WASHINGTON — The Arctic and its future are looking dimmer every year, a new federal report says.
Spring snow cover in Eurasia reached a record low in April. Arctic summer sea ice, while not setting a new record, continued a long-term, steady decline. And Greenland set a record in August for the least amount of sunlight reflected in that month, said the peer-reviewed report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and other agencies.
Report: Arctic losing more of signature snow – San Antonio Express-News
The fine scientists at NOAA are defrauding taxpayers with omissions of key information. Why did they refer only to April snow cover? Autumn snow cover just set an all-time record maximum.
Since CO2 hit 350 PPM, autumn/winter snow cover is increasing much faster than the decline in spring/summer snow cover.
Arctic sea ice extent is at a 10 year maximum, and has been for the past two months.
Greenland has gained nearly 300 billion tons of ice since the end of August, and surface melt area has been generally below normal this year. NOAA forgot to mention these things.
NOAA’s intent was clearly to disinform, rather than to inform. So the question is, why does climate science peer-review allow such blatant propaganda through?
“So the question is, why does climate science peer-review allow such blatant propaganda through?”
The peer of a crook, is a crook. The peer of a lunatic, is a lunatic. Etc…
Climate science has become cult-like now. The ends justify the means for so many who have been indoctrinated. Peer review is a farce. They are in the same choir, all singing from the same sheet, with no critical or honest analysis whatsoever.
“The authors pointed to several reasons for flawed studies, including “poor training of researchers in experimental design,” an “emphasis on making provocative statements,” and publications that don’t “report basic elements of experimental design.” They also said that “some scientists reputedly use a ‘secret sauce’ to make their experiments work—and withhold details from publication or describe them only vaguely to retain a competitive edge.”
http://www.wsj.com/articles/hank-campbell-the-corruption-of-peer-review-is-harming-scientific-credibility-1405290747
Merry Christmas to you and your family Kent.
…..
The corruption of science is becoming more and more obvious to the every day person as is the corruption of our government. This is going to have repercussions that are not expected and are unplanned for by the Political Class.
I just tried to post a comment about this blog with a good write up of the WSJ article with no luck. so I will try just the link
http://www.crimeandconsequences.com/crimblog/2014/07/peer-review-corruption-junk-sc.html
Note the cherry picking going on!
NO mention of the super cold/super snow coverage of 80% of North America all last year! No, they hike over to a fraction of Europe and say, ‘No snow here! Warmest year ever!’ Sad.
And disgusting since these same clowns roar at anyone mentioning the actual climate. ‘Weather, not climate!’ is their stupid retort.
Steve I also noticed the shift of the ‘snowest’ from spring to fall. Does anyone know why?
And why now? April is spring. We are already into the next winter.
If you are going to show spring, why not February
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/snowcover-nhland/201302.gif
And March?
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/snowcover-nhland/201303.gif
Well, February is still winter, and March is mixed. But yes, it is the ultimate cherry picking, Why not May?
As snow is supposedly connected to winter why in heck would you be showing April, when most of the occupied NH is expecting to see flowers starting to bloom?
Because it supports your conclusion which is not based on science?
It’s almost as bad a Dr. Feely’s report on ocean Ph using only data from 1988 through the end of the century to terrify the masses!
Peer reviewed propaganda. I am sure propaganda was also peer reviewed in the old Soviet Union.
NOAA didn`t f-o-r-g-e-t to mention, Steve, (with all respects) it
A-V-O- I-D-E-D providing that information!!
Reblogged this on Centinel2012 and commented:
The simplest answer is usually best and in this case the misinformation is being driven by political appointees of Obama. There are in each department legal offices with the head a political appointment. These people are really political commissars there to make sure that the party line is followed.
Reblogged this on Globalcooler's Weblog and commented:
It just keeps coming. What does the NOAA think they are accomplishing by doing this? What do they gain? Who is pulling their strings? Will they ever be held accountable for these actions? Too many questions.
They gain power and nearly unlimited funding.
And hopefully, yes, if Inhofe has the balls for it…