Climate Fraud - Again

[Newview01]

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...-of-existence/

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has yet again been caught exaggerating ‘global warming’ by fiddling with the raw temperature data.
This time, that data concerns the recent record-breaking cold across the northeastern U.S. which NOAA is trying to erase from history.
If you believe NOAA’s charts, there was nothing particularly unusual about this winter’s cold weather which caused sharks to freeze in the ocean and iguanas to drop out of trees.
That’s because, as Paul Homewood has discovered, NOAA has been cooking the books. Yet again – presumably for reasons more to do with ideology than meteorology – NOAA has adjusted past temperatures to look colder than they were and recent temperatures to look warmer than they were.
We’re not talking fractions of a degree, here. The adjustments amount to a whopping 3.1 degrees F. This takes us well beyond the regions of error margins or innocent mistakes and deep into the realm of fiction and political propaganda.
Homewood first smelt a rat when he examined the New York data sets.
He was particularly puzzled at NOAA’s treatment of the especially cold winter that ravaged New York in 2013/14, which he describes here:
The cold weather really began on Jan 2nd, when an Arctic front descended across much of the country, and extended well into March.
The NWS wrote at the end of the winter:
The winter of 2013-14 finished as one of the coldest winters in recent memory for New York State. Snowfall across Western and North Central New York was above normal for many areas, and in some locations well above normal. This winter comes on the heels of two previous mild winters, making the cold and snow this winter feel that much harsher.
Temperatures this winter finished below normal every month, and the January through March timeframe finished at least 4 degrees below normal for the two primary climate stations of Western New York (Buffalo and Rochester)…..
Relentless cold continued through the month of January across the region.
So why, he wondered, did NOAA have this marked down as only the 30th coldest winter (since 1895) on its New York State charts, with a mean temperature of 16.9F?
Homewood compared the local records for January 1943 and January 2014 – months which, according to NOAA’s charts, had very similar average temperatures.
What he found was that NOAA’s charts were deeply inaccurate. The 2014 local temperatures had been adjusted upwards by NOAA and the 1943 local temperatures downwards.

He concludes:
On average the mean temperatures in Jan 2014 were 2.7F less than in 1943. Yet, according to NOAA, the difference was only 0.9F.
Somehow, NOAA has adjusted past temperatures down, relatively, by 1.8F.
Now, Homewood has given the same treatment to the most recent Big Freeze – the winter of 2017/2018.
Yet again, he has found that NOAA’s arbitrary adjustments tell a lie. They claim that January 2018 was warmer in the New York region than January 1943, when the raw data from local stations tells us this just isn’t true.
So at the three sites of Ithaca, Auburn and Geneva, we find that January 2018 was colder than January 1943 by 1.0, 1.7 and 1.3F respectively.
Yet NOAA say that the division was 2.1F warmer last month. NOAA’s figure makes last month at least 3.1F warmer in comparison with 1943 than the actual station data warrants.
He concludes:
Clearly NOAA’s highly homogenised and adjusted version of the Central Lakes temperature record bears no resemblance at all the the actual station data.
And if this one division is so badly in error, what confidence can there be that the rest of the US is any better?
Well indeed. The key point here is that while NOAA frequently makes these adjustments to the raw data, it has never offered a convincing explanation as to why they are necessary. Nor yet, how exactly their adjusted data provides a more accurate version of the truth than the original data.
One excuse NOAA’s apologists make is that weather stations are subject to changing environmental conditions. For example, when the station sited at Syracuse in 1929 was located at what was originally just a sparse aerodrome. Since then, however, as Homewood notes, it has grown into a large international airport with two runways servicing two million passengers a year. Its weather station readings therefore will certainly have been corrupted by the Urban Heat Island effect: that is, its temperature readings will have been artificially elevated by the warmth from the surrounding development and aircraft engines.
So you’d think, wouldn’t you, that to compensate for this NOAA would adjust the recent temperatures downwards. Instead, for no obvious reasons, it has adjusted them upwards.
This is a scandal. NOAA’s climate gatekeepers are political activists not honest scientists and the U.S. taxpayer has no business funding their propaganda.
Drain the swamp!

