Global Warming and the Data Quality Act

[Andre]

The reason why this thread is here instead of the Earth science files, will be clear in the last sentence

In the spring of this year I received a discussion-group E-mail with an early draft of this paper:

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/0606291103v1.pdf

Hansen J, M Sato, R Ruedy, K Lo, DW. Lea, and M Medina-Elizade 2006 Global temperature change, September 26, 2006 vol. 103 no. 39 pp 14288–14293

Abstract
Global surface temperature has increased ~0.2°C per decade in the past 30 years, similar to the warming rate predicted in the 1980s in initial global climate model simulations with transient greenhouse gas changes. Warming is larger in the Western Equatorial Pacific than in the Eastern Equatorial Pacific over the past century, and we suggest that the increased West–East temperature gradient may have increased the likelihood of strong El Niños, such as those of 1983 and 1998. Comparison of measured sea surface temperatures in the Western Pacific with paleoclimate data suggests that this critical ocean region, and probably the planet as a whole, is approximately as warm now as at the Holocene maximum and within ~1°C of the maximum temperature of the past million years. We conclude that global warming of more than ~1°C, relative to 2000, will constitute ‘‘dangerous’’ climate change as judged from likely effects on sea level and extermination of species.

Emphasis mine.

As a reaction I replied to the (intermediate) sender with this http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/refs-holocene-maximum.pdf which was also cc-ed to everybody involved in the paper, including the authors.

There is an issue with the quality of the scientific procedures in that publication challenged here:

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=833
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=834
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=837

and here:
http://www.ukweatherworld.co.uk/forum/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=5157&posts=2&start=1
Showing that the error margin of the critical proxies is way too large to use it as fundament for far fetching conclusions.

But there is also an issue with the basic procedures in the scientific method. If one particular proxy is suggesting a conclusion with global implications then the researches are obliged to test that with available data and literature, from my http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/refs-holocene-maximum.pdf it is clear that they refrained from doing so. Yet all authors are specialists and very aware of the extensive literature on the Holocene maximum. It is also clear that nothing in the study warrants the conclusions as emphasized in the abstract here. Therefore we are forced to conclude that these statements are unfounded but nevertheless have a definite potential for hype building:

http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/84/i40/8440climatechange.html
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/business/2006/sep/28/566610828.html
http://www.fdlreporter.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060927/FON0101/609270509/1985
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20060928-9999-1n28warming.html
http://www.heraldnet.com/stories/06/09/26/100wir_a5global001.cfm

etc etc, (Google news “global warming 12000”)
All those statements suggesting “Global warming at 12,000- year high” are proven to be false to begin with, initiated by a rambling study. But those unfounded opinions of the authors have a strong influence in the shaping of the opinion of the people (demagoguery).

In the USA there is a Data Quality Act. Are there any USA citizens here willing and able to help me exposing the spin legally using that act?

 

[Andre]

I do understand that the Data Quality Act does not apply to "scientific" publications, but what if the Director of GISS/NASA held a press conference, or was interviewed when wrongly stating officially that "the planet as a whole, is approximately as warm now as at the Holocene maximum"?