| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Apparently NOAA has been data tampering; It's getting harder for he scam to gain traction | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Dec 29 2016, 01:48 AM (193 Views) | |
| Pat | Dec 29 2016, 01:48 AM Post #1 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
http://realclimatescience.com/2016/12/100-of-us-warming-is-due-to-noaa-data-tampering/ As more stories like this come out, the government's credibility is now seriously in question as far as the warming question is concerned. Sad. |
![]() |
|
| Brewster | Dec 29 2016, 02:05 AM Post #2 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
A flat lie from a Denier site, with absolutely no facts to back it up... Yes, there were adjustments, some of them because science has advanced. You'd prefer they kept using the old, erroneous data? But most of it's done by your lying site, which made up its own stuff. The biggest lie is that somehow US Data can be used to disprove Global data. And the very first chart is the biggest lie of all - the claim Climate Central makes is that the average temp for 2016 is overwhelmingly hot. How did the site prove it wrong? By comparing climate average, day and night, with peak heat on individual days! In other words, weather trumps climate. Ahh, but a nice lie is so much more comfortable than the truth. |
![]() |
|
| Pat | Dec 29 2016, 02:34 AM Post #3 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Flat Lie? How so? The first problem with their analysis is that the US had very little hot weather in 2016. The percentage of hot days was below average, and ranked 80th since 1895. Only 4.4% of days were over 95°F, compared with the long term average of 4.9%. Climate Central is conflating mild temperatures with hot ones. I don't see any evidence that disputes this claim. The NOAA raw data shows no warming over the past century The adjustments being made are almost exactly 1.5°F, which is the claimed warming in the article. Does the raw data or does it not show no warming over the past century? The adjustments being correlate almost perfectly with atmospheric CO2. NOAA is adjusting the data to match global warming theory. This is known as PBEM (Policy BasedThe hockey stick of adjustments since 1970 is due almost entirely to NOAA fabricating missing station data. In 2016, more than 42% of their monthly station data was missing, so they simply made it up. This is easy to identify because they mark fabricated temperatures with an “E” in their database. Evidence Making.) This seems rather serious, 42% of data missing so they made it up . When presented with my claims of fraud, NOAA typically tries to arm wave it away with these two complaints. They use gridded data and I am using un-gridded data. They “have to” adjust the data because of Time Of Observation Bias and station moves. Both claims are easily debunked. The only effect that gridding has is to lower temperatures slightly. The trend of gridded data is almost identical to the trend of un-gridded data. How is this not debunked? |
![]() |
|
| Berton | Dec 29 2016, 03:45 AM Post #4 |
![]()
Thunder Fan
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I have been pointing it out for about two years now Pat. Then the question is why? The answer of course is money. |
![]() |
|
| Pat | Dec 29 2016, 04:25 AM Post #5 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Yes, money is involved lots of it in the form of research grants. And there is a very potent constituency of environmentalists who want to end the use of fossil fuels. This group has had a strangle hold on the Obama administration and other western governments. Apparently, over breeding by irresponsible segments of the Earth's peoples is not considered to be much of an issue yet the population growth will be the cause of the downfall of our species long before climate will. |
![]() |
|
| Jim Miller | Dec 29 2016, 04:30 AM Post #6 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Why even respond from the buffoon from the north? |
![]() |
|
| Neutral | Dec 29 2016, 05:06 AM Post #7 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Yes, we've known the data is a fraud for a long time. Garbage in, garbage out. |
![]() |
|
| Brewster | Dec 29 2016, 07:31 AM Post #8 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
NOAA's "Tampering" - They must be the only "cheaters" in the whole world who make a point of explaining exactly what they do, and why... Monitoring Global and U.S. Temperatures at NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information |
![]() |
|
| Jim Miller | Dec 29 2016, 08:03 AM Post #9 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Brewster just added more garbage in.
|
![]() |
|
| Berton | Dec 29 2016, 08:17 AM Post #10 |
![]()
Thunder Fan
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Well we all know, or should know, that the data has been manipulated by governments all over the world. Follow the money. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Fire And Ice General Discussion · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2





![]](http://z3.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)





4:38 PM Jul 11