[EZM]

With all do respect ..........

Quoting Breitbart, which is clearly, and without argument, in support of climate change deniers who happen to fund this same publication would make me strongly suspect a self serving agenda. These are the same lobbyists funding/lobbying the current administration.

Second major issue is the write up itself clearly demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge and understanding of what climate change is. This article discusses weather which is not the same as climate change. It also specifically notes a specific geographical area, which again, is a problem if you want to speak with any credibility whatsoever.

I'm pretty sure I can find a news article about golden unicorns and their existence as well - which holds about as much water as this article does.

One of the opening lines says ...

"If you believe NOAA’s charts, there was nothing particularly unusual about this winter’s cold weather which caused sharks to freeze in the ocean and iguanas to drop out of trees"

I can see how some people, who have no science background may mistake localized weather and confuse this with an indication of climate change ... BUT .... Are you saying that you actually believe the ocean froze over trapping sharks and that iguanas froze and dropped out of trees? Really?

[Twisted Canuck]

Originally Posted by EZM

With all do respect ..........

Quoting Breitbart, which is clearly, and without argument, in support of climate change deniers who happen to fund this same publication would make me strongly suspect a self serving agenda. These are the same lobbyists funding/lobbying the current administration.

Second major issue is the write up itself clearly demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge and understanding of what climate change is. This article discusses weather which is not the same as climate change. It also specifically notes a specific geographical area, which again, is a problem if you want to speak with any credibility whatsoever.

I'm pretty sure I can find a news article about golden unicorns and their existence as well - which holds about as much water as this article does.

One of the opening lines says ...

"If you believe NOAA’s charts, there was nothing particularly unusual about this winter’s cold weather which caused sharks to freeze in the ocean and iguanas to drop out of trees"

I can see how some people, who have no science background may mistake localized weather and confuse this with an indication of climate change ... BUT .... Are you saying that you actually believe the ocean froze over trapping sharks and that iguanas froze and dropped out of trees? Really?

You do realize that this was reported by the main stream media, right? Iguana's falling out of trees in Florida because it was so cold? I believe I read that on CBC....but CNN carried it, as well as all the other US outlets:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/05/weath...rnd/index.html

As far as the sharks freezing...same thing. Carried on multiple mainstream outlets:
http://www.newsweek.com/more-sharks-...ght-now-771877

Wasn't the 'ocean freezing over', nice redirect there, but it did happen. Everyone has their agenda. Including you.

[CNP]

Originally Posted by EZM

With all do respect ..........

Quoting Breitbart, which is clearly, and without argument, in support of climate change deniers who happen to fund this same publication would make me strongly suspect a self serving agenda. These are the same lobbyists funding/lobbying the current administration.

Second major issue is the write up itself clearly demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge and understanding of what climate change is. This article discusses weather which is not the same as climate change. It also specifically notes a specific geographical area, which again, is a problem if you want to speak with any credibility whatsoever.

I'm pretty sure I can find a news article about golden unicorns and their existence as well - which holds about as much water as this article does.

One of the opening lines says ...

"If you believe NOAA’s charts, there was nothing particularly unusual about this winter’s cold weather which caused sharks to freeze in the ocean and iguanas to drop out of trees"

I can see how some people, who have no science background may mistake localized weather and confuse this with an indication of climate change ... BUT .... Are you saying that you actually believe the ocean froze over trapping sharks and that iguanas froze and dropped out of trees? Really?

He didn't say that. Why are you saying that?

[ChickakooKookoo]

I'm sure this is all Soros fault somehow...

[hal53]

Originally Posted by EZM

With all do respect ..........

