The Political Science of Global Warming? That's an Oxymoron!

Don't You Hate it when the Cliques Take Charge?

Recently I reported that that there was a minor error in the US climate history data. Due to minor technical difficulties, the temperatures for 2000 to present were slightly higher than they should have been in the GISS data. They also appear to be higher in the NOAA data, but we will save that for another day. I just want to take this moment to assure everyone counting on Global Warming that nothing has changed.

The error of course has been blown completely out of proportion by the likes of Shawn Hannity which are clueless of the importance of the issue. It is not the iceberg Shawn, it's the tip! Chill and get back to immigration, leave anything science related to anyone else! There is significance to the error, but only with further proof of global significance.

Per Gavin Schmitt with realclimate.com, (he actually works for NASA GISS); “GCMs do not include surface temperature data.” The GCM is short for Global Climate Models. That statement of course makes me look like an idiot, or does it?

The GCMs are developed and at some point compared to historical data to validate, oops bad word, prove the “skill” of the model. So since no one knows the future, the models have to predict the past to prove their “skill”.

Since I as not as intelligent as the average climatologist, I would obviously assume that if the data used to prove the “skill” of a climate model is less accurate than reported, that possibly the accuracy of the GCM with “skill” based on the inaccurate data may be questioned. Luckily, that is not the case.

In order for the “skill” of the models to be questioned, the error of the historical data used to prove the “skill” of the models must be proven much less accurate. It is not sufficient to imply that the methodology used to compile and correct the data may need review, one has to prove the error beyond a shadow of doubt.