Shortly after my paper Scientific integrity and U.S. “Billion Dollar Disasters” was accepted for publication, I was tipped off to a public but unnamed and well-hidden directory on the website of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) that contained 17 (now 18) of the most recent versions of the “billion dollar disaster” (BDD) tabulation, dating to March 2020.
Today, I reveal the archive and what it tells us about the problematic methods underlying NOAA’s billion dollar disaster tabulation. […]
In the absence of methodological transparency, the hidden archive of the most recent 18 versions of NOAA’s “billion dollar disasters” allows an unprecedented opportunity to reverse-engineer NOAA’s methods that the agency employs for creating and updating its widely cited and highly influential tabulation.1 As you will see below, what the 18 versions reveal is highly concerning.
Killer Marmot will doubtless be along shortly with his usual mantra of “Move along, nothing to see here…”
It’s all about the money. It’s ALWAYS about the money.
“Climate change” is a pack of lies built upon packs of lies. Climategate proved it.
““Climate change” is a pack of lies built upon packs of lies. Climategate proved it.”
That’s for sure. Try reading Wikipedia’s spin on it, for a chuckle…
They probably hire the graduates of variety and sundry of social studies that would otherwise qualify to ask if you want fries with that.
Those people, by the nature of their assignment, absolutely must produce something that may or may not resemble the truth.
Debatable is projected as fact without stating it.
One suppose that it is not the actual scientists that finalize the results, it is the social studies cadres that spin the results to conform to the politically desired results.
As it appears today, the science studies are put up as a religious doctrine and those in the know can’t oppose for to be labeled as against science.
Viz certain Fauci telling the people that “he” is the science and hence he can’t be questioned.
Airy sciences like AGW and other such are what one can call best scientific guess and something much less.
All of the climate ‘crisis’ is basically made up by projecting code models as though that is the way things will develop. This is obviously prophecy that has no effect on anything.
As those that are following the affairs of men, know from recent history, all the computer models projected hunger, flooding of coasts and other ‘disasters’ to make the population conform to the dicktates (sic) of science that never came to pass.
Some that one can call ‘scientologists’ insist that the doctrine stands and you shut up.
As you can derive from the screed, I don’t know nothing, just thinking.
I can personally attest to such. A few decades back I was contacted by a frustrated graduate student working for NOAA in a summer student position. He was doing something with historical temperature data. He wanted to consult with a statistician. I don’t recall why it was an informal unbilled consultation. He might have been the son of a friend, if I recall. Anyway this young man sent me his data, a comparison of temperature records before and after 1945, in a tabular form so I could easily run it through my own program myself. I found no significant difference. If anything there was a nonsignificant cooling trend. When I told him so he said that was all right he had figured it out. Curious I asked him to send me a copy of his results. He showed statistically significant warming post 1945. Puzzled, I asked him and he replied he knew what the correct answer was but couldn’t get it using the stats programs he tried. So he finally corrected the dataset by running the comparison multiple times (a big statistical no no) while adjusting the data and then finally programming his computer with an algorithm taking two degrees off every 10th datapoint in the pre1945 dataset. That gave him the results he knew were correct and showed statistically significant global warming. I pointed out this was unwitting scientific fraud. (He honestly didn’t seem to know any better.) I said he wasn’t supposed to adjust data post hoc to get a specific predetermined correct result. I never heard from him again.
Oh for the days when we laboriously did these calculations all by hand, each in it’s own cahier, each step carefully documented, double and triple checked for math errors. We would never have dreamed of trying to run the data through multiple rounds, adjusting as we went, to get the “correct” answer. Computers make fraud too easy. Students often don’t even understand why statistics work so they don’t get why their work is useless. Computer models are even worse. Garbage in, garbage out.
Understated Pielke:
“The lack of transparency leads to an inference that the methods employed are not in fact justifiable.”
When Pielke asked to see their data, NOAA replied “Much of the core asset level data are from private sector data sources and proprietary in nature, which cannot be shared.”
Translation: “We can’t share data with you because we don’t have any real data. We only have the stuff we made up to support the climate change narrative we get paid to push, (and that’s none of your business).” It’s the classic climatologist duck & weave response perfected by rat boy Michael Mann.
Good for Pielke for publicly calling them out and posting this. Somebody at NOAA must be ready to crap their pants.
“I won’t speculate on why NOAA — one of the nation’s preeminent scientific agencies, full of smart and thoughtful people — has taken this route, but I do hope that the ongoing investigation ensures that this sort of thing can not happen again. I have a lot of confidence in the scientists in NOAA”
I’m not sure why Pielke is willing to give the benefit of the doubt, and continue to have confidence in them, when they continue to produce demonstrably false studies and data, especially when NOAA is run by a true believer such as Richard Spinrad.
Can we imagine a “/S” after that?