Quoting Breitbart, which is clearly, and without argument, in support of climate change deniers who happen to fund this same publication would make me strongly suspect a self serving agenda. These are the same lobbyists funding/lobbying the current administration.

Second major issue is the write up itself clearly demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge and understanding of what climate change is. This article discusses weather which is not the same as climate change. It also specifically notes a specific geographical area, which again, is a problem if you want to speak with any credibility whatsoever.

I'm pretty sure I can find a news article about golden unicorns and their existence as well - which holds about as much water as this article does.

One of the opening lines says ...

"If you believe NOAA’s charts, there was nothing particularly unusual about this winter’s cold weather which caused sharks to freeze in the ocean and iguanas to drop out of trees"

I can see how some people, who have no science background may mistake localized weather and confuse this with an indication of climate change ... BUT .... Are you saying that you actually believe the ocean froze over trapping sharks and that iguanas froze and dropped out of trees? Really?

AVB3 is that you??

[Twisted Canuck]

What constantly amuses me is the gnashing of teeth and outcry about 'climate change' (formerly known as 'global warming').....as if this is something new. Show me any 10,000 year epoch in history where the climate hasn't changed, often times radically....

But if we cry loud enough, and ring our hands, and talk about 'the science' (because we have been monitoring weather for a couple hundred years and are now expert, and the climate should never change, ever, and if it does it's because of the bad humans)....well, anyway, if we cry loud enough, we can use the whole pretext to invent taxes and redistribute wealth. See? Smoke and mirrors! No agenda though, just trying to save the planet. David Suzuki said so, and he is so not a hypocrite. If we all pay enough carbon taxes, it's going to save the planet, honest.

Come on back with the Science there EZM, make me believe that the climate is changing again....oh wait, I already don't doubt it, based on millions of years of cooling and warming cycles. Panic averted.

[Fisherpeak]

Not long ago it used to get to -40 or worse every winter. Once around early Dec, again around New Years and one more in mid-late Feb. Without fail. You could count on it. Now it is late Feb. and - 25 this morning. I have not seen anything close to - 40 since my son was born back in the early 80`s. -50 the day he appeared.Weather changes all the time and has for thousands of years. Don`t poop your pants over it.

[ChickakooKookoo]

To say we only have a couple hundred years of history just isn't true. As we can carbon date fossils back millions of years, the same science can be applied to understand weather patterns a long long time ago. I'm not saying the scientific methods used are the same as carbon dating but the theory is similar.

Also this - https://xkcd.com/1732/

[Twisted Canuck]

Originally Posted by ChickakooKookoo

To say we only have a couple hundred years of history just isn't true. As we can carbon date fossils back millions of years, the same science can be applied to understand weather patterns a long long time ago. I'm not saying the scientific methods used are the same as carbon dating but the theory is similar.

Also this - https://xkcd.com/1732/

Yes, we have millions of years of testing with carbon dating, and thousands of years with ice cores...but only hundreds of years of actual data from tracking day to day weather with current meteorological methods. Why argue the nuance of it? It is known that climate changes. Right now, where I sit and type this, there used to be a thousand meters of ice. And long before that, there was an inland sea. But nobody was actually taking measurements of the weather at those points in time, we know this by examining the evidence only. You see the difference?

[ChickakooKookoo]

Of course, and I agree with you. Just sick of hearing the standard "it ain't true" lines.

[flipkrak]

Interesting


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[midgetwaiter]

Originally Posted by EZM

I can see how some people, who have no science background may mistake localized weather and confuse this with an indication of climate change ... BUT .... Are you saying that you actually believe the ocean froze over trapping sharks and that iguanas froze and dropped out of trees? Really?

Both happened.

Sharks and iguanas are both ectotherms. The iguanas didn't freeze solid but they did get cold enough that they had a little nap and dropped out of the trees. Once an ectotherm gets cold enough they are basically rocks, if they warm up they're fine. This happened before in 2008 and 2010. It should be noted that the green iguanas in South Florida are an invasive species and this is the northern extreme of their survivable climate.

