How can we get NOAA/NASA to understand that we know that they are manipulating temperature data?

Yet another of literally hundreds of improper temperature equipment placements (open link below) which result in higher-than-actual temperature readings. Add to that the “homogenation” of the data (code for ‘manipulation’), and you have a typical example of how temperature data in this country is massaged to support AGW claims. The proximity to the concrete patio earns this station a CRN4 rating, it may be a CRN5 when they wheel out the BBQ away from the house. But who knows? Check out the ‘hinge points’ on the blink comparitor. A fine example of data manipulation by our government. icarus62..... the manipulation creates a more dramatic impression of global warming. The manipulation at the front end was adjusted downward. The Alarmist's responses to Watts' study is predictable. He and his group of volunteers have made so-called mainstream "man-did-it" global warming scientists look pretty inept. It is quite apparent that the surface temperature data has been manipulated, and beren and antarctica know it! Just admit it folks.... your spin is simply not working anymore.

Asked By: BB - 5/29/2009
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker
They have got caught cooking the results more than once. GISS has even adjusted the global temperature to fit their view of the world of global warming here: More
Answered By: jd61 - 5/29/2009
Additional Answers (8)
I totally agree. The scientists now days get their funding from grants researching topics that people want and they lose their funding when they proof the opposite of the position that the grant people want. My dad has tried to avoid this type of scare mongering and has seen it in the agriculture engineering side... More
Answered By: andy - 5/29/2009
They know that the temperature readings are suspect, but they have a political interest in going with the flow. The flow among the politically powerful right now is that global warming is happening and scary... so they won't rock the boat. Yet.
Answered By: Peter J - 5/29/2009
Since the liberal press seems to ignore any facts related to AGW, I think the best we can do is find someone who can understand and give them the evidence. If each of us tells someone, and than tells that someone to tell someone else, the number of skeptics will increase exponentially. There are already millions who... More
Answered By: Catmandew - 5/29/2009
Notice that the figures are adjusted *downwards*, not upwards. If they'd had to adjust them upwards, the claim would have been that the warming was being exaggerated. Either way you can claim 'manipulation'. What you're really saying is that *any* kind of errors, once discovered, can never be corrected without... More
Answered By: icarus62 - 5/29/2009
I'm not saying temperature records don't need constant monitoring and improvement. But your argument is strange - for example, if the temperature record was corrected to account for the presence of nearby heaters (which it has been), which reduces the observed affect of global warming (which it did), does that count as... More
Answered By: MTRstudent - 5/29/2009
The theory of AGW was already old news before you were born. It's only because of the oil companies ,combined with an oil president ,that have censored, and totally misrepresented the science of climate change.
Answered By: panurge2 - 5/29/2009
If Watts would have bothered to look at the data, he would have seen that the data from 1891 to 1917 was adjusted downward by 0.2 C. From 1918 to 1976 it was adjusted downward by 0.1 C. Since we have no idea what the history of this sensor was, there may be very good reasons for the change. Instead of wondering... More
Answered By: beren - 5/29/2009
By coming up with some real evidence other than nonsense from blog sites, or your (deniers) continuous ability to claim this about NASA/NOAA and ignore the fact that other groups around the world are coming up with much the same findings. Except of course groups like Heartland who keep coming to the conclusion we don't... More
Answered By: antarcticice - 5/29/2009
Sponsored results
Over 483 Local Jobs Now Hiring In Your Area. $18-$87/Hr - Apply Today!
Work At Home Jobs Make $87/HR, Jobs Seen On TV. Jobs Hiring Now
Drive Your Car - Make up to $600 Per Weekend. Work When You Want.
Up to $47/hr Part-Time Job Openings. Free Schedule, No Scam. Start Now

Other Career Questions

What is your current job? Why did you choose this job? What do you enjoy about your job? What do you dislike about your job? What would be your perfect job? Would you rather have this j...
3 answers - Asked By: drop pants not bombs!.♥ - 3/2/2010
Where are the jobs? Is productivity and globalization creating a permanent “recession” of jobs? My main issue is I am doing a paper for school and have no idea where to begin. I was hoping suggestions...
4 answers - Asked By: bayebd24【ツ】 - 11/21/2007
Hi ok im 19 and about to start college to do an acess course into a university. Ive been browsing through all the courses and im tottaly stuck! I thought politics but im scared ill end up with some r...
1 answers - Asked By: roseparkerly - 1/26/2009

Content is not owned or controlled by Monster. Any content concerns should be addressed with Yahoo!
Yahoo! Does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any Yahoo! Answers content. Yahoo! Disclaimer.

Popular Articles

Best-Paying Work-from-Home Jobs Article Rating
It’s easier than ever to work from home. Of course, not every job is a mobile job, and some companies aren’t interested in having their employees work from home.
2013 Marketing Jobs Outlook Article Rating
The US may be facing another year of anemic hiring overall, but that won't be the case in the high-orbit world of multichannel, digital media marketing.
For Employers: Post Jobs | Search Resumes | Advertise
About Monster | Work for Monster | Advertise with Us | AdChoices | Partner with Us | Investor Relations | Social Media
Terms of Use | Privacy Center | Accessibility Center | Help | Security | Contact Us | Sitemap | Mobile
©2014 Monster - All Rights Reserved U.S. Patents No. 5,832,497; 7,599,930 B1; 7,827,125 and 7,836,060 MWW - Looking for Monster Cable? - V: 2014.1.40.24-314