NOAA caught fudging data AGAIN!!!

[skookerasbil]

"What he found was that NOAA’s charts were deeply inaccurate. The 2014 local temperatures had been adjusted upwards by NOAA and the 1943 local temperatures downwards."

"We’re not talking fractions of a degree, here. The adjustments amount to a whopping 3.1 degrees F. This takes us well beyond the regions of error margins or innocent mistakes and deep into the realm of fiction and political propaganda."

Delingpole: NOAA Caught Adjusting Big Freeze out of Existence

 

[skookerasbil]

Science.............fiction...........

 

[MarathonMike]

That is Standard Operating Procedure for Climate 'Science'.
If the data doesn't fit your narrative, fudge it until it does.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

"What he found was that NOAA’s charts were deeply inaccurate. The 2014 local temperatures had been adjusted upwards by NOAA and the 1943 local temperatures downwards."

"We’re not talking fractions of a degree, here. The adjustments amount to a whopping 3.1 degrees F. This takes us well beyond the regions of error margins or innocent mistakes and deep into the realm of fiction and political propaganda."

Delingpole: NOAA Caught Adjusting Big Freeze out of Existence

They should have their credentials yanked. They’re no longer scientists, they are charlatans.

 

[Tijn Von Ingersleben]

They need the money they receive for research funding. They will not receive the money for research UNLESS they play the scripted game.

 

[ScienceRocks]

How could they **** with the data since they're the ones that make it possible in the first place?

They maintain the datase
They Construct the network that makes it possible

That is called calibrating the data idiot/.

The sick reality of conservatives is you simply don't believe in collecting or debating the data at all. you're a bunch of ******* animals.

 

[SSDD]

How could they **** with the data since they're the ones that make it possible in the first place?

They maintain the datase
They Construct the network that makes it possible

That is called calibrating the data idiot/.

The sick reality of conservatives is you simply don't believe in collecting or debating the data at all. you're a bunch of ******* animals.

Really, what rational and scientifically valid reason is there to "adjust" data from 50, 70, or even 100 years ago? How exactly do you think that makes the record more accurate?

And science gets caught falsifying data all the time...even the people who generate the data...your belief that science is some higher calling and immune from corruption is naive in the extreme...

 

[Muhammed]

People who continue to believe the climate alarmists after the climategate emails were published are in denial of reality. Their egos are too fragile to admit that they were duped.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

How could they **** with the data since they're the ones that make it possible in the first place?

They maintain the datase
They Construct the network that makes it possible

That is called calibrating the data idiot/.

The sick reality of conservatives is you simply don't believe in collecting or debating the data at all. you're a bunch of ******* animals.

Actually, where global warming is concerned, it’s the Chicken Little greenie Libs who don’t want to debate the data. They are the ones who falsely declare the science is settled.

 

[IanC]

How could they **** with the data since they're the ones that make it possible in the first place?

They maintain the datase
They Construct the network that makes it possible

That is called calibrating the data idiot/.

The sick reality of conservatives is you simply don't believe in collecting or debating the data at all. you're a bunch of ******* animals.

Who else could be ******* around with the database? Your explanation makes no sense.

There is a new paper out that talks about a 'hole' in the global warming that is happening in the SE of the United States. That area shows cooling rather than warming.

That is in line with Richard Muller stating that one third of all long record US stations showed a cooling trend when he first started to put together his Berkeley BEST dataset.

My question to you, Matthew, is to find even one station in BEST that still shows a cooling trend after homogenization. Just one. That's all I ask.

 

[skookerasbil]

How could they **** with the data since they're the ones that make it possible in the first place?

They maintain the datase
They Construct the network that makes it possible

That is called calibrating the data idiot/.

The sick reality of conservatives is you simply don't believe in collecting or debating the data at all. you're a bunch of ******* animals.

lol........so predictable......when progressives get pwned on the facts, well, we know what comes next.

 

[jillian]

"What he found was that NOAA’s charts were deeply inaccurate. The 2014 local temperatures had been adjusted upwards by NOAA and the 1943 local temperatures downwards."

"We’re not talking fractions of a degree, here. The adjustments amount to a whopping 3.1 degrees F. This takes us well beyond the regions of error margins or innocent mistakes and deep into the realm of fiction and political propaganda."

Delingpole: NOAA Caught Adjusting Big Freeze out of Existence

Breitbart????



this is why you're a know-noting.

 

[skookerasbil]

How could they **** with the data since they're the ones that make it possible in the first place?

They maintain the datase
They Construct the network that makes it possible

That is called calibrating the data idiot/.

The sick reality of conservatives is you simply don't believe in collecting or debating the data at all. you're a bunch of ******* animals.

Who else could be ******* around with the database? Your explanation makes no sense.

There is a new paper out that talks about a 'hole' in the global warming that is happening in the SE of the United States. That area shows cooling rather than warming.

That is in line with Richard Muller stating that one third of all long record US stations showed a cooling trend when he first started to put together his Berkeley BEST dataset.

My question to you, Matthew, is to find even one station in BEST that still shows a cooling trend after homogenization. Just one. That's all I ask.

C'mon now bro........this is how they operate. Like when you have a discussion on race relations, as soon as they start looking stoopid, its, "You're a ******* racist" ( stomping off while walking away )

 

[Old Rocks]

"What he found was that NOAA’s charts were deeply inaccurate. The 2014 local temperatures had been adjusted upwards by NOAA and the 1943 local temperatures downwards."