The sharks are a similar story IIRC, once they lost motor control they got trapped in ice as it formed.

Having said that you're right, weather is not climate and using these examples to argue against climate science is stupid.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by Twisted Canuck

What constantly amuses me is the gnashing of teeth and outcry about 'climate change' (formerly known as 'global warming').....as if this is something new. Show me any 10,000 year epoch in history where the climate hasn't changed, often times radically....

But if we cry loud enough, and ring our hands, and talk about 'the science' (because we have been monitoring weather for a couple hundred years and are now expert, and the climate should never change, ever, and if it does it's because of the bad humans)....well, anyway, if we cry loud enough, we can use the whole pretext to invent taxes and redistribute wealth. See? Smoke and mirrors! No agenda though, just trying to save the planet. David Suzuki said so, and he is so not a hypocrite. If we all pay enough carbon taxes, it's going to save the planet, honest.

Come on back with the Science there EZM, make me believe that the climate is changing again....oh wait, I already don't doubt it, based on millions of years of cooling and warming cycles. Panic averted.

World wide only Canada and the US are going nuts over global warming and harming their economies over it. Europe has backed off big time. China is building 1000+ new coal generators while we decommission our cheap source of power.

It doesn’t surprise me that someone in NOAA is helped out by fixing data to keep the madness alive here.

The fact is the foreign money wants our oil and gas shut in. All major producers including US is pushing that agenda.

The patsies buying that in Canada are only hurting themselves and other Canadians in their pocket book.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by Twisted Canuck

Yes, we have millions of years of testing with carbon dating, and thousands of years with ice cores...but only hundreds of years of actual data from tracking day to day weather with current meteorological methods. Why argue the nuance of it? It is known that climate changes. Right now, where I sit and type this, there used to be a thousand meters of ice. And long before that, there was an inland sea. But nobody was actually taking measurements of the weather at those points in time, we know this by examining the evidence only. You see the difference?

Yup.

The climate change fanatics rely solely on what if studies.

Past climate science can’t say what changes happened in 100 year increments. However we are coming out of a natural ice age. In other words natural warming has been occurring long before industrialization.

There continues to be no proof of dangerous man made global warming. Just socialist political parties have latch on to it as a way of transferring wealth and scaring people away from evil capitalism.

[glen moa]

The climate change people should figure out a way of reducing the earths population.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by glen moa

The climate change people should figure out a way of reducing the earths population.

Sounds like a good idea. Whose first?

[ChickakooKookoo]

Im really curious about something here and I'd like to hear from both sides of this argument.

First some background...

Confirmation bias is relatively new to the world of psychology and it's not well understood yet. The simple version is that we, humans, have something inside of us that allows us to believe something that just simply isn't true. We're the only mammals on the planet this behavior has been observed in. It's a behavior left over from our hunter/gathered days. This behavior is akin to a mouse not believing in a cat is the aspect that it's very dangerous.

Climate change seems to be one of those topics that it really doesn't matter what the "science" is as both sides have science backing up their beliefs.

So here's my question - irrelevant or what you currently believe, what would you actually need to see/hear/feel for you to believe the other sides position?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[sns2]

I have no skin in this game, but I wouldn't bet two bits on the veracity of anything written in Breitbart. Just sayin. Seems to me it is about as close to a scientific journal as the National Enquirer.

[Twisted Canuck]

Originally Posted by ChickakooKookoo

Climate change seems to be one of those topics that it really doesn't matter what the "science" is as both sides have science backing up their beliefs.

So here's my question - irrelevant or what you currently believe, what would you actually need to see/hear/feel for you to believe the other sides position?

