18

Fabrication of data

Posted by $ Snezzy 5 years, 10 months ago to Science
39 comments | Share | Flag

This is an article from Tony Heller's "Real Science" blog. His historical research shows that meteorological data is being adjusted to match theory. The adjustments are not only to the current data, where readings are fabricated to create data for weather stations that are not reporting or that do not exist, but also to historical data, supposedly to correct for inaccuracies in readings of the past 130 years.

There is no scientific basis for corrections to historical data, because the work that was done in the past included discussions of methods for proper measurement and examination of the accuracy obtained.
SOURCE URL: https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2016/01/15/if-the-facts-dont-fit-the-theory-change-the-facts-2/


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by $ richrobinson 5 years, 10 months ago
    Interesting. No debate is possible if the facts are being manipulated like this.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • 10
      Posted by $ 5 years, 10 months ago
      Right. Remember "the science is settled"?

      Here is the IPCC's mandate:
      "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established by the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to assess the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of human induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for mitigation and adaptation."
      http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/

      It's not about whether we cause climate change, but instead what should be done. The UN claims it's too late for thinking and nay-saying. We must act NOW! (Anyone in the way gets the "Alinsky" treatment.)
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ richrobinson 5 years, 10 months ago
        I would love to see us withdraw from the UN. IF Climate Change is real and IF humans are causing it then why wouldn't they want all manufacturing to be done in the USA where we regulate and control pollutants? Great post Snezzy. It is about control. (I think they start with the Lewinsky treatment and if that doesn't work you get the Alinsky treatment.)
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by edweaver 5 years, 10 months ago
          Withdraw from the UN, EPA, DOE, NSA.... oh the list goes on & on. :)
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ richrobinson 5 years, 10 months ago
            I think we should have another government shutdown. Only essential personnel continue to work. The rest are then fired. Shutdown ends and the savings would be billions.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by hattrup 5 years, 10 months ago
              The depressing fact about all previous govt shutdowns is that it is just an extra paid vacation for govt employees.
              There may be some win in that while part of the feds are shutdown, like be somewhat more pleasant for some - but it is usually short lived (1 week or so) and everyone just gets paid a bit later for being away from work (but "on standby").

              Not what I would call a shutdown - but that is what the press proclaims it is. I would just call it extra paid vacation - and their way to a full pension after 20-years, and full healthcare.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by edweaver 5 years, 10 months ago
              I agree. I think the trouble would be that everybody thinks they're essential so who would go. I've heard it said that the government doesn't take in enough money to pay for all the essential services, the rest is borrowed. I find that hard to believe but I've heard it more than once.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 5 years, 10 months ago
    When the target is too difficult to hit, just move the target to where you're hitting. Problem solved.

    Years ago, I was part of the Pentagon "Weather War" studies. We were trying to determine if it would be possible to cause favorable weather events even briefly. We looked at creating fog conditions, precipitation on demand, and at the extreme, triggering or suppressing high velocity wind events. The materials and logistics quickly became titanic in scope, involving trillions of tons of chemicals for limited effect with a questionable probability of success. I also assisted in hurricane studies, where I learned that hurricane Camille (which I experienced in 1969) released over 200 megatons of energy during the brief time it was over the Gulf coast.

    Those experiences convinced me that it's pretty arrogant to envision any human action short of a major nuclear exchange having more than a very minor effect on the world climate.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by dbhalling 5 years, 10 months ago
    I knew from the first time I heard about AGW that is was not science for two reasons. One, they lied about the data, and two the mainly discussed how this required limited people's freedoms.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ jlc 5 years, 10 months ago
      ...and because I knew enough about history to remember the Roman and Viking warm periods.

      Yes.

      Jan
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by dbhalling 5 years, 10 months ago
        Yes, but that issue did not come up until the global warming nonsense had been going on for quite awhile. I remember in the early 2000s having a discussion with a potential client who had a Phd in Civil Engineering about GW. He asked me what I though and I said I thought it was Global stupidity. Not a great way to get a client it turned out.

        I also had a discussion with my brother who is in academia essentially (MD PhD) in which he brought up all the nonsense environmental arguments including the last fall back the precautionary principle. I did not know that had named it at that time. The precautionary principle says if you are driving blind down the road you need to take a left turn because the road might turn left and if you do not turn left now it will be too late. It took me about a year to convince my brother and my dad. To his credit my dad (MD) took the time to research it when I was adamant that GW was nonsense - he was in his 70s at the time.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 5 years, 10 months ago
        The three key issues for me (before I spent way too much time looking into it:

