NCDC has been losing station data at an impressive rate since 1990. Undaunted by the need for actual thermometer data, they simply make up temperatures for the missing stations. As of today, 31% of USHCN “final” station data is fake.
If they continue to lose data at the current rate, it will be almost 100% fake by the year 2020 – and no doubt they will continue to report to a precision of 0.01 degrees.
As unbelievable as this seems, it is not a joke.
When you’re government paycheck or university grant depends on creating climate hysteria, it is very serious business.
Yes the short-term benefits are great but long term you are destroying the credibility of the government science that bureaucrats will rely on in case of a natural disaster.
I.e., long term this policy is like that of a farmer who eats the seeds he will need for next year’s crop !
In the morning I will submit a paper for review that exposes sixty-nine years of deception:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Solar_Energy.pdf
omanuel that credibility has already been damaged significantly. Every time some person with Professor or Dr. before their name makes some off the wall prediction or some statement that denies the reality of observations and gets transmitted around the world in a nanosecond.
My personal theory is that these days the higher echelons of academia are pretty thoroughly infused with the flower children of the 60s. Those that once protested “the establishment” are now the very thing they once protested and they have proven to be far less ethical and tolerant than those they once thought were oppressing them.
As noted above, for short-term gain they destroyed our society’s most precious resource – reliable information !
Yep…that about sums it up, perfectly.
Keep on ’em, Steve! Unbelievable. (But I believe you!)
I still get a laugh out of it.
If you did not laugh you would cry. Especially if you are an honest scientist and realize it is YOUR reputation they are trashing along with theirs.
Billions for climate study, but can’t afford a few dollars for thermometers to see what is actually happening in the real world.
It’s not a science, it’s a cargo cult. If they fabricate enough warming graphs, they hope and pray that the heat will come back.
Must climb volcano to sacrifice more sacred Coca-Cola to our lord Hyperthermia, so that he may bless us with heat.
One of the big things that convinced me that CAGW was a scam was the site study that Watts did on the weather stations. His study made it obvious that the data was horrifically bad. I really expected to see the official climatologists stand up and demand a wholesale clean up of the bad sites. Instead….. nothing. No scientist — no REAL scientist — would ever ignore the bad sites, the bad instrumentation and the grossly distorted data that was being produced. The fact that the current group of climatologists continue to use known bad data (and no, you cannot fix bad data) proves that they are liars and scam artists.
‘They’ think that they are thinking long term, but they’re bringing destruction down around our heads.
I’d appreciate comments, please, on the following article. It’s a thorough expose of the origins & genocidal machinations of the WWF, its offshoots inc Greenpeace etc & its promoters inc the House of Windsor, the major oil companies & the private central banking interests, the Rothschilds & their cohorts.
Interestingly the rather lengthy article attempts to place the present madness as part of an historic cycle, now coming to a close. Amazingly, this article is 20 years old.
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_blacknobil12.htm
Unfortunately Lyndon LaRouche is not a creditable source although it is always worth taking the tibits unearthed and doing further investigation to see if they will stand alone.
Here is one interesting source on WWF The White Man’s Game from “The Ogiek, an indigenous people living mainly in Kenya’s Mau and Mt.Elgon Forests, [who] are fighting to remain in their ancestral homeland. The former government [UK] tried to force them out of the forests, allegedly to protect the environment. But the Ogiek pose not only no environmental threat, but are actually the guardians of these forests since time immemorial.”
Back to LaRouche:
This is indeed unfortunate because he does unearth some interesting facts as has G Edward Griffin who _Jim loves to attack.
(The more strident the smear campaign, the closer you are to the target?) Interesting that both Griffin and LaRouche pin point the international bankers.
Thanks mucho, Gail.
Larouche seems to have been a most unpleasant type, with many good ideas.
Thought for the day : Politics is like cold porridge : The scum lies at the top.
G Edward Griffin is a man to respect. He receives very respectful mention in Bill Still’s masterful 3.5 hr documentary on the history of banking. He’s also aware of the geoengineering scandal & the food situation. Google :
Bill Still Money Masters
& G Edward Griffin Chemtrails
85 mins.
Cheers,
JD.
Just my opinion, but while I may disagree with LaRouche on some points, I think that in broad strokes he certainly has the basic ideas correct. There is — and has been for thousands of years — a class of people who look at the masses as cattle, and at themselves as ranchers. Consider this: if you make barely enough money to support yourself, your greatest efforts will go toward food and shelter for this week. As you rise in income you begin to allocate money for longer term goals — a vacation next year, a college fund for your child. If you are moderately wealthy, you may even start to put into place trust funds for your children and grandchildren. As your disposable income increases, your plans become for longer and longer term, because you can afford to (painlessly) allocate resources to such projects. The super-wealthy can fund projects for 100 years, 200 years — and never miss a meal, or any luxury which they might wish.
You might find this video of interest:
www(dot)youtube(dot)com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A
Oh, I agree the super-wealthy can fund projects for 100s of years. Here is a well documented example. It was the eye-opener for me.
Thank you, Jason. I hadn’t seen this previously.
This guy’s on the ball. He’s got the two modern forms of slavery, debt & govt, & he’s got the connection between religion & control. There’s a good bit to ponder in this little video. As a lighthearted thank you :
topdocumentaryfilms.com/how-beer-saved-the-world/
An amusing 60 mins.
My high school drafting teacher told us that 80% isn’t worth beans in industry. Using only 69% percent as the actual measurements is a complete failure. Imagine building a car that way.
It’s a weather station death spiral. Pretty soon children just won’t know what a thermometer is.
That death spiral is a heck of a lot more believable than the Arctic Ice death spiral. It actually has solid facts to back it up!
Worldwide:
http://diggingintheclay.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/canadadt.png
More on the station dropout problem at Digging in the clay
http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2010/01/21/the-station-drop-out-problem/
I keep this video handy, it clearly illustrates the problem. Cooler stations disappear, and warmer stations remain.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58mDaK9bH5o&feature=player_embedded&lang=en
NCDC temperature augmentation is like this.
http://celebsurgery.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Beyonce-Breast-Implants-Before-and-After.jpg
Even more remarkable, the USHCN network is supposed to be the best and most reliable of the stations. If the CAGW crowd either misses or justifies throwing out over 30% of the USHCN data, what does that imply about the overall quality of their numbers?
It implies that NOAA has wasted a heck of a lot of tax payer money and fed them bovine feces in return.
Modified from: http://www.surfacestations.org/
Station quality ratings obtained from NOAA/NCDC via this source:
Climate Reference Network Rating Guide – adopted from NCDC Climate Reference Network Handbook, 2002, specifications for siting (section 2.2.1) of NOAA’s new Climate Reference Network:
1.2% are Class 1 (CRN1) (error < 1C) – Flat and horizontal ground surrounded by a clear surface with a slope below 1/3 (<19deg). Grass/low vegetation ground cover 3 degrees.
6.7% are Class 2 (CRN2) (error < 1C) – Same as Class 1 with the following differences. Surrounding Vegetation 5deg.
21.5% are Class 3 (CRN3) (error >=1C) – Same as Class 2, except no artificial heating sources within 10 meters.
64.4% are Class 4 (CRN4) (error >= 2C) – Artificial heating sources = 5C) – Temperature sensor located next to/above an artificial heating source, such a building, roof top, parking lot, or concrete surface.”