NASA / NOAA Climate Data Is Fake Data

I know the cry from the AGW crowd will be source related but this really does seem to point out that AGW data and resulting graphs and charts made from the data are based on complete fiction. Sorry but I couldn't get these charts to load, you'll have to link to them. Interesting stuff.

"NOAA shows the Earth red hot in December, with record heat in central Africa."

"Satellites show that NOAA’s” record hot regions in Africa were actually close to normal."

"Gavin Schmidt at NASA claims the imaginary NOAA data has been replicated by many other institutions. However, when Gavin is confronted about his obviously bogus temperature graphs, he defends by saying “it is not my data, I get it from NOAA.” In fact, all of the supposedly independent agencies get the lion’s share of their data from NOAA."

https://realclimatescience.com/2017/02/nasa-noaa-climate-data-is-fake-data/

 

What many of us have said, for a long time, turns out to unfortunately be true:


But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.

It was never subjected to NOAA’s rigorous internal evaluation process – which Dr Bates devised.

His vehement objections to the publication of the faulty data were overridden by his NOAA superiors in what he describes as a ‘blatant attempt to intensify the impact’ of what became known as the Pausebuster paper.

 

Actually the faulty data was the fudged graph Bates and his partner in crime, Rose, fabricated to try to refute Karl's data, that is why Bates now claims Karl's proven correct data was not properly archived.

 

Of course Bates who won an award from Obama is correct. Not only that the algorithm used for the GHCN data is unstable giving wild swings in results for the same data. That is the base data the government uses for it's NOAA data.

 

Seems that if you're going to make the assertion, you should be able to provide the citation that supports your fabrication.

 

If that were true then Bates and Rose would not have had to fudge their graph!!!
But they DID fudge their graph and got caught.

 

The Daily got the graph wrong. Bates is spot on.

 

No offense, but you gave no citation, so don't you think it is hypocritical to demand it from me?

Anyway, here is the Bates and Rose faked graph from the Mail article you alluded to. They dishonestly used two different baselines to get the separation of the NOAA data from the Met Office/ Hadley data. Below it is the same data using the same baseline for both data sets.



- - - Updated - - -

The Mail got the graph from Bates and Rose.

 

Still a very minor issue compared to not archiving data properly and the very serious issue of ramming through results ignoring their own process for political reasons.

 

No, the data being proven correct and the Bates and Rose graph being fudged are the important facts, and the data WAS archived, but not to Bates' satisfaction which is very minor.

 

Evidently you cannot follow the actual issue.

 

Evidently you can't counter that Bates and Rose faked their graph destroying their "impeccable" "irrefutable" evidence and credibility!

 

The actual evidence refutes all of the graphs that the government uses for land/ocean temperatures. Evidently you hold onto one small issue to ignore the real issue.

 

If that were true then deniers would not have to create dishonest graphs like the Bates/Rose graph.

 

So basically as an analogy, Obama stating 57 states invalidates everything else he ever said.

The narrowness of your claim only displays how far you will go to ignore the real issues.

BTW: The Mail created that graph so you could still be wrong if they made a mistake.

 

So, you get that the NOAA data is what is in question then right? And that the Hadley baseline provides what would have been a more correct version of it, yes? To then assert that they are different, doesn't diminish the fact that one is fraudulent. You get that, right?

 

Rose made that graph from data supplied by Bates.

 

Sure, got proof?

 

The Hadley baseline was 30 years from 1961 to 1990, and the NOAA baseline was 100 years from 1901 to 2000. The chart I posted used the Hadley baseline for both, but you would have gotten the same match between the two data sets if the NOAA data set was used for both. Neither baseline is fraudulent, but the NOAA 100 year baseline is more accurate.

Bates in an interview with AP admits that the NOAA data is not in question and is not fraudulent in any way.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/3fc5...warming-study-again-questioned-again-defended
[FONT=&quot]However Bates, who acknowledges that Earth is warming from man-made carbon dioxide emissions, said in the interview that there was "no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious."[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"It's really a story of not disclosing what you did," Bates said in the interview. "It's not trumped up data in any way shape or form."[/FONT]

 

Bates was the person Rose was interviewing and therefore supplying the data, not the other way around!

 

No proof. As I suspected.

 

As if you had proof that Rose fabricated the fake graph on his own. Logic dictates that all data in the INTERVIEW came from Bates, but since neither Bates or Rose is credited with the fake graph, all we have is logic and logic goes against you.

 

Translation: You still have no proof.

 

You are desperately trying to divert from the fact that the Bates/Rose article used a fake graph, discrediting both them and the article.

 

You are desperately trying to divert from the fact that you have absolutely no clue where the graph came from.