# NASA manipulated Global Warming data (The Register article) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 2, 2008, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-manipulated-global-warming-data-the-register-article/447760 "2008-05-02T15:35:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2008, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-manipulated-global-warming-data-the-register-article/447760/21 "2008-05-02T22:43:10Z")
[QUOTE=brazil84] But it does make the BS meter rise another notch. As if it weren’t high enough already. [/QUOTE] Primarily from the global-warming-isn’t-happening crowd. Unless you want to claim that NASA is also using it’s secret orbital lasers to heat up glaciers and permafrost all over the world, just to make global warming look like it’s happening. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2008, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-manipulated-global-warming-data-the-register-article/447760/22 "2008-05-02T23:01:27Z")
[QUOTE=Der Trihs] Primarily from the global-warming-isn’t-happening crowd. Unless you want to claim that NASA is also using it’s secret orbital lasers to heat up glaciers and permafrost all over the world, just to make global warming look like it’s happening. [/QUOTE] Apparently those orbital lasers have been running at least since [1934](http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00815F6395A107A93CAAB178AD85F408385F9) > [@](#): > > TWO pieces of evidence were recently presented to substantiate the views held by most geologists that some day there will be no frozen North and that vessels will sail in Arctic seas now imperilled by ice floes. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2008, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-manipulated-global-warming-data-the-register-article/447760/23 "2008-05-02T23:54:52Z")
[QUOTE=brazil84] Apparently those orbital lasers have been running at least since [1934](http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00815F6395A107A93CAAB178AD85F408385F9) [/QUOTE] And ? What’s your point, except that your anti-global-warming stance looks wronger all the time ? And I’m not going to pay just to read that article. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2008, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-manipulated-global-warming-data-the-register-article/447760/24 "2008-05-03T00:03:05Z")
[QUOTE=Der Trihs] And ? What’s your point, [/quote] The point is that a non-natural explanation is not necessary for melting glaciers, permafrost, or ice. Duh. Although it’s amusing to watch the alarmists construct epicycles to deal with colder weather as their cherished hypothesis continues to unravel. ---
**Author:** ![Mosier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ea924/32.png) [@Mosier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mosier)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2008, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-manipulated-global-warming-data-the-register-article/447760/25 "2008-05-03T00:05:32Z")
[QUOTE=brazil84] Apparently those orbital lasers have been running at least since [1934](http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00815F6395A107A93CAAB178AD85F408385F9) [/QUOTE] Wow, that’s like 75 years before the industrial revolution and coal/oil burning on a massive scale! Wait, what? ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2008, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-manipulated-global-warming-data-the-register-article/447760/26 "2008-05-03T00:11:59Z")
[QUOTE=Mosier] Wow, that’s like 75 years before the industrial revolution and coal/oil burning on a massive scale! [/quote] Oh really? Are you trying to say that CO2 emissions likely caused the warming that was experienced in the 1930s? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2008, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-manipulated-global-warming-data-the-register-article/447760/27 "2008-05-03T00:19:02Z")
[QUOTE=brazil84] The point is that a non-natural explanation is not necessary for melting glaciers, permafrost, or ice. Duh. [/QUOTE] Assuming that to be true, so what ? If we are dealing with a natural climate change and not a human caused one, that’s an argument for going well beyond mild carbon emission restrictions and straight to more drastic solutions, like fertilizing the oceans to make them absorb CO2. That’s not an argument for ignoring the problem and hoping it’ll go away. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2008, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-manipulated-global-warming-data-the-register-article/447760/28 "2008-05-03T00:28:17Z")
[QUOTE=Der Trihs] If we are dealing with a natural climate change and not a human caused one, that’s an argument for going well beyond mild carbon emission restrictions and straight to more drastic solutions, like fertilizing the oceans to make them absorb CO2. [/quote] 😕 I don’t see why. Assuming that CO2 isn’t an important driver of climate, then it’s kind of pointless to use it as a thermostat. We might as well do some animal sacrafices. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2008, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-manipulated-global-warming-data-the-register-article/447760/29 "2008-05-03T00:34:02Z")
[QUOTE=brazil84] 😕 I don’t see why. Assuming that CO2 isn’t an important driver of climate, then it’s kind of pointless to use it as a thermostat. We might as well do some animal sacrafices. [/QUOTE] Unless someone changed the laws of physics, CO2 has to affect climate. And if for some magic reason it doesn’t, we’d need to do something else drastic if you are right; pump vast amount of dust into the upper atmosphere, possibly with nuclear explosions, say. Just about any idea you can imagine short of a global nuclear war is likely to be cheaper and less destructive than just letting global warming happen. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2008, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-manipulated-global-warming-data-the-register-article/447760/30 "2008-05-03T01:48:37Z")
