Apology From Prof. Lindzen for Howard Hayden's NASA-GISS Data Interpretation Error

09/03/2012 17:02:40

Professor Richard Lindzen and repealtheact.org.uk would like to make it known that there was an error in the interpretation of NASA-GISS data by Howard Hayden (see Lindzen's seminar slide 12 error). The Howard Hayden graph was used in MIT Prof Richard S. Lindzen's seminar on Reconsidering the Climate Change Act Global Warming: How to approach the science (Climate models and the evidence ?) at the UK House of Commons in Committee Room 14 held on the 22nd of February 2012.

 

RE: LINDZEN’S SEMINAR SLIDE 12 ERROR TITLED:

“NASA-GISS DATA MANIPULATION: CHANGE IN HISTORICAL DATA” - A GRAPH FROM HOWARD HAYDEN WHO NOW ACKNOWLEDGES: 

“I concluded incorrectly that NASA-GISS had manipulated the data.  I am making every effort to correct my error." (Howard Hayden)

Prof. Richard  Lindzen’s email to repealtheact.org.uk:

"Please accept my apologies for using the graph from Howard Hayden that purported to suggest that GISS had manipulated the temperature data.  I asked Howard to check how he arrived at this conclusion.  Here is his response:"

"Please accept my sincere apologies for misrepresenting NASA-GISS data.  I downloaded temperature data from http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt to make a graph in 2009.  About a month ago, I went to the same file to get the more recent points and was surprised to find a considerably different data set.  The formatting of the data set was the same, and  I did not notice that the heading said that the data referred to meteorological stations only.  As  a consequence, I concluded incorrectly that NASA-GISS had manipulated the data.  I am making every effort to correct my error."

 

 

Lindzen: "It seems to me to have been an innocent error, given that the URL's were the same..."  

 [See seminar slide 12 error - which Prof. Lindzen has asked to be acknowledged and removed from the PDF].  

[See seminar slide 12 error: "NASA-GISS Data Manipulation Change in Historical Data" here

Prof. Lindzen also stated:

"This doesn't alter the primary point of the discussion that a few tenths of a degree one way or another is not of primary importance to the science.  The public interest in this quantity, however, does make it a matter subject to confirmation bias.  

Sincerely yours,

Dick"