first the EC all cause mortality raw data 2020 vs. 2021 (no aggregation: each point is one week).
age: (left) 65-69, (mid) 70-74, (right) 75-79
males (bottom), females (top)
colour by vaxx rate 65+, symbol by country
Pretty diagonal. No💉 correlation. 🧐
4/ No we aggregate this into sum of week 19 to 45. So 10th May to now.
The trend line indicates no correlation to slighly worse in 2021. Where is the 98% VE agains death?
5/ Interestingly, there is nothing to see, to a slightly worse situation in 2021 compared to novaxx times in 2020. See trend line which is slightly above the diagonal (not shown, but it would cross the top right corners).
6/ Now the all cause excess defined as
2021 (sum W19 to W45) - 2021 (sum W19 to W45).
age: (left) 65-69, (mid) 70-74, (right) 75-79
males (bottom), females (top)
colour by vaxx rate 65+, size by abs_value(excess).
➡️No💉correlation.
7/ Now the all cause excess defined as
2021 (sum W19 to W45) - 2021 (sum W19 to W45).
age: (left) 80-84, (mid) 85-89, (right) 90+
males (bottom), females (top)
colour by vaxx rate 65+, size by abs_value(excess).
➡️No 💉correlation.
8/ A map view of this excess
2021 (sum W19 to W45) - 2021 (sum W19 to W45).
age: (left) 70-74, (right) 75-79+
males (bottom), females (top)
colour by excess (0 is transition green/red)
➡️ 2021 is worse than novaxx 2020 in general. 🧐
9/ A map view of this excess
2021 (sum W19 to W45) - 2021 (sum W19 to W45).
age: (left) 80-74, (mid) 85-89, (right) 90+
males (bottom), females (top)
colour by excess (0 is transition green/red)
➡️ looks random. No 💉correlation.🧐
10/ Last experiment: vaxx map and excess side by side.
left: vaxx rate 65+
right 4 maps:
excess 2021 vs 2020.
(left) 65y-69y, (right) 70y-74y
males (bottom), females (top)
colour by excess (0 is transition green/red)
➡️ looks random. No 💉correlation.
11/ Conclusion: Other risks than vaxx/novaxx dominate everything on all cause death. But reducing all cause is the ultimate goal, or not? It seems not 😌.
1) Query EC DB for 2020 W19-W45, download query SMDX-CSV--> file 2020 (add week and year columns rename OBS column to 2020) 2) Query EC DB for 2020 W19-W45-->download query SMDX-CSV--> file 2021 (add week and year columns, rename OBS column to 2021)
14 DYI instruction (continued):
3) Create vaxx rate country file (see picture left) 4) Add 2021 and 2021 files in Tableau: left join by age=age, week=week, sex=sex, geo=geo 5) add vaxx rate country file, inner join by geo=geo
2) Query EC DB for 2021 W19-W45-->download query SMDX-CSV--> file 2021 (add week and year columns, rename OBS column to 2021)
Answer A, C I meant 😅
15/ Update (correction): I overlooked that the end week of reporting for 2021 varies for countries. Not all have W45. All have W38.
So this UNDERESTIMATED the 2021 excess for some countries (as the sum for 2020 went to W45).
Again for W19-W38.
➡️Answer C, may have it.
16/ Here again the raw correlations:
Filter on: W19 to W38
17/ And here again the excess defined as
2021 (sum W19 to W38) - 2021 (sum W19 to W38).
age: (left) 65-69, (mid) 70-74, (right) 75-79
males (bottom), females (top)
colour by vaxx rate 65+, size by abs_value(excess).
18/ And here the excess defined as
2021 (sum W19 to W38) - 2020 (sum W19 to W38).
age: (left) 80-84, (mid) 85-89, (right) 90+
males (bottom), females (top)
colour by vaxx rate 65+, size by abs_value(excess)
19/ Last one, the corrected map for the above 80 years.
Well...Sweden shines green. The rest doesn't look good compared to 2020.
Lockdowns are not good for health. The 💉doesn't improve anything (so far, up to W38). Tbc...
22/ Yep, good to check things. I forgott about M/F. files.catbox.moe/y1eclz.csv @OS51388957
I will start a new thread once I have cross checked the dashboard.
1/ I was told non US GHCN “raw” is adjusted already.
-----TRUE-----
Now I see it. Gosh.
Composite. 2x adjusted. NOAA doesn’t even know where non-US stations are—or what they’re measuring. Their own US data (USCRN) is light-years better. But for “global”? It’s clown-tier level.
2/ And here it is—the DOUBLE-adjusted COMPOSITE.
Not raw. I doubted @connolly_s at first—like someone denying their 2nd-hand car is stolen, crash-salvaged, and repainted twice. Turns out he was right.
NOAA’s “global” QCU (non-US): not raw.
3/ Credit where due.
Normally I block on first bad-faith signal.
But intuition said: bait him back.
Let’s see what he hands over.
And he did:
✔ Clown location
✔ 120% urbanized
✔ Composite
✔ Adjusted twice
Thanks for the assist.
1/ The WMO’s temperature station classification study isn’t a glamorous reading —but it’s the bare minimum anyone aggregating climate data should know about every single station. They don’t.
2/ Class 1 is “bare minimum” for climate-grade weather station suitability. One means maybe ok. met.no/publikasjoner/…
I’ll be counting impressions. I’ll know if you didn’t read.
(you’re allowed to LLM TlDR it.)
Next up: NOAA climate site requirements (HLR). 👇 x.com/orwell2022/sta…
3/ The NOAA HLR system makes WMO classes look gentle.
Most stations? Fail spectacularly.
1/ Digging deeper, we find 3 USCRN sites with 2 IDs — a legacy historical one and a USCRN. That’s big. It means we can stitch together long-term time series for 3 “golden” stations. Why haven’t @NOAA or @hausfath done this? Not the “right” narrative result? 🙃 Let’s take a look
2/ Here is an example of such a pair. STILLWATER. Note that you can see the wind fence around the precipitation gauge on satellite picture — that round structure. ncei.noaa.gov/access/crn/pdf…
3/ Well, let’s do it. We try. And...
...no hockey stick.
Despite STILLWATER being a growing urban area.
So... where’s the hockey stick? Anyone?
We're told it should be there. But the best data says no.
1/ Mr. @hausfath packed multiple fallacies into one graph. We replicate: he used homogenized data. We get the same.
Bottom right shows the raw. His fallacy: claiming that USCRN-ClimDiv agreement in the modern era (where adjustments are ~zero) validates strong past adjustments.
3/ His fallacy is blatant bad faith. Measurement validation isn't done by induction. He claims adjustments are valid because USCRN-ClimDiv align from 2008-2024—yet no adjustments were made in that period. Then he asserts past adjustments are proven. Exceptional level of malice.
4/ Another fallacy: He cherry-picked 1970—the coldest point in 100 years. He highlights only post-1970 warming in green, hiding earlier trends. But the real scandal? Extreme (false) pre-1970 adjustments, erasing the 1930s warmth with absurd corrections.
1/ New tool - let's test with VALENTIA (hourly) overlay: solid agreement. A model (ERA5) is only as good as its ground truth measurements constraints it. We saw good US results before, but obvious heat bias in polar regions—nothing measured to compare with there anyway.
2/ Now we match the 1940-2024 range. Note temp vs. anomaly scale—same curve, just shifted. A trick to amplify range. Few notice. Climate stripes? Perfect for manipulation—e.g. add offset (ECMWF) to make it red “=warm"= behavior science (manipulative).
3/ With the 1940–2024 range matched, comparison improves. For a clearer view, monthly temps are shown on top left, yearly in the middle—overlaying ERA5. Not perfect overlay, but ERA5 is A) a cell average (of a weather model) and B) fed by adjusted data.
1/ Absolutely my worldview. But I haven’t found a trace of it in temperature measurements. Accuracy doesn’t seem to be a factor at all. Instead, they rely on bizarre software that arbitrarily alters the data. No station audits. No QMS existing. Nothing.
2/ This magic software even adjusts in various directions from day to day—without any explicit justification beyond it doing so. Is the sensor accuracy changing day to day?? No.
This finding by @connolly_s is important and exposes PHA being unrelated to measurement principles.
3/ Here’s clear proof of failure. If the @noaa adjustments were correct, they’d bring raw data closer to the high-quality USCRN reference station (designed bias/error free). Instead, PHA alters the classic (cheap) neighborhood station’s raw data to be wrong—to be false.