
Blogger proves Nasa wrong on climate change - jcwentz
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2271629.ece
======
phil
Before you draw any conclusions from this story, you should really have a look
at Jim Hansen's explanation of the error and figures here:
<http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/distro_LightUpstairs_70810.pdf>

Their errors have basically no effect on global temp anomalies.

------
mynameishere
Remember the 2 + 2 = 5 bit in the book "1984"? That was in reference to the
Soviet claims that they met all the production goals for their 5 year plan in
4 years. The slogan was something like, "We achieved 5 in 4".

The production figures were all fraudulent, of course. The industrial figures
weren't just wrong, but hid the fact that Russian argicultural had been set
back 40 years--not to recover until the 1980s.

Back then, "Prosperity" was the ticket. And "Prosperity" meant smokestacks.
What's the best way of making more smokestacks? Everyone has a pre-packaged
solution to every problem, of course, which is phrased in various ways but
amounts to:

 _We_ control _you_.

IE, control of the means of production. That's the solution--and since it
precedes the problem, and since it doesn't actually solve any problems anyway,
it has to search around pretty hard looking for a reason. Back then, the
crisis was "Not enough smokestacks". In later years?

Umm. Poverty? Inequality? Pollution? Global cooling? Global Warming? ... The
solution to "Global Warming" is of course "We need fewer smokestacks". Since
people aren't likely to shut their smokestacks off willingly, the REAL
solution is,

 _We_ control _you_.

...after seizing the means of production.

~~~
davidw
So doing something about global warming is just like communist Russia?

I think you're in the running for the "reddit hyperbole transplant award".

Even republican economist Greg Mankiw, of Harvard, suggests a carbon tax as an
efficient, market based approach to correcting the negative externalities of
carbon usage:

[http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/10/pigou-club-
manifesto....](http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/10/pigou-club-
manifesto.html)

------
jfoutz
Climate change is one of Rupert Murdoch's pet projects. The motivation for
this article is nothing more than a positive performance review for David
Byers.

Consider the first line "America's top scientists have admitted that the
calculations ... were flawed" It's phrased as though the scientists were
activly hiding the truth, pushing some secret agenda, rather than making a
mistake. Line 2, "Climatologists ... have been forced to revise their
estimations". what? at gunpoint?

Science is great because of objectivity. Any random guy can point out
mistakes, and "Climatologists at Nasa's Goddard Institute of Space Science"
will listen to him. The timesonline is nowhere near objective. Beware this
article as a source, Its internal bias will mess with your ability to consider
the quality of evidence.

