Canada caught red-handed manipulating live weather data and make it warmer

a reply to: Justoneman

yea, the part where all the anomalies trend upward leads me to think it's not an honest mistake, but an orchestrated plan.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Justoneman

yea, the part where all the anomalies trend upward leads me to think it's not an honest mistake, but an orchestrated plan.

These "scientists" go into any experiment, study, or analysis with the intention of finding evidence to support "climate change."

That's not how science is supposed to be done. You may have a hypothesis (climate change) but you're supposed to go into your work with an open mind and go wherever the data takes you.

If you don't, you'll find yourself cherry-picking or manipulating data to fit your conclusion, as these people do. That's not science, that's propaganda.

originally posted by: LogicalGraphitti
Their official name is “Environment and Climate Change Canada”. They have to live up to the name somehow!

"Environmental and Climate data change Canada"

Much better!

a reply to: leongrad

I was reading your quote on Mar 3 2024 data and it appears they adjusted the historical record and claimed it was reached when it didn't.

What a dishonest and fraudulent act.

a reply to: GeorgeVanTassel

I guess that's how they dance at the government.

originally posted by: leongrad
a reply to: GeorgeVanTassel

I guess that's how they dance at the government.

You are probably...right!

a reply to: leongrad

Probably came at the direction of our clown prime minister also.
The guy is desperate to enforce his WEF orders.

Well, THAT premise on how to approach it is right. The part where data says it is wrong is exactly when you change your theory. They are exposed not applying the Scientific Method we all grew up using in the Labs I worked.

originally posted by: YourFaceAgain

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Justoneman

yea, the part where all the anomalies trend upward leads me to think it's not an honest mistake, but an orchestrated plan.

These "scientists" go into any experiment, study, or analysis with the intention of finding evidence to support "climate change."

That's not how science is supposed to be done. You may have a hypothesis (climate change) but you're supposed to go into your work with an open mind and go wherever the data takes you.

If you don't, you'll find yourself cherry-picking or manipulating data to fit your conclusion, as these people do. That's not science, that's propaganda.

originally posted by: Justoneman
These fake scientists are ruining Science for people like me who make a living analyzing data, using the degree I worked to earn. Abusing the trust of the people so bad, they will never trust Academia again as long as they live. Perhaps another reason the elite want us all dead, apparently.

I have seen first hand the shenanigans the government in the UK did with the weather recording stations , They shifted them from areas as they were recording so many cold days and the government had to pay out lots of money to people on benefits as a cold weather payment.

They moved my local one near the airport 7 miles away and claimed a few years ago that the temperature did not go below + 3 c for a fortnight, when in reality it was minus 10 most of that time , And also moved many nearby busy road traffic to push the temperature up .

The same winter it was minus 10 c we had 30 or so Gretas block the high street singing songs about all the evil global warming , and did they get laughed at that day

originally posted by: CosmicFocus
a reply to: leongrad

Has anybody else notice that the TV weather people seem to grind into our brains that every aspect in our weather prospects these days is supported first off with the term "severe?"

I argue that is purposely done to make us fearful of weather features if not more dependent upon the proper authorities for information and, thus, control.

Get your weather news from the radar sources, plural. Learn some of those do the same but it is more data related this way. Some of the weather nerds on Youtube are fun too for sure.

a reply to: rickymouse

That lying about their data business to push a political agenda tends to sneak in when the leadership treats a few of them as if they were actual demigods. They may well be by the true definition, but I am not ever going to be glorifying their lies.

originally posted by: leongrad
a reply to: GeorgeVanTassel

I guess that's how they dance at the government.

Then that very dance is going to be how all anyone will need is just two working brain cells communicating to be able to connect the dots.

Has anyone actually proved that the data was falsified? manually adjusted? or not correct according to data captured?
What I'm thinking is they have a weather station, it measures the temperature, electronically, it pings back a value every minute, say, and that is recorded. it it's higher than the previous highest value that day, then the highest valued changes, the same for lowest. Every hour, on the hour, a value for the temp is recorded for that specific hour.
now here's the thing, it could be 6.1 at 12:00, and it could be 6.1 at 13:00, but if the cloud cover lifter slightly, and the sun came out and warmed the sensor up, then for several minutes between 12 and 13, the temp could have gone up to 7.6, say, and that would be the highest temp recorded, and the clouds come back over, and the temperature drops, and the hourly figures are only as high as 6.1, but the max reached was 7.6 - I don't see why that's not a possible explanation here.

originally posted by: JPRCrastney
Has anyone actually proved that the data was falsified? manually adjusted? or not correct according to data captured?
What I'm thinking is they have a weather station, it measures the temperature, electronically, it pings back a value every minute, say, and that is recorded. it it's higher than the previous highest value that day, then the highest valued changes, the same for lowest. Every hour, on the hour, a value for the temp is recorded for that specific hour.
now here's the thing, it could be 6.1 at 12:00, and it could be 6.1 at 13:00, but if the cloud cover lifter slightly, and the sun came out and warmed the sensor up, then for several minutes between 12 and 13, the temp could have gone up to 7.6, say, and that would be the highest temp recorded, and the clouds come back over, and the temperature drops, and the hourly figures are only as high as 6.1, but the max reached was 7.6 - I don't see why that's not a possible explanation here.

That's a fine theory and a very good one a that.

But it doesn't actually explain the discrepancy.

If your theory is right, then we'd see instances when the Daily Announced Temperature would sometimes be lower than the hourly stream. Because, as you say, maybe sometimes a cloud passes in between hours.

But that's not what the data presents. Starting on March 3, all adjustments are always upwards.

Also, there are "control" events. Prior to March 3, and in some instances after March 3, the daily announced temperature is announced exactly as recorded by the hourly data. The match is exact, no discrepancy. This is despite the fact that on some times the temperature would change rapidly with the hours, and some other times very slowly. In any of those cases, which act as "control events" to show us how data is actually treated in a normal scenario, the hourly data was taken as the refence data and presented as such in the Daily Announcement (hottest hour reported as-is, no adjustments made).

originally posted by: JPRCrastney
Has anyone actually proved that the data was falsified? manually adjusted? or not correct according to data captured?

No, they haven't and they won't - because that isn't what happened.

It's just a bunch of idiots who don't understand what Synops are.

originally posted by: JPRCrastney
Has anyone actually proved that the data was falsified? manually adjusted? or not correct according to data captured?
What I'm thinking is they have a weather station, it measures the temperature, electronically, it pings back a value every minute, say, and that is recorded. it it's higher than the previous highest value that day, then the highest valued changes, the same for lowest. Every hour, on the hour, a value for the temp is recorded for that specific hour.
now here's the thing, it could be 6.1 at 12:00, and it could be 6.1 at 13:00, but if the cloud cover lifter slightly, and the sun came out and warmed the sensor up, then for several minutes between 12 and 13, the temp could have gone up to 7.6, say, and that would be the highest temp recorded, and the clouds come back over, and the temperature drops, and the hourly figures are only as high as 6.1, but the max reached was 7.6 - I don't see why that's not a possible explanation here.

That's exactly the explanation

originally posted by: leongrad
That's a fine theory and a very good one a that.

But it doesn't actually explain the discrepancy.

If your theory is right, then we'd see instances when the Daily Announced Temperature would sometimes be lower than the hourly stream. Because, as you say, maybe sometimes a cloud passes in between hours.

But that's not what the data presents. Starting on March 3, all adjustments are always upwards.

Also, there are "control" events. Prior to March 3, and in some instances after March 3, the daily announced temperature is announced exactly as recorded by the hourly data. The match is exact, no discrepancy. This is despite the fact that on some times the temperature would change rapidly with the hours, and some other times very slowly. In any of those cases, which act as "control events" to show us how data is actually treated in a normal scenario, the hourly data was taken as the refence data and presented as such in the Daily Announcement (hottest hour reported as-is, no adjustments made).

How can a daily maximum temperature be lower than an hourly reported one?

exactly - the lowest figure would be at night, and the temp won't go down between hours because of a cloud blocking the sun, because it's at night! and the lowest figure would be very unlikely to go down, and back up again, within an hour.

a reply to: WaESN

Calling everyone "stupid" on a public thread is interesting.

Your theory is fine but it's incompatible with the day's warming rate. In turn, your theory violates basic physics.

If you truly analyze the data, the day's warming/cooling rates, and if you know a minimum of physics and thermodynamics, then you'll immediately notice that your theory doesn't quite explain the whole thing.

Your theory also doesn't explain why there were no discrepancies between hourly data and daily announcement, prior to March 3, and even in several instances after Mar 3.

a reply to: JPRCrastney

It measures data every hours. Not every minutes.

And it provides that data publicly, making it the reference for scientific research, military, flight, etc.

This service is the official data stream of the Government of Canada.

originally posted by: leongrad
a reply to: WaESN

Calling everyone "stupid" on a public thread is interesting.

Your theory is fine but it's incompatible with the day's warming rate. In turn, your theory violates basic physics.

If you truly analyze the data, the day's warming/cooling rates, and if you know a minimum of physics and thermodynamics, then you'll immediately notice that your theory doesn't quite explain the whole thing.

Your theory also doesn't explain why there were no discrepancies between hourly data and daily announcement, prior to March 3, and even in several instances after Mar 3.

What theory? I was just explaining reality.

Synops send in hourly readings. Sometimes those hourly reading may also be the daily maxima, but often you'd expect the actual daily maxima to be higher because they occur between those hourly readings (likewise with minima).

Is there actual proof that all previous daily maxima matched with an hourly synop? (To be honest, I can't be arsed to go through the data to look - but I am certainly not going to take the word of a group who clearly don't understand synops). If so it simply suggests that maybe the daily maxima was not previously being submitted in any of the synops - so the highest hourly reading was used as an approximation of the daily maxima, by default.

In any case there is absolutely no suggestion whatsoever that anyone is manipulating data. Just that some people don't understand it.