Tuesday, July 28, 2015

New Charge of NOAA Data Fraud

A new accusation from Steve Goddard:
Mind-Blowing Temperature Fraud At NOAA

"The measured US temperature data from USHCN shows that the US is on a long-term cooling trend. But the reported temperatures from NOAA show a strong warming trend.

They accomplish this through a spectacular hockey stick of data tampering, which corrupts the US temperature trend by almost two degrees.

The biggest component of this fraud is making up data. Almost half of all reported US temperature data is now fake. They fill in missing rural data with urban data to create the appearance of non-existent US warming.

The depths of this fraud is breathtaking, but completely consistent with the fraudulent profession which has become known as “climate science”"



I don't recall ever seeing a graph of percentage of fake data before. Interesting. On the surface it sounds like a whistleblower has surfaced with inside views into their processes. Without that, their data is unfalsifiable and is therefore dogma.

5 comments:

Hugo Pelland said...

Hi Stan,

First, it's just some blog of someone using US-only data, already not very useful. Next, why would anybody try to pretend there is more warming? It would be good news if there is less... But, lasty, the claim from blogs like his is that what they have to gain is research funds, publications, fame, etc... as the scientist are part of a "fraudulent profession which has become known as “climate science”". This is conspiracy theory thinking... why not believe the 99% of scientists who accept climate change and are just doing their job, doing their best to understand what's going on?

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/22/opinions/cook-techniques-climate-change-denial/index.html

http://jspp.psychopen.eu/article/view/443

Stan said...

First, NOAA is a major source of data which is used in computer simulations. You are shrugging off bad data, manipulated for an obvious purpose. Your lack of concern indicates that you don't care anything about the valid output of these computer programs, nor do you care about the reputation of science as a valid, dispassionate search for valid objective knowledge. This points to ideological latch-up, and adherence to Scientism in pursuit of an ideology.

Do you seriously think that he gets funding by making such claims? Whistleblowers do not get funding; true believers get the funding.

The "science" of climate change" would be a science only if it could formulate hypotheses which are testable for immediate determination of the validity of the hypotheses; that is the purpose of empiricism, and has been up until Darwin/evolution/Atheism took hold in the form of unprovable inference as the Source Of Truth. The Darwinist approach replaced the need to prove "scientific" hypotheses. Now, computer programs which make linear projections are considered "science", despite their obvious inability to be proven in any manner whatsoever. Climate "Science" is a fraudulent use of the term "science", because it cannot be proven either true or false, even in the life times of the "scientists" who milk public funding for their entire careers.

Your final Appeal To Authority is just another logic fallacy. And the "conspiracy theory" label is just that, an attempt to label a category of criticism without a shred of meaningful critical analysis toward refuting the claim being made.

Hugo Pelland said...

Hello again,

Right, NOAA is a major source of data, and also 1 of the thousands of organizations which include climate scientists among its ranks, and conclude that humans are a driving force behind the climate change we have been monitoring for decades now. Therefore, their own explications as to why they need to make adjustments to readings is much more useful than the cherry-picking done by 1 blogger. He does not even quote anything; he just included some data points from NOAA and came up with his own shocking conclusion, meant to attract attention (Mind-Blowing Temperature Fraud At NOAA).

Why believe him? Because he is 'not' part of NOAA? But that's precisely what 'conspiracy thinking' is: the official story is wrong, therefore anything supporting the official story must be part of the conspiracy. It's not meant to be an insult btw, it's just so obvious that this is how climate change denial works. NOAA actually works to 'remove' bias in the data; not add them. They want to give the most accurate data readings possible so that we get an accurate picture of what's going on...

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/temperature-monitoring.php

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2015/noaa-analysis-journal-science-no-slowdown-in-global-warming-in-recent-years.html

http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-information/climate-change-and-variability

Again, sorry if the 'conspiracy theory' claim appears strong; I simply think that this is not even an issue that relates to liberal/conservative, theists/atheists, left/right-wing politics, etc... it's mostly just doubts being funded by certain corporations who benefit from the slow changes in climate policies, just like lung cancer with tobacco, or HIV causing AIDS were hot topics at some points, even if the science was clear years before the general public's opinion followed.

Summary:
"According to the third U.S. National Climate Assessment, “Global climate is changing and this is apparent across the United States in a wide range of observations. The global warming of the past 50 years is primarily due to human activities, predominantly the burning of fossil fuels.”

Who are they?:
"The National Climate Assessment summarizes the impacts of climate change on the United States, now and in the future. A team of more than 300 experts guided by a 60-member Federal Advisory Committee produced the report, which was extensively reviewed by the public and experts, including federal agencies and a panel of the National Academy of Sciences."

Now, if all these people and organization are lying, that would be a conspiracy...

Stan said...

"...doubts being funded by certain corporations who benefit from the slow changes in climate policies, just like lung cancer with tobacco, or HIV causing AIDS were hot topics at some points, even if the science was clear years before the general public's opinion followed."

So only your own personally approved conspiracy theories merit attention, then. Where is your (a) proof that this data analysis is prejudiced by evil funding, and (b) that it is false? You have not presented anything but your own conspiracy theories, Scientism, and Appeal To Authority Fallacy, which you couple into your own True Belief Must Be Accorded This Stuff theory.

You have provided opinions which are based in strong Scientism religious belief, and fear-mongering conspiracy theories regarding corporations, all without any empirical or mathematical grounding. In fact, you appear to have a strong desire for a certain outcome to be "true", thereby coloring your judgment, as you demand that others accept your beliefs.

""According to the third U.S. National Climate Assessment, “Global climate is changing and this is apparent across the United States in a wide range of observations. The global warming of the past 50 years is primarily due to human activities, predominantly the burning of fossil fuels.”"

Explain the mechanics of how this can be true AND there be no warming for two decades despite the continuous addition of human contributions of CO2, with actual data please. If you claim that this is "science", then back it all up with actual data, please.

Your final Appeal To Authority is still just an Appeal To Authority Fallacy. No matter how many people claim that any, ANY, science is "true", that appeal does not make it so. In fact, such declarations resemble religious attachment to a narrative rather than a continuous search for valid, but always contingent, scientific positions on ANY subject.

If this position can be falsified during replicated experiments, then describe how it was done, how many times, and the published results. It cannot be replicated because it is not experimental, and it cannot be falsified for the same reason. Thus it is not empirical, it is purely inductive and is subject to the Inductive Fallacy. That you choose to believe it so deeply and dearly says more about you than about the type of "knowledge" that exists for AGW.

As always, it is not your opinions nor your belief system which matters here: it is what you can prove.

Hugo Pelland said...

What I can show is that NOAA explains why they need to adjust the data, why there is a difference between 'measured' and 'reported', why it's not fabricated lies, why it's not a conspiracy. The links above do just that; they explain how measuring works, why they adjust readings and what the overa conclusions of NOAA are. But I cannot do a lot more than that; I cannot give a course on Climate Change I am afraid. Maybe there is a specific point of contention to discuss? I don't know...

However, you prefered to judge my character and keep insulting my ability to reason... I guess you just really want me to stop commenting here since I am annoyingly polite, as you said, and you are now resorting to personnal attacks? Just tell me if you don't want any comments from me, no problem... but you can save your time by not writing comments on my reasoning skills. I know they are just fine thank you.