else? Fuck em.

Sadly, the cultural attitude is what's destroying them. From comments I've seen, I don't see that changing.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,146]

Latest: The Times retracts its story and admits shoddy reporting.


www.newsweek.com/blogs/the-gaggle/2010/06/25/newspapers-retract-climategate-claims-but-damage-still-done.html

With shoddy reporting like that anyone would think it was owned by Rupert Murdoch.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[winsor 236]

Quote

Latest: The Times retracts its story and admits shoddy reporting.


www.newsweek.com/blogs/the-gaggle/2010/06/25/newspapers-retract-climategate-claims-but-damage-still-done.html

With shoddy reporting like that anyone would think it was owned by Rupert Murdoch.

Junk science as subject to review by shoddy reporting? It seems everyone is worshiping at the altar of mediocrity.


BSBD,

Winsor