That's the funny thing right there....I actually do believe the climate is changing. The evidence supports this 100%. It has been changing without respite for billions of years, since the molten slag of the earth's mantle finally cooled into rock.....change is constant. Warming and cooling happens. The entire known universe is cooling down, it's the second law of thermodynamics at work (entropy)....but to suddenly have a panic over changes that have been occurring over the last few hundred years and proclaiming the causation as mankind and the emissions of carbon dioxide...that is laughable. Calculate what the average volcanic eruption puts up into the atmosphere for particulates and greenhouse gases, compared to the average yearly output of people. Nature is bent on disturbing the status quo more than mankind is.

This whole hue and cry about climate change, and 'going green' (that's another hilarious aphorism, as carbon dioxide increases plant production and will make the world greener!)....it's all a shell game. Whether the agenda is social engineering, or political engineering....who knows. But money is being collected en masse to 'save the planet' even though it will do no such thing, and being diverted to...where? Redistribution of wealth for what? There is something at play that has nothing to do with the naturally occurring change in the earth's climate.

If the outcry was about the pollution of the earth, I'd hop on board, because poisoning our planet and making it unlivable is stupid and suicidal as a species, but that is not the play. It's about 'climate change'...and just saying it out loud doesn't alarm me at all.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by sns2

I have no skin in this game, but I wouldn't bet two bits on the veracity of anything written in Breitbart. Just sayin. Seems to me it is about as close to a scientific journal as the National Enquirer.

I wouldn't trust them on matters of science either, but NOAA weather data tampering has been recorded on other sites as well.

[ChickakooKookoo]

Originally Posted by Twisted Canuck

That's the funny thing right there....I actually do believe the climate is changing. The evidence supports this 100%. It has been changing without respite for billions of years, since the molten slag of the earth's mantle finally cooled into rock.....change is constant. Warming and cooling happens. The entire known universe is cooling down, it's the second law of thermodynamics at work (entropy)....but to suddenly have a panic over changes that have been occurring over the last few hundred years and proclaiming the causation as mankind and the emissions of carbon dioxide...that is laughable. Calculate what the average volcanic eruption puts up into the atmosphere for particulates and greenhouse gases, compared to the average yearly output of people. Nature is bent on disturbing the status quo more than mankind is.



This whole hue and cry about climate change, and 'going green' (that's another hilarious aphorism, as carbon dioxide increases plant production and will make the world greener!)....it's all a shell game. Whether the agenda is social engineering, or political engineering....who knows. But money is being collected en masse to 'save the planet' even though it will do no such thing, and being diverted to...where? Redistribution of wealth for what? There is something at play that has nothing to do with the naturally occurring change in the earth's climate.



If the outcry was about the pollution of the earth, I'd hop on board, because poisoning our planet and making it unlivable is stupid and suicidal as a species, but that is not the play. It's about 'climate change'...and just saying it out loud doesn't alarm me at all.

So what would it take to "make you believe"?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by ChickakooKookoo

So what would it take to "make you believe"?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

That question can be posed to even the staunchest of warmists.

[Fish along]

I don't believe much of what they say about climate change, I would rather listen to George Carlins theories.,makes more sense.

[dmcbride]

Originally Posted by ChickakooKookoo

So what would it take to "make you believe"?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Believe that humanity we’ll end or the climate will change?

[ChickakooKookoo]

Originally Posted by dmcbride

Believe that humanity we’ll end or the climate will change?

What it would it take for you to believe the other side? What science or or facts or video or whatever... What would it take for the other side to be right?





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Twisted Canuck]

Originally Posted by ChickakooKookoo

So what would it take to "make you believe"?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Make me believe what? In climate change? I already believe in that, I already stated (factually) that it has been ongoing for billions of years..

To make me believe the panic stricken fairy tale 'mankind as causation' and imminent disaster.....well....it would require me to turn off my powers of critical thinking, and taking on an ideological viewpoint that is not supported by the facts. Snapshot science doesn't count.

