Explosive Growth In Dishonesty At NOAA

I’m curious to know what changes have occurred in the surface record since the year 2000, which have required USHCN to upwards adjust by an additional 0.5 degrees? Perhaps the criticality of funding bias or the you better make Hansen happy bias have kicked in.

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/9641C_201209_F52.avg.gz

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/9641C_201209_raw.avg.gz

Blatant fraud going on at taxpayer expense.

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to Explosive Growth In Dishonesty At NOAA

  1. Andy DC says:

    Superexponential increase in the warm bias. If they were doctoring a company’s books like that, they would all be in prison.

  2. Owen says:

    This is blatant fraud. NOAA has no credibility whatsoever. Sociopaths are running the place.

  3. Michael D Smith says:

    This needs to be run far and wide. People don’t realize how screwed up the temperature record is. I wonder if Anthony would post it up since his reach is bigger. And Marc could put up a page describing how bad the situation is. If you submitted a guest post to either with details on how this is calculated / extracted, so it is easily replicated, I would bet both of them would put it up.

  4. johnmcguire says:

    They have destroyed their credibility by blatantly manipulating the records yet they think they are golden ? Hahahahahahahaha they will be recorded in history for the cheats and weasels that they are . And their followers will be known for their idiocy . And I give them too much credit by associating them with weasels .

  5. Brian G Valentine says:

    I wonder if we can ever expect a “climategate” whistle blowing data dumping weasel within the historical climate network

  6. gator69 says:

    Maybe we need a little more incentive, like what the IRS just paid out…

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/sep/11/irs-pays-104-million-whistleblower/

    Imagine 30% of the AGW scam!

  7. squid2112 says:

    That graph looks somewhat like a, um, well, a, hockey stick? … hmmmm

  8. Do the adjustment charts look different if using max temp or min temp?

  9. Andy OZ says:

    The Adjustment chart appears directly correlated to the amount of government funding to warmers and inversely related to the number of AGW believers out there, proving more government funding doesn’t change people’s minds when they smell something fishy.

  10. Follow the money.

    I really do hope there will be change when Romney gets in. Where ever the money goes is where the data will go. Hopefully righteousness will mean something when Romney is President for 8 years.

  11. Eric Barnes says:

    The good thing is that it’s going to be very difficult to keep this up for much longer. Especially if it starts to cool. IMO, by 2020, AGW will be a fatherless child.

    • The actual temperature doesn’t make any difference. They just ramp up the adjustments.

      • Richard T. Fowler says:

        I don’t know, I think of it as an elastic effect: it makes no difference and no difference, etc. until a certain point, and then it makes all the difference. I think we’re close to that point right now with temperature.

        Even now (and due in no small part to where unadjusted U.S. temperatures are over the last six years), I believe that if the U.S., Canada, Russia and Japan were to come out and jointly announce that temperatures have been fraudulently manipulated for a political agenda, and that the four of them were going to boycott further climate talks until the fraud gets reversed out and the perpetrators fired, we would see a sea change in Europe, in Australia, and in many other places.

        RTF

      • Eric Barnes says:

        Yes, they could, but it would look increasingly silly. Would they continue to add to raw for 2012+ ( that would look even more fraudulent than current), or would they retroactively adjust (another massive credibility hit)? Theres also the problem of the satellite temps and divergence from the thermometers. Also consider a temperature drop (which seems likely). That would make the job even more difficult.
        I’m hopeful that many at NOAA/NASA/etc. are acutely aware of what a fraud this is and are aching to leave AGW in the dustbin of history. Hopefully a sense of duty to the taxpayer prevails and the train will get back on track. I don’t think your efforts are lost on these people.

  12. Missing the point… there will always be scares…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *