It’s been a long time since I touched on how the climate weenies are constantly adjusting temperature data. I’d have to go way back in the archives. How they always seem to change it too look like it is hotter. Sometimes they cool down the past so the current looks hotter. Particularly during the hot 1930s, which they’ve adjusted down. They “smooth” things out. But, it always seems to be in favor of supporting the dogma of the climate cult
Yes, NOAA adjusts its historical weather data: Here’s why
The year 2024 was deemed by global officials to be the warmest year on record — easily surpassing the previous benchmark set in 2023, and warning of a steady and dangerous climate trend.
But where does that data come from? And how are scientists accurately comparing current weather data to information that was recorded decades ago?
The archive of weather data in the United States is recorded by the Historical Climatology Network, a data set of temperature, precipitation and pressure records from long-standing stations around the county, managed and analyzed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
When digging into conspiracies claiming that the federal agency “manipulates” its historical weather data, ABC News’ chief meteorologist and chief climate correspondent Ginger Zee was able to confirm that it was true — but that the routine, public adjustments to records happen for good reason.
Really? If you’re running a news article with “here’s why”, well, that is opinion, not facts
ABC News "Chief Climate Correspondent" @Ginger_Zee says it's okay that NOAA adjusts temperature data "because that's how you do science." ????Actually, no, that's not how science is done.
Adjusting temperature data is not "science" because the adjustments are not and cannot be… pic.twitter.com/nWA2ehd1dy
— Steve Milloy (@JunkScience) February 26, 2025
Malloy’s tweet finishes “…be verified, especially when verification would require traveling back in time.” Exactly. Data is data. If the recorded high temperature (I wish I could find/remember the website I used to find this data) on July 7th, 1934 was 92.3 for Salt Lake City, and then changed to 91.7 90 years later, well, it doesn’t seem like much, but, they make the graphs so it looks scary.
Making small changes shows doom.
Historical weather data is typically collected through a network of weather stations, satellites and other monitoring tools. However, these stations across the country and the instruments used to collect the data vary and have evolved over time, meaning that raw historical data might not always reflect accurate or consistent conditions.
Who makes the decision that the specific temperature recorded is wrong? They certainly do not have an agenda, right? Look, the scale length of a Gibson Les Paul is 24.75″. If you adjust the length the sound quality is off. It’s not correct. The bridge will be wrong. The notes on the frets will be off. Because it is 24.75″. If the temp is recorded at 24.75F as a low, that is the temp. Period.
C’mon, Teach. You deniers won!! Trump labels global warming a scam, a money grab. No need to repeat the same lies that Donnie believes. Musk and Boy Gorge will fire all the NOAA scientists and kill funding for university researchers. He withdrew from Paris, again.
And Steve Milloy is your source?? He’s a lawyer-lobbyist for tobacco and oil companies and was paid to deny the risk of smoking and global warming.
I see, as opposed to NOAA being paid government money to promote global warming….
You’re a denier just like Milloy. The scientists at NOAA are government employees, and yes they are paid. And yes that is the opposite of Milloy being paid by tobacco and oil companies to promote smoking and fossil fuel burning.
Are you claiming Reagan, Bush I, Bush II, Trump all directed their employees to promote global warming? Haven’t heard that one before.
Another convincing argument from the Rimjob.
Original too.
Funny how big oil has covered there assets by investments in what idiot is call green energy. So why pay for made up science. Seems that it is government scientist that are prone to falsehoods.
There = their.
Denying what? Typical lefty debate tactic. Start with a false premise, and then call anyone who disagrees with that premise a “denier”.
But interesting-how is each side getting paid the “opposite”?
Ellie
You want sources? Did you read the post?
That animated chart has long been on Tony Heller’s Real Science site. He has even more manipulated data comparisons on the site a swell as do-it-yourself data apps. Excellent site you have here, too!
[…] No one should be surprised by this […]
I have questioned the data myself, only in a slightly different way. The so called “experts” of the global warming, I mean climate change, cult will publish data saying that the global trend is higher by 1.3 degrees C. The thing is, we have not been able to measure climate to that exact temperature until modern times, yet they will say it is higher than it was in 1875 or some other date.
The best way to decide if global warming is real is to figure out who stands to benefit financially from the whole fraud. It is certainly not the people that they are trying to fleece by this boondoggle.