Good Enough For Government Work?

NASA admits to USA Today that its data is even worse than the CRU's Climategate data.

NASA’s temperature data is so woeful that GISS’s Reto Ruedy tells the USA Today weather editor in this email that “My recommendation to you is to continue using…Phil Jones’ data for the global mean [temperatures].” You see, “what we do is accurate enough” — left unspoken: for government work — “But we have no intention to compete with either of the other two organizations in what they do best.”

Yikes. Yes, he said that. NASA’s is worse than the ClimateGate temperature data. According to NASA.

Apparently, and although this was never stressed before in all of the hysterical media that they get for proclaiming to have discerned temperature record after hottest year after exhibit of proof of catastrophic man-made global warming,

NASA’s GISS is really just “basically a modeling group forced into rudimentary analysis of global observed data” back in the day but, “Now we happily combine [the National Climatic Data Center's, or NCDC's] and Hadley Center’s data to get what we need” for purposes of evaluating their models.

NASA’s reference to NCDC invokes the third of four data sets pointed to by our apologist friends who claimed that, well, there really was nothing to see here about that whole CRU thing, because of all that other independent data. Except that here we read that NASA’s data is not independent at all, but thoroughly dependent upon the non-existent/phonied-up CRU numbers, slapped together with what GISS’s Reto Ruedy refers his inquiring (ok, fairly credulous) reporter to as the gold standard for US temperatures, NCDC.