Disparate Standards

A few weeks ago a mistake was found in the figures used to calculate annual temperature averages for the US. Dr. James Hansen of NASA quietly replaced the old numbers with new ones. When asked why this was not accompanied with a press release, Hansen made some statements about the continental US only representing 2.5% of the earth's surface and the adjustments being so small that they were statistically insignificant. Skeptics wondered if the same standards would have been used if the new figures had supported global warming instead of undercutting it.

We found out this week. A new study was just released on 2006 showing that warming that year was due to global warming, not el Nino. Naturally, that got press coverage . All of the same factors are true here as in the first story. It is only about the continental US so it is still an insignificant 2.5% of the earth's surface. The amount of warming is still very tiny. If one story is news the other should be.

To be fair, Hansen is not with NOAA, he is with NASA and it was NOAA that put out the press release on warming. That doesn't let Hansen off the hook.

Remember Al Gore announcing that the debate on climate change is over? That the 2,000 scientists of the IPCC reached a concensus and no one is allowed to argue with it? This point has been raised numerous times in the last year or so. Hansen himself referred to skeptics as "court jesters" and paid stooges of the petroleum industry.

So, from all this we should assume that the IPCC report is the final word on global warming and that no dissenting opinions are allowed.

Enter (re-enter) James Hansen. The IPCC's most recent report predicts a two-foot rise in the sea level, much of it due to thermal expansion (if you heat something it grows). Hansen disagrees. His figures say that the ocean level with rise by at least 85 feet!

So what do we make if this? Again a double standard is in effect. You can disagree with the IPCC but only if you say that things will be worse than they predict.