1) When you have no way to get out, but the city says they will come and get you, and they don't -- well, I don't think those left behind are foolish. Except for believing Mayor Nagin would follow through with his word. Realize what "extreme poverty" looks like. If you are posting here, you are not in that category. Calling them foolish because they didn't evacuate displays a complete lack of knowledge behind the situation.
2) I did look it up. No peer-reviewed research shows any evidence of human-caused climate change being based on falsified data. Please post hard evidence...
Rdale, Here's what I'm going to do for you. I am going to post several articles on the same subject that back up and provide hard evidence as to what I claimed and what Todd said. If, after reading them you still think we are incorrect, I'll bid you a good day. I can understand why some people here might not want to believe that NOAA commits fraud. After all there are probably many college graduates here who's only hope at paying off their student debt is to get a government job. My cousin works for a watchdog agency that spent many months in 2012 and 2013 examining suspicious claims made by scientists at the EPA, USGS and NOAA on many topics surrounding carbon emissions, green house gases etc. The statistics and data used by the government agencies was either outright fraudulent, based on inaccurate data collection methods, outdated or unsubstantiated. Maybe you need to study the politics of weather so that you can educate yourself. The regulations that have been imposed on industries because of the fake data from government agencies, the billions of our dollars that went to waste on green energy to "combat" global warming... I could go on and on with the truth, but you'd probably call me crazy. Ironic that some "smart" people with college degrees are completely incapable of seeing past their own biases to question, study and come up with results.
Do you know how this fraud generally happens?
Step 1: Run bogus computer models using cherry picked numbers and data (I call it an Algore-ithm)
Step 2: Run those bogus models until they produce results in favor of your agenda.
Step 3: Go to Congress, present the bogus data and make false claims about how in 10 years, XYZ are going to happen.
Step 4: Provide "remedies" to the future problems that your bogus models are saying will happen.
Step 5: Tell Congress that you need $50,000,000 to study your bogus claims further in order to prevent Florida from becoming the next Atlantis.
Step 6: Use a fraction of the funds Congress gives you for legitimate purposes, then embezzle the rest, use it to travel around the world to "study", etc etc.
Step 7: When "judgment day" arrives and none of your "scientific" claims panned out, make excuses by saying things like "the computer models were wrong, it wasn't us."
Step 8: Hope that nobody finds reasons to defund your agency and throw you in prison.
Step 9: Retire.
Instruments that require calibration can be manipulated to produce fraudulent data. Lets say you have a temperature sensor that logs daily highs and lows. Lets say the temperature when you set up the instrument is 75 degrees F. If you calibrate the instrument so that it reads 75 degrees F as 78.5 degrees F; what will that show over a 365 day period? Answer: It will show incorrect data.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ear...data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html
http://realclimatescience.com/2015/07/mind-blowing-temperature-fraud-at-noaa/
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/06/23/global-warming-fabricated-by-nasa-and-noaa/
http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/30/n...s-july-1936-as-the-hottest-month-on-record/2/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/23/tom-harris-global-warming-deceptive-temperature-re/
http://watchdog.org/235235/climate-crisis-inc-1-5-trillion-per-year-house-cards/