All errors should be reported to

Friday, September 18, 2015

We need a fact check on Aisle NOAA

What is with the number 97% that fascinates Climate Communists?

They keep using that number to bluff people into believing their propagandaa.

The latest is this headline from NBC News: "NOAA: Better Than 97 Percent Chance 2015 Will Be Hottest Year on Record."

Really? Someone should take these Bozos up on their junk science. OK, geniuses, what will be the temperature in Fahrenheit at Reagan National Airport in DC a 12 noon on Christmas Day?

The fact of the matter is there is a 100% chance that temperatures as reported by the NOAA are meaningless. I want to know what this record temperature is and how it was derived. What is the margin of error. Are we talking about a millionth of a degree difference.

I mean it is not like the temperature was 59 degrees last year and is 60 this year.

No one in the press questions the methodology.

From the Associated Press:
Earth's record-breaking heat is sounding an awful lot like a broken record. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced Thursday that August, this past summer and the first eight months of 2015 all smashed global records for heat. That's the fifth straight record hot season in a row and the fourth consecutive record hot month.
Meteorologists say 2015 is a near certainty to eclipse 2014 as the hottest year on record. This year, six of the eight months have been record-breaking, with only April and January failing to set new records. Since 2000, Earth has broken monthly heat records 30 times and seasonal heat records 11 times. The last time a monthly cold record was broken was in 1916. Records go back to 1880.
This is from the same government that told us there were mass quantities of weapons of destruction in Iraq.


  1. What's the significance 97%? Got me. Assuming a Gaussian error distribution, 97% corresponds to a tiny bit more than a 2-sigma result, which in science implies the result is only marginally believable. Now, in science the usual benchmark is 3-sigma. A 3-sigma result is generally considered worthy of trust. It corresponds to a probability of 99.7%, which I imagine is quite beyond the predictability of the climate "science" practiced at NOAA these days. And for really good measure, when the stakes are truly high, as they are in this case, science prefers a 5-sgma result. However, that would require a prediction with 99.9999% reliability. Got that? A 2-sigma result isn't necessarily wrong; I'm only saying that according to the normal precepts of science one shouldn't attach any special confidence to it. It's more like scientific "speculation" than scientific "fact."

  2. These are the same bozos who annually predict that the coming hurricane season is going to be a doozy because of g̶l̶o̶b̶a̶l̶ ̶w̶a̶r̶m̶i̶n̶g̶ climate change.

  3. I go back quite a ways in the green movement and they haven't gotten a single prediction or computer model right yet but hey, you go, guys.

    If one scare doesn't work, just keep making up new code works, e.g., "carbon pollution," and hope it works on a fresh group of 12-year-olds worried about a cute animal.

  4. Seems likely there were WMDs in Iraq, seeing as how they were set up for it, and the circumstantial evidence of convoys to Syria.