Thermometer readings at rural Haverhill, Massachusetts show cooling, but NOAA
tampers with the data to create a 4.3F/century warming trend. Older temperatures at Haverhill are cooled by 4.6F, and recent temperatures are warmed as much as 1.2F.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- World Bank Expectations
- Trained Not To Learn
- Protecting Endangered Species
- Record Climate Cynicism
- Record Cynicism
- The Latest In Climate Science Rhetoric
- Climate Desperation
- Artificial Stupidity
- Climate Obsession
- The Climate Empire Strikes Back
- Climate Scam Parrots
- “I’ve dealt with him before ”
- “I’ve dealt with him before.”
- “BE HONEST”
- Turn Out The Lights – The Party’s Over
- Net Zero In The UK
- Turn Out The Lights, The Party Is Over
- Michael Mann Again
- Over The Target
- Michael Mann’s Latest Research
- “an amazing documentary dismantling the climate change theory”
- The World’s Greatest Climate Scientist Speaks Out
- Startling New Revelation
- Just An Illusion
- Climate Conditioning
Recent Comments
- oeman50 on World Bank Expectations
- Terry Shipman on World Bank Expectations
- Louis Hooffstetter on Protecting Endangered Species
- Trevor on Protecting Endangered Species
- dearieme on Protecting Endangered Species
- arn on Trained Not To Learn
- Gamecock on Trained Not To Learn
- Francis Barnett on The Latest In Climate Science Rhetoric
- John Nebilak on Artificial Stupidity
- Gordon Vigurs on Climate Desperation
After a 6 degree increase one would think that Haverhill should have changed its climateinto a tropical zone.
Yet the weather is the same as it was 140 years ago.
Another very very strange thing within this timeframe is the population of Massachusetts.
It went from 1.8 Million in 1880 to 7 Mio in 2020.
Considering that everything above 1.5 degrees is leathal
and 6 degrees are 4x the Armageddon
it seems to be a bizarre thing that Americans flourish during a 100 years + ongoing desaster,
and it is very likely that the next 1.5 degrees of warming will hit the population just as hard as the previous ones.
Amazing, isn’t it?
One might say the Climate Scam is ‘fantasy, science fiction, absurdism, dystopian [non]fiction, suspense, horror, supernatural drama, black comedy, and psychological thriller…’ <—- the description for Rod Serling's epic, The Twilight Zone.
Don’t adjust your set. 😉
Twilight Zone is way more rational and realistic than climate science (I have all parts on blue ray so I’m qualified enough to judge) .
Not fair to compare them with pure trash.
Its a bit like the current Biden skits from Italian TV.
People claim that they are mocking Joe, I think that these were Joes best performances in the last 3 years (until I realised it wasn’t Joe )
The only ones good enough to be used in his presidential campaign(until they replace him with Newsome)
Yeah, it’s a loose connection and I’m sure you saw the tongue planted in my cheek. I get what you’re saying – like comparing climate activists to children – it’s an insult to children.
Fantasy, absurdism, dystopian fiction, horror and drama do hit somewhat close to the nail’s head. I agree, parts of the second half don’t fit at all – there is nothing comical or entertaining about the Climate Scam. It is frightening – it is like there is no end to it.
It is one thing to say that old timers were stupid and didn’t know what they were doing and therefore smart Mannites must alter their data, through magic of course, to make it correct, but to also say that smart Mannites also don’t know what they are doing, and their data must also be corrected by smart Mannites makes one wonder if the smart Mannites are really very smart at all.
Why do they have to correct recent data? Shouldn’t they know how to collect legitimate data such that it needs no correction?
By what method does NOAA decide that the thermometers and methods used to record temperature in Haverhill Mass are accurate and need no adjustment during only 1995 plus or minus a year or two? Why does the data provided until then, back near 100 years, need adjustment downward in a uniform decreasing manner with no step changes or notable wiggles? And why does the data provided after 1995 need adjustment upward in a uniformly increasing manner? Why is it that the scatter shown on your charts both adjusted and unadjusted appear to be about the same? If NOAA is correcting the data, why no change in the adjusted data scatter compared to the unadjusted?
Am I to believe that only those thermometers and methods in service in 1995 were accurate and those working now and 100 years ago are not? If so, should we not gather them up and send them to the best thermometer laboratory to be studied and replicated, and then use the replicates throughout the US ? Would this not eliminate the need for adjustments in the future? And how about the people involved in making current measurements. Are they not incompetent for providing data that is to low and were not their predecessors 100 years back even more incompetent for providing data that was much too high?
So many questions.
Even a stopped clock is right once year in a century. Just ask Mickey the Rodent, who identifies as a Mann ( Deutsch, of course. No reference to anyone living or appearing to be).