Email Subscribe
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
-
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
- Colorado Wellington on UK “Extreme Heatwave” Forecast
- Colorado Wellington on UK “Extreme Heatwave” Forecast
- Eli the Pit Bulldog on The Green New Deal In Spain
- Graeme No.3 on Australia Skiing Doomed
- Conrad Ziefle on The Green New Deal In Spain
Archives
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- March 2015
- January 2015
New Video : Climate Fraud At The New York Times
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
Well-done! It’s wonderful to hear your sane reporting each day.
BTW, do you know if the NYT fraud is based on the usual hidden “adjustments”, or if there’s a comprehensible method used here to achieve the (attempted) deception?
Never mind; I found Windsong’s reference to Ryan Maue “bonkers” characterization, where he included the NYT magic formula:
“For each day, the count of days 90 or above reflects a 20-year rolling average. Temperature observations for your hometown are averaged over an area of approximately 625 km2 (240 square miles) and may not match single weather-station records.
The time series is based on historical data for 1960-2000. The 2001-2020 period relies on a combination of historical data and future projections. After 2020, the data uses a mixed climate model that captures a broad range of extreme temperature responses. The “likely” future range reflects outcomes with 66 percent probability of occurrence in the RCP 4.5 scenario.
We do not include locations with fewer than three 90-degree days per year on average throughout the entire time period, or for selected other regions where day-to-day variation in maximum temperature is underestimated by the model.”
So the last 20 years are corrupted by adding modelled data, and cooler locations are rejected from the 625 km2 averaging by the 90 degree requirement. Even so, I find it hard to believe that this can cause so much distortion. Maybe that’s the point.
Tony,
Thanks I can really use this!
One other VERY INTERESTING thing I gleaned from your video was that the NYT predicts that in 2089, after 150 years of anthropogenic carbon dioxide entering the atmosphere (1930 + 159 = 2089) the number of days over 90 degrees in Mount Vernon, Illinois will be about ~70.
That is the same number of days as in the 1930s. Which means all the CAGW proponents are doing is measuring and tracking normal climate variation and reporting it as warming (when they can get away with it).
Thanks, a very insightful look at this!
There’s not a chance in the world that they NYT’s, nor any of the alarmist ACC scientists – nor pundits – would appear opposite you and debate this. So telling.
Just wondering – sent this tip to MM late Friday afternoon. Whether you got it that way or some other, I knew that you’d go after it. Great work, Tony.
The link: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/08/30/climate/how-much-hotter-is-your-hometown.html
Says …
“Temperature observations for your hometown are averaged over an area of approximately 625 km² (240 square miles), and may not match single weather-station records.”
– So an average of a close-by weather stations over a 8.7 mile radius centered from your location or hometown.
“The 2001-2020 period relies on a combination of historical data and future projections.”
– Are 2001-2017 “a combination of historical data and future projections” or is just 2018-20 the projection? Why include a statement like this? So, 1960-2000 is historical data, 2001-2020 is not when they have 2001-17 data at hand.
“We do not include locations with fewer than three 90-degree days per year on average throughout the entire time period ..”
– OK, aha, they truncate any weather stations with low over 90° says for year, then average (not to mention cherry picking post 1960s data).
So, if I roll a die and then omit rolls when it comes up 1, I get an average cast of 4 (=.2x(2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6)) , and can put in a data book for others to see the truth (newsspeak), brilliant, shear brilliant, mathematicians at NYT, they can bring up the average cast of fair die without it being weighted by just omitting low rolls. Mathematical genius. Just like magic to read. Do they do fancy horoscopes too?
Here is Daily Caller debunking the NYT climate tool:
So, why is there a difference between the observed record and what TheNYT reports?
One reason is because TheNYT uses a “21-year rolling average” to tell readers how many hot days they could expect the year they were born — not the actual number that were observed.
The second reason is because TheNYT’s data past 2000 is blended with a climate model tuned to future climate projections. After 2020, TheNYT notes, “the data uses a mixed climate model that captures a broad range of extreme temperature responses.”
http://dailycaller.com/2018/09/02/new-york-times-global-warming/
Absolutely unreal…
Tony – another great video, thanks!
Sarah Sanders should start every press conference for a month with one of Tony’s videos – could you imagine!!!
I’ve often wondered why Tony always shows us the historical daily temps, but it’s clear now. Its a reminder of the history the MSM (like the NYSlimes) is trying to delete.
They do all the news like this at CNN,NYT etc. Like now they are saying that Syria is going to use ‘chemical weapons’ when they conquer Idlib from US backed islamic terrorists. The US military recently admitted that thousands of civilians have died by US bombing in Iraq and Syria just in the last year or so, yet if a few dozen are killed by ‘gas’ then its this big drama and they have to risk WWIII with Russia to ‘retaliate’.. not to mention that the recent Douma gas attack was exposed as a fraud, no traces of sarin were found at the Douma site, no bodies have been recovered as K by gas and the people in the video used by the media to show a gas attack came out and said it was staged.. but all that is ignored and they live in their own reality.