So 1998 is no longer the hottest year on record. 1934 is.
What is more:
Four of the top 10 years of US CONUS high temperature deviations are now from the 1930s: 1934, 1931, 1938 and 1939, while only 3 of the top 10 are from the last 10 years (1998, 2006, 1999). Several years (2000, 2002, 2003, 2004) fell well down the leaderboard, behind even 1900.Interesting. The Gore gang has long been claiming, based on NASA's figures, that nine of the ten hottest years ever recorded had occurred since 1995. Well, it isn't true.
What is more interesting is how NASA handled the news. The original, inaccurate figures were heavily publicized because they seemed to confirm the claim of the global warming extremists. Those figures stood unchallenged until a blogger pointed out inconsistencies in them, whereupon a recalculation was done. NASA still refuses to reveal just how the calculations were originally made made and how they were recalculated. What is more the new data were issued without comment or publicity. It was bloggers who noted the change and brought it to public attention.
The question now is whether this reveals simply more incompetence on the part of already troubled NASA, or were individuals there pursuing an ideological agenda.
Additionally, this shows the blogosphere at its best -- relentlessly checking and rechecking the information presented to the public by activists, agencies, and a corrupt MSM.
Read about it here.
And then there's this from the American Thinker:
The global warming crowd does not take kindly to being contradicted, either by critics or data. Of course, critics can be defamed and data can be skewed. But unless the critics can be silenced, they can fight back and expose phony data. When it begins to look like predictions of doom are not turning out sufficiently catastrophic, a full Orwell is called for. The media mobilize their templates to completely re-cast the information.This process was fully in evidence yesterday when the global news service Reuters spun a report in Science magazine (which has been quietly starting to warn its readership that maybe it would be prudent to come in a bit from the end of the global warming limb) as if it confirmed the seriousness of global warning, when in fact the report contained devastating information of flaws in the doomsters methodology and warned that the disaster has been postponed."Global warming will step up after 2009: scientists."That's the Reuters headline on an article in this week's Science magazine. But the Science article itself is an artful retreat from previous, over-confident global warming predictions.
Read the whole thing here.
What is most disturbing is the revelation that heretofore none, I repeat "none", of the climate models upon which global warming predictions have been based have attempted to factor "natural variation" into their calculations. That is an amazing admission, one that invalidates every prediction they have made to date.
What is most disturbing is the revelation that heretofore none, I repeat "none", of the climate models upon which global warming predictions have been based have attempted to factor "natural variation" into their calculations. That is an amazing admission, one that invalidates every prediction they have made to date.