[Walleyedude]

Originally Posted by Twisted Canuck

That's the funny thing right there....I actually do believe the climate is changing. The evidence supports this 100%. It has been changing without respite for billions of years, since the molten slag of the earth's mantle finally cooled into rock.....change is constant. Warming and cooling happens. The entire known universe is cooling down, it's the second law of thermodynamics at work (entropy)....but to suddenly have a panic over changes that have been occurring over the last few hundred years and proclaiming the causation as mankind and the emissions of carbon dioxide...that is laughable. Calculate what the average volcanic eruption puts up into the atmosphere for particulates and greenhouse gases, compared to the average yearly output of people. Nature is bent on disturbing the status quo more than mankind is.

This whole hue and cry about climate change, and 'going green' (that's another hilarious aphorism, as carbon dioxide increases plant production and will make the world greener!)....it's all a shell game. Whether the agenda is social engineering, or political engineering....who knows. But money is being collected en masse to 'save the planet' even though it will do no such thing, and being diverted to...where? Redistribution of wealth for what? There is something at play that has nothing to do with the naturally occurring change in the earth's climate.

If the outcry was about the pollution of the earth, I'd hop on board, because poisoning our planet and making it unlivable is stupid and suicidal as a species, but that is not the play. It's about 'climate change'...and just saying it out loud doesn't alarm me at all.

Nailed it.

[SlimChance]

Originally Posted by Twisted Canuck

What constantly amuses me is the gnashing of teeth and outcry about 'climate change' (formerly known as 'global warming').....as if this is something new. Show me any 10,000 year epoch in history where the climate hasn't changed, often times radically....

But if we cry loud enough, and ring our hands, and talk about 'the science' (because we have been monitoring weather for a couple hundred years and are now expert, and the climate should never change, ever, and if it does it's because of the bad humans)....well, anyway, if we cry loud enough, we can use the whole pretext to invent taxes and redistribute wealth. See? Smoke and mirrors! No agenda though, just trying to save the planet. David Suzuki said so, and he is so not a hypocrite. If we all pay enough carbon taxes, it's going to save the planet, honest.

Come on back with the Science there EZM, make me believe that the climate is changing again....oh wait, I already don't doubt it, based on millions of years of cooling and warming cycles. Panic averted.

Actual climate scientists have been coming on back with science for decades but somehow, you've leaped ahead of the lot of them as the foremost expert on the earth's climate.

What constantly amuses ME is that people with no background in climate science parade around as if they know better than people who have dedicated their entire lives to studying it.

Imagine if I walked into your workplace and started loudly declaring that you, all your co-workers and everybody in your industry are idiots for overlooking points you'd already dealt with years ago.

---

Deniers would do much better to stop fighting scientists and start actually attacking the crappy ideas and systems that public figures and politicians are trying to use to deal with it.

[Twisted Canuck]

Originally Posted by SlimChance

Actual climate scientists have been coming on back with science for decades but somehow, you've leaped ahead of the lot of them as the foremost expert on the earth's climate.

What constantly amuses ME is that people with no background in climate science parade around as if they know better than people who have dedicated their entire lives to studying it.

Imagine if I walked into your workplace and started loudly declaring that you, all your co-workers and everybody in your industry are idiots for overlooking points you'd already dealt with years ago.

---

Deniers would do much better to stop fighting scientists and start actually attacking the crappy ideas and systems that public figures and politicians are trying to use to deal with it.

Well, actually, there are 'actual' scientists who would be happy to dispute the so called science behind the climate change hoax. I suppose you would call them 'deniers' too, because if you can paste a negative label on them (as you did to me, by sarcastically labeling me as the foremost expert), you can then discount anything they may have to say on the matter. Don't bother to do the research on it, it's probably just me making stuff up, because all 'real' scientists support your viewpoint on the matter. Probably. Or maybe not. There is really no way to know, unless you actually wanted to do some unbiased investigation into the matter. And that just wouldn't do.

But you go on disparaging anyone who disagrees with your ideological belief system. I get it. Religion is a hard thing to let go of. As a good friend of mine used to say, 'Martin, Martin, why must you go on so? Leave the Pope alone....'