Record Crushing Fraud From NOAA And NASA Ahead Of Paris

Gavin and Tom delivered their fraud right on schedule ahead of Paris, just as I predicted they would. They claim that October had the highest temperature anomaly ever recorded for any month.

2015-11-19-03-42-18

2015-11-19-03-26-13Record-crushing October keeps Earth on track for hottest year in 2015 – The Washington Post

Somehow, they managed to calculate Earth’s temperature within 0.01 degrees – even though they had no temperature data for about half of the land surface, including none in Greenland and very little in Africa or Antarctica.

201510

201510.gif (990×765)

This kind of mind-blowing malfeasance would get them fired and probably escorted out of the building by security at many engineering companies.

Satellites cover almost the entire planet several times a day, and they showed that October had only the 25th highest monthly anomaly, and that the first ten months of 1998 all had a higher anomaly than October 2015.

2015-11-19-03-05-12RSS_TS_channel_TLT_Global_Land_And_Sea_v03_3.txt

Not only do NASA and NOAA make up fake data for much of the planet, but they massively tamper with their existing data, like this station in Siberia where they have cooled the past nearly two degrees C since 2012 – and now claim that it is two degrees C above normal.

Zyrjanka2012-2015

2012 version :Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
2015 version: Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis

The graph below shows the magnitude of their data tampering since 2012.

2015-11-19-04-16-48

By tampering with the station baseline, they created the large anomalies. Then they double down their fraud by smearing their bogus anomalies across 1200 km of missing data. This is needed to create their required fraudulent record temperature claims ahead of Paris.

nmaps

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

167 Responses to Record Crushing Fraud From NOAA And NASA Ahead Of Paris

    • Marc Farris says:

      If fraud is proven,, what actions can/will be taken against the politicians & former politicians who have provided support to perpitrate the fraid?

      • Mogar says:

        Nothing will happen to them. We live in a time where law is selectively applied when and if the government wants to apply it.

    • GX-Pat says:

      will algore & the US gvnt be giving the money back?

      • Robert Weekes says:

        There isn’t much money in climate change research compared to fossil fuel subsidies. We’re talking about $2.5 billion for climate research (see whitehouse report below) versus $37 to $52 billion a year in fossil fuel subsidies. Which is a bigger business, $2.5B or $37B ? Which industry do you think has more corruption & special interests, and lobbies to crush clean energy policy? Should be obvious if you look at the money in big oil, coal & gas. Fossil fuels are a great business model – privatize the gains and socialize the costs!

        http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/
        https://m.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/fcce-report-to-congress.pdf

        • Mitchell McAleer says:

          Ummm, the number you put out for climate change ” research” is on the low side, and a direct public funded subsidy, you pretend compares to tax breaks. That’s deceptive, unless you presume all money made by a productive business, like oil exploration, extraction, refining, and resale, belongs to the Internal Revenue Service and the federal government. It’s that level of dishonesty that removes all credibility.

        • Michael Haluska, PE says:

          Your deliberate exaggeration won’t pass muster. Last year $21 BILLION was awarded to “Climate Change Research”. Since 1985 over $510 BILLION has been spent on “Climate Change Research”!!!

          I know Jack-Shit about Cancer, but if you allocated $510 BILLION to me to find a cure for Cancer I would find it! This is the most egregious waste of taxpayer money in the history of our nation.

  1. Gonzo says:

    Great work you’re doing Tony!! Keep it up. The global graphic showing the missing grids
    I can’t find on NOAA/NCEI website. Can you post the URL? If you could that would be great. When I link to your copy I get the usual denier BS. Thnx

  2. Gonzo says:

    Never mind I just saw it! Doh……cheers

  3. Paul Litely says:

    This is clearly Criminal Fraud intended to extort more funds at the Paris COP21 Fundraiser Party. Jail them. Fine them. Dont take any plea deals so the world can see all the gory details of this systematic fraud committed against millions of people and hundreds of governments and thousands of businesses. This is Shameful and arrogant.

    • Barry bin Inhalin says:

      Agreed, 100%.

    • Donald Campbell says:

      Criminal Fraud? The administration already excels in it. Is faking climate data any worse than the IRS bulling taxpayers, the Secret Service hiring Colombian hookers? Our Justice Department relies on ‘prosecutorial discretion’ for any crimes committed in the service of their agenda.

      Ultimately, since the climate is not cooperating with their predictions, their fraud will be exposed. What is a crime is the tarnishing of science in the service of politics.

    • Kevin Roeder says:

      Millions? How about BILLIONS. The greatest LIE ever perpetrated on mankind; global warming. What a farce!

    • Rich McKeever says:

      I agree with you 100%. I have been advocating criminal charges be brought against these alarmists for years. Their naked attempts to rob the developed countries and basically starve the populations of the third world via a most obvious and admitted fraud constitutes a crime against humanity.
      These people have been persuing their agenda since the 1970’s seventies when it was global cooling until today’s so-called global warming/climate change with a corollary agenda of the destruction of individual civil rights in the name of their invented greater good and in some countries that could be defined as seditious if not treasonous behavior. This cannot be allowed to go unpunished.
      How many have the resultant legislative regulations and laws killed already? It is incumbant upon all good men and women to halt this nonsense immediately and punish those responsible.
      Rich in New Mexico.

      • Robert Weekes says:

        Wowww, really? You think environmental regulations have actually *killed* people?? More than, say, the fossil fuel industry??

        The third world is not being “starved” with climate regulations, in fact they have no regulations. China is the worst offender just look at the choking air in Beijing. They’ve been building a new coal power plant every week but look what it’s getting them. We need clean energy solutions like thorium reactors.

        The global scientific community is 99% in agreement that climate change is happening, it is man made, and it’s happening faster than ever. The earth carbon cycle can only sequester CO2 in the ocean & crust so fast. It can’t keep up with our production. Atmospheric CO2 levels have doubled since pre-industrial times, the fastest increase in global history according to ice core sampling and other extensive data. 7 billion people are making an impact that we must not ignore or the costs will be horrendous.

        • Sam Billard says:

          And yet temperatures drop even though CO2 levels are at a record high. Why then? Cuz climate change is not man-made, despite NASA and NOAA telling everyone it is. It comes from the sun. Grand solar minimum is already underway and we will feel the full effects in the upcoming decade. Anyone disagree? Just look up Adapt 2030 on YouTube. He will fill you out with his 150+ videos on this topic.

    • Robert Weekes says:

      This “systematic fraud,” as you call it, must surely be a vast ingenious conspiracy of epic proportions !! Considering literally dozens (or hundreds) of countries and independant government organizations are all perpetuating the same “lies” !! If this really is a worldwide multi-national global conspiracy, I think it is pretty amazing indeed ! You’re not wrong, it’s all the governments all over the world that are wrong, and you are right! You with probably little to no scientific background! Is this starting to sound insane yet ? Who is the arrogant one here.

