The Editorial Board of Investors Business Daily isn’t buying what the Warmists are selling
Global Warming: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration may have a boring name, but it has a very important job: It measures U.S. temperatures. Unfortunately, it seems to be a captive of the global warming religion. Its data are fraudulent.
What do we mean by fraudulent? How about this: NOAA has made repeated “adjustments” to its data, for the presumed scientific reason of making the data sets more accurate.
Nothing wrong with that. Except, all their changes point to one thing — lowering previously measured temperatures to show cooler weather in the past, and raising more recent temperatures to show warming in the recent present.
This creates a data illusion of ever-rising temperatures to match the increase in CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere since the mid-1800s, which global warming advocates say is a cause-and-effect relationship. The more CO2, the more warming.
It also goes to the notion of “why the heck are they consistently changing the measured data?” Sure, they’ll give you this, that, and the other excuses. But, if you measure something as 57.23 degrees, and say that it was 57.23 degrees, you don’t go back and change it. At that point, it’s not a scientific fact. It’s a fudgible number based on whim.
But the actual measured temperature record shows something different: There have been hot years and hot decades since the turn of the last century, and colder years and colder decades. But the overall measured temperature shows no clear trend over the last century, at least not one that suggests runaway warming.
That is, until the NOAA’s statisticians “adjust” the data. Using complex statistical models, they change the data to reflect not reality, but their underlying theories of global warming. That’s clear from a simple fact of statistics: Data generate random errors, which cancel out over time. So by averaging data, the errors mostly disappear.
That’s not what NOAA does.
According to the NOAA, the errors aren’t random. They’re systematic. As we noted, all of their temperature adjustments lean cooler in the distant past, and warmer in the more recent past. But they’re very fuzzy about why this should be.
Far from legitimately “adjusting” anything, it appears they are cooking the data to show a politically correct trend toward global warming. Not by coincidence, that has been part and parcel of the government’s underlying policies for the better part of two decades.
OK, I’m at the point where I should stop excerpting. Go read the rest. I will note, though, that if the theory hypothesis assertion of global warming/climate change mostly/solely caused by Mankind was real, they wouldn’t have to play with the data so much to match their beliefs. In Science, if the outcomes do not match the hypothesis, then the hypothesis must be changed. Warmists just adjust the data (or make it up) to match their Beliefs.
So, to your “mind”, a fact-free opinion piece from a right-wing rag invalidates decades of research and evidence. LOL.
You’re back to denying that the Earth is warming? How does the NOAA fraud fool the Arctic? Or are the faking the sea ice too?
#FoolishRightWingConspiracies
The only thing fact-free is Jeffery.
The methodology has been shown to be rigged for 10 years.
formwiz: The methodology has been shown to be rigged for 10 years.
In fact, independent statistical analysis of the raw data supports the warming trend. See Rohde et al., A New Estimate of the Average Earth Surface Land Temperature Spanning 1753 to 2011, Geoinformatics & Geostatistics 2012.
If the kiddiez bothered to read the paper they would find Rhode et.al limited their analysis to assumptions and parameters of the IPCC.
Hardly independent or based on raw data as the kiddiez claim.
Yep, no need.
The science is settled.
Apparently the science is not so “clear” but clearly the nignorant angry little black fella keeps proving himself an idiot.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/05/02/is-climate-alarmist-consensus-about-to-shatter/
When I heard they were “adjusting” quantitative data I knew the gig was up; even the most strident leftist can’t be so stupid as to justify those kinds of shenanigans on top of all the other ridiculous bullshit they’ve pulled. Fudge quantitative data and then try to tell me how your side really is all about science. It’s the last gasp of a dying tax money grab.
If a measurement needs to be “adjusted”, it is not a valid measurement. When whole data sets need or are adjusted, they are no longer valid.
Engineering 101
However, there are systematic biases, some of which create discontinuities, such as changing from liquid thermometers to min-max temperature systems, and changes in the time of observation.
William Teach: But, if you measure something as 57.23 degrees, and say that it was 57.23 degrees, you don’t go back and change it.
To account for discontinuities, scientists have traditionally used homogenization, where discontinuities are aligned. However, newer statistical techniques that don’t rely on homogenization have found the same trend.
Notably, the author didn’t provide data or statistical analysis of the data, so it’s best not to rely on “Investor’s Business Daily” in place of scientific research.
It’s best not to rely on the kiddiez about anything.
They tend make shit up.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/05/02/is-climate-alarmist-consensus-about-to-shatter/
Hoss: When I heard they were “adjusting†quantitative data I knew the gig was up
The Neon Madman: If a measurement needs to be “adjustedâ€, it is not a valid measurement. When whole data sets need or are adjusted, they are no longer valid. Engineering 101
Adjustments to observations are ubiquitous in science, such as digitally altering images to reveal certain aspects of the data. With climate science, the raw data, along with the methods of adjustment, are available for your inspection. But you have to study the data and the methods to determine whether or not the analysis is correct. You can’t just sweep it away with the wave of your hand.
It’s best not to rely on the kiddiez about anything.
They tend make shit up.
“The data sets are not a valid representation of reality..†https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf
“How does the NOAA fraud fool the Arctic.†Hmm..how does the Arctic melt without evil CO2? https://realclimatescience.com/2018/04/1952-arctic-melting-at-an-astonishing-rate/#comments
I see that the climate scam’s upper management has found Jeffery’s efforts here to be below par, and they’ve sent in a higher-ranking propagandist to clean up his mess.
Jl: “The data sets are not a valid representation of reality..â€
Wallace et al. make fundamental mistakes. For instance, they claim that every adjustment since the 1980s has been in the warming direction. In fact, there are approximately equal adjustments in either direction, with the adjustments actually reducing the warming trend. Furthermore, there are multiple independent data-sources that support the warming trend, including warming oceans and earlier last-frost dates.
Jl: “How does the NOAA fraud fool the Arctic.†Hmm..how does the Arctic melt without evil CO2?
There are a lot of natural causes of climate change. However, human causes now overwhelm naturals causes, and those effects are expected to continue.
No empirical evidence to back up that assumption, kiddiez, only flawed computer models based on unreliable “adjusted” data.
And stupid shit y’all make up.
“Human causes overwhelm natural..â€. As said, no evidence to back up that assertion, only speculation. In fact, the evidence would point to natural causes overwhelming the man made ones, as the MWP shows. “In fact, there are equal adjustments in the other direction.†Yes, they also cooled the past to make the present seem warmer. https://realclimatescience.com/nasa-doubling-warming-since-2001/
Jl: no evidence to back up that assertion, only speculation.
Notably, you ignored the first part of our comment, concerning errors in Wallace et al., as well as independent data-sets, including the observation of increases to the average length of growing season, observations available to even lay-observers.
As for evidence of anthropogenic warming, we can look at the various mechanisms involved, and only anthropogenic causes explain the current warming trend. Of course, you could always work from the basic physics of the greenhouse effect.
Jl: Yes, they also cooled the past to make the present seem warmer.
Gee whiz. Someone doesn’t know how to read a chart. The two graphs are nearly parallel, meaning they have the same positive trend.
z,
We have already put to bed the fact that correlation does not mean causation, in fact, the two almost never go together. You need some learning.
david7134: We have already put to bed the fact that correlation does not mean causation
Didn’t say it was. However, we were responding to the claim that adjustments to the data from GISS2001 to GISS2015 changed the trend. It did not. What the chart shows is two parallel graphs, meaning they show the same trend.
david7134: in fact, the two almost never go together.
Well, that’s not true obviously.
X
You need more education in science.
As to any data coming from the warming religion, we settled the fact that that data is fake years ago. Even previous z people accepted the fact
david7134: You need more education in science.
We’re more than willing to learn. However, that would require you to actually address the points as they are raised.
david7134: As to any data coming from the warming religion, we settled the fact that that data is fake years ago.
The data is the data. Historical surface data comes from thousands of weather institutes around the world. Other data includes satellite observations, sea buoys, balloons, not to mention observable changes to growing seasons, spread of insect vectors, ice cover, etc.
Really now?
Where did y’all learn that?
