Bombshell: Comprehensive Analysis Reveals NOAA Wrongfully Applying “Master Algorithm” To Whitewash Temperature History

BrakeyLast April, in a short, narrated YouTube series titled Black Swan Climate Theory [1] (BSCT), irrefutable evidence was presented that sometime between 2011 and 2015 the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) had on two occasions rewritten its own version of Maine’s statewide climate history. The gist of my findings was that I believe I caught NOAA purposefully using computer code (algorithms [2]) to lower historic temperatures to promote present day temperatures as the warmest on record. The image above is from the new YouTube series posted after NOAA’s acknowledgement that they had indeed made improvements to Maine’s climate history.

On May 6, 2015, NOAA confirmed in writing that the 151°F of Fudging—the Massive Rewrite of Maine Climate History, [3 ] reported in Black Swan Climate Theory [4] (BSCT) study was no accident. NOAA states the changes were intentional and were justified! NOAA’s written statement included these words [5]:

…improvements in the dataset, and brings our value much more in line with what was observed at the time. The new method used stations in neighboring Canada to inform estimates for data-sparse areas within Maine (a great improvement).”

Brakey_2NOAA’s statement about the need to recently introduce colder Canadian data into Maine’s past climate history was highly fishy, to say the least. I decided to rework the research parameters to eliminate possible Canadian temperature infusion and confusion. Rather than compare my archived data for Lewiston/Auburn, Maine (Zone 19) to NOAA’s “statewide” [6] data for 32 Zones as I did in BSCT, I limited my analysis to NOAA’s southern interior data (CD 2) [7]. Since Lewiston/Auburn is centered in NOAA’s Maine southern interior climate region (see blue region of state chart), the two sets of numbers should essentially be identical. However, as I theorize, my findings again suggest NOAA is using a computer algorithm to inflate heating degree-days with all the raw climate data processed by an average of more than 10 percent.

This new approach is documented on our new narrated PowerPoint series, Black Swan Climate Theory II [8] (BSCTII). It will be posted on YouTube by early June 2015. Here are some of the highlights of our findings.

Read rest…

Trackback from your site.

Leave a comment (newest first):

Comments (9)

  • Avatar

    GR82DRV

    |

    BUSTED!

    [i]”On May 6, 2015, NOAA confirmed in writing that the 151°F of Fudging—the Massive Rewrite of Maine Climate History, reported in Black Swan Climate Theory (BSCT) study was no accident. NOAA states the changes were intentional and were [b]justified[/b]!”[/i]

    And of course no public acknowledgment of this adjustment was made until it was absolutely laid bare by Mr. Brakey’s irrefutable expose’. Then a scientific distortion was covered with a lie.

    Science at its best…

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    Have North American governments always lied this much about temperatures ?
    The bigger the bag of money the bigger the chance of fudged data it seems .

    I would live to see a break down of who will actually be eating at a $$ Trillion dollar carbon tax . Someone has to have that on a white board by now .

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Gator

      |

      [quote name=”Amber”]Have North American governments always lied this much about temperatures ?[/quote]

      No.

      This is the biggest scam in the history of the Earth.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    GR82DRV

    |

    I think many people can’t acknowledge this as a scam because they can’t believe that the theory of AGW was a complete fabrication made of whole cloth.

    It wasn’t.

    It [i]was[/i] a legitimate, but fatally flawed hypothesis that quickly became a scam as politicians like Al Gore and refuge-seeking leaders of failed communist regimes saw its potential for exploitation. When already left-leaning universities and government bureaucracies started to receive billions of dollars in outcome-directed research grants from politicians the fix was in.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      GESchroder

      |

      It was a legitimate, but fatally flawed hypothesis . . . ” I may be wrong, but I believe it was a deliberate scam by the anti-industry left from the very beginning.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    If their ” science ” is so settled and unimpeachable and if the debate that never happened is ” over ” and closed because the question is resolved,

    WHY DO THEY NEED TO LIE SO MUCH ?!

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    Isn’t it time Congress ordered a full investigation into the allegations of fudged climate data produced by someone at NOAA in light of the $ trillions being spent .

    If people have been directed to purposely alter temperature data to shape it one way then all those involved must face criminal charges for fraud and be fired for cause .

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Will Scribe

    |

    “…Temperature records,
    How is temperature measured?
    Not using the principals
    That should always be treasured.
    The temperatures required?
    Politically dictated;
    The halls of good science
    By charlatans infiltrated….”
    From The One Eyed Politician is King
    http://wp.me/p3KQlH-CL

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    If people at NOAA are suspected of fudging data it should be determined who did the work , gave the orders and who approved the work . Congress do the world a favour, request an audit by non -affiliated parties please before someones dog eats the source data if it hasn’t already vanished .

    Falsifying or shaping the work without fully disclosing your “improvements to the data set ” in any employment situation that can be a sure route to dismissal for cause . Criminal charges can follow as necessary .

    Just like those of the criminally charged EPA Manager John Beale .Of course he had the EPA think he was with the CIA while he disappeared for months at a time .

    Why was the general public not advised over 15 years ago that there was evidence of no discernible warming ? Who chose to lie about what was really going on ?

    Reply

Leave a comment

Loading Disqus Comments ...

No Trackbacks.