An Email from NOAA Recreational Fisheries Coordinator

[StinkyMatt]

Lip ripper,

The very first link you provided starts with two negative comments about Obama......it took no more than 3 seconds to establish the credibility of your link. It was bustin on the president and not talking science. Never made it to the second link.


I got to get going now....FOX NEWS is running a special on global warming myths....( but you already knew that)




Tight lines my scientist friend.

[Lipripper92592]

Originally Posted by StinkyMatt

Lip ripper,

The very first link you provided starts with two negative comments about Obama......it took no more than 3 seconds to establish the credibility of your link. It was bustin on the president and not talking science. Never made it to the second link.


I got to get going now....FOX NEWS is running a special on global warming myths....( but you already knew that)




Tight lines my scientist friend.

Great tactic my friend!!!!! You learn well. (Rules for radicals?)
Please highlight the word Obama in the below article. Unless I am having some eyesight issues, I don't see him mentioned at all.
NOAA Data Tampering Reaches A Tipping Point

Posted on November 3, 2013 by stevengoddard
NOAA reported that September was the warmest ever on Earth, even though satellites showed September as being close to the median.
This tipped me off that they have gone into full cheating, damn the torpedoes mode. Check out the level of tampering they achieved for September US temperatures. NCDC shows a strong warming trend for September in the US.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/us/
But the actual thermometer data which they use shows a cooling trend.

Index of /pub/data/ghcn/daily/hcn/
I immediately knew that we were looking at a record data tampering event. They have now passed two degrees of cheating in the US record. The graph below shows the difference between NCDC measured and reported data. As you can see, they are basically reducing temperatures from the past linearly with age.

NOAA has degenerated into a spectacularly immoral state, where their primary purpose seems to be to generate climate propaganda. Last week they were lying again about the 1,000 year rainfall in Colorado. It is pathetic.



Where does it say anything about Obama in this article? If you don't believe the data, you are more than free to do so. That is your right. But you did not refute the data. You smeared my sources by adding something that was not there.
Heavy tactic you have there my friend.

[chris138]

So because there are small discrepancies in temperature data which may have been "modified" by NOAA, then we should dismiss the entire organization, and indeed the 100 years plus of collective scientific knowledge generated by NOAA researchers?

If there was a CAT 5 hurricane bearing down on your family's home and NOAA, who is the only reputable marine weather service we have, predicted landfall nearby, would you call mom up and say "I dunno mom... These kooks over at NWS often falsify their data and are likely exaggerating the danger"? I think not.

I trust NOAA wholeheartedly, with my life. So do you, and you don't even realize it. Where do you think all the marine weather data comes from? Magic seaweed?? They have been directly responsible for saving thousands of lives and billions of dollars worth of property, and that's only in the last couple decades. I have many friends who work at fisheries and my girlfriend works at Scripps. Of course, they have an agenda like any other well funded organization. 2012 was a cold year water wise. I'm not surprised there were discrepancies in their data set.

But saying human induced global climate change isn't real, now that is pseudo-science. Sure the geologic record shows climate change, even dramatic in scale. The current patterns we are experiencing are UNPRECEDENTED in the geologic record... Like 1000x faster than we have any record of. Does it mean global warming or ice age? I don't know and won't venture to guess... But assuming some rightwing internet trolls knows more about global climate than the ARMY of PhDs from NOAA is a real shame. You are asserting that there is some conspiracy and that scientists are purposefully misinforming the public? These scientists argue with each other more than they would ever debate with a outside entity. All they do is try to prove each other wrong. Do you realize the amount of proof and peer defense that a team has to go through to even present an idea as a HYPOTHESIS, let alone a theory? Please give them a little more credit.

These are the same guys who have completely shut down the commercial sardine fishery this year. Why would they do something silly like that? Maybe it's because they are the only ones preventing man from completely decimating what is left of our ocean?

[bubblehide]

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them think.

[alanw]

How they go from 10 to 2 in one change kinda tells me that they aren't paying attention and just had another "Oh Shit" moment.

I hate government regulation but it's a necessary evil, like government itself.

[GregAndrew]

Gawd, at least with Facebook I would not have to keep seeing posts by zealots using Hyperbole and Metaphor to argue their "facts". I delete any "friends" that do that for anything but a joke (on either side of issues). If a raindrop falls on your head, does that really mean that the sky is falling?

[chris138]

Originally Posted by GregAndrew

Gawd, at least with Facebook I would not have to keep seeing posts by zealots using Hyperbole and Metaphor to argue their "facts". I delete any "friends" that do that for anything but a joke (on either side of issues). If a raindrop falls on your head, does that really mean that the sky is falling?

Nobody forced you to read this thread. Seems like you clicked it on your own, Greg. Or are you just looking to insult everybody involved and contribute nothing to the conversation?

The only joke around here is the utter lack of a productive dialogue. Thank you lipripper for speaking your mind and taking the time to support your opinions!

[GregAndrew]

Originally Posted by chris138

Nobody forced you to read this thread. Seems like you clicked it on your own, Greg. Or are you just looking to insult everybody involved and contribute nothing to the conversation?

The only joke around here is the utter lack of a productive dialogue. Thank you lipripper for speaking your mind and taking the time to support your opinions!

I did click on the link for "reduced BFT limits" it is true. That does not mean that I want to wade through a bunch of personal opinion spouted as fact about other far reaching topics. Comparing those that don't believe the way you do to "Rednecks" is not productive to any of those topics. Nor, in my opinion, is comparing someone pointing out that an organization (NOAA) "fudging" numbers is comparable to saying that they (NOAA) would lie about a life threatening situation ("Category 5 Hurricane"). Contrary to your accusation that I am trying to "insult everybody involved", most of the other posts and several of your ideas are constructive.

There are probably a lot of people in the fishery management business to do just that "manage the fishery". But if you don't believe that there are others there, in this day and age, that want to protect all wildlife from all take activities, I believe you might have blinders on (but I will concede that this is just opinion).

I don't mind a good debate on an issue, but I have never seen it happen on the Internet. A good debate requires much more back and forth than is usually capable on a forum before the "Mob Mentality" takes over.

I would love to see some hard numbers on the proportion of BFT caught by recreational anglers between the border and Santa Barbara to the take in the entire Pacific. Those numbers, I would hope, would be "facts". Giving an opinion on what those numbers might mean without having the real numbers is just that Opinion. Unfortunately, today opinion trumps fact too often because of the way it is marketed.

For the record, I would be considered pretty liberal when it comes to catch limits. Other than a few times when the WSB limit was 1, I don't remember having caught and kept a limit of any fish except stocked Trout. If the numbers showed that there was any reasonable chance that reducing the limit from 10 to 2 BFT in this tiny zone would help, I would be all for it.