News Global Warming and the Data Quality Act

  • Thread starter Andre
  • Start date
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:

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

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 [Broken] 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: [Broken]

and here: [Broken]
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 [Broken] 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: [Broken] [Broken] [Broken] [Broken] [Broken]

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?
Last edited by a moderator:
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"?

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving