Mind-Blowing Temperature Fraud At NOAA

The measured US temperature data from USHCN shows that the US is on a long-term cooling trend. But the reported temperatures from NOAA show a strong warming trend.

ScreenHunter_10009 Jul. 27 12.16

Measured : ushcn.tavg.latest.raw.tar.gz
Reported : ushcn.tavg.latest.FLs.52j.tar.gz

They accomplish this through a spectacular hockey stick of data tampering, which corrupts the US temperature trend by almost two degrees.

ScreenHunter_10008 Jul. 27 12.08

The biggest component of this fraud is making up data. Almost half of all reported US temperature data is now fake. They fill in missing rural data with urban data to create the appearance of non-existent US warming.

ScreenHunter_10010 Jul. 27 12.20

The depths of this fraud is breathtaking, but completely consistent with the fraudulent profession which has become known as “climate science”

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

1,159 Responses to Mind-Blowing Temperature Fraud At NOAA

  1. Steve Case says:

    Looks like they are just continuing what they’ve been doing right along:

    • Dugway says:

      Maybe they’ll start calling these adjustments “leap-degrees”?

    • There can be no question about that…

      A new batch of 5,000 emails among scientists central to the assertion that humans are causing a global warming crisis were anonymously released to the public yesterday, igniting a new firestorm of controversy nearly two years to the day after similar emails ignited the Climategate scandal.

      Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.

      Forbes, Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate, 11/23/11

    • Fred says:

      Climate change – it used to be called global warming, so here we are again with proof that the “scientists” will make the data say whatever they want it to say for the purpose of gaining more MONEY and CONTROL! All of this is nothing more than a ruse to generate funds and continue receiving federal grants funded by YOUR TAXES! This is not about the environment, once you realize this – you’ll come to understand why the lies and deception abound. Along with money I also think it’s about control. The current president is attempting (and I think almost has) to destroy the coal industry over what? That’s right, climate change! Control – by making energy prices higher and lining the pockets of “alternative energy” pioneers. Solyndra anyone?

    • bobinnc says:

      While this is lifted from the book mentioned below it applies in total to the Global Warming crowd.

      “Often in a German home or office or sometimes in a casual conversation with a stranger in a restaurant, a beer hall, a café, I would meet with the most outlandish assertions from seemingly educated and intelligent persons. It was obvious that they were parroting some piece of nonsense they had heard on the radio or read in the newspapers. Sometimes one was tempted to say as much, but on such occasions one was met with such a stare of incredulity, such a shock of silence, as if one had blasphemed the Almighty, that one realized how useless it was even to try to make contact with a mind which had become warped and for whom the facts of life had become what Hitler and Goebbels, with their cynical disregard for truth, said they were.”

      The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by Shirer, William L.

    • You know what the hottest day in America is? Take a stab at it…

  2. Realist says:

    I really don’t understand how this can keep happening. In my job, I have to provide monthly reports to my superiors. Without having a degree in math or statistics, I can easily use excel to ‘adjust’ the numbers to create any trend I want. On paper, the numbers still add up, but I can splice and dice, and use smoke and mirrors, to create a desired trend. So I could easily go in month after month and show all positive trends, but eventually the divergence between what I say (surface temps) and what the finance dept says (reality) will become so great that I will be called out, investigated, then fired, and not necessarily in that order. Besides the fact that this would ruin my career any any future job opportunity, its morally and ethically wrong to lie about what the data says. How people can keep getting away with this is just crazy.

    • But you aren’t an eco-fascist – because if you’re doing things to “save the environment” then your’e allowed to do ANYTHING including wholesale destruction of the environment!

    • Marsh says:

      Realist ; I’m also angered by the unfettered way the warming mongers nonsense & obvious fraud is broadly accepted. Most organisations have systematic processes that
      eventually exposes corruption. In a mainstream democratic society, an important safeguard is having a Press that if free of bias & prejudice.

      What is key to the continuing Global Warming Fraud is that a myriad of watch dogs
      are effectively in the pockets of the fraudsters. Above all, the Media, the one area of open review has failed Society with many even driving the Global Warming mantra.

      • banderlogtorpedo says:

        While driving the Greatness of Obama mantra

      • Jas says:

        The mainstream media is nothing more than propaganda today. The only questions are: Who is driving these bizarre agendas and what is their endgame?

        My longterm view of these monsters makes me fear for the worst.

        • The ones who produce the graphs and such hide the data they use and hide the models they use. They got caught with emails showing how they doctored the data and faked the visuals aids. Then they said they would fix it and made it seem an even greater temperature rise is occurring. The concept of taking just 135 years of geophysical data and try to make models and conclusions is silly – look at how long the Jurassic era lasted and how much warmer it was then and the amount of vegetation existed with the greater amount of CO2 and then reconcile that with the conclusions the so-called Climate Scientist have reached. The nonsense about the oceans rising without showing that the oceans are gaining in the amount of water in the should be grounds for ridicule. In many places like Chesapeake Bay they do not dredge the harbor because of oyster beds and clams – the silts from the shores are allowed to fill-up the harbor (happens with rivers as well) which raises the water at the coast. This is not the ocean increasing in size but the bottom filling up – occasionally the ocean with strong enough storms will clean out the harbors but that is a slow process.

        • Algore snackbar, and the Leftists from all walks of life including academia, politics, media and Unions. They believe that somehow, this attack via the environment will further their vision of a Socialist Utopia. The only trouble is that vision, time and again, has resulted in nothing but a mountain of skulls. What is the definition of insanity?

        • ixalmida says:

          That’s an easy one: one-world government. When you face a global crisis, it demands global governance to solve. This has been the ultimate goal of liberals from the beginning – to bring everyone under the heel of a single government so they can force their agenda of so-called “global fairness”. Environmentalism, women’s rights, gay rights, etc., etc., all have the same goal.

          Nothing new here, really. Anyone who has read Atlas Shrugged has seen the motivation behind the liberal agenda. Sadly, some conservative politicians embrace elements of this same agenda thinking they can push their own ideology. In their pursuit for power, they forget that conservatism is about minimal, highly-accountable government.

      • TopAngler says:

        Excellent observation – I agree wholeheartedly!

        For approximately 200 years, the media played an integral role in preserving our republic. Now, they’re complicit in destroying it. They have mutated from watchdogs to activists.

        • Wealth redistribution is the endgame especially redirecting a lot of the money into the pockets of people like Al Gore. This is his punishment for us not electing him President. He’s gotten very wealthy from selling his snake oil called carbon credits.

      • Jim Temple says:

        There is, indeed, a stunning lack of curiosity among the media elites on this subject. Contrary to what their mind is subjected to, on a daily basis, they allow themselves to be corrupted by those who say things they can not prove.

        • rah says:

          More than a “stunning lack of curiosity”. They support the effort to deceive. Most of them are complicit!

      • omanuel says:

        Regretfully, without the release of Climategate emails in late November 2009, most of us would never have realized that Stalin won WWII and united nations (UN) and national academies of sciences (NAS) into a worldwide “Orwellian Ministry of Consensus Science (UN)Truths” on 24 October 1945.


      • Paul Clare says:

        Yes, private companies would be “outed” but this is government with the liberal msm guarding their “6” so it is only surprising that the deviations are so small!

        • Marsh says:

          Yes Paul, that is more a factor today. We should remember the way Government was exposed during Watergate; the issue of Govt. did Not hold back the Washington Post.

          I also agree with many others in that the Media has changed from being watch dogs to becoming compliciant to fraud… (this failing allowed WikiLeaks to partly fill a vacuum). If the main Media was performing “Real Journalism”; GW Fraud would be short lived.

    • adsicks says:

      You don’t work for the Federal Reserve, do you……

    • kw2012 says:

      You wouldn’t be fired if your boss dictated to you to alter the data and that’s what is happening.

    • Hi Realist. NOAA is a Fed Govmnt creature. OF COURSE is is completely disconnected from reality. It is driven by the politics of the left, not science. Look at the “Justice” dept, or the IRS for your clue as to HOW?? this can go on.

    • Bill says:

      I’ll tell you how it happens. Their superiors want the data to show a warming trend. Based on this looks like they’re doing a fine job. Raises all around!

      • Yirmin says:

        I remember working in a research lab once and we ran tests day in day out to see if new designs were more efficient than previous designs… It was very common for us to end up faking data because we got pressured into doing it. I remember we ran a test which took several days to do, we got numbers that weren’t what the engineers expected… We were told we must have made a mistake and run it again… after 2 weeks of rerunning and rerunning the same test we just made up the numbers to give them what they wanted… It didn’t take us long to realize that no one wanted the truth they just wanted us to provide them data to support their expectations, so that’s what we started doing because lets face it who wants to run tests that require tedious and stressful work when the customers don’t respect the results. I think in the next year we probably only ran a real test 2 or 3 times and it was just for our own curiosity… all the results for the engineers were faked data we pulled from curves we cobbled together from data the same engineers would give us prior to testing their designs… Was pretty obvious they knew what was going on and what they wanted because in a proper lab we shouldn’t have even been given the data on what they expected us to find. It happens everywhere… never believe any research unless you do it yourself.

    • Michael Moir says:

      Obviously you don’t work for a liberally funded, federal run, Obomination.

    • carl6352 says:

      the problem is the guy who is heading this department is a chicken little fanatic! like the guy at nasa. if you came with true readings like the sattelites showing the arctic in a massive growing faze of ice he would poo-poo it! why just recently the un panel came out as they have done yearly too claim the warmest on record, every time they do it i get a chuckle!

    • Marshall Dillon says:

      In my job, software, where certainty is an illusion, we sometimes encounter adolescents who say “I’m sure.” Its always good for a laugh, seeing the child humiliate himself. Just like when Al Gore said “Its settled.” It was worse for me because I’m from FL and watched Gore come down and lie to us in trying to manipulate the 2000 election which he lost. One more thing; did you ever take the volume of the 8000′ layer of breathable air, divide by the world population, then multiply by a reasonable rate for poisoning your allocated space? I came up with 60000 years and that assumes greenery does NOT mitigate carbon. So I just turn off the lights, recycle, and am grateful for the beautiful earth God gave me.

    • Shinyo says:

      As long as climate “scientists” keep sounding the alarm about global warming, the politicians keep giving them money. The politicians want people scared so they are more easily controlled.

    • Clete Torres says:

      You don’t work for the most corrupt administration in US history, either.

    • ken mackintosh says:

      I agree, but this is being reflected in government, politics and family attitudes as well. Its all about whats in it for the individual and groups. Its amazing to see how different this country, the attitudes and morality are today, compared to decades ago….

    • Scott says:

      Two things: 1) figures don’t lie, liars figure and 2) now you know how the Bernie Madoff’s of the world pull off astronomical Ponzi schemes. And then you’re going to sit there and tell me that the federal GAO and any insurance company actuarial science forecaster is 100% legit?

    • The ones who produce the graphs and such hide the data they use and hide the models they use. They got caught with emails showing how they doctored the data and faked the visuals aids. Then they said they would fix it and made it seem an even greater temperature rise is occurring. The concept of taking just 135 years of geophysical data and try to make models and conclusions is silly – look at how long the Jurassic era lasted and how much warmer it was then and the amount of vegetation existed with the greater amount of CO2 and then reconcile that with the conclusions the so-called Climate Scientist have reached. The nonsense about the oceans rising without showing that the oceans are gaining in the amount of water in the should be grounds for ridicule. In many places like Chesapeake Bay they do not dredge the harbor because of oyster beds and clams – the silts from the shores are allowed to fill-up the harbor (happens with rivers as well) which raises the water at the coast. This is not the ocean increasing in size but the bottom filling up – occasionally the ocean with strong enough storms will clean out the harbors but that is a slow process.

