March 30, 2010

Yeah, About That NASA Data...

Holy fucking dogshit in the park! Can't these fuckers do anything correctly?

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.

The e-mails from 2007 reveal that when a USA Today reporter asked if NASA's data "was more accurate" than other climate-change data sets, NASA's Dr. Reto A. Ruedy replied with an unequivocal no. He said "the National Climatic Data Center's procedure of only using the best stations is more accurate," admitting that some of his own procedures led to less accurate readings.

"My recommendation to you is to continue using NCDC's data for the U.S. means and [East Anglia] data for the global means {yikes!-ed}," Ruedy told the reporter.

"NASA's temperature data is worse than the Climate-gate temperature data. According to NASA," wrote Christopher Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute who uncovered the e-mails. Horner is skeptical of NCDC's data as well, stating plainly: "Three out of the four temperature data sets stink."



And these are the folks who we are supposed to trust when it comes to global warming?

Posted by: eddiebear at 10:26 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 224 words, total size 2 kb.

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
13kb generated in CPU 0.01, elapsed 0.014 seconds.
62 queries taking 0.0088 seconds, 145 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.