NOAA and NASA have never falsified data

[Crick]

Several posters in this forum have claimed that NASA and NOAA have no credibility with regards to global temperature having been caught falsifying it. When they have been asked to identify these instances, the only thing that has been presented has been John Bates' (a retired NOAA scientist) criticism of Tom Karl's (another former NOAA scientist) 2015 report on the warming pause. AGW deniers made great hay with Bates' comments, published first in a Judith Curry newsletter and then picked up widely. Bates himself, however, has since made clear that he does not believe Karl has ever tampered with data but rather that for the subject report, he failed to follow a protocol that Bates himself had set up at NOAA's NCEI before releasing the paper.

However, the posters making these claims regarding NASA and NOAA credibility have stated them as established facts. I open this thread to give my opponents on this forum the opportunity to demonstrate the validity of their claims.

Here is an article containing Bates assertion that Karl never tampered with data. Articles claiming otherwise based on Bates' own prior statements are numerous.

https://www.science.org/content/article/how-culture-clash-noaa-led-flap-over-high-profile-warming-pause-study

 

[luiza]

What they did was refuse to use satellite data and insist on ground temperature readings , reduced the number of locations and swung reading station bias to Europe and America. A bigger bunch of crooks it is hard to imagine. Add on BBC to NASA

 

[ReinyDays]

It's the IPCC that's cheating the science ... see? ... they aren't allowing for dissent ... and fudging data ... fucking UN piece of shit ... commercial media supports these organization's statement because it is profitable to do so ... and commercial media has a 1st Amendment right to lie ...

Almost all local newspapers in The West reported Weather Service data ... go look it up ... the Chick's right, NOAA ain't changing the raw data ... far far far too easy to check everything ...

NASA isn't collecting weather data ... the American tax-payers have only paid for ONE world-wide network of weather stations and facilities ... and it's neither the FAA, Dept of Agriculture nor NASA ... and see above for what NASA's Constitutional rights are ...

Computational Fluid Dynamics is something else ... and as with all statistical arts, great latitude for deceit is available ... "statistics don't lie, bit liars use statistics" ... usually by limiting the sample pool to drive up percentages, like the Monty Hall Paradox ...

 

[Crick]

What they did was refuse to use satellite data and insist on ground temperature readings , reduced the number of locations and swung reading station bias to Europe and America. A bigger bunch of crooks it is hard to imagine. Add on BBC to NASA

So you're claiming that NASA refused to use satellite data? Do you have links supporting any of this? I assume you're aware of the limitations of satellite temperature observations.

 

[Crick]

It's the IPCC that's cheating the science ... see? ... they aren't allowing for dissent ...

How are they doing that? The IPCC does not control what gets published.

and fudging data ...

What data have they "fudged"? Did you borrow that from EMH cause you thought it sounded cool?

fucking UN piece of shit ...

I'm impressed.

commercial media supports these organization's statement because it is profitable to do so ...

Is it? And it wouldn't be profitable to show they've been running a huge scam that's cost the world billions? Give us a fucking break. They cover the UN and not you because you're an ignorant whack job.

and commercial media has a 1st Amendment right to lie ...

They have a great deal more restrictions than do you or the fossil fuel PR types.

Almost all local newspapers in The West reported Weather Service data ... go look it up ...

I'd be upset if they didn't.

the Chick's right, NOAA ain't changing the raw data ... far far far too easy to check everything ...

Who is "the Chick"?

NASA isn't collecting weather data ... the American tax-payers have only paid for ONE world-wide network of weather stations and facilities ... and it's neither the FAA, Dept of Agriculture nor NASA ... and see above for what NASA's Constitutional rights are ...

The Constitution gives rights to people and the rules controlling what NASA does and doesn't do are quite strict. For one thing, they are required to absolutely transparent with all their data products.

Computational Fluid Dynamics is something else ...

Something else than the Constitution? Than NASA? WtF are you babbling about?

and as with all statistical arts, great latitude for deceit is available ...

Are you saying that you think CFD is a "statistical art"?

"statistics don't lie, bit liars use statistics" ... usually by limiting the sample pool to drive up percentages, like the Monty Hall Paradox ...

Do you have a - single - link - to support any of the charges you've just made?

 

[ReinyDays]

How are they doing that? The IPCC does not control what gets published.

What data have they "fudged"? Did you borrow that from EMH cause you thought it sounded cool?

I'm impressed.

Is it? And it wouldn't be profitable to show they've been running a huge scam that's cost the world billions? Give us a fucking break. They cover the UN and not you because you're an ignorant whack job.

They have a great deal more restrictions than do you or the fossil fuel PR types.

I'd be upset if they didn't.

Who is "the Chick"?

The Constitution gives rights to people and the rules controlling what NASA does and doesn't do are quite strict. For one thing, they are required to absolutely transparent with all their data products.

Something else than the Constitution? Than NASA? WtF are you babbling about?

Are you saying that you think CFD is a "statistical art"?

Do you have a - single - link - to support any of the charges you've just made?

Here's the link ... now you find a single dissenting opinion ... book, chapter and verse ... like scientific journals have a "letters to the editor" section where opposing opinion are presented ... because good science invites dissent ...

 

[Crick]

Here's the link ... now you find a single dissenting opinion ... book, chapter and verse ... like scientific journals have a "letters to the editor" section where opposing opinion are presented ... because good science invites dissent ...

The Assessment reports are not science. They are assessments of science. The IPCC conducts no scientific studies. If you'd like to see some dissent, go through the peer-reviewed literature on which the assessments were made. Try this. Look in the comments: Nature Climate Change.

Keep in mind that the topic of this thread is the charge that you and others have made, that NASA and NOAA have lost their credibility due to multiple instances of falsified data. That the IPCC, as their charter requires of them, assess science to make clear policy recommendations to the member nations is not evidence of falsified data by NASA or NOAA.

 

[luiza]

Do you have links supporting any of this? I assume you're aware of the limitations of satellite temperature observations.

It is you who should know your material berfore preaching. And I am fully aware of the limitations of all methods and the almost certain reason to choose the present one --- easiest to manipulate . And while you are doing some research , check out how NASA and AirForce are manipulating sun activity data , because they are presumably scared rigid by what the observations are indicating .

 

[luiza]

Do you have a - single - link - to support any of the charges you've just made?

If she has not , I have . IPCC are a political body full of crooks and charlatans -- also lots of links for that . But DYOFR first .

 

[Crick]

It is you who should know your material berfore preaching.

This purpose of this thread is to give opportunity to those who have claimed NASA and NOAA have been caught falsifying data. So far we have had absolutely nothing presented to support those claims

And I am fully aware of the limitations of all methods

Methods to do what?

and the almost certain reason to choose the present one

What is the present one? If you are talking about the use of using temperatures just above the surface of the Earth and the temperatures of the ocean's surface, the intent was to measure the Earth's temperature where humans live.

--- easiest to manipulate .

Why is it the easiest to manipulate? And, what evidence do you actually have that it is BEING manipulated?

And while you are doing some research,

It is not my job to find evidence for you. Do it yourself.

check out how NASA and AirForce are manipulating sun activity data ,

Why don't you do the research and provide us some links.

because they are presumably scared rigid by what the observations are indicating .

If you have some evidence supporting that claim, I'm sure you can put it up here.

 

[Crick]

If she has not , I have .

Then put it up here please.

IPCC are a political body full of crooks and charlatans -- also lots of links for that .

The theme of this thread is the claims that NASA and NOAA are falsifying data. The IPCC conducts no science. They never have and never will. It is not the purpose for which they were created.

But DYOFR first .

I have read a great deal on this topic and have presented hundreds of links to articles and peer reviewed studies which support my position since my position is based on the results of those studies. Now its your turn. If you have links indicating NASA and/or NOAA have falsified temperature data, please post them.

 

[22lcidw]

How are they doing that? The IPCC does not control what gets published.

What data have they "fudged"? Did you borrow that from EMH cause you thought it sounded cool?

I'm impressed.

Is it? And it wouldn't be profitable to show they've been running a huge scam that's cost the world billions? Give us a fucking break. They cover the UN and not you because you're an ignorant whack job.

They have a great deal more restrictions than do you or the fossil fuel PR types.

I'd be upset if they didn't.

Who is "the Chick"?

The Constitution gives rights to people and the rules controlling what NASA does and doesn't do are quite strict. For one thing, they are required to absolutely transparent with all their data products.

