I stand by my comment. Not so much claims, rather statements of fact. Not all weather enthusiasts are pro-government agencies, especially ones that don't need or deserve 1/4th of the funding they currently get. BTW HAARP has nothing to do with NOAA.... It's the Pentagon/military but that's a topic for when I find my foil cap.And add a smiley or something to your claims of "lies and fraud" or people might really think you're serious. That would not reflect well on you as this is a weather forum - not a HAARP discussion center
I'm not talking just about Sandy. Sandy was a total mess on every level. You are misconstruing what I said regarding climate change and no, it's not real in the way that NOAA, Al Gore and the UN push it. Earth has cycles and the emissions from your vehicle have nothing to do with any of it. There are piles and piles of evidence on the fraudsters in NOAA and the scientists who fake models and data to get more funding and resources. It's no different than the inner city schools that have teachers who fake test grades to make all the students look smart, so that their local school district looks good and gets access to more Dept of Education funding.Dave, it is true that the Hurricane Center mishandled public communications on Sandy (something they would admit) by getting hung up on the technical question of whether it was tropical or hybrid in nature when it approached landfall. However, you are the one who loses credibility when you deny the obvious reality of climate change. And if you don't think we need an effective, well-funded disaster-response capability in the government, well all I can say is look back to what happened 10 years ago with Katrina.
I never said I had a background in climate change, just a background in common sense and reality. There are many articles that I can link that give examples of fraud at NOAA, such as how they (with USHCN) collected temperature data from sensors placed next to walls and parking lots that retained heat, which ended up making it look as if the area was getting exponentially hotter.Dave - I looked up your climate change research background to see what warrants your conclusion that NOAA is using falsified data, but am coming up empty... Can you show the peer-reviewed research backing that up?
DHS <> FEMA. Your point that they flopped is valid. Sadly President Bush felt that having an emergency manager in charge of emergency management wasn't important, so used a political favor instead. Now we have much better separation between FEMA and DHS, and a very knowledgeable emergency manager in change of emergency management. So you're wrong on that account too... But carry on - this is fun and certainly on topic with the point of the original post!
I agree 100% with you on the effective and well-funded part as do I agree with what Rob said. Regarding the climate change stuff, I believe that it is an extremely corrupted topic that has been hijacked by politicians who are using the fears associated with climate change to push absurd agendas that have nothing to actually do with the wellbeing of earth, nature etc. I never claimed to have any credibility other than stating my honest opinion based on what I know. Those "claims on little webpages" are made by former government employees, whistleblowers and other scientists and professionals. Look into some of what I mentioned regarding the data collection methods used by USHCN. There are many highly reputable individuals who have exposed the "climate change industry" for what it really is. John Casey is one of them as are http://www.newsmax.com/Finance/MKTNews/Global-Warming-climate-change/2014/11/17/id/607827/Dave, if you go back to my post, you will see I said "effective and well-funded" - it has to be both. And as Rob points out, it can't be effective when you put people in emergency-management positions as a political favor when they lack experience in emergency management, as was the case at the time of Katrina. And also as he points out, FEMA has been much more effective in emergency response since real emergency managers were put in charge. Even one of the current Republican presidential candidates had good things to say about the federal response to Sandy. (Granted, as we all seem to agree, that the NHC messed up the communications about the storm.) As to the validity of climate change science, you only undermine your own credibility when you say things such as "Earth has cycles and the emissions from your vehicle have nothing to do with any of it. There are piles and piles of evidence on the fraudsters in NOAA and the scientists who fake models and data to get more funding and resources. " If you are going to accuse people of fraud, you better have some real evidence besides claims on one little Webpage. The warming trend is worldwide and not just U.S., and an overwhelming majority of scientists agree that global warming is real. Yes, earth has cycles, but it is also possible for human activity to add to what is going on naturally. You really need to stop putting your politics ahead of the overwhelming scientific evidence.
You probably don't even know who John Casey is. Do your research on his background and you'll see that he is credible....because who knows more about climate change than an astronaut... that seems valid
P.S. there is also an astronaut convinced that we are actively being visited by aliens, and that the government is covering that up too... Guess it must be true if an astronaut tells us!
I certainly do. The science doesn't support his claims. He doesn't have research that nullifies anthropogenic warming.You probably don't even know who John Casey is.
Sure - but not plenty of people think ET actively stops by the Earth for a visit. My point is that you used an astronaut's claim on climate as "verification" that the science is wrong. I'm just saying don't trust an astronaut for things outside of their expertiseP.S. There are plenty of people who believe ET exists and the government has spent billions listening for signs of life in space.
You do know that President Bush (the first) is the one who started the US on the climate change path, right? That's why I say any mention of politicians in a climate change discussion is a bad track to take...yet some people still believe the "settled" science because Obama told them to.
No idea. His formal research doesn't appear to be in the tornado realm.Let me ask you an honest question, has extreme meteorologist Reed Timmer discovered anything new about tornadoes?
I talked to those "rich" researchers at Michigan State University (making $10 an hour as grad assistants.) Apparently they don't have your source of "research" dollars just waiting for them to claim since they "believe" in climate changeAll of this "science" with NOAA is just a scheme to make certain people richer under the guise of research.
Absolutely. So when a physicist claims that a tornado wall would stop tornadoes, your idea of "well they are smart so maybe it's worth a shot" falls flat.Also, a meteorologist is not an architect or structural engineer, therefore they are not qualified to build anything. (using your logic).
Ehh, I think you'll find when it comes to something like climate change - if you are going to challenge the science you do need to a college education and then some. Science doesn't work based on the number of Wikipedia links you can find. It's based on theories and research and conclusions. You are ignoring the established science because of one reason (and one alone)... It doesn't fit in with the viewpoints of your political party (but it used to.) When politics trumps science, the world is in a very bad place...You also don't need to go to college to be knowledgeable in a field