[QUOTE=brazil84] Oh really? Are you trying to say that CO2 emissions likely caused the warming that was experienced in the 1930s? [/QUOTE] Actually, it very likely contributed to it. However, there were also natural factors: an increase in solar output and a break from any major volcanic eruptions. Alas, neither of these natural factors is acting during the current warming. ---
**Author:** ![Mosier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ea924/32.png) [@Mosier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mosier)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2008, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-manipulated-global-warming-data-the-register-article/447760/31 "2008-05-03T02:57:13Z")
[QUOTE=brazil84] Assuming that CO2 isn’t an important driver of climate [/QUOTE] That’s your first mistake. Nobody ever argued that CO2 is the _only_ factor that determines climate, but just like any other chemical released into the atmosphere on such a massive scale, it certainly must _contribute_ to climate. The earth’s temperature isn’t rising only “because” of CO2. CO2 is just part of the reason, and according to anyone that actually knows anything about it, we want to minimize that impact. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2008, 9:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-manipulated-global-warming-data-the-register-article/447760/32 "2008-05-03T09:26:00Z")
[QUOTE=Der Trihs] Unless someone changed the laws of physics, CO2 has to affect climate. [/quote] If you take up cigarette smoking, it affects the climate. It doesn’t follow that we can can control the climate by having more or fewer people smoke cigarettes. See, I used the word “important” in my last post for a reason. > [@](#): > > Just about any idea you can imagine short of a global nuclear war is likely to be cheaper and less destructive than just letting global warming happen. Again, assuming that it’s a natural process, we might consider simply waiting for it to reverse itself just as it’s reversed itself uncountable times in the past. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2008, 9:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-manipulated-global-warming-data-the-register-article/447760/33 "2008-05-03T09:29:30Z")
[QUOTE=Mosier] That’s your first mistake. Nobody ever argued that CO2 is the _only_ factor that determines climate, but just like any other chemical released into the atmosphere on such a massive scale, it certainly must _contribute_ to climate. [/quote] So what? Cigarette smoking has an effect on climate. Can we control global temperatures by encouraging or discouraging people from smoking? Of course not. Your mistake lies in responding to the point you wish I had made, rather than the point that I actually made. In any event, I think this discussion belongs in another thread. If you want to debate the impact of CO2 on temperatures, please start one and I will be happy to participate. This thread is about possible manipulation of data. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2008, 10:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-manipulated-global-warming-data-the-register-article/447760/34 "2008-05-03T10:07:19Z")
[QUOTE=brazil84] If you take up cigarette smoking, it affects the climate. It doesn’t follow that we can can control the climate by having more or fewer people smoke cigarettes. See, I used the word “important” in my last post for a reason. [/quote] Because you want to pretend that CO2 doesn’t matter, regardless of the evidence. You want to pretend that the epochal change in the climate we are seeing is _ **purely by coincidence** _ happening when we are pumping out massive amounts of greenhouse gases. [QUOTE=brazil84] Again, assuming that it’s a natural process, we might consider simply waiting for it to reverse itself just as it’s reversed itself uncountable times in the past. [/QUOTE] :rolleyes: Yeah, right. Wait ten thousand years, maybe ten or a hundred million years even, depending on how stable the new climate is. That’s MUCH more practical than trying to do something about it. What makes you think there will even be humans to care, after that much time ? ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2008, 10:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-manipulated-global-warming-data-the-register-article/447760/35 "2008-05-03T10:15:56Z")
[QUOTE=Der Trihs] Because you want to pretend that CO2 doesn’t matter, regardless of the evidence. You want to pretend that the epochal change in the climate we are seeing is _ **purely by coincidence** _ happening when we are pumping out massive amounts of greenhouse gases. [/quote] 😕 Say what? You gotta be kidding me. Do you remember a few posts back you said “If we are dealing with a natural climate change and not a human caused one” In other words, my argument was based on YOUR assumption. Your new argument (which is totally wrong, btw) is completely irrelevant to the point I made. In any event, this thread is about possible manipulation of data. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2008, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-manipulated-global-warming-data-the-register-article/447760/36 "2008-05-03T18:41:13Z")