        1. Viking warm period, exploration of new world
        2. Saying that "Science is Settled"
        3. Calling skeptics "Deniers" (Godwin's Law)
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Joseph23006 5 years, 10 months ago
    In the Seventies we were told that by this date we would be living like Eskimos all year long, shovelling snow in July etc. By the Nineties and Al Gore we were told the exact same data predicted we would be living in the sub-Sahara at the same address. "Settled science"? In every science course I took, either a thing was proved or disproved, the class did not get to vote on what was the scientific truth!
    Between the 900's and 1300's the temperature in Europe rose higher than the predicted cataclismic musings of today, the Dark Ages ended and art, music, science, and literature flourished as it had not not since the days of Rome or since.
    As to the Global Change (they can't make up their collective mind) concensus scientists; the concensus was: the Earth was flat, the Earth was the center of the Universe, and the Earth was only 5000 years old, those believing otherwise were excommunicated, forced to recant or burned as heretics.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 5 years, 10 months ago
    I compare Climate Change to religion for the left.Observe that when bible stories are challenged on the basis of their irrationality and global warming is challenged on its irrationality, the reaction is similar, or the same. Religion: You'll go to hell. Global warming: you should go to jail. In both cases, you are dismissed without proof. It is the outgrowth of the blind belief which left agendas require in order to keep the "useful idiots" in line.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 5 years, 10 months ago
    Yep...as a member and participant of suspicious0bservers.org we see the changes taking place. At the present time we must archive first reports because as soon as no one is looking it changes.
    We also see and have documented how they have moved thermometers into direct sunlight and into citys (heat islands). They also have tried to use digital thermometers which they say are more accurate...somehow, I don't think so. We've always used mercury and whether accurate or not (who knows) it was a standard across the board...now we have a mix.
    A great resource is also adapt 2030 on youtube. This person has done some great detective work. He is in the coffee distribution business and knows what the temperature trends are and also sees weather and patterns elsewhere in the world that the lamestream is not reporting. Check this one out: https://youtu.be/_I_lsZCAWi4
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by fosterj717 5 years, 10 months ago
    That is the absolute Truth! As with anything else, in order to find out the Truth, follow the money!

    These so-called climate change alarmists who call themselves scientists have been found now on numerous occasions of abandoning the empirical method, cheating on designing testing protocols and just about every other form of Scientific Malpractice.

    The question is why? The answer is really quite simple being that if you looked at who is paying these scientists, almost to a one, you will find that they (who live and die) are the recipients of government grants. The government in the industrialized nations at least are the one's paying the lion's share of this research.

    Therefore, since governments have so much invested (including pushing treaties and paying off liberal industries) in supporting the Climate Change/Global Warming hyperbole, that they can only win if their stated and committed goals are met. Hence the reliance on a bunch of "scientists" that are more interested in making their respective governments happy, thus ensuring an endless stream of "research" dollars keep coming.

    It is pretty easy to set something you want to show as scientific fact just by altering the protocols, using garbage computer models (the basis of the research) and throwing out any datum that does not support your theories.

    Hope that helps!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 5 years, 10 months ago
      They aren't shy about admitting to it. that was publicly done about five years ago on PBS by the lead original scientist who even then did not view the predictions as cataclysmic. That was the rip off artists like Al Gore who used it to become millionaire? Hell his houses cost millions and none of them built green.

      The more fool you the public.

      Nothing new there ....

      Just the same closed minds that will elect the same single party government and pretend they have freedoms.

      You live in a fascist police state..

      I live in Free North America.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by fosterj717 5 years, 10 months ago
        I'm confused! I live in the USA, where do you live? If we both live here, why am I the only one in a fascist state and you in a "Free North America".....?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 5 years, 10 months ago
          Two reasons I always am in the USA and the Gulch no matter where I am. Secondly I spend most of my time in the United States. There are two of them in North America. You I think are referring to what the rest of the world regards as the USSA - a neo fascist police state governed by a dictator who publicly crapped on the Constitution. Try this for one small little item. No more probable cause for arrests followed by civil rights unless they want to use it. The new standard - which can be used at any time on anybody - invokes something called 'suspicion of or suspicion of supporting terrorism' requires no probable cause and denies all civil rights. It's also not limited to Jihadist ragheads. It has no limit. You should have read the fine print it was signed into law New Years Eve with the cooperation of Congress both houses. The rest is Executive Orders.

          Since I don't live in that United States any more and am in that USA four or five days a year I refer to my area as Free North America. What's your excuse?

          But I gave you a point because no one else had the balls to ask. Besides that's been the policy and regulation since the Patriot Act became law nothing new there. The only thing new was adding suspicion of 'supporting' terrorism just that one word.

          And if you haven't been paying attention 24 years Infantry and our oath was and is only to the Constitution.

          Seig me No Heils I do NOT serve the party. There now I'm guilty again. Do you know how to click your heels?:
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 5 years, 10 months ago
    This sort of thing has been going on for some time. From data fabrication to finding revealing fact thrown in a dumpster. Climate Change has become a religious substitute for lefties and they will brook no contrariness, no matter how irrational their stance is. You might note how similar the reaction is when you point out the irrationality of the bible tales to the irrationality of the global warming. It is usually pretty vehement. In the case of religion you'll go to hell, in the case of climate change, you should go to jail.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by wiggys 5 years, 10 months ago
    what difference does it all make? those involved in politics made up their minds years ago that global warming is going to be a cash cow as it was for gore and they will not let up ever. if we have a snowy summer with temperatures not going above 40 degrees they will conjure up a reason to explain why the cause IS global warming, the discussion is like beating a dead horse.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo