NOAA and NASA have never falsified data

[jc456]

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?

they were output from NOAA and czar grifter didn't say they were wrong. Therefore, the graphs of cooling are what was shown, not heating. hmmmmmmmmmmm your logic buffer failed again.

 

[Crick]

they were output from NOAA and czar grifter didn't say they were wrong. Therefore, the graphs of cooling are what was shown, not heating. hmmmmmmmmmmm your logic buffer failed again.

You and the Congressman are both complete fucking idiots.

 

[jc456]

You and the Congressman are both complete fucking idiots.

Fine, tell him,the grifter didn’t. The silence of grifty says otherwise

 

[elektra]

they were output from NOAA and czar grifter didn't say they were wrong. Therefore, the graphs of cooling are what was shown, not heating. hmmmmmmmmmmm your logic buffer failed again.

long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible

crick presents a false premise. That one must be able to link using the liberal search engines to prove right or wrong, and at that crick presents the false premise within narrow parameters, that we must prove NASA and NOAA falsified data.

NASA and NOAA admit to adjusting data, that is a fact. Adjusting data, no different than falsifying. Adjusting data is no different than manipulating or could be called falsifying.

NASA and NOAA have admitted to falsifying the date, it is called adjusting

 

[jc456]

long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible

crick presents a false premise. That one must be able to link using the liberal search engines to prove right or wrong, and at that crick presents the false premise within narrow parameters, that we must prove NASA and NOAA falsified data.

NASA and NOAA admit to adjusting data, that is a fact. Adjusting data, no different than falsifying. Adjusting data is no different than manipulating or could be called falsifying.

NASA and NOAA have admitted to falsifying the date, it is called adjusting

NOAA Scientists Falsify Data to Dupe World Leaders on Climate Change

Scientific sleight-of-hand pushed economy-hobbling Paris Agreement.

observer.com

 

[Crick]

long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible

crick presents a false premise. That one must be able to link using the liberal search engines to prove right or wrong, and at that crick presents the false premise within narrow parameters, that we must prove NASA and NOAA falsified data.

NASA and NOAA admit to adjusting data, that is a fact. Adjusting data, no different than falsifying. Adjusting data is no different than manipulating or could be called falsifying.

NASA and NOAA have admitted to falsifying the date, it is called adjusting

Now you're just lying. Adjusting the data is not falsifying the data. Do you have any idea how bleeding desperate you and jc look?

 

[jc456]

Now you're just lying. Adjusting the data is not falsifying the data.

Can’t make it up

 

[Crick]

Can’t make it up

You can. They didn't.

 

[elektra]

Now you're just lying. Adjusting the data is not falsifying the data. Do you have any idea how bleeding desperate you and jc look?

Desperate? It is a fact the data is adjusted. That is falsified. If it is not the data recorded, if the data is changed, that is falsification. Except, we will call it adjusted.

Where is the lie? Does NOAA and NASA adjust the data, or not?

long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible

 

[Concerned American]

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.

It's irrelevant and too small of a sample. Evidence suggests that the earth has experienced many heating and cooling cycles in the past--before your chicken little records of 140 years. Keep clutching them pearls.

 

[Crick]

Desperate? It is a fact the data is adjusted. That is falsified. If it is not the data recorded, if the data is changed, that is falsification. Except, we will call it adjusted.

Where is the lie? Does NOAA and NASA adjust the data, or not?

You never expect to run into people as ignorant as this and then you visit the internet.

 

[jc456]

You can. They didn't.

Falsified. When one adjusts data to scare the public it’s manipulating

 

[elektra]

You never expect to run into people as ignorant as this and then you visit the internet.

all I hear, crickets

address the comment

 

[elektra]

It's irrelevant and too small of a sample. Evidence suggests that the earth has experienced many heating and cooling cycles in the past--before your chicken little records of 140 years. Keep clutching them pearls.

It is not 140 years of records, only a few records go back that far.

 

[Flash]

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

Liar!!!!!!!

 

[Flash]

Former NOAA Scientist Confirms Colleagues Manipulated Climate Records

science.house.gov

Former NOAA Scientist Confirms Colleagues Manipulated Climate Records​

 

[Flash]

Missy Crick continues to be in denial about this silly ass AGW scam.

Typical idiot Moon Bat that ignores the facts.

Like I mentioned the other day, she needs to get her husband to invent a faster than light spaceship so she can get away from earth before she burns up due to me driving my Tundra down to Lowes.

 

[Crick]

Former NOAA Scientist Confirms Colleagues Manipulated Climate Records

science.house.gov

Former NOAA Scientist Confirms Colleagues Manipulated Climate Records​

For fuck's sake, John Bates AGAIN? Have you got memory issues? Bates himself stated that Karl did not falsify or manipulate data.

Tuesday, in an interview with E&E News, Bates himself downplayed any suggestion of misconduct. "The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data, but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was," he told reporter Scott Waldman. And Bates told ScienceInsider that he is wary of his critique becoming a talking point for those skeptical of human-caused climate change. But it was important for this conversation about data integrity to happen, he says. "That's where I came down after a lot of soul searching. I knew people would misuse this. But you can't control other people," he says.​

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

You fucking idiot. We went through this exact issue less than a week ago.

 

[Concerned American]

It is not 140 years of records, only a few records go back that far.

That is as far as ANY records go back and the sample is minuscule. The more precise records of ocean temps and so forth are more recent. I am giving him the benefit of the doubt when I say 140 years. The argument for AGW is asinine.

 

[luiza]

Liar!!!!!!!

Crock reminds me of Flat Earthers . They are so much trouble that it not worth the time and effort spending time with them . Odds are that they also believe Covid was a natural virus , the Killer Shots are vaccines and Ukraine is winning . Our favourite mutants -- the Gullibles.