Another Step Toward The Global Cooling Crisis

Before we can move on to the upcoming global cooling crisis, we need to complete the global warming crisis cycle. It is now in its death throes, as “the deniers” press in and continue debunking. The deniers are aided and abetted by actual reality as the (faulty) computer model’s dire predictions fail to happen and real world evidence indicates problems with the models. Now a Y2K bug has been discovered that proves 1998 is not, in fact, the warmest year on record. As it turns out, 1934 was hotter, and NASA “quietly” adjusted the data. So far, silence from the media as they digest this inconvenient truth. Well, not total silence. There has been some goalpost moving in unrelated articles: Global Warming to Slow Down, Then Speed Up Again, Global warming forecast predicts rise in 2014.

The Sun Times did fact check Al Gore not long ago, but by and large these stories are not going to get any play until there is a greater body of global cooling stories to replace them. That process is just getting started. The Washington Times had one recently, but if history is any indicator, it’s going to take a few more years to transition from warming back to cooling.

The major change from a century’s worth of previous climate change scares is that this time many people have access to more research data and a way to publish their own findings and conclusions. Previously we had to rely on the reporter’s take on what the scientists said – and that was sharply limited by the financial constraints of publishing a newspaper. This time skeptics have easier, faster access to the scientists and the data, and a cheap way to spread the word.

Ace points out that “This completely destroys fifteen years of aggressively stupid proselytizing on behalf of Mother Goddess Earth.” and points readers to Coyote Blog which explains how the error was found:

Government scientists using taxpayer money to develop the GISS temperature data base at taxpayer expense refuse to publicly release their temperature adjustment algorithms or software (In much the same way Michael Mann refused to release the details for scrutiny of his methodology behind the hockey stick). Using the data, though, McIntyre made a compelling case that the GISS data base had systematic discontinuities that bore all the hallmarks of a software bug. Today, the GISS admitted that McIntyre was correct, and has started to republish its data with the bug fixed.

I use the word “error” loosely. Since when do scientists find it acceptable to hide data and methodology? Michelle Malkin has plenty of links, and points out the fact that Rush Limbaugh has notified his millions of listeners of the latest development.

Over at Hot Air, Bryan Preston, former NASA guy, gives a “behind the scenes” example of how the public ends up with these stories.

Public affairs was hyping the stories to the press, which in turn added even more hype. The public has been getting earth science reporting that’s hyped, squared. Perhaps the deflation that Hansen ought to get due to his basic error on the Y2K bug in his data will spark a broader reevaluation of his work and of the way science is reported via press offices that are conduits of earth science to the public. It’s long over due.

Because of the “new media” it is possible that this will be the last climate change scare. But I doubt it:

Although the magazine article indicated that the cooling trend would be continuous, scientists knew otherwise. “None of us expected uninterrupted continuation of the trend,” he states. Moreover, thanks to new evidence that Dr. Kukla only recently published, he now knows that global warming always precedes an ice age.