re: NOAA Whistleblower: How world leaders were duped over manipulated AGW data

On a side note, while I was sitting in a treestand with my son Saturday morning, he said "dad, I am cold"... I told him "don't worry, once the sun comes up the temperature will rise"... Never knew I was a "climatologist", where the frick do I sign up for my gubment check?

quote:

---

You're avoiding this really hard.

---

You're projecting again.

Was the whistle blower at NOAA a scientist?

quote:

---

Looks like the rate of temperature increase is still the same from the graph. Its just notched down a bit across the board

---

So?

quote:

---

I only had to see Al Gore involved to know it was made up bullshite.

---

But he's super, SUPER cereal!!

The graph uses two different data sets with two different baselines.

One (NOAA) uses a full century baseline of 1901-2000, the other (Hadley) uses a 30-year baseline of 1960-1999.

Obviously, the one that includes the early 20th century is gonna have a lower baseline because it was colder, so therefore the anomalies (difference from baseline as 0) will look higher

Thanks!

quote:

---

Its all made up data sets. Almost every bit of it

---

It's worse than that - they substitute models for data. And when the actual, reliable data disproves the model - real scientists would either throw out or at least modify the model to make it better. AGW true believers massage the data to make it fit - confirmation bias of the highest degree.

So, as many of us have said, it stopped being science (if it ever was) and became a religion a long time ago - a denomination of the larger Earth worship religion of the green left.

This is not surprising. Similar manipulations of the historical land based measurements made a small splash a few years ago, will see if I can find an article. Essentially the NOAA released a revised data set that showed much more warming than the last revised data set they had released. The explanation was normalization of the historical data, which is them going in manually changing the values to account for things like changes in equipment at weather stations. This is fine and valid, but it's supposed to be done if there is a clear reason to change the data, like a clear jump or drop in the readings at the point of the equipment change, or notes from the weather observatory that the readings were off due to poor placement of the sensors, etc.. But analysis of the changes to the record showed that nearly all the adjustments to the temperature readings in the early century were revised down, and nearly all the recent adjustments were up. Which took a graph of the raw data from nearly a flat line to a steep rise. There was no rigorous process for making the adjustments, apparently it was done on the whim of whoever was working that day

quote:

---

climate scientist at a museum.

---

Clearly to have such an esteemed position means this guy must know more than anyone about The Science.

quote:

---

the climate scientist

---

the ones who are monetarily incentivized to confirm AGW? The ones who falsify data as shown in the OP?

Those climate "scientists"?