"We’re not talking fractions of a degree, here. The adjustments amount to a whopping 3.1 degrees F. This takes us well beyond the regions of error margins or innocent mistakes and deep into the realm of fiction and political propaganda."

Delingpole: NOAA Caught Adjusting Big Freeze out of Existence

Briebart?

 

[Old Rocks]

UAH Global Temperature Update for January, 2018: +0.26 deg. C « Roy Spencer, PhD

January was +0.26. That was above almost all the monthly anomalys before 1998, and above over 50% since that time. Add to that the polar vortex affect predicted by the meteorologists since 2012, and you find Delingpole full of shit as usual.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

How could they **** with the data since they're the ones that make it possible in the first place?

They maintain the datase
They Construct the network that makes it possible

That is called calibrating the data idiot/.

The sick reality of conservatives is you simply don't believe in collecting or debating the data at all. you're a bunch of ******* animals.

"How could they **** with the data since they're the ones that make it possible in the first place?"

What a fucken retard!!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

"What he found was that NOAA’s charts were deeply inaccurate. The 2014 local temperatures had been adjusted upwards by NOAA and the 1943 local temperatures downwards."

"We’re not talking fractions of a degree, here. The adjustments amount to a whopping 3.1 degrees F. This takes us well beyond the regions of error margins or innocent mistakes and deep into the realm of fiction and political propaganda."

Delingpole: NOAA Caught Adjusting Big Freeze out of Existence

Briebart?

fake news s0n...............

The article is exceedingly well sourced. C'mon now.........only borderline intelligence folks fall for that shoot the messenger stuff nowadays. How do we know? Election 2016!!

 

[IanC]

"What he found was that NOAA’s charts were deeply inaccurate. The 2014 local temperatures had been adjusted upwards by NOAA and the 1943 local temperatures downwards."

"We’re not talking fractions of a degree, here. The adjustments amount to a whopping 3.1 degrees F. This takes us well beyond the regions of error margins or innocent mistakes and deep into the realm of fiction and political propaganda."

Delingpole: NOAA Caught Adjusting Big Freeze out of Existence

Briebart?

Here we go again. You dismiss the story because it was publicized by Breitbart.

Was it written and sourced from Breitbart? No.

The original story came from Paul Homewood's blog.

Where did the information come from? NOAA.

If you dislike his article and the obvious conclusions in it, then explain away the sourced data that it was compiled from.

The best solution to this story would be a full explanation from NOAA. I won't be holding my breath in anticipation.

These wholesale changes cannot be explained away changes to individual stations. It may be that homogenisation procedures, infilling of missing data and urban heat islands have contributed.

Under the new nClimDiv system, introduced in 2014, NOAA’s methodology is extremely opaque. They don’t, to the best of my knowledge, publish the data and adjustments used.

In essence, we are asked to accept NOAA’s version without being able to check or verify it.

Whatever the reason for the adjustments, the climate record for New York State has been changed out of all recognition, and bears no resemblance to the actual official data.

notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2018/01/25/new-yorks-temperature-record-massively-altered-by-noaa

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"What he found was that NOAA’s charts were deeply inaccurate. The 2014 local temperatures had been adjusted upwards by NOAA and the 1943 local temperatures downwards."

"We’re not talking fractions of a degree, here. The adjustments amount to a whopping 3.1 degrees F. This takes us well beyond the regions of error margins or innocent mistakes and deep into the realm of fiction and political propaganda."

Delingpole: NOAA Caught Adjusting Big Freeze out of Existence

haha... idiot deniers on parade.

Here's the only real source of this bullshit: New York’s Temperature Record Massively Altered By NOAA


The author, Paul Homewood, is a retired accountant without a whit of education or experience in any of these fields. He is a fringe denier with zero credibility in any scientific society. He, as with all denier frauds, has an open invitation to publish his contrarian work... if he would actually attempt any scientific work. He has made exactly no attempts to publish any scientific paper, ever.

And there you have it... the entire basis for yet another idiotic denier thread...

 

[Old Rocks]

"What he found was that NOAA’s charts were deeply inaccurate. The 2014 local temperatures had been adjusted upwards by NOAA and the 1943 local temperatures downwards."

"We’re not talking fractions of a degree, here. The adjustments amount to a whopping 3.1 degrees F. This takes us well beyond the regions of error margins or innocent mistakes and deep into the realm of fiction and political propaganda."

Delingpole: NOAA Caught Adjusting Big Freeze out of Existence

Briebart?

Here we go again. You dismiss the story because it was publicized by Breitbart.

Was it written and sourced from Breitbart? No.

The original story came from Paul Homewood's blog.

Where did the information come from? NOAA.

If you dislike his article and the obvious conclusions in it, then explain away the sourced data that it was compiled from.

The best solution to this story would be a full explanation from NOAA. I won't be holding my breath in anticipation.

These wholesale changes cannot be explained away changes to individual stations. It may be that homogenisation procedures, infilling of missing data and urban heat islands have contributed.

Under the new nClimDiv system, introduced in 2014, NOAA’s methodology is extremely opaque. They don’t, to the best of my knowledge, publish the data and adjustments used.

In essence, we are asked to accept NOAA’s version without being able to check or verify it.

Whatever the reason for the adjustments, the climate record for New York State has been changed out of all recognition, and bears no resemblance to the actual official data.

notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2018/01/25/new-yorks-temperature-record-massively-altered-by-noaa

Went to that site, only saw that they disagree with NOAA's figures, not that NOAA was contradictiing it's own data. And like most sites like that, just bullshit.