[ QUOTE ]
but, my take is that it was a software error (udisputable mathematical problem) that he fixed and proved, that a lot of global warming people base their premise on. yay or nay?
[/ QUOTE ]
Nay. It was not a software problem. He did not fix it. He only spotted an anomaly in one dataset of many.
x-posting from OOT:
I'm gone for 72 hours and mainstream science disappears from 2p2? Sheesh. I actually thought about posting a preemptive strike on this topic before heading over to womans house but I figured there were enough rebuttals on the web already. People, you need to learn how to Google!!!!!!
Here is a nice quote from James Hansen in 2001:
The U.S. annual (January-December) mean temperature is slightly warmer in 1934 than in 1998 in the GISS analysis
on page 8 of this paper:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/...nsen_etal.html
In 2001 Hansen said 1934 was warmer than 1998 and he says it now. Although the Met-Office gives the crown to 1998. Either way the temps of Met-Office vs. NASA are so close it's within the margin of error. This bug sure as hell wasn't a Y2K problem. How did this "bug" change the global temp ratings? It didn't. Was this a software bug at all? No. Might write more later but there are literally dozens of rebuttals to this on the web.