Quote:
Originally Posted by Geechie North
|
Speaking as a former consultant for both NASA and NOAA, this is a perfect example of how they twist data in order to literally scare up more money for their budgets.
In fact, NOAA's own reporting of the global mean temperature has FALLEN for three years in a row (we're in the middle of the fourth year of cooling, right now), but they don't report that in their summary, depending on you to be too lazy to check the details.
Instead, they report only where we are versus the 100 year mean.
Here is their actual data:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/annual.land_ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat (broken link)
That is the global mean for each year, showing how far it is from the average of the past century. The bigger the positive number, the warmer.
I'll post the years since 1998:
1998 0.5969
1999
0.4198
2000
0.3885
2001
0.5188
2002
0.5738
2003
0.5811
2004
0.5409
2005
0.6128
2006
0.5599
2007
0.5459
2008
0.4793
As you can see, the global mean PEAKED in 2005, by NOAA's guesstimate. It then declines in 2006, 2007, and 2008. The positive number is getting smaller, because it's COOLING. But it has not yet fallen below the entire arc of its peak.
Despite the
GROWING rate of cooling, therefore, they can get away with ONLY saying "it's still one of the top ten warmest".
If they didn't have so much invested in scaring people over "warming", they'd be predicting an ice age right now, the way climate profit-seekers did so many other times in the past 114 years.
They generally use static analysis to project any minor, short-term trends out far beyond reason, as if they were going to continue that way until disaster...but this time they don't dare, as we'd laugh them off the planet they're so hell-bent on exploiting.
Oh, additional note:
The above trends are in thousandths of one degree from the average for the past century. So the peak, in 2005, barely more than half of ONE DEGREE away from what is normal for the whole century.
If, instead of zooming the chart in to less than one degree, making the change look huge, you zoom it out to a normal temperature range, it looks like the attached pic. There is barely any change, at all. They are cultivating panick over something which is, quite literally, statistically insignificant.
Considering their method for guessing at the global mean (and if you nail one down he'll tell you it's a guess), this variation is not even outside of the margin of error.
Understand that, if you work at NASA or NOAA, the bureaucrats there will boldly tell you, to your face (because they assume you're also looking out solely for yourself) that the whole point is to spin the data to increase their budget.
I picked up the phrase Fear Equals Funding from them.
When I asked why they were reporting only the dangers of El Nino, not that it actually tends to reduce weather-related deaths in the US, I was told "you can't justify your budget by giving GOOD news...fear equals funding".
When a friend of mine had a major weather project whose results literally contradicted global warming, he explained that he had to massage the data to make it support global warming, instead, because otherwise he'd never be allowed to pass peer review, and therefore would lose funding, ergo his job.
Understand that: He was forced to intentionally use bad methodology, in order to pass the censorship of peer review, which is supposedly in place to ensure good methodology...but which actually serves as a means of imposing agendas and protecting conventional wisdom.
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.
