NOAA and NASA have never falsified data

[Flash]

NOAA and NASA are like all filthy ass government agencies. They will lie if their political bosses tell them to do it.

The Obama and Potatohead administrations were full of Environmental Wacko liars and NOAA and NASA accommodated them and were caught doing it. That is why they have no credibility when it comes to climate change science.

 

[Crick]

NOAA and NASA are like all filthy ass government agencies. They will lie if their political bosses tell them to do it.

The Obama and Potatohead administrations were full of Environmental Wacko liars and NOAA and NASA accommodated them and were caught doing it. That is why they have no credibility when it comes to climate change science.

They were not caught doing any such thing and have more credibility than any other source on the planet. The only administration that attempted to control their science output was Trump's. If you disagree, let's see the reports of them being caught.

 

[jc456]

They were not caught doing any such thing and have more credibility than any other source on the planet. The only administration that attempted to control their science output was Trump's. If you disagree, let's see the reports of them being caught.

They manipulated data, you even admitted it! Didn’t you use the word adjust?

 

[Crick]

They manipulated data, you even admitted it! Didn’t you use the word adjust?

The title of this thread uses the word "Falsified". That's your target. If you can't hit it, don't feel bad. Sometimes, for some folks, reality sucks.

 

[Shelby86]

I believe he may well have had reason to be concerned about the timing of the release of the Karl report. But that seems to me an internal political issue. The topic of this thread is the falsification of data. The timing of the report does not constitute the falsification of data.

You certainly haven't demonstrated that belief, quite the opposite. You're very focused on one part of what Bates has said, but very dismissive of his actual concern. The fact that you have "complete faith" in the report is quite indicative of that. You keep harping on that it wasn’t falsified. Just because something isn't falsified doesn't mean Bates's concerns are trivial or invalid. But as long as the report's conclusion aligns with your own personal beliefs, you seem perfectly willing to dismiss or simply ignore any concerns Bates may have.

 

[jc456]

The title of this thread uses the word "Falsified". That's your target. If you can't hit it, don't feel bad. Sometimes, for some folks, reality sucks.

Exactly, adjusting data for no reason is falsifying

 

[Crick]

Exactly, adjusting data for no reason is falsifying

And what evidence do you have that it was unneeded? You missed that point. Everyone that has posted in this thread seems to think that their word is evidence. Sorry, but it is not.

 

[Crick]

You certainly haven't demonstrated that belief, quite the opposite. You're very focused on one part of what Bates has said, but very dismissive of his actual concern. The fact that you have "complete faith" in the report is quite indicative of that. You keep harping on that it wasn’t falsified. Just because something isn't falsified doesn't mean Bates's concerns are trivial or invalid. But as long as the report's conclusion aligns with your own personal beliefs, you seem perfectly willing to dismiss or simply ignore any concerns Bates may have.

I suggest you check the topic of this thread.

 

[Shelby86]

I suggest you check the topic of this thread.

What I've posted is directly about the subject. If you can't handle something that goes outside of the very narrow scope that you set, then don't start the thread.

 

[ActionJackson]

NOAA and NASA have never falsified data​

How on earth would you know that? “Never” is a strong word. I've been to the NOAA facility in Boulder, CO, and it covers a lot of ground with multiple buildings. How in God's name were you able to monitor all of their reports and inputs all by yourself?

 

[jc456]

And what evidence do you have that it was unneeded? You missed that point. Everyone that has posted in this thread seems to think that their word is evidence. Sorry, but it is not.

Why don’t you tell us why it’s needed

 

[Crick]

What I've posted is directly about the subject. If you can't handle something that goes outside of the very narrow scope that you set, then don't start the thread.

If you want to talk about something else, start your own thread. But if you'd like to talk about this, what significance do you think the timing of the Karl report has with regard to the credibility of NOAA's and NASA's climate data?

 

[Crick]

NOAA and NASA have never falsified data​

How on earth would you know that? “Never” is a strong word. I've been to the NOAA facility in Boulder, CO, and it covers a lot of ground with multiple buildings. How in God's name were you able to monitor all of their reports and inputs all by yourself?

It's simply a challenge to the number of people here who have repeatedly claimed that NOAA and NASA have either been caught or have admitted to falsifying data. I keep asking for the evidence, some links, some particulars but so far: zip, zilch, nada.

 

[Shelby86]

If you want to talk about something else, start your own thread.

There's no need for me to start another thread. What I've posted is far from irrelevant, regardless of your attempt to make it appear as such.

But if you'd like to talk about this, what significance do you think the timing of the Karl report has with regard to the credibility of NOAA's and NASA's climate data?

The timing issue is relevant and important because it ends up needlessly generating suspicion and a lack of trust among the public. The misuse of Bate's statements could have all been avoided, had various people involved not handled this the way they did. If you're truly so concerned about this, then you should be more focused on the bigger picture, rather than how you're approaching it here.

 

[jc456]

It's simply a challenge to the number of people here who have repeatedly claimed that NOAA and NASA have either been caught or have admitted to falsifying data. I keep asking for the evidence, some links, some particulars but so far: zip, zilch, nada.

Again fool, you admitted they adjust temperatures

 

[Crick]

Again fool, you admitted they adjust temperatures

Evidence, links, particulars showing that those adjustments weren't required and/or that they were done solely to show increased warming - which would be a falsification of the data.

 

[jc456]

Evidence, links, particulars showing that those adjustments weren't required and/or that they were done solely to show increased warming - which would be a falsification of the data.

No, you show why they’re neededo. Again it’s evidence of falsifying if you can’t

 

[ActionJackson]

It's simply a challenge to the number of people here who have repeatedly claimed that NOAA and NASA have either been caught or have admitted to falsifying data. I keep asking for the evidence, some links, some particulars but so far: zip, zilch, nada.

As long as you agree that “never” is a pretty broad term to use. You may sound more credible to say that “I doubt that NOAA would falsify information, but anything is possible.”

 

[Crick]

As long as you agree that “never” is a pretty broad term to use. You may sound more credible to say that “I doubt that NOAA would falsify information, but anything is possible.”

As I explained earlier to day, the thread title is a challenge to the many posters here who have claimed that NOAA and NASA have either been caught or admitted falsifying data and have no credibility. These statement are made with complete certainty as if it were a universally accepted truth. I simply want to see the evidence supporting that certainty. So far, no one has been able to provide it.

 

[Shelby86]

It's simply a challenge to the number of people here who have repeatedly claimed that NOAA and NASA have either been caught or have admitted to falsifying data. I keep asking for the evidence, some links, some particulars but so far: zip, zilch, nada.

Stop pretending you're open to such evidence, you're not. You've already stated that you have "complete faith" in the report. So even if someone is able to provide what you ask here, there's no way you're going to seriously consider it. You would likely just attack the source and dismiss it, then restate your challenge to provide evidence.