Author Topic: Data Manipulation - NOAA  (Read 1458 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Mattk

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 868
Data Manipulation - NOAA
« on: September 06, 2017, 06:14:12 PM »
This one I feel deserves an individual airing as we continually hear from the deniers that data manipulation is a myth and climate scientists are somehow above all else and wouldn't stoop to such low levels of non professionalism in an attempt to use flawed data to influence world agenda outcomes. Coming straight from the horses mouth as part of an inquiry by Congress it's pretty damming stuff and obviously impossible to palm off as just another nut case       

https://science.house.gov/news/press-releases/former-noaa-scientist-confirms-colleagues-manipulated-climate-records


Offline WeatherHost

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 3190
Re: Data Manipulation - NOAA
« Reply #1 on: September 06, 2017, 06:35:52 PM »
And your agenda?

Banners, tags, widgets, etc. are why I have Signatures turned off.

Offline Jáchym

  • Meteotemplate Developer
  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 8568
    • Meteotemplate
Re: Data Manipulation - NOAA
« Reply #2 on: September 06, 2017, 06:42:23 PM »
Given you have obviously created yet another flame thread, desperately waiting for mine and a few other people's reaction here it is:

If I completely disregard the fact this is one incident and who knows to what extent his description is true, even if we say all NOAA data is biased... you should maybe study the meaning of the word global, get your head out of the sand and realize that in terms of global matters I dont quite care what one weather organization "somewhere in the world" does.

We have our own data, just like many other countries/institutions and I dont need any NOAA specialist to supply me with it.

P.S. And as I said, it is of course not the case NOAA data is all biased


Offline Jáchym

  • Meteotemplate Developer
  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 8568
    • Meteotemplate
Re: Data Manipulation - NOAA
« Reply #3 on: September 06, 2017, 06:53:36 PM »
OK, assuming that (as Matt thinks) all NOAA data is biased and inaccurate.

The IPCC report, which came to a unanimous conclusion GW is happening:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ar5/ar5_authors_review_editors_updated.pdf

NOAA: 18/274

What about the 256 remaining institutions/people.

Just shows how little you understand the whole thing about "global" warming, how it is analyzed, measured. And no, it really isnt based on few people somewhere occasionally fiddeling with some results.


Offline Mattk

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 868
Re: Data Manipulation - NOAA
« Reply #4 on: September 06, 2017, 07:04:47 PM »
Until some start to admit meteorological data is being manipulated to achieve questionable outcomes then no amount of offensive comments will change the facts. Meteorological institutions such as NOAA are not the only ones diddling the books and most met people worth their salt would be well aware of this, to deny this is simply putting ones head in the sand. Met offices in many countries obviously have stuff to hide otherwise they wouldn't be so secretive about their activities, and activities mind you funded by the tax payer, and open their books for scrutiny and transparency. Like they think they are the only ones would can understand such things and their apparently secret matters.

Like lets face it if it's not a secret then what is there to hide.  And to even suggest this NOAA gotcha is just an isolated case, like what planet are you living on.     

Offline Jáchym

  • Meteotemplate Developer
  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 8568
    • Meteotemplate
Re: Data Manipulation - NOAA
« Reply #5 on: September 06, 2017, 07:06:47 PM »
Quote
Meteorological institutions such as NOAA are not the only ones diddling the books

Please name, with evidence

If you want to make such bold statements you obviously must have very clear evidence for all this.

Offline WeatherHost

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 3190
Re: Data Manipulation - NOAA
« Reply #6 on: September 06, 2017, 07:16:36 PM »
If this is a continuation of a hissy fit from another thread, can this be merged, locked, etc?

Banners, tags, widgets, etc. are why I have Signatures turned off.

Offline Mattk

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 868
Re: Data Manipulation - NOAA
« Reply #7 on: September 06, 2017, 07:20:33 PM »
Quote
Meteorological institutions such as NOAA are not the only ones diddling the books

Please name, with evidence

If you want to make such bold statements you obviously must have very clear evidence for all this.

You being a met person would fully realize what other countries are fiddling the books, if you don't then you are rather out of touch in this field. I don't intend to play your innocent little game.

But I realize the Czech Republic don't have a bitch in this fight as your country is pretty much reliant on coal but the other EU countries force the rules based simply on a majority vote. The last thing the Czech Republic would want to do is inflate the figures as other countries are doing.

As for some other countries well yes they have an agenda.     
« Last Edit: September 06, 2017, 07:22:47 PM by Mattk »

Offline Mattk

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 868
Re: Data Manipulation - NOAA
« Reply #8 on: September 06, 2017, 07:21:55 PM »
If this is a continuation of a hissy fit from another thread, can this be merged, locked, etc?

Separate subject buddy, what can't you handle the facts? What have you to hide, what don't you like discussing the facts, reality or is your agenda the only version?

Offline Jáchym

  • Meteotemplate Developer
  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 8568
    • Meteotemplate
Re: Data Manipulation - NOAA
« Reply #9 on: September 06, 2017, 07:43:48 PM »
OK, now you have shown us you understand matters in my country probably as much as you understand global warming, the idea of sensible and evidence-based debate...

Please continue making idiot of yourself, Im enjoying it :-)

Offline Mattk

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 868
Re: Data Manipulation - NOAA
« Reply #10 on: September 06, 2017, 07:52:48 PM »
OK, now you have shown us you understand matters in my country probably as much as you understand global warming, the idea of sensible and evidence-based debate...

Please continue making idiot of yourself, Im enjoying it :-)

Yeah so why is there any need to manipulate any data, yet alone try and hide the facts from the public, what is the agenda behind all this secretive manipulation and data corruption, tampering, what are they so frightened of the real data proving? Why have they had to manipulate data in an attempt to justify so called global warming, why doesn't the data by itself without tampering do this? Lots of question, hey, have you any answers? 
« Last Edit: September 06, 2017, 07:54:33 PM by Mattk »

Offline graculus

  • Senior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 71
Re: Data Manipulation - NOAA
« Reply #11 on: September 06, 2017, 07:53:29 PM »
OK, assuming that (as Matt thinks) all NOAA data is biased and inaccurate.

The IPCC report, which came to a unanimous conclusion GW is happening:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ar5/ar5_authors_review_editors_updated.pdf

NOAA: 18/274

What about the 256 remaining institutions/people.

Just shows how little you understand the whole thing about "global" warming, how it is analyzed, measured. And no, it really isnt based on few people somewhere occasionally fiddeling with some results.

I see the effects of warming locally so I'm sure it's happening. However since you cite the IPCC reports consider that the "1998 to 2012 warming hiatus" reported by IPCC in their 2013 report was eliminated in their 2015 report as a result of, among other things, "Researchers revised the NOAA data set to correct for known biases in sea-surface-temperature records".** Valid or not that's the kind of thing that causes the layman to question the scientific establishment.

** Source: Summary Article in Nature.

Offline Jáchym

  • Meteotemplate Developer
  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 8568
    • Meteotemplate
Re: Data Manipulation - NOAA
« Reply #12 on: September 06, 2017, 07:53:53 PM »
You probably dont realize one very important thing.

I admit I have never worked for NOAA or NWS or studied in detail how they work. So even though I seriously doubt your generalizations, I cannot 100% disprove them. However, I know exactly what we do here and how things are done in my country so when you tell me what we do here, you only show to me all your argumentation is based on "I think", "I would like to believe", "I heard 'somewhere', "someone said"

I.e. no point in discussing anything with you, waste of time.

Offline Mattk

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 868
Re: Data Manipulation - NOAA
« Reply #13 on: September 06, 2017, 07:58:47 PM »
You probably dont realize one very important thing.

I admit I have never worked for NOAA or NWS or studied in detail how they work. So even though I seriously doubt your generalizations, I cannot 100% disprove them. However, I know exactly what we do here and how things are done in my country so when you tell me what we do here, you only show to me all your argumentation is based on "I think", "I would like to believe", "I heard 'somewhere', "someone said"

I.e. no point in discussing anything with you, waste of time.

Your country is not in question but obviously you have a reluctance to even want to venture into the world of reality outside of your borders, as what happens outside of your borders will have a direct affect on what is done within your borders, this is something you have no control over as majority rules and in this case majority is ruling using doctored numbers. Are you happy being controlled by countries using doctored numbers in an attempt to justify the wimps of a few?

Offline Jáchym

  • Meteotemplate Developer
  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 8568
    • Meteotemplate
Re: Data Manipulation - NOAA
« Reply #14 on: September 06, 2017, 08:02:50 PM »
Lost case  8-)

Offline Jstx

  • Senior Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 174
  • Baby the Rain Must Fall
Re: Data Manipulation - NOAA
« Reply #15 on: September 06, 2017, 08:06:53 PM »
This one I feel deserves an individual airing as we continually hear from the deniers that data manipulation is a myth and climate scientists are somehow above all else and wouldn't stoop to such low levels of non professionalism [1] in an attempt to use flawed data to influence world agenda outcomes. Coming [2] straight from the horses mouth [3] as part of an inquiry by Congress it's pretty damming stuff [4] and obviously impossible to palm off as just another nut case       

https://science.house.gov/news/press-releases/former-noaa-scientist-confirms-colleagues-manipulated-climate-records

Well gooollee Mattk, just as I was about to post this comment on your previous thread, which I've been diligently gathering and sourcing (with corroboratory links even!), you pop this one out. Oh well, I'll just C&P it over there too, most of it fits in either.

[1] These malicious attempts to accuse the meteo scientific community of falsifying 'the data' have been thoroughly debunked multiple times.
http://www.factcheck.org/2017/02/no-data-manipulation-at-noaa/
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2015/noaa-analysis-journal-science-no-slowdown-in-global-warming-in-recent-years.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/02/how-culture-clash-noaa-led-flap-over-high-profile-warming-pause-study

[2] Straight from the horse's ass, Rep. Lamar Smith is a well known anti-science politician. He also is one of the top recipients in Congress of fossil energy sector political 'donations' (hint, hint).
 ibid.
http://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/contributors?cycle=Career&cid=N00001811
http://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/summary?cid=N00001811

[3] This wholly politically motivated, stacked and twisted 'inquiry' was convened solely to attempt to discredit NOAA and other meteo agencies and groups. As with item 1 above, it has been thoroughly dissected and discredited for the cheap political assassination attempt that it is.
 ibid.

[4] But it IS just an attempt to "palm off" pure propaganda and bullchit as something of substance, when it was just a glossy coat on the usual denier turds.

For y'all unaware of what drive$ Smith, and what an anti-science, anti-logic&rationalityosed-minded jerk he is, here's some useful background info from Wiki (a peer-reviewed source of (usually) factual info) 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamar_S._Smith

"As the Head of the House Science Committee, Smith has been harsly criticized for promoting climate change denial, baselessly attacking scientific outlets and researchers, and receiving funding from oil and gas companies.[2][3][4][5][6][7] He was formerly a contributor to Breitbart News.[8]...
"Climate change
As of 2015, Smith has received more than $600,000 from the fossil fuel industry during his career in Congress.[53] In 2014, Smith got more money from fossil fuels than he did from any other industry.[54] Smith publicly denies global warming.[55][56][57] Under his leadership, the House Science committee has held hearings that feature the views of climate change deniers,[58] subpoenaed the records and communications of scientists who published papers that Smith disapproved of, [blatant intimidation] [55] and attempted to cut NASA's earth sciences budget.[59] He has been criticized for conducting "witch hunts" against climate scientists.[54] In his capacity as Chair of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, Smith issued more subpoenas in his first three years than the committee had for its entire 54-year history.[54] In a June 2016 response letter to the Union of Concerned Scientists, Mr. Smith cited the work of the House Un-American Activities Committee in the 1950s as valid legal precedent for his investigation.[60][61] Smith has a lifetime score of 7% on the National Environmental Scorecard of the League of Conservation Voters.[62][63][64]
On December 1, 2016 as Chair on the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, he tweeted out on behalf of that committee a Breitbart article denying climate change.[65]"

.
« Last Edit: September 06, 2017, 08:20:02 PM by Jstx »

Offline CW2274

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 3863
    • Conditions @ CW2274
Re: Data Manipulation - NOAA
« Reply #16 on: September 06, 2017, 08:09:47 PM »
Mattk, not saying you're right, wrong, or somewhere in between, if you feel so strongly about this, start a grassroots movement, cause it's obvious you don't trust those in charge. At this point, bitching at each other accomplishes nothing, except the boards entertainment.

Offline Jstx

  • Senior Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 174
  • Baby the Rain Must Fall
Re: Data Manipulation - NOAA
« Reply #17 on: September 06, 2017, 08:13:11 PM »
OK, now you have shown us you understand matters in my country probably as much as you understand global warming, the idea of sensible and evidence-based debate...

Please continue making idiot of yourself, Im enjoying it :-)

Me too!
There's a saying (more or less): 'One who thinks himself a lawyer, and represents himself in a courtroom, has a fool for a client'...

Offline WeatherHost

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 3190
Re: Data Manipulation - NOAA
« Reply #18 on: September 06, 2017, 08:15:44 PM »
You probably dont realize one very important thing.

The Earth is round?

Banners, tags, widgets, etc. are why I have Signatures turned off.

Offline Mattk

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 868
Re: Data Manipulation - NOAA
« Reply #19 on: September 06, 2017, 08:18:38 PM »
Mattk, not saying you're right, wrong, or somewhere in between, if you feel so strongly about this, start a grassroots movement, cause it's obvious you don't trust those in charge. At this point, bitching at each other accomplishes nothing, except the boards entertainment.

Yes but the problem with some appears they have this real problem of even admitting all this is going on. There is already a movement out there, none of this is going unnoticed yet some are still in complete denial. Only those in denial are accepting the fiddling as an acceptable thing as it is in line with their very one sided narrow inexperienced views. If it takes entertainment to have some admittance then what's the problem. For anybody to continually post up reams and reams and reams of highlighted quotes simply highlights the desperation and lack of real world activities some of the people have. 

Offline Mattk

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 868
Re: Data Manipulation - NOAA
« Reply #20 on: September 06, 2017, 08:19:27 PM »
You probably dont realize one very important thing.

The Earth is round?

Yeah it wasn't that long ago some would have you believe you would also fall off the edge if you went to far :)

Offline Jáchym

  • Meteotemplate Developer
  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 8568
    • Meteotemplate
Re: Data Manipulation - NOAA
« Reply #21 on: September 06, 2017, 08:21:46 PM »
Matt you probably dont realize one thing. You dont work for NOAA, you were not involved in what you are suggesting, meaning both you and me rely on "what someone said", is it true? Who knows.

In case of me, I work in the Czech NWS, I have first-hand data, I see the trends, I analyze them myself, I know it is not manipulated.

So in a way you are right, we are not answering your question and I will therefore now address it:

1. is data manipulation ok? - manipulation no, adjustment yes
2. does potential data manipulation in some cases by NOAA make any significant difference to the idea and conclusions about GW - absolutely not

Offline Mattk

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 868
Re: Data Manipulation - NOAA
« Reply #22 on: September 06, 2017, 08:32:46 PM »
So in a way you are right, we are not answering your question and I will therefore now address it:

1. is data manipulation ok? - manipulation no, adjustment yes

Ok adjustment is ok then, if it's always "adjusted" in favour of an outcome then isn't that manipulation? So it's ok to cap the bottom end of the scale but not ok to cap the top end of the scale, so as to increase the trend :)

Quote
2. does potential data manipulation in some cases by NOAA make any significant difference to the idea and conclusions about GW - absolutely not

Well worded, so what about all the other cases, not just some (selective) cases? Which raises an important question hey of why manipulate data at all? As if they didn't have an agenda then there would be absolutely no need to manipulate anything, would there?

Offline Jáchym

  • Meteotemplate Developer
  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 8568
    • Meteotemplate
Re: Data Manipulation - NOAA
« Reply #23 on: September 06, 2017, 08:39:05 PM »
OK, I tried, you dont get it. Enough said

Offline Mattk

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 868
Re: Data Manipulation - NOAA
« Reply #24 on: September 06, 2017, 08:42:37 PM »
OK, I tried, you dont get it. Enough said

Thankyou for trying but no there are no part marks for manipulation or is that adjustment or whatever it is that changes the outcome in favour of a predetermined result, none what so ever.