NOAA/NCDC Commit Scienctic Fraud... Through Data Manipulation..

[Billy_Bob]

And not one single post is for the paper while they ask very pointed questions about the fraud...

Flame CCT
I'm curious how the editor allowed such a paper to be published. It is easy to see how the only change made was manipulation to the data, downward for the previous years and upward for the more recent years. Makes one wonder what else has NOAA manipulated.

Submitted on Fri, 06/05/2015 - 19:04

• reply

Richard Fletcher
Wouldn't you know it, through enough money at the problem, and it will take care of itself. What hiatus?

Submitted on Fri, 06/05/2015 - 17:02

• reply

Rupert Patton
I too am skeptical of the "new" way of calculating that just happens to better support the presupposition of 20 years ago, but... Even with their "new" data calculations there are two GLARING questions that they WILL NOT address. In their graph that shows the "new" 50 year rolling average which now shows a continued linear increase over the last 50 years and which the authors say does away with the hiatus, they don't bother including a similar line from 1900-1950. If they did you would see a very similar slope and a very similar rise in global temperatures. If anthropomorphic carbon are to blame for the increase of the last 50 years what is their explanation of the cause of the identical rise in the first half of the 20th century? And even with the "new" data calculations they report a 0.116 degree Celsius/ decade rise over the last 50 years. But the 1992 IPCC First Report predicted 0.3 degree Celsius/ decade (range 0.2-0.5) rise in global temps. So even with the "new" data that's only 1/3 of predicted and 1/2 of even the low end prediction. And they had to manipulate, er, excuse me... They had to correct the data just to get that close to their prediction. But don't worry, trust their conclusions and predictions... They're scientists. And tell those evil mad scientists John Christy and Roy Spenser to quit questioning their methods, motives or conclusions.

Submitted on Fri, 06/05/2015 - 16:41

• reply

OMG... the reactions and comments at Science Magazine are brutal...

Source

 

[Billy_Bob]

Thermal fluid dynamics? Someone put epson salt in your oatmeal? Really, Billy Boob, just throwing out terms without the slightest idea of what they mean makes you look the fool.

You really are a fool.. The Laws of Thermal Dynamics apply to fluids of which all matter is to some degree.. Nit picking terms is so childish of you.. But its all you got....

 

[Old Rocks]

Thermal fluid dynamics? Someone put epson salt in your oatmeal? Really, Billy Boob, just throwing out terms without the slightest idea of what they mean makes you look the fool.

You really are a fool.. The Laws of Thermal Dynamics apply to fluids of which all matter is to some degree.. Nit picking terms is so childish of you.. But its all you got....

No, Billy ol' Boob, what I have is a big heavy text book, Fundementals of Physics, Halliday and Resnick, 10th edition, Jearl Walker. So, what do you have?

 

[Old Rocks]

Well yes, the Denier Brigade is in full bay. A bunch of dumb hounds sicced by the energy corporations. But too little too late. The renewables are pushing out the fossil fuels on the basis of cost, and not a minute too soon.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Well yes, the Denier Brigade is in full bay. A bunch of dumb hounds sicced by the energy corporations. But too little too late. The renewables are pushing out the fossil fuels on the basis of cost, and not a minute too soon.

What a fool you are..

Commonsense and verifiable science is what I have.. all you have is the lies and deceit your masters tell you to spew... And you do it willingly and ignorantly..

 

[Crick]

You have presented virtually NO verifiable science and in the process have shown yourself a veritable vacuum wrt commonsense. Old Rocks has nigh on 15,000 peer reviewed papers that support or assume AGW and a huge majority consensus among their authors. You haven't got diddly squat.

 

[Billy_Bob]

You have presented virtually NO verifiable science and in the process have shown yourself a veritable vacuum wrt commonsense. Old Rocks has nigh on 15,000 peer reviewed papers that support or assume AGW and a huge majority consensus among their authors. You haven't got diddly squat.

What a bunch of alarmist drivel horse shit.. Crick couldn't be honest bout anything if he tired. A lying piece of crap is all you are.. Because the source doesn't agree with your made up fantasy modeled world you dismiss the sources.. What a disingenuous moron.

Your not interested in science unless its political made up crap..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Dr. Carl Mears has published this graphing of the RSS data set showing NO STATISTICAL WARMING from its inception in 1979...

OPP's This is inconvenient for the Karl Et Al paper now isn't it.. Showing the severity of the alarmsit model failures is just a plus..