Something else than the Constitution? Than NASA? WtF are you babbling about?

Are you saying that you think CFD is a "statistical art"?

Do you have a - single - link - to support any of the charges you've just made?

Satellites can be made to produce the affects desired. Watching NASA with what seems the organization is now 60% female Prog or more means nothing.

 

[ReinyDays]

Satellites can be made to produce the affects desired. Watching NASA with what seems the organization is now 60% female Prog or more means nothing.

That's fine if the desire is to match NOAA measurements made from the ground ... NASA is somewhat without a mission, if we're letting commercial enterprise lead our space program ...

There's nothing in space of any value ... nothing we can't just dig deeper here on Earth to find .. or find a substitute ... NASA's days are numbered and she'll fight like a madcat until we put her down ... "climate change" is just the latest lamest excuse to exist ...

 

[Crick]

Satellites can be made to produce the affects desired.

So you're suggesting that data from satellites is falsified. Do you have any evidence?

Watching NASA with what seems the organization is now 60% female Prog or more means nothing.

What are you saying here? You believe NASA is dominated by progressive female employees? Do you have any evidence of that or that any of the employees are falsifying climate data - or any data for that matter?

https://oig.nasa.gov/docs/IG-23-011.pdf

The NASA IG says in this report that in 2021, NASA's workforce was only 35% female with science and technical staff only 25% female. So, that part of your claim is bullshit.

 

[Crick]

I'm going to suggest that this thread has clearly demonstrated that none of you have any evidence that either NASA or NOAA has ever falsified temperature data.

 

[Crick]

Since I posted this, I'd bet I've heard a half dozen claims that NASA and NOAA have been caught falsifying data. In every instance I have asked (nay, demanded) a link or some evidence of this claim. And in every instance, nothing has come forth. How stupid do you have to be to make claims that you KNOW will be challenged and that you KNOW you cannot back up?

 

[jc456]

Since I posted this, I'd bet I've heard a half dozen claims that NASA and NOAA have been caught falsifying data. In every instance I have asked (nay, demanded) a link or some evidence of this claim. And in every instance, nothing has come forth. How stupid do you have to be to make claims that you KNOW will be challenged and that you KNOW you cannot back up?

then why does the charts from Congress show the opposite of what you're promoting as warming by them?

@5:25 mark

 

[elektra]

Several posters in this forum have claimed that NASA and NOAA have no credibility with regards to global temperature having been caught falsifying it. When they have been asked to identify these instances, the only thing that has been presented has been John Bates' (a retired NOAA scientist) criticism of Tom Karl's (another former NOAA scientist) 2015 report on the warming pause. AGW deniers made great hay with Bates' comments, published first in a Judith Curry newsletter and then picked up widely. Bates himself, however, has since made clear that he does not believe Karl has ever tampered with data but rather that for the subject report, he failed to follow a protocol that Bates himself had set up at NOAA's NCEI before releasing the paper.

However, the posters making these claims regarding NASA and NOAA credibility have stated them as established facts. I open this thread to give my opponents on this forum the opportunity to demonstrate the validity of their claims.

Here is an article containing Bates assertion that Karl never tampered with data. Articles claiming otherwise based on Bates' own prior statements are numerous.

https://www.science.org/content/article/how-culture-clash-noaa-led-flap-over-high-profile-warming-pause-study

crick, you are about the biggest idiot here.

What happened in 2015, one person raised concerns of one study, is proof that nothing happened before or the 8 years after.

A 2015 article proves no falsifying or manipulation of any sort by NASA or NOAA

Crick, I can not believe you can be this dumb.

 

[Crick]

then why does the charts from Congress show the opposite of what you're promoting as warming by them?

@5:25 mark

The charts from Congress? I haven't the faintest fuck of an idea what you're babbling about. What happened in 2015? What single person raised concerns about one study (Bates about Karl again?). If the 2015 article is Bates, then by Bates own statement, he is purporting no falsification or manipulation. But, perhaps I'm wrong. Is it NOT Bates you're referring to but you're still too afraid to name? What happened in 2015 twit?

 

[Crick]

Still waiting for someone to tell me why they think NOAA and NASA are falsifying data.