Should people have any faith in NASA's GISS numbers?

Question

I don't think so, and here's why. Dr. Jim Hansen, head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in NYC is one of the earliest proponents of AGW. He's been ranting about it for longer than almost anyone else. He also serves as Al Gore's science advisor, which clearly indicates the possibility of extreme bias in his work.

We would be wise to stop believing what comes out of NASA-GISS, knowing the source. An ultra-extremist at the helm of a major science institution can't be counted on to provide unbiased, unaltered results.

The socialist-political influence he wields at GISS shouldn't be overlooked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hanse...

9 hours ago - 3 days left to answer.

Answer 1

Ahhh, do I sense you are a conspiracy theorist??? Based on your conspiracy theory, we should dismiss the rest of mainstream science temperature data. They all show increased temps since temperatures were first being recorded. Why don't you show me just one temperature chart that displays current temperatures below that of the past 150 years.

EDIT - Oh davem, it does make sense. All the other data sets match relatively well to NASA GISS, so if you discount one, you are saying the others have your so-called "socialist-political influence."

Answer 2

The scientific method was developed because professional researchers can easily see things that aren't there.  A famous example of this is the 'discovery' of N rays (there are lots of other examples).  

Human made climate change is not much different to N rays in this respect.  If a researcher expects to find it, they probably will.  

Not only does James Hansen want to find evidence for human made climate change, but he professes a belief that finding this evidence can save the world from environmental Apocalypse.  It would be difficult to be objective if you believe that saying the 'wrong' thing could end the world.  It's not that surprising that James Hansen's data is more supportive of AGW than other sources and is most often quoted by alarmists.

Answer 3

I think the GISS can tell that it got warmer over the last 30 years, but as far as using it to evaluate the accuracy of a climate model, it is a joke. The homogeneity correction actually creates a false warming trend on many of the stations, and is not effective at removing urbanization artifacts.

Answer 4

Yes, because they've been confirmed by other scientists all around the world.

EDIT - The difference between 2005 and 1998 is statistically insignificant.  Anyone making a big deal of it either way (which I'm not accusing anyone right here of doing) ) is wrong.

Answer 5

Regardless of what you think of Jim Hansen (I don't think too highly of him and his activism either), you can't totally discount a global climate metric like NASA GISS.

http://atmoz.org/blog/2008/02/27/4-globa...

As you can see here, all four metrics agree very well. There is some minor differences, but the overall trends, and even the actual measurements, match well.

I just don't like it when people only take GISS while ignoring the other 3 datasets (like 2005 vs 1998 for warmest year)

------------

Edit:

"EDIT - The difference between 2005 and 1998 is statistically insignificant. Anyone making a big deal of it either way (which I'm not accusing anyone right here of doing) ) is wrong."

Did you run a test of significance, Bob? Eyeballing it does not work. Anyhow, when three out of four datasets agree that 1998 is the warmest year on record, I would tend to go with that. Arguing that 2005 is in fact the warmest year on record, while three separate metrics disagree with your one is a losing battle. Though I do I agree that we shouldn't make a big deal out of it either way.