ETA: Mears is a senior research VP for RSS.. He is an Alarmist... And yet here we are...
Carl Mears Remote Sensing Systems

 

[Billy_Bob]

Too Funny, I used their own alarmist shill to disprove their meme and no one wants to deal with it... It also shows how the data manipulations of infilling in the arctic regions is affecting the global mean, artificially raising the temps to show warming where none is present.

I love getting a two for one shot at these AGW alarmist shills using their own data and personnel to make my point..

 

[CrusaderFrank]

IPCC has zero credibility

 

[jc456]

Thermal fluid dynamics? Someone put epson salt in your oatmeal? Really, Billy Boob, just throwing out terms without the slightest idea of what they mean makes you look the fool.

You really are a fool.. The Laws of Thermal Dynamics apply to fluids of which all matter is to some degree.. Nit picking terms is so childish of you.. But its all you got....

No, Billy ol' Boob, what I have is a big heavy text book, Fundementals of Physics, Halliday and Resnick, 10th edition, Jearl Walker. So, what do you have?

Maybe you should read it!

 

[jc456]

Well yes, the Denier Brigade is in full bay. A bunch of dumb hounds sicced by the energy corporations. But too little too late. The renewables are pushing out the fossil fuels on the basis of cost, and not a minute too soon.

Prove that sir!

 

[jc456]

You have presented virtually NO verifiable science and in the process have shown yourself a veritable vacuum wrt commonsense. Old Rocks has nigh on 15,000 peer reviewed papers that support or assume AGW and a huge majority consensus among their authors. You haven't got diddly squat.

Dude, you just never stop with your stupid. Big word in your post, assume! But at least you're funny

 

[eagle1462010]

Thermal fluid dynamics? Someone put epson salt in your oatmeal? Really, Billy Boob, just throwing out terms without the slightest idea of what they mean makes you look the fool.

 

[eagle1462010]

 

[eagle1462010]

old rocks is offline.............bummer.............

Have to wait..........................to see if he knows what to do with the picture....................He should......................

We take it to Millwrights to check something..............

 

[Billy_Bob]

Ross Mckitrick just posted a review "first look" about this paper. He makes some major points and very politely rips it to shreds.

For instance, the paper states that the buoy data is much more reliable than all ship borne data. Yet they adjust the reliable data up to match the unreliable data.

HE shows that the error bars of the data set is + or - 0.17 deg C yet they make an upward 0.12 deg C adjustment. The adjustment is meaningless unless you extrapolate it out 100 years where it creates a warming bias of +1.217 deg C.

Conclusion

Are the new K15 adjustments correct? Obviously it is not for me to say – this is something that needs to be debated by specialists in the field. But I make the following observations:

· All the underlying data (NMAT, ship, buoy, etc) have inherent problems and many teams have struggled with how to work with them over the years

· The HadNMAT2 data are sparse and incomplete. K15 take the position that forcing the ship data to line up with this dataset makes them more reliable. This is not a position other teams have adopted, including the group that developed the HadNMAT2 data itself.

· It is very odd that a cooling adjustment to SST records in 1998-2000 should have such a big effect on the global trend, namely wiping out a hiatus that is seen in so many other data sets, especially since other teams have not found reason to make such an adjustment.

· The outlier results in the K15 data might mean everyone else is missing something, or it might simply mean that the new K15 adjustments are invalid.

It will be interesting to watch the specialists in the field sort this question out in the coming months.

Ross was much gentler than I would have been and he left out his personal thoughts presenting only the facts from a statistical point of view. But just that alone shows the fraud these people are perpetuating.

Source

The fact that it is being represented as an outlier and unreliable is hilarious..

 

[Billy_Bob]

I guess the word 'POSSIBLE' in the paper title will give them an out when it is retracted.. The Obama administrative mantra is "If You aint Lying, You aint Trying"

 

[Crick]

I guess the word 'POSSIBLE' in the paper title will give them an out when it is retracted.. The Obama administrative mantra is "If You aint Lying, You aint Trying"

You claim to be working on a PhD but have THAT poor a grasp on the basics of science? Makes it very hard to believe your claims, Billy Boy.

 

[mamooth]

Ross Mckitrick just posted a review "first look" about this paper. He makes some major points and very politely rips it to shreds.

And this link points out just how dumb McKitrick's claims were, with special emphasis on how McKitrick doesn't understand statistics.

The Michigan Secular Student Alliance A First Look at Ross McKitrick s A First Look

Poor Billy. He literally has nothing except a few cult frauds on his side. Everyone outside of his cult is simply ignoring them. The mainstream media won't mention deniers any more, except to laugh at them. Even FOX considers deniers to be poison, that's how far their fortunes have fallen.