Was Santa coming to the Outer Banks If you live in the Mid-Atlantic or Northeastern coastal states you undoubtedly remember the recent "big freeze" which is undoubtedly fresh in your memory. The cold even swept into the Deep South with some significant below freezing temperatures and in many places the cold held for a a week or more.
The blog picture shows the beach at Nags Head, North Carolina, a place that can be cold in winter but normally without snow. But even on the Outer Banks, the sounds which separate the Banks from the mainland froze and large chunks of ice could be found in places in the ocean where the tidal currents swept them out. And further north, like the Hampton Roads and Chesapeake Bay on up to Maine, the cold was a force to be reckoned with as people struggled to carry out their regular lives in frigid conditions.
Well, this morning I read an interesting article by James Delingpole, a British writer who puts most of his focus these days on Climate and he reports that the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), a federal group tasked with keeping accurate weather and temperature records, is cooking the books. This organization which used to be one of the least biased and truly scientific-based sources of data about oceans and atmosphere (my grandfather used to work for NOAA) has in recent years become an agent for the radical climate change crowd. And the doctoring of records is one of the ways they've found to be successful in keeping their bias alive.
Delingpole reports his findings based upon an analysis of records over a number of years, many of which have been changed. In a few cases, the numbers have been "fudged" lower but in most cases higher with average temperatures in some areas being nearly four degrees higher than the mark from individual sites in the area. When challenged in a press conference, NOAA claimed it was necessary to raise temperatures to reflect the impact at locations of so many measuring stations close to factors which would raise the temperature, such as high volume airports and added heat of huge jet engines as well as stations now closer to exhaust locations. So if they are actually reporting overall areas higher than the data composites from which they were taken, wouldn't it mean that they would have been lowering their measurements instead? More exhaust and more concrete and steel in proximity to some locations would be erroneous if used for the wider area being accounted for.
NOAA has been called on this before and had to relent, but they always do it silently without notice, smartly realizing that most people don't think about things from years ago. Like lemmings, many of us just accept a government report at face value even though every day there is evidence to prove the fallacy of that action. It's kind of like Michael Mann's hockey stick global warming report which was based strictly on computer modeling. Data always will reflect the impact of the information being compiled and if you put garbage in, you will get garbage out.
Maybe that's why the big Earth Day parade annually in New York City traditionally leaves over twelve million pounds of garbage on the streets when it 's over. Garbage creates garbage. Just a thought. But compare it to the result of a large Tea Party event where participants leave the site cleaner than when they got there. It's just a question of discipline and values, things we have largely lost sight of. Have a great day.
H/T to James Delingpole and Breitbart News
The blog picture shows the beach at Nags Head, North Carolina, a place that can be cold in winter but normally without snow. But even on the Outer Banks, the sounds which separate the Banks from the mainland froze and large chunks of ice could be found in places in the ocean where the tidal currents swept them out. And further north, like the Hampton Roads and Chesapeake Bay on up to Maine, the cold was a force to be reckoned with as people struggled to carry out their regular lives in frigid conditions.
Well, this morning I read an interesting article by James Delingpole, a British writer who puts most of his focus these days on Climate and he reports that the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), a federal group tasked with keeping accurate weather and temperature records, is cooking the books. This organization which used to be one of the least biased and truly scientific-based sources of data about oceans and atmosphere (my grandfather used to work for NOAA) has in recent years become an agent for the radical climate change crowd. And the doctoring of records is one of the ways they've found to be successful in keeping their bias alive.
Delingpole reports his findings based upon an analysis of records over a number of years, many of which have been changed. In a few cases, the numbers have been "fudged" lower but in most cases higher with average temperatures in some areas being nearly four degrees higher than the mark from individual sites in the area. When challenged in a press conference, NOAA claimed it was necessary to raise temperatures to reflect the impact at locations of so many measuring stations close to factors which would raise the temperature, such as high volume airports and added heat of huge jet engines as well as stations now closer to exhaust locations. So if they are actually reporting overall areas higher than the data composites from which they were taken, wouldn't it mean that they would have been lowering their measurements instead? More exhaust and more concrete and steel in proximity to some locations would be erroneous if used for the wider area being accounted for.
NOAA has been called on this before and had to relent, but they always do it silently without notice, smartly realizing that most people don't think about things from years ago. Like lemmings, many of us just accept a government report at face value even though every day there is evidence to prove the fallacy of that action. It's kind of like Michael Mann's hockey stick global warming report which was based strictly on computer modeling. Data always will reflect the impact of the information being compiled and if you put garbage in, you will get garbage out.
Maybe that's why the big Earth Day parade annually in New York City traditionally leaves over twelve million pounds of garbage on the streets when it 's over. Garbage creates garbage. Just a thought. But compare it to the result of a large Tea Party event where participants leave the site cleaner than when they got there. It's just a question of discipline and values, things we have largely lost sight of. Have a great day.
H/T to James Delingpole and Breitbart News
RSS Feed