Jo Nova’s even bigger claim: old National Geographic article proves “they” are hiding the data!

I know I should be more charitable, more patient and less judgemental. And heck, I hesitated posting this, but sometimes the denial movement spirals into just plain silly.

Jo Nova has a history of making really, big earth shattering claims on her blog that “demolish” the “myth of AGW”. This week, she uses an old National Geographic article to show how climate data must have been “doctored”:

“Frank Lansner has found an historical graph of northern hemisphere temperatures from the mid 70’s, and it shows a serious decline in temperatures from 1940 to 1975. It’s a decline so large that it wipes out the gains made in the first half of the century, and brings temperatures right back to what they were circa 1910. The graph was not peer reviewed, but presumably it was based on the best information available at the time. In any case, if all the global records are not available to check, it’s impossible to know how accurate or not this graph is…”

Nova has an interesting point, and in the fine tradition of her reasoning I can now prove – yes prove – the Sun goes around the Earth! Apparently astronomers in the 16th Century had a very good idea of how the solar system was actually arranged:

What other data have those scientists rigged?

What else are those scientists hiding! Demand the truth! Question everything!

Yes Jo, because the methodology of science and collection of data have not changed since the 1970’s. Is that the best the denial movement can do? I mean, really?

It’s like they’re not even trying anymore.

File this under hunting for anomalies.

8 thoughts on “Jo Nova’s even bigger claim: old National Geographic article proves “they” are hiding the data!

  1. leavecincy says:

    The Science tends to flip between an ice age and global warming around every 30 years for the past 200. This cycle the politicians latched on for more power and their friends came along for the trillions of dollars to be reaped from the people.

    • Mike says:

      The Science tends to flip between an ice age and global warming around every 30 years for the past 200.

      Thanks for your comment leavecincy, but I think I missed the ice ages of the 1970s, 1940’s, early 1900’s, 1870s…

      • leavecincy says:

        If you review published material over the last 200 years, the predicted change in climate would swing from an ice age to global warming and back to a ice age with each swing being about 30 years. I didn’t say these events occurred.

        If science was so confident in global warming today, they wouldn’t be repackaging it a climate change. The producers of the AGW theory know they contaminated the data. They know the catastrophic models don’t reflect the real world. And they know the relationship of CO2 to temperature is logarithmic.

        We humans just simply can’t put enough CO2 in the atmosphere to cause a catastrophe.

  2. Mike says:

    Nope, no evidence at all: http://www.csiro.au/resources/State-of-the-Climate.html

    And I’d love to see this “evidence”.

    Thanks for stopping by to make unsupported claims.

    Have a nice day.

    • leavecincy says:

      That was good for a laugh. A rater localized 5 ft rise in sea level over 16 years. Maybe Leonard Nimoy can resurrect In Search Of. But the home page explain it all. CSIRO is also tracking Australia’s math crisis. There’s an unexpected shortfall of people down under that know math.

      I don’t know if you read the report, but the run away sea level rise is contradicted by the graph next to the claim that shows a fixed rises of 1.5mm per year since 1870. Pretty much what’s been going on for the last 6000 years.

      Page 5 has a hockey stick that would make Mann quiver with envy.

  3. […] Cherry picking – This involves selectively drawing on isolated papers that challenge the consensus to the neglect of the broader body of research. An example is a paper describing intestinal abnormalities in 12 children with autism, which suggested a possible link with immunization. This has been used extensively by campaigners against immunization, even though 10 of the paper’s 13 authors subsequently retracted the suggestion of an association. […]

  4. JMurphy says:

    Always makes me laugh when people make claims about ice-age predictions without ever backing up their assertions. I suppose it’s all down to a few media reports back in the mid 70s : ‘media reports’ being the main source for denier ‘science’.
    Shame that the reality is that scientists have been predicting global warming since the 19th Century. Have a look at the evidence :

    http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2010/03/18/when-carbon-dioxide-didnt-affect-climate/

    • Mike says:

      Indeed, I can’t believe they still trot that argument out. But then again, all the other arguments of a similar quality.

      Re AGW link – a great resource, and one of my favorite sources for actual science.

      Thanks for stopping by.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: