Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ah yes the endless search to prove that it isn't actually warming.
So now congress is going to get in the middle of how NOAA measures temperature and calibrates their instumentation, I think they are over matched. Their methods are already available on the website and Smith has already received information but it's never enough. Now he want's the email's of all the scientists (sounds familiar?)
He doesn't want them doing research on climate, go figure.
Sure-
Apparently there has been a "change" in how temperature data is collected and then.............. suddenly........... no warming for the last 15 years changes into a warming trend!
NASA and NOAA have already been called to the carpet for past manipulation of temperature data to suit a political agenda.
Science does not need to decieve; cults.............. on the other hand.......................
So I see the Republicans are doubling down with wasting tax payer money. Good for them, they did run on wasteful spending for their campaign pledge....oh wait, no, they just lied to their voters.
Apparently there has been a "change" in how temperature data is collected and then.............. suddenly........... no warming for the last 15 years changes into a warming trend!
NASA and NOAA have already been called to the carpet for past manipulation of temperature data to suit a political agenda.
Science does not need to decieve; cults.............. on the other hand.......................
Slap your head alll you want, recalibrating and mordernizing temperature collection methods does not equate to manipulation. Their procedure and reasoning for the changes are available on their website but of course any upgrading of equipment results in the usual paranoia and subversive plot theories. NOAA has already responded to the good congressman but it's never enough, maybe they can have the CIA track their whereabouts.
Whether it's the IRS, NOAA or any other organization, Democrats and Progressives support hiding the truth, lying, cheating anything to support the lies they like. It's sad they have this religious fervor to hide facts, honesty, truth, and scientific advancement. Very similar to some religious zealots of the 15th-17th century.
Dems believe its for your own good and you wouldn't understand because it is too complex. they told us, 'we have to pass it to see what is in it' and no one objected, so that was all clear signal from the bewildered and confused.
when the legislators thought obamacare was too complex for them to understand, they just went ahead and passed it. Must have asked miss cleo if the legislation was good and she said, in her best oracle of delphi voice.....you have to pass it to see what is in it.....and so the dems passed obamacare.
Slap your head alll you want, recalibrating and mordernizing temperature collection methods does not equate to manipulation.
If you are going to manipulate data a)you better have a very good reason to do it and B)your method of manipulation needs to be accurate.
For example in the following graph there is an obvious issue with the raw data indicated by the blue line just before 1940 where the trend shifts downward, this can be caused by many things. Moved the thermometer, different thermometer not calibrated the same, etc. While you can justify adjusting it you can't justify how it was adjusted indicated by the red line.
While a single adjustment like this is not going to be an issue it will become an issue if there is many of them. What's been found is that more often than not these adjustments have a warming bias.
If you are going to manipulate data a)you better have a very good reason to do it and B)your method of manipulation needs to be accurate.
For example in the following graph there is an obvious issue with the raw data indicated by the blue line just before 1940 where the trend shifts downward, this can be caused by many things. Moved the thermometer, different thermometer not calibrated the same, etc. While you can justify adjusting it you can't justify how it was adjusted indicated by the red line.
While a single adjustment like this is not going to be an issue it will become an issue if there is many of them. What's been found is that more often than not these adjustments have a warming bias.
All this is available on the website but they went to electronic resistance thermometers, adjusted for contruction near monitors that has taken place over decades near monitors, changed the methods by which they measure ocean temperature. Many of these changes if raised or lowered temperature readings depending on the situation.
Anthony Watt was one of the largest critics of sensors near built up areas, now they make adjustments and he's crying foul? They need to look at the reasoning around places like Darwin, I imagine the buildings and concrete are quite different today vs 1941.
Yet another misuse of congressional authority, how did Lamar Smith get on the science committee? This is the person that wants to improve the National Science Foundations peer review process by injecting political considerations.
Strange that he didn't want any of th escientists records on the space shuttles, mars and jupiter missions but when it comes to research on climate change he disagrees with the outcome.
Were any of the records associated with space shuttles or Mars and Jupiter missions changed?
As for "injecting political considerations", that began when the federal government started paying climate scientists to study something that they wouldn`t be getting paid to study if they didn`t continue to claim it exists, is manmade and is a serious problem requiring policy changes.
So I see the Republicans are doubling down with wasting tax payer money. Good for them, they did run on wasteful spending for their campaign pledge....oh wait, no, they just lied to their voters.
Small minded people would think that.
When the almighty fed puts laws and regulations in place that COST billions, it just might be good idea to make sure the data being used to justify those billions be examined.
Or are you of the mind that the fed can do know wrong and we should spend those billions WITHOUT any examination of the data
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
