NASA Climate Data Verses the Conspiracy to Commit Good Science
Sunday, February 7, 2010
By Roger F. Gay

With so many revelations of fraud in support of the man-made global
warming, it has gotten much more difficult for propagandists to
contend that science is on their side. NASA has a well-earned
reputation in science and technological advancement. Surely one might
think that if NASA is worried about global warming then we should be
too. This is more-or-less the last remaining argument in the warmers’
arsenal. With 95% of their claims disproven, NASA climate data still
seems to provide support for at least some of the Al Gore style scary
scenarios about a warming planet and the role of human activity.

But wait – this “NASA climate data” they speak of doesn’t really come
from NASA; not at least from the core NASA organization with the great
reputation for science and technological advancement.

Support for catastrophic man-made global warming “theory” comes from
NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS). Sounds impressive,
but you should ask; what’s that? It’s a group at Columbia University
that is associated with The Earth Institute at Columbia University.
GISS’s current director is none other than the “grandfather” of the
global warming hoax himself, Dr. James Hansen. Go to their website and
you will find it just as centrally dedicated to global warming
propaganda as RealClimate.org.

A key adviser to Al Gore, Hansen is so fanatically extreme in his
political views that he leaves the vast majority of believers in the
dust. He’s been out on the international speaking trail for example,
calling for Nuremberg style trials for oil company executives and
basically anyone who’s ever disagreed with his hysterical claims – an
inquisition movement for the global warming religion.

Hansen became director of GISS in the early 1980s. Two decades later,
the George W. Bush administration wanted to know what his activities
have to do with “space studies.” Hansen and a Washington based law-
firm responded with press releases and a threatened “whistle blower”
lawsuit claiming Bush was trying to suppress him and cover up the
truth about global warming. This claim has helped build his hero
status among global warming activists.

An example of an alleged conspiracy to silence Hansen involves his
claim that 2005 was the warmest year on record. Bush officials wanted
to leave this claim out of official administration reports because it
is not backed by real science. Other scientists have explained the
ruse; cherry-picking data so that only warm days count. Laughed at by
experts, the 2005 claim is still used by some activists to counter
discussion on the well-known cooling trend of the past decade.

Without support from NASA administrators (climate change doctrine is
not part of NASA’s core mission), but with the Bush administration
distracted by global terrorism, Hansen and his lawyers successfully
hard-balled an entitlement for continued federal funding and use of
the NASA brand name. Not surprisingly, this situation has not been
challenged by the Obama administration, which still claims “climate
science” provides incontrovertible proof of future catastrophic
climate change because they aren’t yet extracting enough money through
taxation and cap-n-trade schemes and because “global governance” is
not yet fully implemented.

GISS was established in 1961, and played an important role in space
studies until Hansen became director. It’s founding director, NASA
Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement recipient Robert Jastrow,
was so appalled by Hansen’s use of the formerly reputable institute,
that he – along with Scripps Institute director, Distinguished Medal
of Honor recipient, and former member of the NASA’s Advisory Council
William Nierenberg and former president of the National Academy of
Sciences and National Medal of Science recipient Frederick Seitz –
decided to speak out against it. In 1984, they founded The George C.
Marshall Institute to “encourage the use of sound science in making
public policy about important issues for which science and technology
are major considerations,” with focus on issues of national security
and the environment.

According to the Center for Science in the Public Interest: “The
Marshall Institute investigates facts concerning global climate
change. The Institute also studies the implications of the Kyoto
Protocol upon national security.”

Investigating facts, and likely the close awareness Hansen had to
their “skepticism” made them important targets. The battle may have
given rise to a claim propagandists have oft repeated in an effort to
counter the powerful effect of opposition arguments; “they’re all paid
by Big Oil.”

According to SourceWatch.org and Wikipedia, the Marshall Institute is
partially supported by the Exxon Education Foundation and American
Standard Companies. SourceWatch does not provide a source for the
Exxon claim, while Wikipedia cites an advocacy article that in turn
says Exxon gave a gift to the institute in 1998 according to that
year’s annual report.

American Standard Companies is a leading supplier of air-conditioning
systems and other household technology products including a well known
toilet. Possibly confused with Standard Oil, this connection was also
seen by warming propagandists as proof of a Big Oil driven conspiracy
of skepticism. Whether it matters or not, the claim that American
Standard funds the institute or that any of the founders had been
associated with the company was not supported by the citation (a web
link) given in support of the claim.

Hey JustAGuy - long time no see. Thanks for posting.

Just A Guy wrote:
With 95% of their claims disproven,

Can you substantiate that figure? If not, what does it tell us?

On Feb 7, 2:25*pm, OG wrote:
Just A Guy wrote:
With 95% of their claims disproven,

Can you substantiate that figure? If not, what does it tell us?

You know, you're right! The 95% claim of Roger F. Gay is as
unsubstantiated as a claim by IPCC that 'with 90% certainty mankind
has effected the global climate', (please excuse ad hoc paraphrase).

Roger F. Gay versus the NASA is a clear example of the pot calling the
kettle black. Unforgivable.

Reminds me of a Groucho Marx joke: "Who are you going to believe, me
or your own lying eyes?"

Just A Guy wrote:
On Feb 7, 2:25 pm, OG wrote:
Just A Guy wrote:
With 95% of their claims disproven,
Can you substantiate that figure? If not, what does it tell us?

You know, you're right! The 95% claim of Roger F. Gay is as
unsubstantiated as a claim by IPCC that 'with 90% certainty mankind
has effected the global climate', (please excuse ad hoc paraphrase).


So where's YOUR credibility?

On Feb 7, 3:41*pm, OG wrote:

So where's YOUR credibility?

Hey asshole, ad hominem is the refuge of the scoundrel, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Cut to the chase: go **** yourself moron.

On 7 Feb, 23:25, OG wrote:
Just A Guy wrote:
With 95% of their claims disproven,

Can you substantiate that figure? If not, what does it tell us?

Had no idea that you find math so challenging. 95% corresponds to
19/20. 20 claims with19 disproven = 95% of the claims disproven. It
doesn't have to be exactly 19 and 20 either. It's just a matter of
proportionality.

BTW: It's an estimate.

wrote in message
...
On 7 Feb, 23:25, OG wrote:
Just A Guy wrote:
With 95% of their claims disproven,

Can you substantiate that figure? If not, what does it tell us?

Had no idea that you find math so challenging. 95% corresponds to
19/20. 20 claims with19 disproven = 95% of the claims disproven. It
doesn't have to be exactly 19 and 20 either. It's just a matter of
proportionality.

BTW: It's an estimate.

Can you substantiate the proportion?

Just A Guy wrote:
On Feb 7, 3:41 pm, OG wrote:

So where's YOUR credibility?

Hey asshole, ad hominem is the refuge of the scoundrel, see:


Oh the irony!

I thought you objected to bad science - but you're making up figures
left right and centre.