      • tonyheller says:

        Comments like this completely piss me off. Take your black helicopter talk somewhere else. Here we look at data.

        • Robert Weekes says:

          You don’t really look at data if you always say it’s all fudged. Updating data sets is routinely done when new data is released. But you ignore the data. You do endless wild speculation and hand-waving to support your predetermined world view. You take the opinion of one dissenter as though it’s a fact. You disproportionately weight the opinion of skeptics over the vast majority and better qualified scientific community, who is in agreement that climate change is caused by human activity and poses a great threat to our way of life.

          You think a handful of conspiracy theory nut jobs are right and 97% of the world’s scientific government agencies, independant science organizations and climate scientists are all wrong.

          https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/
          http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
          http://www.globalchange.gov/browse/indicators
          http://sdwebx.worldbank.org/climateportal/

          “You” meaning climate change deniers. Change is a part of life and some people need to accept that we need to change as a society to live in balance with the ecosystem. Have you heard of the frog that doesn’t jump out of the pot? We’re the frog.

          • Robert Weekes says:

            By the way thanks for not deleting my comments, I respect your professionalism.

          • Akmar Oblong says:

            I saw some data, it was a map of recession of the Columbia Icefield in Alberta. They tracked it since 1908.
            I mean, ice is just ice. It freezes when it’s cold and it melts when it’s warm. I can’t think of other mechanisms that the icefield recession could occur, except perhaps by sneaky environmentalist “cheats” coming in the dark of night and melting the snow or hauling it away somewhere else.
            Am I wrong if I say this is data?
            I sure hope I have not offended anybody.

      • Candice Satti says:

        Robert Weeks
        Consider that in the past, (even still existing in some religious minds today) after a natural disaster occurs and many lives are lost, humans have historically had some religious superstitions where they attribute a false cause-effect relationship between the behavior of the victims and the natural disaster itself. Usually this revolves around whatever the relative idea of “morality” is and it was verified by whatever the authority consensus was of the people who wished to project morality.

        Now, take that same kind of superstition and add the fact that as humans evolve through time we often learn new ways to do and explain the same ideas and notions we have in the past. (Which we do, ie: history repeats itself) So, the notion that “Capitalism” and the advances made since the industrial revolution are to blame for any noticeable “climate changes” or extreme weather patterns, and it’s due to the so-called immoral practices of mankind that caused massive climate and weather changes, and it’s easy to realize that we are not just being fed lies, we are repeating history and falling for the same damn thing, using new words to describe it.

        But, I know what you are thinking. The current scientific consensus validates these theories? Well, assuming that the scientific consensus is made up of the most knowledgeable, educated and the expertise of the respective fields, it’s not that far of a stretch from the former theocratic and monarchial “consensus” who, in their day, were also the most educated individuals in the relative human population. The ones who perpetuated old superstitions for political gain, are the same as the ones who do it today, in a relative way.

        Nonscientist of the enlightenment would have EVEN ENTERTAINED the superstitious idea that Human beings caused massive climate changes. Because they had just finally liberated themselves from such irrational and grandiose fantasies. The scientific method was gradually applied in time which allowed a systematic way for proving cause-effect relationships and used hypothesis, predictions, objective measurement, and then repetition, in order to gain any validation. This was a break from superstition. Yet, here we are again.

        I understand all of the science quite well. Plot it on a longer timeline and its all absolutely irrelevant and inconclusive. Plus, no proposed solution to any climate change our global warming issue has ever produced objectively measured and valid results.

        What we have here is the modern Instrumentum regni

        Patterns of human behavior, superstition, deception and grandiose self-delusion, are quite predictive on a large scale.
        Psychohistory alone invalidates climate change theory.

  4. bill h says:

    Tony,

    Your post is very confusing. You say you are are providing evidence of fraud by both NOAA and NASA, yet the only evidence is a map taken from the NOAA website on the day NASA/GISS released its global data. All this means is that NOAA had only posted THEIR data for half the Earth’s land surface on 17th October, two days prior to their publication. You show no evidence at all for the NASA data only having 50% coverage when it was published.

    This looks like carelessness on your part. It also indicates that your followers (including, by extension the denizens of Tallbloke’s Talkshop) aren’t bothered by the possible unreliability of your claims, since they have accepted the truth of what you say without question.

    Right, now I’ll sit back and wait to be called a moron, brainwashed or whatever.

    • tonyheller says:

      NASA uses essentially the same GHCN data from NOAA. The NOAA map is their final map.

    • Dutch says:

      Dope, there are only temperature stations covering about 40% of the global land mass since the end of the cold war when the defunct USSR abandoned some 10000 stations. NASA aan NOAA use this same station data. Also note that this only represents 12% on the total Earth surface. So they extrapolate 12% of the Earth’s surface temps to cover the remaining 88%. AND fudge the numbers before doing that. Meanwhile the satellite record captures the entire surface and shows no such warming. Now please tell me which method is more scientifically sound and who is accepting things without data.
      I won’t call you brainwashed or accepting of proof without data, but you sure are making that case for yourself on your own. Learn the facts before you try to talk like a big boy. If you believe these ridiculous CC claims without even knowing where the data comes from then what does that say about you? Basically all the things you are projecting (SJWs always project) on to everyone here. Will you even acknowledge your gullibility? I’m betting no…

      • Robert Weekes says:

        Clearly you don’t understand how data is acquired and aggregated. It would be impossible to cover the globe with weather stations- people need room to live, farms, roads etc. But there are a lot of weather stations spread around (over 11,000 according to the WMO) which gives us a pretty good idea of global temperatures. Satellite data also shows global temperatures increasing. Data is often averaged out to get one number, in this case global average temperature.

        http://www.wmo.int/pages/themes/climate/climate_observation_networks_systems.php

    • Psuereal says:

      Hi Bill,

      I’m curious if you think CO2 on Earth can cause global warming on Mars?

      Thx.

      • Robert Weekes says:

        If you believe Mars is warming then skim this article for a more factual/historical summary complete with sources:

        http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climate-Change-on-Mars.html

        In short there is no clear evidence of global warming on Mars, and there is no longer any correlation of earth temperatures with solar output since the 1970s. In other words you can’t point at Mars and say “look it’s warming too so we don’t have a problem.”

    • Scott says:

      Maybe you’re not a moron, maybe you’re not brainwashed.

      Maybe you simply support the tax-guzzling fraud that calls itself Global Warming or Climate Change or the Coming Ice Age or whatever moniker of the day they choose to maximize fear in the gullible public mind and power and income in their vile, rapacious bank accounts.

      If you were a moron or brainwashed, I could pity you. But if you are deliberately and knowingly perpetuating a known fraud, screw you.

