Why is Bureau of Met manipulating data re Cyclone Marcia ?

[vicr3000]

Why is Bureau of Met manipulating data re Cyclone Marcia ?

They said it was a Cat 5 cyclone, yet all the wind speeds, sustained and gusts show that it was only a Cat 3.

In addition, the pressure level never got down to a Cat 5.

And regardless of the better building codes compared to Darwin/Tracy in 1974, the damage was no where near a Cat 5.

For a start, the trees still had leaves on them. In all the Cat 5 cyclones in the last 30 years, no trees had leaves

left on them.

In addition, "Data for Middle Percy Island has disappeared from the BOM site, but Jennifer Marohasy kept a copy.

(I’m sure the BOM will be grateful!)..."

Have a read of this.

http://joannenova.com.au/

IN ADDITION

It seems some of the media outlets wewre dissapointed that the damage wasn't worse. That was the impression I got.

Almost like Disaster porn.

Any comments ?

[debra9275]

So,you reckon someone is lying about numbers of animal species to spoil people's fun so they can't shoot them?

And that's one of the reasons George Soros is bribing all the scientist to fake temperatures

Sorry, but it doesn't make any sense

[poddster]

Has the BOM now branched out into zoology?????

[debra9275]

Vicr seems to think so...

[vicr3000]

---

@debra9275 wrote:
So,you reckon someone is lying about numbers of animal species to spoil people's fun so they can't shoot them?

And that's one of the reasons George Soros is bribing all the scientist to fake temperatures

Sorry, but it doesn't make any sense

---

No, I was saying that the typical greenie mantra comes out for every species, regardless of it's truth.

In Africa, Hunting in most areas is based on numbers, higher numbers, more permits, low numbers, less permits.

It varies year to year.

[debra9275]

But my question was what advantage is it to anyone to manipulate the temp figures and " pretend" there is global warming

You answered me about shooting animals

[gleee58]

---

@vicr3000 wrote:

I have, and removing data from 60+ years ago has no valid reason
except to achieve what they wanted.

A temp increase over the century.

---

Data was not removed.  All previously available information and records were retained, just not included in ACORN-SAT.  It's my understanding that it's about reducing the margin of error.

A new data set was created and some data entered was changed slightly to align it with current data collecting to create more accurate 100 year dataset. 

[poddster]

So removing or altering data is much more accurate.

Is that a Leftie trait?

[vicr3000]

Glee

Did you read this ?

http://joannenova.com.au/2014/08/hiding-something-bom-throws-out-bourkes-hot-historic-data-changes-l...

[gleee58]

---

@vicr3000 wrote:

Glee

Did you read this ?

http://joannenova.com.au/2014/08/hiding-something-bom-throws-out-bourkes-hot-historic-data-changes-l...

---

Yes, I did and I also read what the scientists who compiled ACORN-SAT said of their methodology.

[myoclon1cjerk]

" So removing or altering data is much more accurate.
 
Is that a Leftie trait?"

No it's a trait of Monckton et al.
Funding?So your saying if it wasn't for climate change funding,thousands of highly qualified scientists (not to mention the highly respected organizations they work for)would be mopping floors or picking up social security.
The more people involved in a conspiracy,the less likely it is to succeed.Read Cubbitt(1993) and Keeley(1999)