jump to navigation

It’s ‘the hottest year on record’, as long as you don’t take its temperature December 18, 2010

Posted by honestclimate in Discussions.
Tags: , , , , ,

It’s ‘the hottest year on record’, as long as you don’t take its temperature

Christopher Booker

By Christopher Booker
The Telegraph, 18 December 2010

Much of the data cited to support warmist claims is pure conjecture, says Christopher Booker

We have lately heard much of the claim that 2010 will turn out to have been “the hottest year on record”. No one has done more to promote this belief than Dr James Hansen, head of Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), responsible for one of the four main official global temperature records.

As reported by the US blogs Real Science and Watts Up With That, in a post headed “GISS temperatures out of line with the rest of the world”, the GISS record has in recent months been diverging wildly from the others. While three have shown global temperatures dropping sharply, by as much as 0.3C, the GISS figures (based, despite the link to Nasa, on surface temperatures) have shot up by 0.2C.

In a second post (“Hansen’s ‘Hottest Year Ever’ is primarily based on fabricated data”), Real Science demonstrates that the parts of the world which GISS shows to be heating up the most are so short of weather stations that only 25 per cent of the figures are based on actual temperature readings. The rest are simply conjectured by GISS. This is not the first time Dr Hansen’s temperature record has come under expert fire. Three years ago, GISS was forced to revise many of its figures when it was shown that wholesale “adjustments” had been made, revising older temperatures downwards and post-2000 figures upwards.

Read the rest here


1. Oliver K. Manuel - December 18, 2010

The problem is just this: Once caught in a lie, another lie may seem to be an easy way out!

Professionals know better.

Thus the editor of Nature, Dr. Phillip Campbell, and the president of the US National Academy of Sciences, Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone, both wisely declined to respond to my public accusation that they had deceived the public about:

a.) The Sun’s origin.
b.) The Sun’s composition.
c.) The Sun’s source of energy.
d.) The Sun’s influence on Earth’s climate.

The roots of this scandal go back to at least April 1976, at the National AGU meeting in Washington, DC, when leaders of the government scientific establishment decided to ignore experimental evidence that:

a.) No primordial Helium accompanied “normal” Xenon, and
b.) All primordial He was labelled with excess Xe-136

At the birth of the solar system [Trans. Missouri Acad. Sci. 9 (1975) 104-122 (1975); Science 195 (1977) 208-209; Nature 277 (1979) 615-620; Meteoritics 15 (1980) 117-138; J. Inorg. Nucl. Chem. 43 (1981) 2207-2216; Geokhimiya (12) 1776-1801 (1981)].

The Galileo probe into Jupiter confirmed the link of primordial Helium with excess Xe-136 across planetary distances in December 1995 [“Isotopic ratios in Jupiter confirm intra-solar diffusion”, Meteoritics and Planetary Science 33 (1998) A97, abstract 5011].

Click to access 5011.pdf

Sworn testimony and cross examination under oath will probably be required to get to the bottom of the climate scandal.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo

2. Oliver K. Manuel - December 18, 2010

Here is the 1975 experimental data from analysis of mineral separates of the Allende meteorite. – OKM


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: