From the Manhattan Contrarian
Francis Menton
The greatest scientific fraud of all time is the fraud through which our government changes the existing data of the United States and the global temperature in order to improve an obvious warming trend and thereby support a narrative of the supposedly dangerous global warming. This is part XXXIII of this series that goes back to July 2013. A compound link to all 32 earlier posts in this series can be found here.
As generally reports and discusses, the arrival of the new Trump 2.0 presidency brings disruptions and changes to many areas of a previously complacent German bureaucracy. One of the areas in which a disturbance seems to be a disorder is an agency called Noaa – the national ocean and atmosphere, which is part of the Ministry of Commerce. Noaa is the place where the world and US temperature data is collected and compiled and changed.
Will the new disorder give the systematic changes in our temperature data a light? It is too early to say it, but there is reason to hope.
First, CBS News reported yesterday that massive layoffs met NOAA. The heading is “hundreds of Noaa employees who were released in the last cuts of the federal employees.”
Hundreds of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) were released on Thursday. . . . A source of the congress announced CBS News, the 880 NOAA employees affected. . . . Before the cuts on Thursday, Noaa had around 12,000 employees all over the world.
880 out of 12,000 employees would be reduced about 7+%. But then there is the following:
The former NOAA officials announced CBS News at the beginning of this month that current employees were expected to expect budget cuts of 30% and a reduction in staff by 50%.
The CBS piece does not indicate whether the cuts reach people who compile the temperature data -and change -.
But is there reason to assume that there are some concerns that the temperature changes can be examined? Well, there is this February 25 of ABC News, heading “Yes, Noaa adapts its historical weather data: Here is the reason.” Suddenly it is time to admit that the changes take place:
In the case of conspiracies in which it was claimed that the Federal Authority “manipulated” its historical weather data, ABC New News Chief Meteorologist and Chef -Klima Correspondent Ingwer ZEE confirmed that this was the case -but that the routine that is available for public adjustments for good reason. . . . Ncei [a branch of NOAA] Adjust weather data to take into account factors such as change of instruments, stationing and urbanization, and this is done by experts examined by experts that are published on his federal website.
It is nice to see that ABC News catches up with the Manhattan Contrarian to notice that these adjustments take place. But I am seriously deterred by her calls for appeal that Noaa has changed the data “conspiracies”. Did you check whether the adjustments are quantitatively appropriate to fully invented? Apart from the fact that the changes are “peer reviewed”, the answer is no.
Others have checked whether the adjustments are quantitatively justified and the previous results for the NOAA have been affected. Back in Part XXIX of this series (February 18, 2022) I found the basic problem of the adjustments from NOAA:
Noaa/ncei does not secrete that they change the raw data and they state an apparently legitimate reasons for the adjustments (e.g. a certain temperature station may have switched to a warmer place). but at the same time They make the details of the changes completely opaque, so that no outsider can directly evaluate the appropriateness of each adjustment directly.
My play February 2022 reported in an article that was then created by a group of 17 authors, which was published by Peter O'Neill, Ronan Connolly, Michael Connolly and Willie in the atmosphere magazine. My description of this article:
[The authors attempt] In order to reverse the adjustments to find out what NCEI does, and in particular whether NCEI identifies the station disistances such as movements or instrument changes that can lead to valid adjustments. The conclusion is that the applicants do not try to bind adjustments to a certain event that would lead to legitimate homogenization and that many of the changes appear ridiculous and completely beyond justification. . . .
The article O'Neill et al. The result:
The more the authors looked, the less they found a relationship between valid station disinuities and temperature adjustments that were inserted by the computer algorithm of NCEI.
My play in February 2022 goes into several specific locations at which data are available for certain station movements, but the NOAA adjustments do not meet these movements. Here are the conclusions from O'Neill et al., Paper itself:
[T]It results in serious concerns about the reliability of the homogenized versions of the GHCN data record and more generally about the PHA techniques, which have not yet been valued. As shown in Table 1, the homogenized GHCN data records were often used by the community to investigate global temperature trends.
If the NOAA data adjustments cannot be bound to certain metadata such as station movements or instrument changes, they are not really scientific “data”, but only opinions of people who are interested in promoting global warming count. They are completely unusable to make public order.
I am waiting for further revelations because the previous NOAA employee will be thrown out.
Like this:
Load…
Related
Do you discover more from watts?
Subscribe to the latest posts to your e -mail.
Comments are closed.