Posted on 06/11/2023 9:55:25 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
It’s been my understanding for a while that NOAA ‘adjusts’ the raw data to compensate for things like this and you can’t ask for the raw data. Of course, the ‘adjustments’ make temperatures cooler in the past. I thought this had also been exposed in Climate Gate I & II, the actual code was released showing the indexing of annual data and coefficients applied to make older temperature data to be cooler.
Either way, any adjustments that aren’t transparent on temperatures that require an incredible level of accuracy in order to be useful is just completely unacceptable.
Well, let’s see:
— If you are a researcher who bucks the approved narrative, you get zero funding, ostraszied and largely driven out of your profession.
— If you go along with the approved narrative, you get funding, job security and some level of professional recognition.
What are most researchers going to do?
I suspect many have two sets of results: the real one and one that conforms to the approved narrative.
Some had been moved or placed badly, but far more were the victims of expansion, so that the owners of the location put in a parking lot or building within the 100 foot (I think) exclusion zone. The weather service was supposed to have been notified and the instruments officially relocated, but few ever bothered.
That is a brilliant and indisputable truth. Thanks for sharing that.
of course it is, the data is corrupted and the models are made specifically to show a particular outcome.
Shocker? I don’t think so. All their “data” is Bull squeeze.
I remember when one of the temperature stations was in a closed room right next to a light bulb always on
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.