NOAA Accused of Fudging Climate Data - AGAIN!

P. Gardner Goldsmith | February 27, 2018
Font Size

The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) appears to be at it again, and to have no shame about it.

They appear to be manipulating so-called “Climate Change” data yet again, this time in the area of Arctic ice levels.

As James Delingpole reports for Breitbart, the left-leaning Vox recently spewed forth a barrage of misleading NOAA statements from its “Arctic Report Card”, telling the world things like this whopper:

‘The Arctic is going through the most unprecedented transition in human history,’ Jeremy Mathis, director of NOAA’s Arctic research program, said at a press conference. ‘This year’s observations confirm that the Arctic shows no signs of returning to the reliably frozen state it was in just a decade ago.’

But Delingpole and Paul Homewood offer facts that put such wild claims in great dispute.

For example, The Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI) which is often used as the go-to for Arctic ice measurements, shows, as Homewood notes, “(S)ea ice extent has stabilised in summer, and has slightly increased since 2007.”

And, as Homewood explains, the ice is growing thicker.

But what about the temps?

Well, Homewood also offers this:

In fact, Arctic temperatures have varied little in the last decade… Temperatures recently are no higher than in the 1930s and 40s. The cycle we can see is connected with the AMO (Atlantic Multidecadal Oscilation, or the cycle of higher and lower temps that repeats over decades).

So what is one to make of the new NOAA claims and their evident discrepancy with real information?

It fits the NOAA pattern.

This is the government agency that was caught messing with data in 2016, an act that accounted for 100% of all the so-called “climate warming” that year.

This is the government agency that in 2017 saw one of its own, Dr. John Bates, blow the whistle on members fudging data to release “The Karl Report” that was intended: “to discredit the notion of a global warming hiatus and rush to time the publication of the paper to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy.”

What a shocker. A government agency dependent on politically derived taxpayer funds using data like Play-Doh to influence policy that, eventually, would see more funding come to the agency… how perfectly circular.

This is also the agency that was nailed by meteorologist Anthony Watts and co-founder of the Weather Channel, meteorologist Joseph D’Aleo for doing the same thing in 2010, by changing the number and locations of weather stations to have data included in the overall data.

As John Lott reported for Fox News:

In a January 29 report, they find that starting in 1990, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) began systematically eliminating climate measuring stations in cooler locations around the world. Yes, that's right. They began eliminating stations that tended to record cooler temperatures and drove up the average measured temperature. The eliminated stations had been in higher latitudes and altitudes, inland areas away from the sea, as well as more rural locations. The drop in the number of weather stations was dramatic, declining from more than 6,000 stations to fewer than 1,500.

And, of course, NOAA is the agency that has, like so many others, no constitutional foundation for existing.

But pay no attention to those men and women behind the climate curtain. Sure, they get paid contrary to the supposed rules of the government, and sure, the government is operating in debt, so your progeny are, in effect, born into tax slavery for it, but the data changing and unfounded fear mongering is for their own good.

After all, it’s the climate, and we know we can trust the government and people in Al Gore’s corner, who acquire more funds the more they scare monger, right?

When the real Noah listened to God tell him to build an ark because He was going to flood the world, the man had a more reliable source. And God didn’t rely on ginning up Noah’s fears in order to gild some kind of personal holy purse.

Too bad NOAA can’t be replaced by a more reliable source, or eliminated from the federal payroll altogether. Until that time comes, we'll just have to keep careful watch of their repeatedly unreliable stats.