Shock News : “U.S. Agencies Accused of Fudging Data to Show Global Warming”

ScreenHunter_446 Jan. 28 21.25

U.S. Agencies Accused of Fudging Data to Show Global Warming

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Shock News : “U.S. Agencies Accused of Fudging Data to Show Global Warming”

  1. geologyjim says:

    I saw this New American report earlier today. Congratulations, Steve, for your dogged pursuit of this matter. Glad to see that your work is getting some national exposure.

    Fudging (adjusting, with intent) data is the most egregiously un-scientific practice for anyone who professes to be a scientist.

    It is akin to a stock broker “adjusting” the historical price of a stock or commodity to give the appearance of an upward trend in value.

    If these practices were uncovered on Wall Street, people would rightly be in jail.

    But in “Climate Science” (TM), this is standard methodology among Nobel Prize winners, er Laureates, er uh Lead Authors, uh uh … … OK, just guys hanging out at the sausage factory when the product came out.

  2. Andy Oz says:

    Kudos Steven,
    NASA and NOAA caught red handed in Climategate 2.0!

  3. daveburton says:

    Steve is a reliable source. Roy Spencer is, too, of course. But The New American is not. It’s a Bircher rag, and they’re stark raving nuts, so be careful not to trust what they write without separate verification.

  4. NikFromNYC says:

    Real journalism, complete with background and non-denial denials from the officials, including Gavin, digging deep into lawyerspeak? Excellent development!

  5. AKS-Climate says:

    Excellent work by Steve! Thank you. Somebody at NASA/NOAA needs to explain this crap instead of just saying “trust us.” The fact that bloggers are mopping the floor with bilion-dollars-in-funding agencies shows we’re on the right track.

    @Andy: Shouldn’t it be ClimateGate 3.0 at this point =) I think 2.0 was when the second batch of emails got leaked. How many more can the AGW hoax survive???

    @Dave: That’s a dumb comment. At least when it comes to AGW and related topics the NA has been infinitely better than the mainstream media (talk about unreliable).

  6. “Fudging”…as if you can clean up the mess by licking your fingers.

  7. John B., M.D. says:

    Steve – Excellent you have gained some recognition for this work.

  8. LexingtonGreen says:

    Steve, when you first posted your observations, you mentioned a freedom of information request. Is that the next step?

  9. rw says:

    I think a further strategy is to keep emphasizing specific cases. When Gavin Schmidt says that GISS is “committed to producing as accurate an analysis as possible” – then people need to see what they did to the records from Reykjavik, erasing the marked 40’s to 70’s cooling (which, by the way, also jettisons some of the history of the field – since that decline is one of the icons of the older literature). Or the records for La Paz, Bolivia (which someone on this site mentioned). People like Schmidt need to be cornered with specifics – and reporters (the ones that are not Pod People) need to know enough to do this.

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s