An Email from NOAA Recreational Fisheries Coordinator

[dos ballenas]

Originally Posted by Lipripper92592

NOAA has been playing a Climate Change game manipulating past temperature datasets to make the present climate seem more warm that past temperatures.
There is well documented evidence of this, cached NOAA pages have shown this as well as the raw datasets.

Just curious, but do you have any evidence on this? I would love to see it

[jorluivil]

[Lipripper92592]

Originally Posted by dos ballenas

Just curious, but do you have any evidence on this? I would love to see it

Take your time on this one. Please check out the links, and the data on the links. Please compare the dates on the data, and the dates on the graphs.
Please read the articles quoted, at GISS, EPA, and NOAA.
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/...tipping-point/
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/sci...low-temps.html
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/...-at-ushcngiss/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/2...a-quality-act/

In the Science World, data integrity is everything. I'm not aiming to change your opinions, just please be aware that just because it has a government label behind it does not mean it does not have an agenda.

This is straight from the GISS:
Q. Do the raw data ever change?
A. The raw data always stays the same, except for occasional reported corrections or replacements of preliminary data from one source by reports obtained later from a more trusted source.

So why did the raw data change? It will take a good day to sift through the datasets and overlay them, but let me know if you come up with a different conclusion.

[chris138]

I'm sorry I shouldn't call names or make harsh comments. I just feel passionate about this issue...

[Lipripper92592]

Originally Posted by chris138

I'm sorry I shouldn't call names or make harsh comments. I just feel passionate about this issue...

I have a feeling we could have a healthy debate anytime.
No sweat, it's good to be passionate about something rather than nothing.
And you can't go wrong with being passionate about fishing. It's in my blood, probably in yours, most likely fighting for the same things, just possibly different avenues of attack.

[StinkyMatt]

Lip ripper,

The very first link you provided starts with two negative comments about Obama......it took no more than 3 seconds to establish the credibility of your link. It was bustin on the president and not talking science. Never made it to the second link.


I got to get going now....FOX NEWS is running a special on global warming myths....( but you already knew that)




Tight lines my scientist friend.

[Lipripper92592]

Originally Posted by StinkyMatt

Lip ripper,

The very first link you provided starts with two negative comments about Obama......it took no more than 3 seconds to establish the credibility of your link. It was bustin on the president and not talking science. Never made it to the second link.


I got to get going now....FOX NEWS is running a special on global warming myths....( but you already knew that)




Tight lines my scientist friend.

Great tactic my friend!!!!! You learn well. (Rules for radicals?)
Please highlight the word Obama in the below article. Unless I am having some eyesight issues, I don't see him mentioned at all.
NOAA Data Tampering Reaches A Tipping Point

Posted on November 3, 2013 by stevengoddard
NOAA reported that September was the warmest ever on Earth, even though satellites showed September as being close to the median.
This tipped me off that they have gone into full cheating, damn the torpedoes mode. Check out the level of tampering they achieved for September US temperatures. NCDC shows a strong warming trend for September in the US.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/us/
But the actual thermometer data which they use shows a cooling trend.

Index of /pub/data/ghcn/daily/hcn/
I immediately knew that we were looking at a record data tampering event. They have now passed two degrees of cheating in the US record. The graph below shows the difference between NCDC measured and reported data. As you can see, they are basically reducing temperatures from the past linearly with age.

NOAA has degenerated into a spectacularly immoral state, where their primary purpose seems to be to generate climate propaganda. Last week they were lying again about the 1,000 year rainfall in Colorado. It is pathetic.



Where does it say anything about Obama in this article? If you don't believe the data, you are more than free to do so. That is your right. But you did not refute the data. You smeared my sources by adding something that was not there.
Heavy tactic you have there my friend.

[chris138]

So because there are small discrepancies in temperature data which may have been "modified" by NOAA, then we should dismiss the entire organization, and indeed the 100 years plus of collective scientific knowledge generated by NOAA researchers?

If there was a CAT 5 hurricane bearing down on your family's home and NOAA, who is the only reputable marine weather service we have, predicted landfall nearby, would you call mom up and say "I dunno mom... These kooks over at NWS often falsify their data and are likely exaggerating the danger"? I think not.

I trust NOAA wholeheartedly, with my life. So do you, and you don't even realize it. Where do you think all the marine weather data comes from? Magic seaweed?? They have been directly responsible for saving thousands of lives and billions of dollars worth of property, and that's only in the last couple decades. I have many friends who work at fisheries and my girlfriend works at Scripps. Of course, they have an agenda like any other well funded organization. 2012 was a cold year water wise. I'm not surprised there were discrepancies in their data set.

But saying human induced global climate change isn't real, now that is pseudo-science. Sure the geologic record shows climate change, even dramatic in scale. The current patterns we are experiencing are UNPRECEDENTED in the geologic record... Like 1000x faster than we have any record of. Does it mean global warming or ice age? I don't know and won't venture to guess... But assuming some rightwing internet trolls knows more about global climate than the ARMY of PhDs from NOAA is a real shame. You are asserting that there is some conspiracy and that scientists are purposefully misinforming the public? These scientists argue with each other more than they would ever debate with a outside entity. All they do is try to prove each other wrong. Do you realize the amount of proof and peer defense that a team has to go through to even present an idea as a HYPOTHESIS, let alone a theory? Please give them a little more credit.

These are the same guys who have completely shut down the commercial sardine fishery this year. Why would they do something silly like that? Maybe it's because they are the only ones preventing man from completely decimating what is left of our ocean?

[bubblehide]

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them think.

[jruiz]

Originally Posted by Lipripper92592

Take your time on this one. Please check out the links, and the data on the links. Please compare the dates on the data, and the dates on the graphs.
Please read the articles quoted, at GISS, EPA, and NOAA.
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/...tipping-point/
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/sci...low-temps.html
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/...-at-ushcngiss/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/2...a-quality-act/

In the Science World, data integrity is everything. I'm not aiming to change your opinions, just please be aware that just because it has a government label behind it does not mean it does not have an agenda.

This is straight from the GISS:
Q. Do the raw data ever change?
A. The raw data always stays the same, except for occasional reported corrections or replacements of preliminary data from one source by reports obtained later from a more trusted source.

So why did the raw data change? It will take a good day to sift through the datasets and overlay them, but let me know if you come up with a different conclusion.

Does this paper explain who is changing the data and why?

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/im...o-DC_Brief.pdf

Hardly seems like a conspiracy to me. If anything, seems to me, at worst making poor conclusions on faulty data.

[ful-rac]