Say Anything Blog

Like Disney, the NASA of old has changed dramatically.

Long, long ago, I read a book called ”We Seven,” about the selection and training of our first Mercury project astronauts.  Per my recollection these men were the best of the best of the best: fighter pilots in excellent condition with hard-science and engineering backgrounds.  The kernel of the scientist corps were the German scientists whisked from the rubble of Nazi Germany and Obergs’ operation in Peenemunde via Operation Paperclip.

Another book, whose name escapes me, detailed the inception and conduct of the development of the Atlas booster, which would later be used to power manned capsules into near-Earth orbit.  Many engineers were hired right out of college with the concept being that they were not burdened with false concepts of what was impossible.  They were simply given a mission to design a booster and make it happen.

Years later we have a politicized NASA who suffered a spate of exploding boosters and flight crews posed to look like a Benetton posters.

I prefer a science agency that has no agenda other than space exploration, not a taxpayer-funded, space-going EARTH FIRST organization who takes their inspiration from:

...for great justice

Interesting that when NASA raises temperatures for the 1930’s you guys all have your daggers out for global warming theorists, but when the adjustments don’t sit with you, then NASA becomes the pariah. Can’t you see the hypocrisy?

Video links in the comments don’t work.  Post it as a link.  (The Whistler)

Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.

I find that a poor way to justify them manipulating the data.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

It’s not manipulation when it reinforces your world view, it’s a correction.

Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.

Hey stupid, if you would have read the article they are explaining why Nasa’s numbers don’t match up with other temperature readings.

In 1998 (left side of the graph below) NASA and the satellite data sources RSS and UAH all agreed quite closely - within one-tenth of a degree. Ten years later - in March 2008 - NASA is reporting temperature anomalies more than 0.5 degrees warmer than UAH. The divergence between NASA and UAH has increased at a rate of 0.13 degrees per decade (red lines below.) In contrast, RSS has converged with UAH over the period and is now within 0.02 degrees (blue lines below.)

On the other hand the correction that listed the ‘30’s as the warmest on record was about them getting caught getting it wrong.  In fact they even had a Y2K bug in there if I’m not mistaken. 

In the once case they were caught falsifying the data and corrected it.  Now this is showing where they are falsifying it again.

So yes we did point out when the confirmed that they were wrong.  But they are up to their old tricks again. 

It’s not that hard to understand flamer.  Maybe when you graduate from high school you’ll pick it up.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

Perhaps NASA made the adjustment in response to this

They are scientists and are not going to change the (already published) results unless they can prove it is justified. Accusations of bad practice are just that - mere accusations.

Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.