See, your problem came when I took you up on your challenge ... the 'Woody Guthrie Award' ... right ... it's just one more Leftist blogger who's in the tank for The Gorbacle and his crowd ... sorry, you lose. You're just using the old 'Lies In, Lies Out' formula ... just like 'Dr.' Goebbels ...

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-stunner-nasa-heads-knew-nasa-data-was-poor-then-used-data-from-cru/

Climategate Stunner: NASA Heads Knew NASA Data Was Poor, Then Used Data from CRU


New emails from James Hansen and Reto Ruedy (download PDF here) show that NASA's temperature data was doubted within NASA itself, and was not independent of CRU's embattled data, as has been claimed.

March 10, 2010 - by Charlie Martin

Email messages obtained by the Competitive Enterprise Institute via a Freedom of Information Act request reveal that the climate dataset of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) was considered — by the top climate scientists within NASA itself — to be inferior to the data maintained by the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU).

The NASA scientists also felt that NASA GISS data was inferior to the National Climate Data Center Global Historical Climate Network (NCDC GHCN) database.

These emails, obtained by Christopher Horner, also show that the NASA GISS dataset was not independent of CRU data.

Further, all of this information regarding the accuracy and independence of NASA GISS data was directly communicated to a reporter from USA Today in August 2007.

The reporter never published it.

—————————————

There are only four climate datasets available. All global warming study, such as the reports from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), must be based on these four.

They are: the NASA GISS dataset, the NCDC GHCN dataset, the CRU dataset, and the Japan Meteorological Agency dataset.

Following Climategate, when it became known that raw temperature data for CRU’s “HADCRU3″ climate dataset had been destroyed, Phil Jones, CRU’s former director, said the data loss was not important — because there were other independent climate datasets available.

But the emails reveal that at least three of the four datasets were not independent, that NASA GISS was not considered to be accurate, and that these quality issues were known to both top climate scientists and to the mainstream press.

In a response to reporter Doyle Rice of USA Today, Dr. Reto Ruedy — a senior scientist at NASA — recommended the following:

Continue using NCDC’s data for the U.S. means and Phil Jones’ [HADCRU3] data for the global means. …

We are basically a modeling group and were forced into rudimentary analysis of global observed data in the 70s and early 80s. …

Now we happily combine NCDC’s and Hadley Center data to … evaluate our model results.

This response was extended later the same day by Dr. James Hansen — the head of NASA GISS:

[For] example, we extrapolate station measurements as much as 1200 km. This allows us to include results for the full Arctic. In 2005 this turned out to be important, as the Arctic had a large positive temperature anomaly. We thus found 2005 to be the warmest year in the record, while the British did not and initially NOAA also did not. …

It should be noted that the different groups have cooperated in a very friendly way to try to understand different conclusions when they arise.

Two implications of these emails: The data to which Phil Jones referred to as “independent” was not — it was being “corrected” and reused among various climate science groups, and the independence of the results was no longer assured; and the NASA GISS data was of lower quality than Jones’ embattled CRU data.

The NCDC GHCN dataset mentioned in the Ruedy email has also been called into question by Joe D’Aleo and Anthony Watts. D’Aleo and Watts showed in a January 2010 report that changes in available measurement sites and the selection criteria involved in “homogenizing” the GHCN climate data raised serious questions about the usefulness of that dataset as well.

These three datasets — from NASA GISS, NCDC GHCN, and CRU — are the basis of essentially all climate study supporting anthropogenic global warming.

Regarding the merits of ID as a theory, what is the theory?

A basic problem in these conversations is that some of us may have very different idea of what ID means. I'd rather not talk about whether ID might be 'true' - I'd rather talk about whether some very specific claim might be true.

Well, it seems to me ID is always based on two things.

1) Irreducible complexity, which is essentially an argument from ignorance . . . after all absence of evidence is not evidence of absence (in this case of evolution)

2) The watch makers argument which ignores that designed things as we know it such as watches do not reproduce.

No, baby boy, YOU will need to get your head out. I have given you ALL the information I intend to. Your specious 'data' on which you base your worship of 'The Gorbacle' and his 'AGW' fraud is busted. Goodbye.

3. Intelligent Design cannot be tested in any way, shape or form unless "God" were to let himself be seen, spoken to or otherwise present himself...

I don't really have a position or an opinion one way or the other. but intelligent design while should not be accepted as fact should be pursued as a possibility until proven or disproven. Heretofor it is only a theory. as evolution is also (a very plausible and mostly confirmed theory but still just a theory)

Creation is the theory that various forms of life began abruptly, with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers and wings, mammals with fur and mammary glands.

Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings, et cetera.