      • Robert Weekes says:

        More of your taxes going to big oil

      • Robert Weekes says:

        Scientists often refer to “climate change” to better represent the complex nature of anthropomorphic global warming. There is a general warming trend but the weather will experience low temps as well. It is a general trend toward extreme highs and lows we are seeing hence the term climate change is more suitable.

        • Akmar Oblong says:

          The stoichiometric air/fuel ratio on my car engine is about 14.7:1 meaning, 14.7 kg of air is consumed to burn 1 kg of fuel. And this produces 15.7 kg of products of combustion.
          But where does it go? It’s invisible, so I assume it just disappears!
          Now some jokers are telling us, no wait, it’s accumulating in the environment! And it’s different than the other, invisible air we’ve been breathing.
          Look, the air smells the same as when I was a little kid, it looks the same (ok yes, maybe at a really extremely oblique angle into the sunset in the city you can see something called “smog”), but seriously?
          The products of combustion have vanished, man! They are not accumulating. The environment is not being changed. Who are these people with their unsubstantiated “sky-is-falling” claims? When don’t you go climb into the Wolf’s mouth and shut up and die already?

    • Muhammed atta says:

      You simply have been creating a negative pressure environment on barry’s boypole

    • doug1961 says:

      moron.
      Global warning is a fraud and the people who worship it are fools.
      The world has been warmer, the climate continuously changes, and man has nothing to do with it.

    • L D says:

      Ok, if CC is a fraud. How do you explain that it is melting every where? How do you explain that drought is becoming a problem? And how can you explain that it is not getting warmer? If I have 10 people in my house it is going to be warm. If I have 100 it is going to get warmer. WE are 7 billions of people, more cows, more cars, more and more and more… so it is not our fault? No it is just a cycle…

  5. mat says:

    You’re going to have to abandon the “BUS” for a limo if Drudge keeps linking to your post…..

    Keep up the good work….

  6. Izaak Boyd says:

    This is the new norm…Corruption!!!! NOAA also committed fraud when they admitted the recent drought was do to cyclical changes in the Pacific air currents one month and then reversed their findings the next after they received pressure from the Left to then claim it was due to man made global warming…. The Bankers at the CFR and Bilderberg work with the kooks on the Left to rig the system for their greed and control.

    • Robert Weekes says:

      Weather causes short term events but the climate as a whole affects weather patterns on an ongoing basis – hence climate change affects the weather from the top down. Rising global temperature leads to greater temperature gradients, hi/low pressure systems and wind speeds – we see the result as extreme weather events. One tornado/hurricane/fire/flood/drought is not proof of climate change, but an increase in extreme weather across the board points to it.

      • How can 0.04% CO2 make a difference when water vapor, which is a much stronger greenhouse gas, is 2% in the tropics, 1% in temperate zones, and you have to go to Antarctica to find a place where water vapor is 0.04%, and there is no sun there!!

  7. Jneen says:

    Just so grateful you are keeping up with this detail. Most of us wouldn’t know how! What would we do if you weren’t doing this? Thanks for the sanity and accuracy you bring to this table of tall tales!!!!!!

  8. Thomas Mobley says:

    I’ve said for many years that anyone who insists that they can measure global temperatures to the hundredth of a degree centigrade and global sea levels to the millimeter is a fraud. It’s a level of precision that is impossible to achieve. Saying you can reach into the past even to times before there were measuring instruments and determine these measurements to this precision is just the stuff of lunatics. This is equivalent to someone saying they can determine the exact amount of money in circulation in the world on any given day, past, present or future to the cent.

    • Dave says:

      Thomas, you are sooooo right!! It’s outrageous nonsense only morons would buy. It’s like claiming you can tell the average length of grass in my entire neighborhood by measuring a sample of 10 blades….and define that average length to an accuracy of 1/1000 of an inch!

    • goldminor says:

      Science Officer Spock could make that measurement.

    • Robert Weekes says:

      You obviously don’t understand ice core data. Drilling ice cores hundreds of feet deep gets you into some really old ice. The age can be determined with N-15 isotope measurement. The temperature at the time can be determined from the ice itself, and CO2 levels are measured from tiny trapped air bubbles.

      Scientists measure the past all the time, you can determine an ancient tree’s age by counting the rings, the age of pre-historic fossils with carbon dating, geologists look at rock layers thousands of years old etc. I don’t know how much precision scientists can measure global temperatures or sea levels, there is always a degree of uncertainty – but the overall trend becomes clearer and clearer over time as new measurements are compared to older ones.

  9. John says:

    These voodoo witch doctors are part of the groupthink that wishes to establish themselves as preeminent scholars in climate change.

    Who gets there the firstes with the mostes, wins….

    And these Drs are working on that!

  10. James Keil says:

    Matt Drudge has linked this article. Good one to choose.

  11. sonotaliberal says:

    Environment lies worked for Hitler, why not for obammmy, too.

  12. Barry bin Inhalin says:

    Just like the rest of liberalism’s lore: all lies.

    • Janis says:

      Barry bin Inhalin, love your handle and you are completely correct. It is hard to believe that anyone, even with just a lukewarm IQ, can buy ANYTHING the libs put out. What they say is so stupid and defies logic and reason.

    • Robert Weekes says:

      Politicizing science, way to go.

      • Peter says:

        “Politicizing science, way to go.”

        Those on the CC rampage claim a “concensus” on the science. They use that word all the time. Of course “concensus” is a non-scientific term but is applied accurately in the political arena, so who is doing the politicizing here?

  13. Jeffrey Gee says:

    Al Gore is still an idiot. If any politicians try and enforce a carbon or methane tax they need to be removed from office immediately. I believe fraud and embezzlement carries a jail sentence!

  14. Mark Pickett says:

    Thank you,
    for the great work you are doing, please keep it going.
    Mark

  15. Michael layon says:

    Ever wonder why NASA has achieved so little in recent decades? No return trip to the moon, no new reusable space vehicle, lots of internal chaos…..all explained by an organization which has lost its focus and morphed into a bureaucracy mired in appearing busy rather than focused on mission accomplishment….

    • Robert Weekes says:

      More like having its budget cut every single year and having no big enemy to posture against like the Soviets

  16. cheryl says:

    This is the scam(brain child) perpetrated in Rio by George Soros and Maurice Strong. This is redistribution of wealth on a global level. This is a world class THEFT. With the exposure of the film by Al Gore (all propaganda) and this UN Agenda 21 sustainable development, this is propaganda and world wide theft. Bush #1 sign the United States onto this scam, Clinton doubled down, Bush #2 forward it again, and now BHO is on warp speed closing coal plants and wasting million if not billion to the Solyndra’s of the world. With all those funds going back into the democratic coffers. Not only is this propaganda taught in schools, including Islam, we are going down the wrong path. Not until American’s wake up will we become aware of the sell out of America by our elected officials.

    • Robert Weekes says:

      So much more money going to the fossil fuel industry, much more money going to Congressmen through donations, more lobbyists for fossil fuels, AND big super pacs, look at the money – $2.5B (climate research) vs. $37B a year (fossil subsidies). The distribution of wealth is going from the poor and shrinking middle class into the rich oil companies with fraudulent tax breaks and crazy incentives. They pay conservatives to bash clean energy regulations and promote climate denier propaganda. And climate deniers think the big money is in climate research? What a perfect swindle, the Koch brothers are laughing at you !!

      http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/

  17. roger says:

    finally it almost seems we are outing climate change crap as legitimate as alchemy. I am not a scientist and I felt I have always known its fraud.

  18. Kruelhunter says:

    “In confusion there is profit.” Governments, especially those run by “professional” politicians with personal agenda, are fully vested in creating strife and confusion because it allows them to further limit both the freedom and prosperity of the common citizens who are foolish enough to fail to recognize that self interest is the “professional” politician’s primary motivation.

  19. ClimateScamTruth says:

    Let’s just look at this whole thing in real terms, So lets say your company is a coal powered plant that puts out dirty smoke, the Liberals who are backed by the Clinton Foundation and Al Gore say “It’s OK if you emit this dirty smoke as long as you buy carbon offset credits from us” but who gets the money for those carbon offsets? , how does buying carbon offset credits from Al Gore or The Clinton Foundation fix the problem ? It doesn’t, it’s just another scam. If you watch the Liberal media in America, you would think America is the filthiest place on earth, but if you travel to China for example, they burn their raw trash in huge burn pits with nasty raw smoke bellowing into the atmosphere. I know, I’ve seen it with my own eyes. Thats why when you see footage from the far-east most people wear face masks walking around, to protect themselves, yet the American Liberal press makes it seems as America is the worst contributor of these emissions. Its called propaganda and is designed to scare people into buying Carbon Offset Credits from Al Gore and the Clinton’s. The Chinese aren’t stupid enough to buy Carbon Credits, people need to pay attention to what these liberals are doing, their scams are designed to benefit NOBODY but THEMSELVES.

    • perfesser says:

      Growing up in the Northwest back in the ’60s, I remember you could drive south from the border on I-5 down to Seattle and know within 10 miles exactly where you were just from the smell of the pulp and other plants in every town. Bellingham did not smell like Mount Vernon, and when you got to Everett, if the wind was blowing onshore across the highway you’d just floor it so you spent as little time as possible in that plume. The cops wouldn’t stop you because there was no way they were getting out of their cars in that poisonous air.

      I’ve been in LA during a Stage II smog alert in the early-80s, when you couldn’t walk a block without your eyes burning and your lungs gasping for oxygen. I’ve seen Denver when you couldn’t see Denver for the cloud of brown sludge in the air.

      That was back when the environmentalists had justifiable claims, and were reasonable about discussing them. Seems like nowadays that we’ve cleaned up the country to the toughest standards on the planet (we went to unleaded gasoline 14 years before Europe, for instance), they have less to gripe about and they’ve gotten more demanding and far less civil.

      I think we ought to send the whole lot of them on a fact-finding tour of south Asia, from the coal plants of China to the ship breaking yards of India. The return fare is on them!

      • J says:

        I still live here in western Wa. I know exactly what you are talking about with the pulp mills. GP in Bellingham closed
        Kimberly Clark in Everett which is now closed. Stimson in Tacoma which is still there. You knew where you were by the smell.

      • Robert Weekes says:

        Don’t you think less smog is a good thing? I live in LA today and I’m glad there’s less smog thanks in large part to better energy and clean air standards. Can’t say the same for China. We need everyone to do their part to keep our planet clean and hospitable.

    • Robert Weekes says:

      America is still the second-worse contributor to climate change because of our huge scale of energy production. China is worse although they have lower per-capita CO2. Still it behooves the U.S. to fight for better standards and lead the world in cleaning up our energy portfolio. Our grandkids will thank us (hopefully).

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

  20. Mike Gilmer says:

    Climate change is real. So is Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy.

    • perfesser says:

      And honest politicians …

    • TJ says:

      Climate change IS real..it has been changing since the earth was formed.

      • SemperFi, 0321 says:

        In it’s own context, you are absolutely correct.
        The first thing I learned in Geology 101 back in 1977 was that “The earth is in a constant state of change” and will remain so until it wears itself out, with or without human interference. A thousand yrs after the last human pollutes a stream, the earth with be clean as new again, or until the next meteor strike.

      • Robert Weekes says:

        Yes but it’s changing much faster now than ever before that’s the problem, there’s 45% more CO2 in the air versus pre-industrial levels (400 vs. 275 ppm). The earth can only recycle carbon so fast it can’t keep up with our production. There is a proven relationship between CO2 and air temperature, it can be demonstrated on a lab bench. The CO2 and methane traps heat from the sun that’s the greenhouse effect. Do I have to educate all of these ignoramuses don’t you guys have Google?

        https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/how-much-will-earth-warm-if-carbon-dioxide-doubles-pre-industrial-levels

        • “The CO2 and methane traps heat from the sun that’s the greenhouse effect.”

          Ha ha ha ha you don’t even understand your own hoax!! CO2 traps heat from the surface of Earth, not the sun! The sun doesn’t even radiate 15 micron IR

          Ha ha a haha ha ha ah ah ah ah ah ah ah a

  21. tedwest says:

    A local weatherman in Phoenix said October here was the warmest on record and cited global warming, though he said “climate change,” and that prompted me to hope that the following four months would also be the “warmest on record.” Of course, the “record” is based on like 125 years of temps, and it’s uncertain just how accurate even those temps are.

    • Robert Weekes says:

      Uncertainty doesn’t mean something isn’t happening. Science is based on measurements which always contain a degree of uncertainty. The more complex the experiment is the more difficult it is to measure precisely. The challenge is going through massive amounts of data, analyzing it, accounting for variables, updating data sets Etc.

      • Robert Weekes says:

        But the big picture emerges over time and there is a 97% consensus that climate change is happening and people are the cause.

        • Jack Scott says:

          I sure wish people would stop using that 97% number because it is bogus. You greatly degrade you argument by using that number, because it just isn’t true. Makes us skeptics wonder what OTHER numbers are being fudged. You know there are a large number of competent and dedicated scientist that dispute AGW, but they get called names and now some politicians want to use the power of government to keep them from speaking out. Totalitarianism will not enhance the debate. Makes those of us that question the AGW position wonder why all of this political pressure, almost exclusively from the Left. We know the models have not produced good predictions and can be fudged based on the assumptions in the models. We know global temps haven’t really shown much increase for the past 20 years. We know ocean levels have been rising at a steady rate over the last 60+ years without seeming to accelerate. Also, please don’t use the $37 billion “subsidy” excuse, we know these are taxes that the government doesn’t collect, but if they did collect would be passed on to the user of their products, us.

  22. Patrick B says:

    You need to fix the Zyrjanaka difference gif (or whatever it is) – in Firefox, the overall scale jumps and thus fails to allow one to easily see the adjustment made.

    • KTM says:

      If you look at the left scale closely you will see that Tony has lined them up already.

      The source images changed the scale, Tony is trying to line them up so the scale is identical.

      The jumping around that you see does reflect the magnitude of the changes.

  23. John Fletcher says:

    People need to look at the US Park Service maps of Glacier Nat’l Park which shows the position of the glacial face(s) back to the 1600’s.
    The rate of melting & glacial retreat was far greater in the 1700-1800 period than it was in the recent past. Even now, some Alaskan glaciers are still advancing while many others are retreating.
    Lastly, has anyone told these geniuses that CO2 increases follow temperature increases
    rather than the reverse.

    • OneOut says:

      When the Ross ice shelf was first discovered in 1850 in a sailboat the explorer Ross preformed a marine survey of it. In 1912 the second expedition to survey the Ross Ice Shelf by Robert Falcon Scott found that it had shrunk by 50 miles.

      So when the Ross Ice Shelf was first discovered in a sailboat it was already shrinking by almost one mile per year. This was before the advent of steamships much less the internal conmbustion engine.

      • SemperFi, 0321 says:

        Yes, I believe the glaciers have been shrinking for over 10,000 yrs without any help from us, and now that we are down to less than 5% of their original size, why wouldn’t they shrink almost overnight. There is nothing left of them to hold any cooling in, or increase the ice flow outward.
        Imagine leaving your freezer open and turning the motor off, what would rejuvenate the ice?

    • Robert Weekes says:

      You’re half right they both amplify each other they are correlated and causally linked. That’s the problem and biggest worry of scientists, that there could be a runaway greenhouse effect that gets out-of-control and can’t be stopped. There are more accelerators than dampers do your homework

  24. Amy says:

    Good Work!

  25. pompey says:

    “The ends justify the means”, or “lie if you have to”….. all of which is consistent with the evil lefts attemps to gain control of the world energy supply. The fascist left is desprate to sell this fraud the the people of the world and it seems that most are not buying it, thus, increased despration by the left.

    In the United States the communist have a three prong approach one of which they have already accomplished. 1) Socialized medicine….control the mans healthcare and you control the man. 2) Climate change fraud….control the energy supply and you control the econony.3) Gun control…..effectively disarm the American people so that they will be powerless to resist tyranny…..these last two objectives are going to be problematic but not impossible.

    • Robert Weekes says:

      Most people *are* buying into climate change, it’s just the conservative conspiracy nut jobs who are behind the times. The scientific community isn’t necessarily liberal or conservative, they are pro science. It is the conservatives who are politicizing the climate change debate. You are complaining about medicare, climate change and gun control. Proving my point right there.

  26. Doug Maenpaa says:

    Global warming is back again….no,,,err, “climate change”.

    • Robert Weekes says:

      Scientists often refer to “climate change” to better represent the complex nature of anthropomorphic global warming. There is a general warming trend but the weather will experience temperature lows as well. It’s a general trend toward extreme highs and lows we are seeing hence the term climate change is more appropriate.

  27. JaneBlacksmith says:

    The more the Leftist hucksters’ deceit is uncovered, the more they double down. There’s so much money and control in this global warming/cooling/climate change fraud, they won’t go down without a fight.

    The environment is the new blanket justification for every freedom-choking policy; it replaces the tired old saw of, “for the children.”

  28. Richard Jones says:

    NASA has been lying since the “hole in the ozone” days of the 90’s ! (Al Gore days) It is all about funding ! The only way they could keep their fleet of high altitude U-2’s and their stretch wing B-66 flying was to use them to “gather” false data on ozone. The truth is that since ozone is an ionized gas (monoatomic oxygen) it is moved by magnetic fields. The earth has a strong magnetic field, north and south. That is why compasses work and that is why there is and always be an ozone “hole” over the south pole !!! Americans are victims of their own stupidity !! Rock on dudes !!!!

  29. Daniel says:

    Have you contacted John Christy recently? He has had great data from his surveys and I think you could get permission to use his raw data as well.

  30. Drake says:

    In Nov. 2010, Ottmar Edenhoffer, one of the co-chairs of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), said in an interview with German NZZ Online,“One must say clearly that we redistribute defacto the world’s wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy.”

    and

    President of the Czech Republic, Dr. Vaclav Klaus, described the Gloal Warming / Climate Change alarmists as ”a budding totalitarian ideology that is the greatest threat to freedom, democracy, and prosperity in the world today”.

  31. Yort says:

    Right on Tony!!!!

  32. Fizzy Bear says:

    Very good work and thank you so much for doing it! Agencies that are to refrain from political bias have astoundingly become ‘torch bearers’ for this administration’. The cnsequences of doctored data and information will only lead to embolden the lemming mach.

  33. james hubbard says:

    All those who have altered data or knew about altering data and didn’t report it relating to “Climate Chjange”, should be prosecuted for Fraud. As the climate data generally does not support the “Climate Change” model…

  34. FreedomFan says:

    Fraudsters Gavin, Connolley & Mann belong in jail with the rest of their Hockey Team.

  35. R. L. Hails Sr. P. E. (ret.) says:

    40,000 people are going to Paris in a few days to meet on climate change with the never ending claim that the US owes them $100,000,000,000 per year, forever, in reparations for burning carbon during the last century. The quality of their proof, their certitude, is demonstrated in this article.

    And our government workers will not release their papers which support the recent high temperature findings, based on this data reduction. They claim privacy.

    We live in an insane nightmare.

  36. richard says:

    John Coleman, weather channel founder, blew the lid off noaa’s temperature manipulation with a tv special here in San Diego in 2010. He showed how temperature reading stations had been relocated to places like roofs of buildings right next to hot exhaust ports and in the middle of blacktop parking lots 1 inch from the ground. During the live program he got a call from Goddard demanding he cease the program immediately. What does that say about the fraud being committed? Tons i’d say.

    • scott wittig says:

      I would like to second this by first hand experience of local temperature anomalies. Using weather underground website and others you can choose your own weather station. Wow! Just 2 blocks away it said it was 30 degrees hotter

  37. CClark says:

    The “Climate Change” fascists are at it again. If the facts don’t prove your false narrative then change the “facts”. This agenda is driven by the One World Government fascists lead by obama and his western European allies for one simple reason’ control. There is absolutely no proof of any climate change that is directly or indirectly caused by human activities. In fact, the climate has been cooling for 15 years and they have no explanation for it. Reduction of sea ice, which was at one point their “proof positive” of this weather phenomenon has in fact been increasing year after year for many years now and the “climate” fascists have change their talking points and said it may get cold before it gets hot…? What drivel. Every government sponsored agency has indicated the temperatures are rising but in fact they are not rising they are cooling. In the 1970s we were told we are facing a new “Ice Age” and now, no, it is a heat wave. Face it; none of them can be trusted to tell you that night is dark and day is bright…..

    • Robert Weekes says:

      Cite your sources please. One study showed an increase in ice in one area but the overall trend is still melting faster. You wouldn’t take 1 or 5 years’ worth of data as an indicator of overall trends which are much more obvious over 30+ yrs. The ice age myth in the ’70s was a bullshit media blitz and not even a big one. There is tons of evidence of climate change but you don’t want to even look at NASA’s findings, or NOAA, or the NSF, or the USGS, or the IPCC, or any number of foreign & multi-national agencies…

      Climate change: the big myths that need to be exploded – http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/may/03/climate-change-myths-warming-ice-antarctic-arctic

  38. Charles says:

    HERE IS THE MATHEMATICAL PROOF THAT HUMAN CAUSED “CLIMATE CHANGE” IS IMPOSSIBLE.

    1. “Human Caused” = the annual total of Petroleum/hydrocarbons plus some other lesser factors. Look it up.

    2. Compare to the total of all subduction on the planet. Subduction is the underfolding of the earths crust where EVERYTHING capable of incineration is incinerated/combusted by the upper mantle at about 2,000 degrees. This includes ALL petroleum/hydrocarbons, Carbonates, silicates, most heavy metals etc. in the crust. One wonders how many million barrels per day are burned out of the earth’s crust.

    30 km of crust X over 40,000 miles of subduction zone X 5 cm annual average of subduction = hundreds of thousands of times more effluents than human caused.

    Natural subduction and the resulting effluent process has been ongoing constantly for billions of years and results in a relatively constant level of CO2 etc. being offgassed via over 45,000 active volcanos, tectonic expansion zones and lifting/erosion around the planet.

    When a geologic zone is lifted, naturally formed carbonic acid goes to work releasing Billions upon Billions of tons of CO2 annually. The earth has been re-absorbing all these amounts of effluent for billions of years.

    The recent advent of human industry is less than a tiny blip in the production of “climate change” effluents naturally produced by Earth.

  39. MIner49er says:

    Coal is the lowest-cost and most reliable primary energy source for electric power generation. A modern coal plant emits few air emissions except water vapor and carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide emissions are beneficial, and climate change is a false premise for regulating them. See Patrick Moore’s recently released lecture http://www.thegwpf.com/28155/.

    There is no definitive evidence that CO2 from fossil fuels affects climate. Human activities cause only about 3% of all carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions to the atmosphere. The rest are the result of decomposing plant material.

    CO2 is in equilibrium. While a weak greenhouse gas in theory, its actual climate effects are nullified by stronger forces, particularly the formation of mineral carbonates from atmospheric carbon dioxide. Warmer weather from other causes increases natural CO2 emissions from rotting vegetation, and results in a higher equilibrium level of ambient CO2, as measured by Keeling.

    Mineral carbonates are the ultimate repository of atmospheric CO2. Anyone who passed 10th grade chemistry can know this using public information. Limestone and marble are the most familiar forms of mineral carbonate. CO2 is an essential component of mineral carbonate (CaCO3, for calcium). For more detail see the paper http://bit.ly/1NziTF4 by Danish researcher Tom Segalstad.

    Carbonates form in seawater and soils through biological and chemical processes. The formula is CO2 + CaO => CaCO3. Anyone can make magnesium carbonate in a kitchen by mixing carbonated water with milk of magnesia.

    • Charles says:

      Decomposing plant material yes, but also, every ounce of coal, oil, natgas, etc. at the subduction boundaries around the globe. That’s alot more than plant-based CO2 which is in equilibrium.

    • Robert Weekes says:

      “There is no definitive evidence that CO2 from fossil fuels affects climate.”
      Except for thousands of publications and studies from climate scientists and science organizations all over the globe. The trends are growing increasingly obvious. CO2 and temperatures are increasing faster than ever before.

      Man-made CO2 is closer to 4% of total annual release, the problem is it’s 3.75% more CO2 than what is naturally released and the earth cannot accommodate this increase. In fact there are more positive than negative forcers to accelerate the increasing temperatures. Increasing CO2 raises atmospheric temperatures due to higher infrared absorption (greenhouse effect). Melting ice reduces earth’s surface reflectance, absorbing more heat from the sun. The oceans rising temperature releases more GHG’s (lower CO2 and methane solubility). Rising temps are causing more forest fires and burning more trees. All these forcers are accelerating the greenhouse effect and CO2 release in a continuous cycle. The CO2 has nowhere to go and is accumulating in the atmosphere (+100pm in the last 150 years). Currently 40% higher than pre-industrial levels. The trend is clear, it is going up and we are the cause. Nothing else to blame, we need to clean up our act.

      https://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm
      http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/gases-solubility-water-d_1148.html

  40. Vasco Degama says:

    well no WONDER Ovomit has been shouting “we’re almost out of time to do something about AGW” the house of cards that is AGW “research” is about to come down (although for most of us with more than a single digit IQ, already knew)

  41. Matt says:

    The charts are different because they show a rolling average. There’s nothing unusual or wrong about this.

  42. Ollie Awkbar says:

    When you have an agenda, you don’t need evidence.

  43. Matt says:

    In opposition to the molestation and corruption of climate data being committed by alarmist ‘scientists’, stand the climate and CO2 sentiments and sense of Dick Lindzen, Will Happer and Patrick Moore —

    http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11/19/scientists-declare-un-climate-summit-goals-irrational-based-on-nonsense-leading-us-down-a-false-path/

  44. Nabi says:

    Two more organizations that have been corrupted by the Socialist Nazi Obama Administration that can help offset the budget deficits with massive budget cuts.

  45. B.F. says:

    Okay, so are we in a global warming pattern? Or are we in a global cooling pattern? The whole thing, that man plays a major roll in these patterns, is poppy-cock. It is in the hands of God; it always has been, it always will be.

  46. Tucci78 says:

    Spot-on.

    Earlier this summer, a group of “scientists” led by a couple of US government employees, published an utterly fraudulent paper which, in effect, erased the decline in global surface temperatures. They did this by the rather elegant method of simply changing the recorded temperatures to something else.

    This is just another example of the utter lawlessness that has infected the Executive Branch agencies under Barack Obama. The only exception to providing agency documents to the Congress is executive privilege. There is no special privilege available for the political hacks masquerading as scientists in NOAA. This has been hashed out thoroughly since Watergate. The only question is whether Smith, as a committee chairman, can make his demand stick. The agency is refusing Smith’s request for one reason: they know this action they have taken is in support of Obama’s political agenda.

    The more we know about how NOAA, and the climate change Jerry Sanduskys funded by NOAA, operate the more it is apparent that the entire field is fraudulent up to its myopic eyeballs and exists solely to suck cash out of the federal government and to arrogate power and importance to a lot of very little and inconsequential men whose inadequate personal lives make them want to lord it over the rest of us.

    — streif, “Climate science frauds try to hide data from Congress” (31 October 2015)

  47. MichMike says:

    Did you know that the personal behavior of about 1% of the U. S. population results in their CO2 footprint being 50 TIMES the actual average / person? Not surprising to anyone. But do you realize this means this small group is responsible for more than 33% of ALL (that’s right, ALL) U. S. CO2 emissions? Can ANYONE explain why all the plans being unilaterally implemented by the regime will allow this small group to continue to spew CO2 unabated while financially hammering the lower income and middle classes, just for being alive? Indeed, were this small group to only emit 25 TIMES the average, OVERALL U. S. CO2 emissions would decline 17% and OVERALL PLANETARY CO2 emissions would decline 2.7%. Just a different perspective on the scam.

  48. Harry says:

    The New World Order of corruption !

  49. Jagu Jenkins says:

    wake up, these are not leftists or liberals – such easy to accept labels. These are brainwashed marxists who advocate global warming as an ideological response against the west, against people, against business, and in service of controlling, coercing, and manipulating people to do what there fantasy version of reality, and visions of heaven drive them to. Marxism has nothing to do with truth, never has never will. The purest marxist adage is that ‘the ends justify the means’. ANY MEANS. All lies and deceptions are good in the promotion of the marxist end goals. Conform or be enslaved, or die.

  50. Mateo Luiz says:

    regarding the Zyrjanka 2012 vs 2015 graphs…..

    is this all attributable to their ‘homogenization’ as described here:
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/FAQ.html#q216

    it is clearly stated:
    “The homogeneity adjustment is based on night light radiance data.”

    surely that part of Russia must be pretty dark since it is sparse populated.

    is this adjustment a temporal one? is there a historical record of a changing night light radiance? if so, why aren’t the raw data vector and the adjustment vector publicly available? is night light radiance a function of albedo? would snow and time of year impact “correction” factor?

  51. Dwayne Keith says:

    The planet has been warming since the last ice age. This is cyclical. The earth’s been an ice cube and water-world before and will be both again. This fraud is perpetuated by climate scientists seeking grant monies who would rather manipulate data than be asking “paper or plastic.” Those on the receiving end of the data are eager for evidence that will enable them to bleed capitalism with taxes and fees so as to render their statists economic systems even remotely competitive and for use in creating a slush fund for liberal spending.

  52. Gavin Volaire says:

    Anybody who wants to discuss the need to act to combat AGW should first explain how they plan to stop earth’s greatest enemy: Barack Obama.

    The sweetheart of a climate deal he handed China allows them to emit unlimited CO2 until 2030 and even then they can continue along at whatever pace they achieve. If China does not increase production of CO2 over the next 15 years they will still generate as much as the US has since the 80’s.

    But they will increase CO2 emissions big time; endorsed by Obama’s climate deal and cheered on by his blindly loyal minions who called that deal a game changer.

    You wanna discuss the need to take action? Explain what you plan to do about Obama.

  53. StoicAbSpartan says:

    I am a scientist, now retired. I have, on several occasions, jokingly, said to my boss, “Tell me the numbers you want and I can generate them for you.” Although said in jest, there is a great deal of truth in the statement. Within bounds I can get whatever numbers you need to support a given conclusion. But only by breaking some rules. Rules like excluding data without a statistically good cause. Dropping a point or two from a calibration curve. There are a couple of data points close to out statistically, drop the one that pushes the curve in the desired direction. Rerun an analysis if the results are not to my liking. Fudge the calibration of the instrument. Report significant digits that just are not there. These are just a few.

    See skeptic –
    1. a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual.
    2. a person who maintains a doubting attitude, as toward values, plans, statements, or the character of others.

    Also, see doubt –
    verb (used with object)
    1. to be uncertain about; consider questionable or unlikely; hesitate to believe

    Scientists are, by their professional requirements, skeptics. To be a scientist is to be a skeptic. You must not only be cautious about other people’s observations and conclusions, you must be just as cautious about your own. To be otherwise is to be un-scientific.

    Or as my high school fourth year math/physics teacher used to say to us:
    “You have, yet again, jumped from unwarranted assumptions to forgone conclusions without being hindered in the least by the facts.”

  54. Dan, Dan Westeman says:

    Communist-run NOAA is outright lying. Gee, imagine that.

  55. Liberalism forever says:

    No Polar Bear will or ever will survive a ‘climate computer model’…..

  56. Otto Zeit says:

    A Simple Historical Guide to The Climate Debate

    The simplest fact about the debate is that we don’t understand the climate. James Lovelock, who understands the climate as well as any human can, said it this way: “The problem is, we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago…. it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened.” The truth is that the climate has more moving parts to it than the climatologists can calculate.

    But starting (publicly) with Al Gore, a simplistic climate model was seized upon – for political reasons. From the beginning, its proponents tried to enforce that model with intellectual intimidation. At any whiff of heresy, the dogmatists sprang forth to defend their doctrine and, more importantly, to attack its doubters. And now that their model is showing its serious simplistic flaws and misconceptions, they are trying to reinforce it by fudging the evidence for it; all of it – it hardly need be said – for political reasons.

    Next, expect the dogmatists to double down on their threats and intimidation: “Jail the Denialists!”, they cry. It’s all they’ve got left.

  57. Rational says:

    The history of desperation on the part of global warming “scientists” is truly fascinating.

    Forgive me if I misstate the order of events or leave something out, but here’s quick summary:

    The first batch of “scientists” attempting to “find the global warming” employed Radiosonde balloons. Dozens of research teams from all over the world launched thousands of weather balloons into the atmosphere near the equator expecting to find additional heat. The theory being that the atmosphere is thickest at the equator, therefore if there is extra heat to be found, it will be evident from measurements taken by Radiosonde balloons near the equator. Guess what? They didn’t find any extra heat “trapped” by greenhouse gasses.

    Next came the ice core guys who were certain that ice core samples from the pole regions would prove, once and for all, that carbon dioxide caused global warming. Guess what? The results revealed beyond any shadow of a doubt that increases in carbon dioxide FOLLOW increases in temperature. For the environmentally-brainwashed in the audience, allow me to restate: Throughout history, FIRST the temperature goes up, and THEN the CO2 levels go up, not the other way around. Increased CO2 levels do not “cause” increased temperatures. This alone disproves the entire theory, but let’s move on.

    I’ll skip over the tree ring research because it’s just too idiotic to mention.