[QUOTE=brazil84] 😕 Say what? You gotta be kidding me. Do you remember a few posts back you said “If we are dealing with a natural climate change and not a human caused one” In other words, my argument was based on YOUR assumption. [/quote] No, it’s based on your irrational insistance that global warming either isn’t real or isn’t caused by humans, and that we should just sit back and take it. [QUOTE=brazil84] In any event, this thread is about possible manipulation of data. [/QUOTE] And as threads do, it diverged. If you wanted it to stay focused on that, you shouldn’t have made comments like : [QUOTE=brazil84] But it does make the BS meter rise another notch. As if it weren’t high enough already. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=brazil84] Although it’s amusing to watch the alarmists construct epicycles to deal with colder weather as their cherished hypothesis continues to unravel. [/QUOTE] And like it or not, the global warming hypothesis isn’t “unraveling”, and cold weather in a few places won’t stop glaciers and permafrost from melting. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2008, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-manipulated-global-warming-data-the-register-article/447760/37 "2008-05-03T19:16:34Z")
[QUOTE=Der Trihs] No, [/quote] Nonsense. Your post speaks for itself, as does my response. You were arguing based on an assumption that recent warming is natural, and I was clearly responding to that argument. Your argument was essentially that if we assume that recent warming was not caused by CO2, it follows that it’s even more important to mitigate CO2 emissions. Please just admit that you were wrong on that point rather than pretending you never made it. Then maybe we can “diverge” to another topic. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2008, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-manipulated-global-warming-data-the-register-article/447760/38 "2008-05-03T19:21:03Z")
[QUOTE=brazil84] Nonsense. Your post speaks for itself, as does my response. You were arguing based on an assumption that recent warming is natural, and I was clearly responding to that argument. Your argument was essentially that if we assume that recent warming was not caused by CO2, it follows that it’s even more important to mitigate CO2 emissions. Please just admit that you were wrong on that point rather than pretending you never made it. [/QUOTE] Why is it wrong ? CO2, as I said, has to affect the climate unless someone rewrote physics. If the problem is natural, we therefore have to lower the CO2 content of the atmosphere more than we would than if we were simply trying to reduce our own impact. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2008, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-manipulated-global-warming-data-the-register-article/447760/39 "2008-05-03T19:30:29Z")
[QUOTE=Der Trihs] Why is it wrong ? CO2, as I said, has to affect the climate unless someone rewrote physics. [/quote] The flaw in your reasoning is the possibility that CO2 might have an effect that’s too small to be very important. Just like cigarettes. If it turns out that 20th century rises in temperature were natural, and since we know CO2 increased substantially during that time period, the reasonable inference is that the effect of CO2 on climate is not that important. If the effect of CO2 on the climate is not that important, then manipulating CO2 levels will not have a big impact on global temperatures and there’s no point in trying to counter a hypothetical warming problem by mitigating CO2 emissions. ---
**Author:** ![Public\_Animal\_No.9](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Public\_Animal\_No.9](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Public_Animal_No.9)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2008, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-manipulated-global-warming-data-the-register-article/447760/40 "2008-05-04T13:19:51Z")
Mr. Goddard’s arguments are themselves a bit manipulative. If you go to the NASA site and look at the [Hansen et al. 2001 paper](http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2001/2001_Hansen_etal.pdf) (caution - it’s a 3.8 MB pdf - see p. 18) that presents the 1999 temperatures, you’ll find 3 plots of temperature over time. The first is the raw data, which is what the Register article presents. This shows a temperature increase of about 0.3 deg C in 1999, which would indicate little, if any, warming. The next two (presented side-by-side with the raw data) are adjusted to account for a range of variables that make direct use of the raw data problematic. These adjustments include variability in the time of day that the temperatures are measured, changes in position of measurement sites, historical bias from certain measurement sites, and urban vs. rural measurement site location (which would address the urban heat island effect that some people had claimed was the reason for temperature increases). When the adjustments are incorporated, the data show that the temperature increase is about 0.5 deg C, which is pretty much where the temperature is shown for the supposedly “reworked” 2007 plot shown in the Register article. The adjustments are clearly documented and illustrated in the paper. There’s no reason to ascribe the changes to incompetence or carelessness, or to nefarious schemes to get Al Gore into power or some other grand conspiracy, unless, of course, that’s easier to believe and accept. But it’s not science. (Edited to incorporate publication date) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-manipulated-global-warming-data-the-register-article/447760.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-manipulated-global-warming-data-the-register-article/447760.md?page=3)