Again. You mean again.


The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has yet again been caught exaggerating  ‘global warming’ by fiddling with the raw temperature data.

This time, that data concerns the recent record-breaking cold across the northeastern U.S. which NOAA is trying to erase from history.

Lots on numbers and science at the link, plus links to scientists who wonder…why?

The key point here is that while NOAA frequently makes these adjustments to the raw data, it has never offered a convincing explanation as to why they are necessary. Nor yet, how exactly their adjusted data provides a more accurate version of the truth than the original data.

The Alexander Test of Scientific Accuracy: Can Dave Alexander’s cardiologist do this with a clear conscience? Can he adjust my cholesterol data up if necessary, while dropping my measure of blood sugar because he wants to?


This entry was posted in Global Climate, Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Again. You mean again.

  1. Kyle Kiernan says:

    Here’s a fun question I never hear answered: where is the original data, not the data from before this “adjustment” but the really truly never ever fucked with sashimi raw data.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. There are no raw data anymore. They’ve been cooking the books so long that I’d bet the numbers are adjusted at the source now. For the record, I believe in Global Climate Change, (there were Ice Ages) but I don’t believe in the scientists to be honest.


    • Kyle Kiernan says:

      And that is why it is such an interesting question. It illustrates that they really have no idea where we are since there is no notion of where we started. All we really have are the related indices that we have to extrapolate ancient temperatures from (pollen, tree rings, ice cores, etc). The fact that much of the argument and the models is GIGO cannot be pushed enough.


    • onwyrdsdream says:

      They’ve been doing it for so long that they consider it normal to do it, and they pretty much accept the adjustments their people make for just about any reason whatsoever, so long as the adjustment conforms with their expectations.

      Normally you’d think if you needed to make adjustments to 100 years of data, where the adjustment is pretty much y=mx+b where m is a positive fraction and b is a negative number, you’d come to the conclusion that your expectations were in error and maybe you should start over from the beginning.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s