NOAA conducts Orwellian revision of empirical evidence

fabricating data

From American Thinker via C3.

This came up a few days before Christmas. I didn’t get to it then but it needs airing. The surface temperature series of GISS and HadCrut are scarcely worth the disk drives they’re stored on. No wonder the records show warming.

It’s a joke. The shocking truth is that the oldest readings have been cranked way down and later readings artificially lifted to give a false impression of warming. That seems familiar — now where have I read that before

NOAA changes old temperature records every month. This is a new climate sport in which we imagined Kiwis led the world. But the Yanks have more stamina. They don’t just do it once, they keep on doing it. The data-altering champions in NOAA and NASA put the climate scientists in NIWA to shame.

NIWA couldn’t provide reasons for the adjustments to the official national temperature series, so they had the good grace to reconstruct the series, providing careful explanations of each adjustment as they went. They have since left the records alone.

But not NOAA. They make multiple monthly adjustments to readings from, for example, 1880, 1930 and 2008. Old readings are lowered and recent readings are raised to increase the apparent warming, as can be seen here (click to enlarge).

NOAA changes to historical temperature record

Kiwi stalwarts of the IPCC should have their noses rubbed in this. Perhaps their loyalty will fade when they hear it. We certainly need to know if they intend to defend these people. It’s a filthy scandal which again attacks the core of good science and destroys public trust in science. Unless I’ve missed something, the behaviour of these NOAA scientists is positively reprehensible and indefensible. Not even from New Zealand.

It would be most helpful if the MSM took up this story and used their considerable resources to investigate the details and interview the principal figures. But I don’t suppose that will happen.

Excerpts from the American Thinker post:

Dr. Jane Lubchenco, the environmentalist rock star and former vice chairperson of the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), was appointed as the administrator of NOAA by President Obama. She has installed a team of eco-zealots, and they have a Climate Service Office ready and waiting to proceed — with only congressional approval standing in their way.

Dr. Lubchenco will be true to her EDF roots. She followed the EDF party line with the fisheries and can be anticipated to follow it on cap and trade. In both cases, the EDF stances are the extreme environmentalist positions.

The current upper echelons of NOAA are remorseless eco-zealots. They are not public servants in that they feel no need to answer to the American people. They have their truth, and it shall be the truth for all, or else.

Unscientific actions by anyone, whatever their motives, however pure those motives may be, degrade public confidence. Such unethical actions deserve swift censure wherever they are found and constant vigilance to guard against their return.

12 Thoughts on “NOAA conducts Orwellian revision of empirical evidence

  1. I know this is OT – but here goes.
    After your solid December rains – I have posted – “Are the New Zealand NIWA Outlooks as useless as those of the Australian BoM ?”
    http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=1246

    On the NIWA site I also saw this back-slapping puff.
    “NIWA climate change scientists honoured in Prime Minister’s top science prizes”
    http://www.niwa.co.nz/news/niwa-climate-change-scientists-honoured-in-prime-minister%E2%80%99s-top-science-prizes
    Quote -Their findings have helped position New Zealand as a leader in the debate about whether manipulating the oceans to remove carbon dioxide emissions from the air – a form of geo-engineering – could mitigate or solve global warming. –
    Kiwis enjoy.

  2. I see our old friend Keith Hunter shares in the glory.
    Mind you, anyone who has to endure 10m swells in a research boat deserves a medal, in my view.

    Phillip Boyd gets interviewed in a video at the end of the article, and name-drops Bill Gates.

    Please, we don’t want Service Pack 1 applied to our planet just yet!

  3. Richard C (NZ) on January 9, 2012 at 12:02 pm said:

    Placed this response at Warwick’s blog:-

    My bone-of-contention too Warwick.

    The note at the bottom of the top image reads: “In this example the climate models suggest that below average conditions are likely (50% chance of occurrence)” – so dump the “climate models” you’re using because they’re a contradiction in terms.

    Then: “…the chance of normal or above normal is also shown (30% and 20% respectively)” – the actual outcome was given a 20% chance without recourse to “the climate models” i.e by WAG (wild ass guess), so ascribe a greater probability to the guess and go with that.

    “So if they could miss that huge event coming down the pipeline hardly two weeks away – are they really worth their salaries ?” No.

  4. Richard C (NZ) on January 9, 2012 at 12:43 pm said:

    The Job Description of the functionary that carries out this task at NOAA:-

    Title: Temperature Data Adjuster

    Reports to: Climate Data Manager

    Job purpose:

    To maintain and enhance the warming trend in the temperature record on an on-going basis, in accordance with agreed business plans.

    Key responsibilities:

    1. Maintain and develop the temperature database.
    2. Regularly adjust temperatures downwards prior to 1940.
    3. Regularly adjust temperatures upwards past 1951.
    4. Attend training and to develop relevant knowledge and skills.
    5. Duties as required.

    Key Performance Indicator:

    The production of an increasing warming trend at all times is the key outcome of this function

    Person-profile:

    * Personality: no ethics issues
    * Specific Job Skills: clear understanding of warming trend
    * Computer Skills: ability to fudge and bodge desirable
    * Literacy and Numeracy: must be able to add and subtract

  5. Hi Warwick. I missed the December “prediction” — but so did NIWA, apparently! Thank you.

    To be fair, the marine iron-fertilising experiment was in a different category to weather prediction, but it is hard to see them honoured in a field we fault so easily, and for work that so radically intervenes in the natural environment.

  6. Droll, Andy! I’m not sure 10m swells does it for me — I remain doubtful about the wisdom of pouring stuff into the ocean to see what might happen. BP was crucified for something similar in the Gulf of Mexico. Reminds me of letting off nuclear bombs in orbit just for our education.

  7. This sounds very much like a conspiracy. In fact it smells of an International Conspiracy.
    Wake up US citizens you have some radicle traitors within your midst, who will think nothing of using fraud, to further their evil green cause.

  8. An Interesting story from the Daily Mail. A survey has shown in the Medical arena research scientists/doctors are fudging the data. It shows 6% ARE DOING IT. Bullying and peer pressure are also big issues. So if this is happening in the medical sciences what’s happening in the climate sciences? Judging from the NIWA efforts, as well as the not so bright NOAA efforts, you can say with definite certainty the same tricks are being employed. No doubt about it they are rat bags. (Richard T please note I used the correct spelling for Rat.) Wake Up MPs you are being conned!
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2085814/Scientists-falsify-data-research-published-whistleblowers-bullied-keeping-quiet-claim-colleagues.html#ixzz1jI0NFHna

  9. Pingback: More on Wind Power | New Zealand Climate Change

  10. What atrocious attitudes. But at least they are being aired and people can say what they think about them.

    Rat bags is good, Gary.

  11. These last commenters look a bit dodgy. They all link to Facebook profiles with 2 friends.

  12. Hmm. Yes, I wondered. But their comments are related to our content, not usually the mark of spam. Never mind, I’ve spammed them because they’re odd.

Leave a Reply

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

Post Navigation