    Then came the land surface temperature felons. In the name of “science” they somehow came to acquire the vast majority of the world’s written historical records of land and sea temperatures. They did us all a huge favor by transcribing the written records into computerized data which can be more easily analyzed. Immediately after entering the data however, they destroyed the original documents. What kind of scientist destroys original data?? Real scientists wouldn’t think of so much as removing a page from a notebook, let alone destroy original data hundreds of years in the making, but I digress. When the land and sea temperature record didn’t show the warming they predicted, they began “adjusting” the data to fit their predicted outcome. Not small adjustments mind you; enormous adjustments. They literally threw out high and low scores that didn’t help their desired outcome. As aptly stated in other comments above, they also made up, fabricated and produced from thin air their own “modeled” temperature measurements for 80+ % of the globe where real measurements are not available.

    Lastly came the satellite guys. They lobbied the US government for millions of dollars’ worth of temperature and atmosphere monitoring satellites, convinced that satellites would end all debate. The first data to come in appeared to show all kinds of wonderful “warming” to report. Unfortunately they soon learned the first satellite was equipped with defective sensors that had given incorrect readings. Nonetheless, they continued to quote the highly-skewed, invalid satellite temperature measurements. The satellite data have failed to validate the global warming ideology, so the satellite record is now ignored in favor of the “adjusted” land/sea temperatures.

    What other great achievements in global warming science have I missed?

  58. Arik n ifeman says:

    NASA lying? Nooooo, say it ain’t so! NASA has been lying since it’s founding after WWII with thousands of Nazi rocket scientists (Project Paperclip). They have stolen $1 Trillion since the end of the Apollo Program. A fraudulent government agency that performs very little science.

  59. kel says:

    Only 100 years of data compared to 4.5 BILLION years of climate. That equals a percentage that is infinitesimally TINY.
    Check back in 2.25 billion years when they can provide 50 percent of data. In the meantime, drink iced tea.

  60. bob onnit says:

    It has been known for many years that the data has been manipulated, falsified or is statistically invalid. It should be obvious to anyone with a brain that it’s all part of a money grab on the part of the Democrats. All of these so called carbon footprint taxes and other made up nonsense are really to steal more money from the taxpayers that will go into the general fund to supply money to the various handouts that buy votes for their party. It will have no effect what so ever on the climate. It’s just another Josef Goebbels inspired Big Lie to transfer money from one segment of the population to another.

  61. Paul Jalbert says:

    You can’t tax global cooling – which is the reality of our current 200 yr cycle. You can only tax global warming so that is what they have to call it. Although after last winter they would sound like the idiots that they are so they now call it climate change.

    Wouldn’t it make more sense to employ people making solar and wind devices and get them up and running BEFORE trying to put the coal industry out of business and tax the country into bankruptcy?

  62. Grdbrg says:

    I have found that you can get the man made climate change believers to shut up and walk away by talking about the last glacial maximum and sea level being 360 feet lower than now. 360 feet divided by 11,000 years is 3 feet per century sea level rise. Twice the age of the pyramids.
    Not a political scientist, just a geologist.

  63. You Are a Slave says:

    At the heart of this religion, lies a dark anti-human sentiment.

  64. Mike Stuhr says:

    I bet the same guy does climate that does the unemployment numbers!

  65. SMACK says:

    Lets not forget this famous quote from another who formulates this administrations policies : Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage, and basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to pass.
    –Jonathan Gruber, Obamacare’s architect

  66. dave gaetano says:

    According to satellite data, there has been no global warming in last 18 years .
    Moreover, antarctic ice is increasing.
    What the alarmists have are computer climate models that didn’t work. And that’s about it.

  67. nameless says:

    Climatology has become a religious crusade. Its most faithful are extremists, bent on doing harm to those who will not believe.

  68. David Appell says:

    Shorter Tony Heller: Data I don’t like are fraudulent. Data I do like are not.

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      Shorter David Appell:

      “I believe! I believe in the almighty gas!”

      “Link to my website, not Tony’s, Drudge, you jerk!”

      Breaks into his daily affirmation:

      “I’m good enough, I’m smart enough, and doggone it, people like me!”

  69. Otto Zeit says:

    There’s only one thing you nee to remember about he climate “debate”: no matter WHAT the weather does, it’s your fault.

  70. Jerry Chandler says:

    When the emails from these organizations were released by hackers a few years earlier, we learned that these people were political and not true scientists. Anyone promoting these carnival barkers has no credibility.

    These scientists should name their church. I would suggest, “Heatwave Heavenly House of Homo Sapians”.

  71. Brad Fraudman says:

    adding plenty of new climate fraud agencies to “the list” to be “de-activated”

    I can live without noaa. So what, it means no xray flux, electron flux, Goes13 Proton flux etc. I read those every day. I do like them. But not at the cOST of the leadership lying for political change of the people’s will– it’s TERRORISM. Now what I Read is history of the sun, but I digress, I can live without it. I if asked would DE-ACTIVATE their agency and POCKET the SAVINGS–OR FIRE AN EQUAL AMOUNT OF THE BANKSTERS WHO PRINT MONEY

    — IT’S GOING TO BE WONDERFUL HOW MUCH MONEY WE SAVE WHEN I GET IN OFFICE!

  72. Mickey Bitsko says:

    No conflict of interests THERE, right?

    Nothing to see here, folks. Move along. Your government is on the case.

  73. Mike Thomas says:

    This is about money. Money in the trillions. It is about carbon credits, the exchange of credits between out country and third world non-industrial countries, the feeding of the world through the selling of carbon credits and the exchange of food (and seeds and farming costs, patented seeds, etc.). Its easy…they collect taxes from us since we use too much credits. We buy credits from other countries not using their own credits, but are not able to feed their own people. We don’t exchange or give them money. We give them aid in the form of seeds, food, etc. The total control of seeds, the farms, and food….that is where the real money will be in the future. And global warming….I am sorry….climate change comes in. You need to get the world to start exchanging carbon credits to make it all work on a scale to reap trillions from the American people. The control of seeds and the buying of large farms in Africa….look into it. This is not about saving the planet…its about the money. Just understand how it all works and you can understand what is behind this.

  74. wjax says:

    It’s easy to see now why NASA/NOAA don’t want to turn over the Karl emails in direct violation of the law. If there was no fraud then they would turn them over in an instant.

  75. Colorado Wellington says:

    The scientific roots of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis explained:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8P80A8vy9I

  76. Matt V says:

    Your “real science” is a joke…have you proven the earths age to be 6000 years yet, as well???

  77. David DuByne says:

    I agree completely and completed a 10 minute video on this exact subject with data, graphs and images to show the fraud. NOAA Temperature Lies to Hide a Cooling Planet | Mini Ice Age 2015-2035. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6pZKZX0FYc

  78. Pingback: Self Identification - how far can this go? - Page 47 - Homesteading Today

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *