100 Percent Of US Warming Is Due To NOAA Data Tampering

a reply to: Reverbs

Yeah, about the only thing I trust at this point is the damn outrageous heating bill I get each winter after nearly freezing my ass off. I can depend on THAT bill every time. It's a love-hate relationship.

But I can offer this input: you guys know I study earthquakes. The USGS itself admits that even with today's vast networks of seismometers all around the planet, that an estimated 1.3 million earthquakes of less than magnitude 3 are missed every year due to lack of instrumentation to capture them all. (Or it's some huge number like that.) It's a damn big planet. You see where I am going with this? How can anyone possibly have enough instrumentation to capture the weather all over the globe, in each little tiny spot- so that they can spew forth a number that is even accurate? I contend that really, they can't. It's just estimates.

Estimates with agendas.

a reply to: TrueAmerican

Nothing that new really, but it's a good thing that it's being brought under the attention of people again.

The controversial/AGW NASA scientist James Hansen and others wrote an article in 1999 in which they address the lack of warming in the US compared to the world in the 20th century. This is what they state:

How can the absence of clear climate change in the United States be reconciled with continued reports of record global temperature? Part of the "answer" is that U.S. climate has been following a different course than global climate, at least so far. Figure 1 compares the temperature history in the U.S. and the world for the past 120 years. The U.S. has warmed during the past century, but the warming hardly exceeds year-to-year variability. Indeed, in the U.S. the warmest decade was the 1930s and the warmest year was 1934. Global temperature, in contrast, had passed 1930s values by 1980 and the world has warmed at a remarkable rate over the last 25 years.

This is what the US temperature graph looked like in 1999.



Now compare these records with the graph that came out in 2016. The temperature record in the US during the 30s has clearly been downgraded since the first graph.



Now take a look at EPA's US heat wave index, which still clearly shows the heat wave that the US encountered in the 30s.



Hmmz... at the very least this must be raising some eyebrows, no?

Dont forget about "HIDE THE DECLINE":

a reply to: TrueAmerican

I call this a load-O-crap. This is just one bloggers opinion and its very obvious that he cycles through whatever data he can to find discrepancies to use to push his agenda.

And he's been doing a long time!

And it gets him lots of clicks.

So, again, Drudge is spreading fake news!

Every one knows AGW is settled science, there's nothing to argue about, the numbers speak for themselves, even if the numbers are sometimes jerry rigged to produce a desired result! It doesn't mean all the data is bad. If you don't believe it, ask some Marshall Islanders who are having to move to the US because their Islands are disappearing beneath the rising seas!

When you deny AGW, you're simply supporting the industrialists who could care less about anything except their obscene profits!

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Was that leaked during Climategate 1, 2 or 3?

Yup, don't get me started on that one..!

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: TrueAmerican

I call this a load-O-crap. This is just one bloggers opinion and its very obvious that he cycles through whatever data he can to find discrepancies to use to push his agenda.

And he's been doing a long time!

And it gets him lots of clicks.

*Sigh*... instead of actually trying to debunk the data/information presented here, all you do is criticize the source? Very weak.

So, again, Drudge is spreading fake news!

And that conclusion is based on what? On nothing, it's just your (lazy) assumption.

Every one knows AGW is settled science, there's nothing to argue about, the numbers speak for themselves, even if the numbers are sometimes jerry rigged to produce a desired result! It doesn't mean all the data is bad. If you don't believe it, ask some Marshall Islanders who are having to move to the US because their Islands are disappearing beneath the rising seas!

Really? That would make me the first one that falls out of that category. And I think with me, many others here.

When you deny AGW, you're simply supporting the industrialists who could care less about anything except their obscene profits!

Very ignorant statement. If you really did some research yourself, you would know that MANY industrialists, yes including big oil and co, have a deep vested interest in the "science" of AGW, and the global agenda that's being pushed upon the un/misinformed public.

a reply to: TrueAmerican

Yeah, this data manipulation has been known for quite some time. Couple it with (IMO) intentional poor placement of ground-temp monitoring (in hot, urban areas in many cases) and you get obvious asininity when it comes to the AGW/global-warming crowd.

It's obviously manipulated intentionally--that much those of us who are not ideologically invested in this issue should agree with--but the issue at hand is the end game of the "why," and that cannot really be agreed upon, other than to say that it's probably tyrannical in nature and meant to induce fear and facilitate another part of life that a central government can control.

Oh, but you know, being skeptical about the data makes me a "denier" and an ignorant human being that hates science.

So be it.

a reply to: snchrnct

If you're the go to guy on that then it should be quite obvious to you!

The problem here is that many skeptics don't produce peer reviewed papers.

www.skepticalscience.com...

Now this could be because of the ridicule they get or that they are just giving opinions.

Vs say in the journal nature.

www.nature.com...

In any case the fact is the population is growing and anyone who isn't concerned protecting habitat is just ignorant. Not that that means carbon is the problem. Human consumption of resources and habitat infringement are.

A couple volcanoes alone could put pressure on the food production. There should be a goal to protect the spaces left in the wilderness and to limit needless artifacts.

originally posted by: Reverbs
a reply to: TrueAmerican

unless I have direct access to all the data and know how to interpret it I have to rely on the priest class to tell me the "truth"

I don't know about 'priest class' but the guy in this video is adamant about natural ocean warming being er, a natural consequence....since the 50's anyway, without any imput that would needed to have been included to make the 'Global warming' scenario.



I should add that video is linked in the earlier ATS discussion.

a reply to: TrueAmerican
Think I've read about this before. Heat island effects and other things distort the temperature, so they have to adjust it. Probably a sea level effect they're correcting. There's no doubt in my mind AGW is a threat and it's real. I do believe coal power should be turned down in favour of nuclear power. Yet I'm more afraid of what the environmentalists/democrats/marxists will do than I am of human-induced global warming. More government controls moving us again in the direction of the collective. It means more individual rights blurred or lost. It might hit a crescendo, and the only freedom will be off-planet. Only by leaving will we remember how to do these things without also becoming idealistic extremists. The problem is agendas always creep into solutions.

EDIT: I can't help it if this is fake news. I do know they correct temperature sets for different reasons--like a sensor located at a bad spot. There's controversy about this mainly in the denier community.

I googled and found example:
www.noaanews.noaa.gov - Science publishes new NOAA analysis: Data show no recent slowdown in global warming...

Prior to the mid-1970s, ships were the predominant way to measure sea surface temperatures, and since then buoys have been used in increasing numbers. Compared to ships, buoys provide measurements of significantly greater accuracy. "In regards to sea surface temperature, scientists have shown that across the board, data collected from buoys are cooler than ship-based data," said Dr. Thomas C. Peterson, principal scientist at NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information and one of the study's authors. "In order to accurately compare ship measurements and buoy measurements over the long-term, they need to be compatible. Scientists have developed a method to correct the difference between ship and buoy measurements, and we are using this in our trend analysis."

originally posted by: network dude
as of right now, this is a "blogger's claim", so don't be so fast to accept it since it's what you want to hear. IT needs to be verified and vetted.

But by the same token, criticizing the source without checking the claim is equally ignorant. (IMHO)

unless the "source" blogger uses ONLY U.S. climate data.....which he did....NOAA is referring to WORLDWIDE data...

The blogger counts pixels on his screen to come up with his numbers. WTH are we even debating his findings for? It is obvious he is a quack.

Two points:

Is he talking about normalization? Because if he is, that's not altering the data, that's making the data comparable.

The other point is that technically the US could get colder. There are plenty of global warming climate models which have northerly climates getting colder, just think of the jet stream and ocean currents (both of which can be affected), and look on a map at different cities of similar latitudes and how drastically their temperatures can vary. Much of Canada is south of the UK, and which country do you think is colder? . The data can't be taken in isolation.

originally posted by: luthier
The problem here is that many skeptics don't produce peer reviewed papers.

www.skepticalscience.com...

Now this could be because of the ridicule they get or that they are just giving opinions.

Vs say in the journal nature.

www.nature.com...

In any case the fact is the population is growing and anyone who isn't concerned protecting habitat is just ignorant. Not that that means carbon is the problem. Human consumption of resources and habitat infringement are.

A couple volcanoes alone could put pressure on the food production. There should be a goal to protect the spaces left in the wilderness and to limit needless artifacts.

I am still on the fence with the whole AGQ issue, but I got to say the fact that there's no peer review papers means very little. If you knew anything about the science industry you would know that all the journals and publications are extremely agenda driven and pick & choose exactly what they publish.

Heck they will even edit your paper, change 90% of the meat of it, and then publish it!

originally posted by: TrueAmerican


Blogger claims

You lost me right there.

You may as well said "my friends claims".


I am not into climate change doom porn and think humans are only speeding it up not causing it and that its part of a cycle. Apart from a few dead Africans the human race will survive.


But a blogger "claims" is not proof.

a reply to: charolais

Well I know quite a bit about peer review. There are plenty of conflict of interest issues but scientists usually find the's issues during the process. It's not over when it's published. Other scientists then have a chance to be exposed to papers and they can retry the expirment or data.

Peer review is certainly much much better than just an opinion. It's a chance too get other scientists to check your work.

Not releasing your papers and publishing them is absolute cowardess.

a reply to: TrueAmerican

This whole climate change agenda is BS and is part of the Globalist takeover of the world through UN agendas. Most of us already know this, but there are still those that will cling to their fake science and bad data until TPTB control everything about their lives including capturing their own farts to avoid a fake global catastrophe.

a reply to: Metallicus

I dont think its completely BS.

Its just being overhyped into doom porn used against us.

Earth climate does change in cycles. And though we are not causing it, we are likely speeding it up.

Just means we get to the end result quicker. Meh.

The important thing is the west will survive.

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: Metallicus

I dont think its completely BS.

Its just being overhyped into doom porn used against us.
Earth climate does change in cycles. And though we are not causing it, we are likely speeding it up.
Just means we get to the end result quicker. Meh.
The important thing is the west will survive.

The thing is, what you describe above, is exactly what we are being conditioned to think as of now.
Back a while, maybe 20 years or so ago people were in mental state of brown hemorrhages at all the dreadful scenarios that were literally just around the corner...and it didn't happen, still hasn't happened. The goalposts kept changing, they still keep changing. Ocean temps, ships, then buoys, buoys info was colder, so they did a mish mash trick to get yet another set of data. In the meantime, in the US and the UK,ordinary people started looking at the sources of all the data on the ground, and some of the places where temp readings were, may as well have been in a fecking rave party, other older places had changed completely into heat sinks. Then came 'climategate' Oh! it was only sci-fi jive talk, like hell it was. Then came later e-mails, quote from Professor Phil Jones,

"Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the centre of the affair, said the group findings did stand up to scrutiny."
Yet one of the newly released emails, written by Prof. Jones - who is working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - said: 'Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden."
'I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data."
Daily Mail online, 2011 the story is still there,
www.dailymail.co.uk...

One other e-mail (from the same source above) is alleged to have stated,
'What if climate change turns out to be a natural fluctuation? They'll kill us all' ???
In the meantime the Gavin Schmidt /GISS modelling continues, he doesn't discuss it though, The UEA doesn't discuss it, even though the UEA cleared the CRU of any wrong doing...except of being too secretive they are even more secretive now, while the cartoons keep changing!