      Lying about the data is typical of liberals wanting to create a revenue source to correct a problem that does not exist.

    • Charles Babcock says:

      If you work for the government there is no ethics. The end justifies the means. POTUS lies, why shouldn’t his workers?

    • You wouldn’t be fired if management told you to do it.

    • immafubared says:

      People have to get it: Its all about the money. i.e, Fed judges appointed by a dem lean liberal in their decisions, ditto conservative appointed Judges. Why? They know who there daddy is.
      NOAA is fed funded. When they understand the money to prove global warming in fueling in from the whitehouse machine, they find global warming.
      Science is pretty much a funded commodity and scientist know who their daddy is.

    • willys36 says:

      You are making the assumption that their supervisors are ethical and honest. Why are you doing that? Moonbeam Brown, Pres Hussein, you name them, tell me which ‘leader’ wants an honest assessment of the situation?

    • Brett says:

      The difference is their “intentions” They can get caught making fraudulent data but in the end the media and the left will state that their mission was for the good of the planet and all will be ignored.

    • pyeatte says:

      The only reason many of the AGW scientists have jobs is because they are willing to go along with the fabrication, which in turn brings additional government funding chasing the fraud. When the house of cards finally falls, the money will stop and a lot of people will lose their careers. The worst part is the damage this does to the credibility of science in general. Few will believe what “published” science says.

    • Sean A Foltz says:

      Trick is that your boss and company want the truth – if your boss and company wanted lies to artificially inflate the value of their stock and they were contributing enough money to the Obama Justice Dept to avoid prosecution then you artificially inflating the numbers would earn you a raise and a promotion.

    • Jonathan Simmons says:

      AHHH…but…this is GOVERNMENT! You seem to have overlooked that little factoid. Math is math and, sooner or later, those irritating little facts will out. Then, in BUSINESS, you’re fired. In the case of GOVERNMENT, you get a budget increase. More seriously, in the scientific “community” one must “go with the prevailing wind”, contrary to the image of the bold, independent “searching for the truth” guys in lab coats. IF you have the temerity to go AGAINST the prevailing “wisdom”, you are simply excluded. No more research grants, no more papers published, etc., etc., etc.. So, you go along with the program and lie your head off!

    • Owen says:

      That’s because you work in an environment with actual accountability. The Climate Mafia are mostly on the public teat in some capacity, and they spend their careers engaged in mutual admiration and intellectual masturbation.

      In the private sphere, you have managers and owners who can get rid of dead weight in the organization. What’s the equivalent of “management” in the public sphere? Sinecured career bureaucrats? Elected politicians? The whole apparatus benefits from this charade.

    • Well maybe it’s because they aren’t making it up? Where is this guy’s evidence? He can’t just write 10 sentences claiming something without revealing how he came across the information…

    • Sandy Milliken says:

      But what would happen if you were in the government and needed the “facts” to support your policies?

  3. gofer says:

    “Global warming experts are saying that sea levels could rise 20 feet. Apparently their strategy for surviving this is to stand on top of a pile of government research grant money.” —Fred Thompson

  4. John Smith says:

    In reality you, like me, lack sufficient social status
    we are not in politics, and we are not CEOs
    we can’t deploy our golden parachute or retire to our Magnum PI Hawaiian beach estate before our social betters figure out what a bleeping mess we made of things
    or at least blame it on us
    it rolls downhill

    or get a PhD and tenure
    then we’re golden

    • carl6352 says:

      true science left this along time ago when politics as a means to a end got involved!

    • rah says:

      John if you don’t agree with the consensus you can have a doctorate in a field related to Climate science and they’ll still go after you and try to destroy you. Just ask Dr. Willie Soon!

      On the other hand, if your with the consensus your primary concentration can be in Political Science and still be considered an authority on climate. ie: Katherine Hayho.

  5. Climate “science” – is a joke and an insult to all the real scientists.

    • shazaam says:


      A start at showing the proper respect to the “climate science” profession would be to require all of the attendees of the Pairs Climate Conference to wear red clown noses and oversized clown shoes. (water squirting flowers optional)

      Such required attire would only be a start for the ridicule these frauds so richly deserve.

    • phxfreddyii says:

      It is PlaySkool science ™ ……..for those who don’t want to do the real grinding hard work of real science. Plastic hammers and various shaped hole to beat the plastic parafuso into.

    • willys36 says:

      This is a religion, not a science.

  6. Andy DC says:

    Do you want to use my observations as the official DC temperature? My maximum temps are running a good 8-10 degrees lower than the “official” temperature at Washington National Airport. Having your temperature recorded over trees and grass is apparently greatly diffenent that having it sitting on asphalt and concrete, next to jet exhaust and air conditioning exhaust.

  7. omanuel says:

    Yes, fraud became the main component of consensus science after Stalin won WWII and united nations (UN) and national academies of science (NAS) into a giant worldwide “Orwellian Ministry of Consensus Science (UN)Truths” that immediately changed the internal composition of the Sun from:
    _ a) Mostly iron (Fe) in 1945 to
    _ b.) Mostly hydrogen (H) in 1946

    Followed by the FRAUDULENT:
    1. Standard solar model
    2. Standard nuclear model
    3. Big Bang cosmology model
    4. Anthropologic global warming model

    • Ed Heubel says:

      Does this fraud include laws of motion and gravity (physics)? Chemistry? Nuclear chemistry? Evolution (biology)? Vaccination, viral and bacterial infection (medicine )

    • willys36 says:

      5. Spontaneous generation of life
      6. Darwinian evolution

      all the above have no scientific evidence and are easily disproven with simple mathematics and reliance on the laws of physics. They are an anti-God religion, not science.

  8. markstoval says:


    You are at your best with these sorts of posts. They show that the other side is cheating, cheating, cheating just to barely keep a failed theory afloat. Keep up this good work, please.

    ~ Mark

    • omanuel says:

      Mark, the entire fraudulent structure of post-WWII consensus science is at stake.

      Yes, Tony, is now getting information past Stalin’s gatekeepers of pseudo-scientific knowledge!

    • bit chilly says:

      i will second that mark. this is an essential resource to keep tabs on what is happening in the climate “data” collecting community. those working in climate science appear to have been indoctrinated during their formative years . there can be no other explanation as it is the only field where every single person involved appears to be singing from the same hymn sheet.

      • Dan Austin says:

        The only thing they know how to do is jump on the bandwagon, conform, and get grants. They are not smart enough, intellectually independent enough, nor confident in their own thinking abilities enough to do anything else.

    • gator69 says:

      I have to agree with Mark, this post was saved to my “Data Fraud” file, and sent out to everyone I know.

  9. AndyG55 says:

    Thing I think is extraordinary, is that you can continue to use the words, FRAUD and CRIMINAL, and they don’t even attempt to take you to court.

    Its almost as if you were daring them to do so.

    This is pretty much absolute proof that they haven’t got a leg to stand on.

    • Billy Liar says:

      It’s because you’ve got no money Andy. No point in taking you to court to find you can’t pay them $$$$.

  10. shazaam says:

    Hansen et al are really, *REALLY* getting desperate to keep the grant train rolling.


    I really loved this Hansen quote: “It will be clearer, give us a few more years,” he says.

    However the quotation that burned-out my Bovine Excrement meter (miniature mushroom cloud) was the rave review from “Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions”: “masterwork of scholarly synthesis, modeling virtuosity, and insight, with profound implications.” (Note the utter and complete absence of any mention of teeny words like “accurate”, “reliable”, or heaven forbid, “factual”)

    Yep, a masterpiece of “modeling virtuosity” aka a computer-generated fantasy climate model. Or as I prefer to call them: fact-free and reality free simulations for big cash / massive grants. Paris is coming, and my Bovine Excrement meter is already a smoking ruin.

  11. David Nantz says:

    When the money dries up so will the “science” .

    • Tom in Denver says:

      But it is worse than that. There is now wholesale corruption within departments of the US government. Politically motivated bureaucrats are running the EPA, NOAA, NASA, DOJ, & the IRS. These swamps need to be drained, The next president needs to clean out these departments, and a lot of people need to be fired.

  12. steve says:

    What, do you suppose, is the motivation behind this fraud. I cannot believe that scores of scientists and entire organizations would fudge the numbers for “eco” purposes.

    • Shinyo says:

      For the “scientists” it is all about the money. As long as climate “scientists” keep sounding the alarm about global warming, the politicians keep giving them money. It has been shown they turn around and use some of the grant money to fund their own pet projects that they would otherwise not be able to get funding for.
      For the politicians it is all about power. They want people scared so they are more easily controlled. The religion of global warming has become a massive fraud and corruption machine. The sheeple vote for the politicians who scream the loudest that the sky is falling.
      I read an article the other day that said a maunder minimum will be coming in 2030-40. When summer temps equal current winter temps people will stop listening to them unless they start blaming that on us as well.

      • Dr. Martin Van Nostran says:

        Don’t forget the money. The welfare state is broke. Keeping everyone scared is a good way to levy extra taxes to “prevent the catastrophic climate change from occurring”. In the meantime more money, more goodies to hand out, more votes, more power. The “climate experts” are only too happy to play along as long as the grant money flows.

    • Very simple: Power. (And I’m sure money and sex work their way in as well). We live in a cynical age. There are political/economic powers who desperately WANT a global crisis that requires extreme rationing of resources as a means of gaining greater power, culminating in either an actual or at least a de facto one world government (i.e. New World Order). In order to carry out that agenda there are scores of cynical scientist who will gladly accept money and other privileges to produce the “science” that supports the agenda, despite knowing it’s all BS. Sprinkle in a large contingent of useful idiots who are hyper vigilant do-gooders (with little understanding of how science works) and you have the mass hysteria we call Climate Change Alarmism.

  13. mat says:

    Congrats Tony on making The Drudge Report……

  14. kingghidora says:

    We are witnessing the first events in the global apocalypse to come. I know there will be cheap shot artists following the PC model and making fun of what I say. They don’t seem to realize they are as much a part of the problem as the climate change “sky is falling” crowd. There is a giant movement that is gaining momentum every day. We get in bed with the worst of the worst in Iran and demand that our people hand over their money to countries that are the “victims” of climate change. It’s always easy to buy power with other people’s money. The end use of the power being gathered will shock the world. In short, we haven’t seen anything yet. Go ahead and stick your head in the sand and say it can’t happen here but then take a look at how it did go that way in a highly civilized country, Germany not to mention Japan, Russia, China, North Korea, Rwanda, Cambodia, Cuba, etc. etc. And countries like the UK are right on the brink of becoming total fascist states. And that is the goal of the power grabbers who make scape goats of anyone that doesn’t join the party and shout “Heil Climate Change” along with other fascist slogans. If you live much longer you will see the worst era in the history of man. The time of the return of Christ is at hand. But I’m guessing that 90% of the people here who act like they have some sense will falter at these words in spite of massive evidence. The Anti-Christ is gathering power and if you fight against Christ you are serving the dark side period. Don’t think it won’t happen. The plans our “leaders” have for us are staggering and they are just the tip of the iceberg. Evil is real and it’s coming to your town.

  15. SunSword says:

    And of course a premier site that has been documenting this stuff for years is: http://wattsupwiththat.com/

  16. noseitall says:


    Are wealthy liberals around the world selling their beachfront mansions to avoid the rising seas caused by global warming?

    Of course not.

    Because they know better.


  17. Teddy Novak says:

    Global warming (aka climate change) is the religion of the stupid.


  18. The Climate Liars have never taken the Sun and it’s enormous impact on the Earth’s climate throughout history into proper account. Now that we have had two relatively tame solar cycles and the prospect is for a likely Maunder type minimun ahead one hopes all those that “cooked the books” to get grant money are called out and exposed as the frauds they are.

  19. Scott Martin says:

    Worse yet…”urban” temps are where congestion (and therefore TEMPERATURE) have increased. It’s all a fraud when you increase the items that are absorbing and / on retaining heat. For example, if I have an open yard, then line the yard with a brick fence, the temps will rise, heat will be retained and therefore start the next day higher and give the appearance of an increase.

  20. Chris says:

    No kidding! We’ve been watching this for years! Validation and vindication! Just report it and it’s true. Those holding the mouthpiece really think we are bunch of idiots. Finally.

  21. John Campbell says:

    The one salient point in this fraud is simply this. Governments are creating laws around this garbage and innocent people are being harmed by those laws. “The ends justifies the means” mentality is on display.

    What I want is justice. People harmed by these laws should be restored and those behind this scheme should be spending the rest of their lives in prison without parole. That includes both alleged scientists and politicians.

    • Gary says:

      Not to mention world economies are being irreparably damaged, costing millions their livelihoods and incomes. Way to go you dumb ass sh*t spouting Dumocrats, sh*t eating Liberals, and Obama/Gore sycophants.

  22. _Jim says:

    Congrats on the Drudge link …

  23. Gary says:

    According to that dumb ass Obama and his amateurs and clowns this is the worst THREAT the US is facing – and it’s ALL MADE UP! Good call Obama, you idiot. You should be hanging with the other idiot, 20 cars, two airplanes, and a 20,000 square foot house the famous “non-polluter” Al Gore.

    • AndyG55 says:

      “this is the worst THREAT the US is facing – and it’s ALL MADE UP!”

      It is the worst threat BECAUSE its all made up.

      And they have been getting away with it. !!!!!!!!

  24. Gary says:

    It’s been obvious for years that the libtards “Climate change” is pure fiction – just like Obama’s resume, college papers, and birth certificate.

  25. cassisanass says:

    Follow the money

  26. Ed Heubel says:

    Has a SINGLE, ONE, climate scientist noticed this? And written a paper on it? Like, you know, the scientific process…

    • Yes, many have but the Climate Alarmist have rigged the system so that dissent does not get accepted by the gatekeepers. Every scientist that raises such questions gets vilified has having been bought by “oil money”, never mind that the other side is being bought by “globalist oligarch money”.

      • Exactly. The climate goon squad immediately attacks them ad hominem, accusing them of taking money from big tobacco (Fred Singer) or big oil (Richard Lindzen), says they are too old to matter anymore (Freeman Dyson) or are simply mad (Murray Salby). They never attack their science, because they are too stupid to understand it.

  27. Ken Chapel says:

    The Republicans in Congress that ‘currently’ are against Climate Change solutions….are just holding out for more money

  28. Bill Carson says:

    Thank you. I’d like to share this, but where’s the support? Are there a list of each fraudulent temperature reading with explanations? Are there before and after spreadsheets that we can download? Everyone who shares this puts their reputation on the line.

    • Greg Bryant says:

      These are good questions. You don’t see a lot of this true skepticism here. It interferes with credulousness. Another question is whether the support is peer-reviewed, which it won’t be.

  29. GORE’s fault for the B.S.

  30. Ah-Clem says:

    NOAA and NASA are both government agencies. The government wants proof of global warming, so they change the data to fit the request. The climate scientists live by government grants. If they disagree with global warming, they don’t get their grants. That makes it possible for politicians to point to global warming, backed up by science. Science that’s intentionally skewed by corrupt data isn’t science at all. It’s all driven by a political agenda, and it will also make Al Gore, and others like him very rich. Volcanic eruptions can easily cause more climate change than man and his machines. Will they outlaw volcanos too?

  31. My compliments to all of you independent thinkers! Now, let’s shift that perspective over to the political arena where both parties (but mostly the left) make the most outrageous claims on a regular basis and the press generally follows the approved narrative slavishly! Take back our country and our integrity.

  32. Spad says:

    Each of us should be mindful of our earthly contributions and be confident that the weather will be what it is. Time will tell who’s lied and who’s been truthful.

    • ironmike7707 says:

      Sorry Spad. Time will not tell. Lies repeated over many years, unchallenged and drilled into young minds, become historical facts. Children today are being taught that the world is warming and that we have data to prove this. They have no way of knowing the truth. They were not here 30, 40, 75 years ago. Now fast forward 50 more years and 2-3 more generations. Who is left to refute what several generations of children have learned from this corrupt system?

      These people are rewriting history.

  33. Skeptic says:

    There is also a SUBLIMINAL EFFECT BASED ON THE APPEARANCE of the charts that is easily overlooked by most people getting an impression from just glancing at the charts. Anyone can make the charts look more or less “scary”. The horizontal axis on three of the charts are divided by decades. Add more space between each decade and the rates of increase are not visually steep. On the vertical axis, the vertical increments shown above are extremely small. Decrease the distance between units and watch the rates of increase basically become a flat line. Viewers would come away with a completely different response.

  34. Dave Wilshire says:

    C’mon…who didn’t know this has been going-on since day one?

  35. chukalukabus says:

    I am 56 years old. This non-sense started even back when I was in college. That was over 30 years ago when I was an undergrad Astrophysics student at a Tier 1 college (ranked #1 in the world). For those unaware astrophysics is the at the top of the food chain in physics. Required competencies involved are comprised of ALL other sub categories of physics (nuclear, chemical, mechanical, fluid dynamics, etc).

    You want to know who are the most ferocious “deniers” of this fraud? That would be astrophysicists. It my day it was a running joke across the board. Yes, we made fun of, and mocked these fools pushing this unscientific agenda.

    And who is perping this fraud? Politicians and “meteorologist.” For those unaware a meteorologist is at the bottom of the physics food chain, if it could be considered part of physics at all. What we are looking at today is not a scientific endeavor. It is a political agenda. Nothing more, nothing less.

    When a bloated buffoon like Al Gore becomes the face of anything under the guise of science, it is only then that you understand the sheer level of ignorance of the statement “the science is settled”.

    Only a complete corrupt fool would make a statement like that. You really don’t have to be a scientist to come to that conclusion.

  36. Does our own government lie to us? Oh, never mind.

  37. Defiant says:

    No surprise here. Any legit source of info has proven Global Warming to be a hoax…over and over again. And if you don’t believe the data is false…just read the emails from East Anglia, where the “scientists” openly discuss their FRAUD.

  38. ALGoreithm says:

    This is causing the explosive growth of the heads of the climate change priests. When reality interferes with a good story the natural reaction from the religious left is to scream louder and make threats. Their theology is trapped in the growing arctic ice.

  39. Balue says:

    LOL — Hope and Change (the temperatures)

  40. Mike Hamilton says:

    I’m curious. You folks who think AGW theory is all a conspiracy. How could such a conspiracy be set up? How would it be possible to get scientists all over the world…totally disconnected from each other, working in widely separated laboratories, in very different disciplines…all on one page with the “falsified” data?

    Is there a central hub of the conspiracy that sends out orders to all the climate scientists around the globe? What has prevented even ONE scientist from coming forward with any evidence of this conspiracy? Do the ringleaders of this plot somehow know in advance which scientists will be open to participating in the conspiracy?

    Is there a central research center where huge amounts of data are fabricated in order to supply material for the thousands of research projects and the tens of thousands of papers and articles supporting AGW theory that have been published over the last few decades?

    Is there a world authority that can tell all of the major scientific organizations around the globe that they have to endorse AGW as fact? Remember, these organizations don’t get grant money. So, how are they all somehow convinced to participate in this campaign of lies? Hell, the Geologic Society of America’s membership probably consists mostly of people in the energy industry, and even they have come out with a statement clearly endorsing the idea that the planet is warming and humans are the main cause. Why would they do that?

    Have the millions of peripheral people…that scientists who review the papers, the editors and publishers of the papers, the science writers and other media people who write about the research, and, the smart people, the folks who read the papers and decide that they make sense…have ALL these people somehow been bought off or persuaded to join the conspiracy?

    What force has been used to cause government leaders around the world, many of whom are complete enemies, to agree to set aside their differences in this case in order to advance the conspiracy?

    Remember…the whole conspiracy falls apart unless each and every one of the things I’ve listed happens just as described…in absolutely perfect secrecy.


    • H2K says:

      Easy, I’ll admit that some of these so-called scientists are smart….maybe even above average in intellect. But in the world of research science – much like that of a politician – they spend time chasing the next grant, they receive the grant, then start to chase the next one.
      Let me ask this: How many federal grants are out there to “disprove” AGW? How many federal grants are out there to “prove” global cooling? So if you are chasing the next grant, and you want to have many more available to you in the future, you learn quickly to play the game.
      These scientists want to eat, provide shelter for their family, etc and they want a steady income stream.

      • Mike Hamilton says:

        Wheat a joke. The energy industry is spending hundreds of millions of dollars in their campaign to discredit AGW. If there was actual research to be done that contradicted the current consensus, they’d fund it in a heartbeat. Are you really dumb enough not to see that?

        • Eric says:

          Classic liberal argument, attack your opponent personally and insult their intelligence. Way to prove our point.

        • Mike Hamilton says:

          I didn’t insult you, I asked you a question. Let me put it another way. Surely you are not so uninformed that you are not aware of the fact that there is a huge industry out there who would pay large sums of money for ANY documented evidence that AGW was not a fact? How’s that?

        • Mike Hamilton says:

          Eric, when someone says that there is no money available for research to disprove global warming, in the face of the fact that the oil industry alone has spent hundreds of millions of dollars for that purpose, what choice does on have except to think that person saying that is either being deceptive or is simply ignorant?

    • Eric says:

      Mike, it’s simple. The Human Caused Global Warming theory isn’t based on science. It’s based on beliefs. The climate has been changing for four and a half billion years. It’s never been static. The liberal mindset puts agenda before data. If we can use a partial truth or even a lie to reach our agenda, then that’s what we must do. The vast forests in California are burning to ashes now because this same mentality has made it almost impossible to harvest timber, and thin the overgrown forest that is the result of their “protection.”The liberal agenda is to “protect” the earth from mankind, and lying or twisting data in your favor, is no big deal when you have an agenda.

      • Mike Hamilton says:

        So, every publishing scientist in the world, every scientific organization on the face of the earth, and all the science journals are ALL just “liberals” who are ignoring science and going with their “feelings” instead?

        DO you realize how utterly stupid that sounds?

        • Hey Mike. You would have done very well in Nazi Germany. “You mean to tell me that eugenics is wrong, when EVERY eugenics scientist in the world, and EVERY published paper on eugenics, everywhere in the world, has proven time and again that Aryans are the supreme race and Jews are inferior and need to be destroyed? Are you some sort of conspiracy theorist, you think that all these eugenics scientists are wrong, but NOT ONE scientist has ever come forward and told Hitler that he was an asshole?”

        • Mike Hamilton says:

          LOL!!! Do you REALLY think that there was a worldwide scientific consensus supporting Hitler in the 1930s and 40s? My god, you people think like eight-year-olds!

        • Yes, there was a worldwide consensus among eugenics scientists. The way there is a worldwide consensus among global warmunists.

        • Try again. There is a worldwide consensus among chiropractors that cracking your back can cure scoliosis. All papers published by chiropractors agree, all chiropractor groups, agencies, blah blah blah agree, and they are the experts on the subject, and they regulate themselves. Problem is, they are wrong.

        • Mike Hamilton says:

          Morgan, I’d love to see you cite ANY evidence for a worldwide consensus among scientists that Hitler was correct in his racial theories.

          The consensus among climate scientists about AGW spans a WIDE variety of disciplines in the natural sciences. It is not just some narrow group of “global warmunists.”

          Why do you think the Geological Society of America, which represents most of America’s geologists, made an official statement that says, in part:

          “Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2011), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2013) and the U.S. Global Change Research Program (Melillo et al., 2014) that global climate has warmed in response to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases. The concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are now higher than they have been for many thousands of years.

          Human activities (mainly greenhouse-gas emissions) are the dominant cause of the rapid warming since the middle 1900s (IPCC, 2013).

          If the upward trend in greenhouse-gas concentrations continues, the projected global climate change by the end of the twenty-first century will result in significant impacts on humans and other species. The tangible effects of climate change are already occurring. Addressing the challenges posed by climate change will require a combination of adaptation to the changes that are likely to occur and global reductions of CO2 emissions from anthropogenic sources.”

      • Mike Hamilton says:

        This may come as a surprise to you, but there is PLENTY of scientific evidence that shows conclusively that much of the claims if chiropractors are bogus.

        Why is there NO published evidence that AGW theory is incorrect?

        • Oh my God. You are perhaps the biggest idiot since David Appell. No published evidence? Ha ha LOL holy freaking shhhh. None? ROTFLMAOUICB.

          I just published that. Right here. Published.

        • Mike,

          Here is all the published evidence you need:


        • Mike Hamilton says:

          Who does your peer review? The hole in your backside you pull your data from?

        • Peer review has nothing to do with science. That’s journalism. The editor of a journal gets a paper reviewed by peers of the author. Idiots like you think science is based on peer review, because you are blubbering fools. Science, as all real scientists know, is based on experiment and repeatability. Show me one experiment on global warming, and show me somebody who repeated it. None? Then STFU.

        • Mike Hamilton says:

          Bless your heart. You have a nice day now. When your break is over, be sure to put your crayons back in the box.

        • What an idiot. You probably actually believe that science is settled by counting up all the government paid science cranks and subtracting all the true scientists that are placed on the government black list. You obviously are a communist and I will now continue to follow the 3 rules of Dee Dee Ramone.

          Be nice to mommy
          Don’t talk to commies
          Eat kosher salami

    • SAMURAI says:

      Hamilton– it’s not some “big conspiracy”, it’s just simple good ol’ corruption….

      The CAGW “scientists” have been VERY careful to incorporate get-out-of-jail-free card excuses in their pal-reviewed papers and reports, which they’ll effectively use when testifying at the inevitable Congressional and Senate hearings…

      For example, the IPCC and many “scientists” have been very careful to admit in they’re a bit confused about cloud formation or even whether they have a net warming or net cooling effect….

      They actually know clouds have a net cooling effect, but they’ve created a convenient paper trail to blame their contrived ignorance of cloud’s net forcing to avoid doing jail time for fraud.

      The “scientists” also aren’t hiding the fact they’re making these huge adjustments to the raw data and even have pal-reviewed papers to “justify” these “adjustments”…

      Anyway, Hamilton, even the CAGW advocates realize the gig is up…

      The empirical evidence shows CO2 may cause around 0.5C of global warming per doubling, which is all they need to avoid being convicted of malfeasance… They’ll simply claim they were right all along that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but were “just off a little” on their temp projections because, “they didn’t fully understand cloud formation and cloud feedbacks.”

      It’s corruption at its best… The scarier the CAGW predictions, the more grant funds they get….

    • Bill Carson says:

      @Mike Hamilton, I don’t think AGW is a conspiracy, more of a movement. Researchers don’t need orders, just a shared belief that AGW is real. And they need to believe that they have to prove it fast before big energy spreads enough lies that cuts their funding to save the planet in time. Few if any wake up wanting to falsify data, but they hedge just a little with bias in data sources, models, reporting, and little things add up.

      Major scientific organizations may or may not accept grants, but their donors, associates and industries depend on tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars that flow almost exclusively to AGW supporters. And many of those supporters are true believers, and become very McCarthyesque against organizations that appear to help “the enemy”. I don’t know anything specific about the Geologic Society of America. Perhaps it felt its mission had nothing to do with global warming and their refusal to endorse it was leaving them isolated and attacked.

      Regarding big oil, why would an already vilified energy company speak out against AGW? It would be boycotted, and for what? It’s not as if there’s anything viable AGW advocates have to replace their product anytime soon anyway. And as alternatives slowly become possible with government subsidies, who’s going to get the contracts to build them? Is it going to be corporations that lampooned the movement that promoted government funding their development?

      Regarding the millions of peripheral people, most are either dependent on experts and/or have careers that dependent on at least being friendly to the AGW movement. How rare is a person who decides to spend hundreds of hours researching what will at best give him an opportunity to oppose his friends and/or cripple his career? Why not just go along with the rest, like those in Iran shouting, “Death to America”, but not really meaning it in order to keep that teaching position, those powerful connections and have lots respect in the community? After all, even if AGW isn’t true, think of all the funding it sends to research for alternative fuels, reduced pollution, and baby seals. Besides, who doesn’t hate big oil anyway?

      And why wouldn’t “government leaders around the world” want to do something that enables them to temporarily empower themselves to reallocate trillions of dollars from capitalist enterprises toward the public good, regularly reminding voters of it, and subtly remind their opposition of what they need to do to be on the receiving rather than the giving end of the pipeline. How many of them believe more in their own brilliance rather than the goodness of free market capitalism. And if soulless international capitalist industries are destroying the planet and need to be controlled to save it, doesn’t that prove that that people such as themselves should be entrusted with a little more authority over other defective industries as well?

      And what movement needs “each and every” thing to fit together perfectly or “absolute perfect secrecy”? Only a tiny percent of colonial Americans were initially for war against Great Britton and they were a headless mess. Germany was the worlds’ greatest example of enlighten progressive thinking in the 1920s and Iran was arguably the most progressive, educated and developed Islamic nation in the 1970, but both societies were overwhelmed by imperfect movements rather than perfect conspiracies before they became police states.

      I had a little experience with a few AGW people in the beginning of this movement. I briefly volunteered for The Latin American Peace Network (or something like that) in college thinking my experience in USMC Intelligence there would be of use. They gave me a menial job, so I quit the second or third day. On my way out, I finally had a quality conversation with the 2nd in command. He said they were getting out of the whole Central America thing, that, “Green is where it’s at man!” I’m sorry to say that it took me several weeks to recognize that the only thing the two had in common is anti-capitalism. That was the only shared value among initial leadership that was needed for both movements.

  41. Nothing new here…only for the eco-fascist watermelons who are using the environment to implement the Gore/Obama Marxist/Socialist agenda.

    Climate change PROVED to be ‘nothing but a lie’, claims top meteorologist
    THE debate about climate change is finished – because it has been categorically proved NOT to exist, one of the world’s leading meteorologists has claimed.

    John Coleman, who co-founded the Weather Channel, shocked academics by insisting the theory of man-made climate change was no longer scientifically credible.
    Instead, what ‘little evidence’ there is for rising global temperatures points to a ‘natural phenomenon’
    In an open letter attacking the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, he wrote: “The ocean is not rising significantly.
    “The polar ice is increasing, not melting away. Polar Bears are increasing in number.
    “Heat waves have actually diminished, not increased. There is not an uptick in the number or strength of storms (in fact storms are diminishing).
    “I have studied this topic seriously for years. It has become a political and environment agenda item, but the science is not valid.”

  42. D. Eddy says:

    Help me out here, please. I don’t pay much attention to this subject but came across this post and find these charts simply remarkable. Here’s my problem: I can’t forward the post to friends because the conclusions seem as settled as the ‘changers’ science. Has the USHCN refused to provide any alternative explanation to these adjustments, such that ‘fake’ is an accurate description? For goodness sake, this group apparently works out of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Does Oak Ridge not have accountability or employ the discipline of methodology? Are untenable explanations for these dramatic variations the group’s only defense? Do they not have some rationale, however weak it may appear? If not, what other scientists eat lunch with them at Oak Ridge? Some type of justification for the verdict “fake” would make this post much more powerful for the readers who don’t have knowledge of all the back stories.

  43. Do they no professional ethics? Does ideology indeed trump all?

    Perhaps this might provide some clues…

    A new batch of 5,000 emails among scientists central to the assertion that humans are causing a global warming crisis were anonymously released to the public yesterday, igniting a new firestorm of controversy nearly two years to the day after similar emails ignited the Climategate scandal.

    Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.

    Forbes, Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate, 11/23/11

  44. If it has to do with anything the Federal Government says you can be assured it’s a lie.

  45. silver fox says:

    this is the one lie the socialist left will never give up. it is their religious foundational claim. without it there can be no universal personal carbon tax dictated by the global government to come. and without the tax there can be no confiscation of personal property which is the ultimate goal. Public school grads likey likey. So does Hillary, although believe me, she will always eat at the fat cat table along with the ruling class.

  46. immafubared says:

    I learned one thing as a young Navy man who became interested in Weather as a hobby and to support my Air Traffic Control knowledge base. Weather data only went back to 1880’s. Before that, nada. I know way back when that we knew pretty much zilch about long term weather patterns since there was no records to compare. Still aren’t.
    Is there climate change. Yes of course. It existed since day one. The problem, it changes very slightly over a long period of time. Is there global warming? Who knows? Where’s the long term data to prove it one way or the other. All I know is winters in Minny have been getting colder and longer the past five years not warmer and milder.

  47. Matthew T says:

    “Data tampering” is actually called adjusting or adjustment and it has been highly scrutinized and upheld in the science community. It help accounts for data gaps, siting issues, instrumentation changes, and a boat of other non-climatic signals that get into the record. I honestly will never read the replies to my comment so go ahead and make them but know that this isn’t an issue of opinion, this is a matter of fact and fiction. The majority of Americans, citizens of the world, and scientists agree that this is real. Your denial not only is unsubstantiated it puts you on the wrong side of history.

    • Idiot. All the adjustments made, always, make the past cooler and the present warmer. So all the innocent adjustments due to instrument changes, data gaps, siting issues, which you think would go one way 50% of the time or the other way, but instead go one way 100% of the time, how much of moron can you be, to believe the adjustments are valid?

      • Matthew T says:

        Morgan, thank you for your comments. I have included recommended reading on the validity of adjustments. These publications represent our progress and confidence in adjustments made to the USHCN temperature series, among several others. They are the work of a multitude of researchers, from different entities, publishing work in a host of different peer-reviewed journals:

        – Baker, D. G., 1975: Effect of observation time on mean temperature estimation. J. Appl. Meteor., 14, 471–476.

        – Balling Jr., R. C. and C. D. Idso, 2002: Analysis of adjustments to the United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) temperature database. Geophys. Res. Lett., 29, 1387, doi:10.1029/2002GL014825.

        – Cocheo, C., and D. Camuffo, 2002: Corrections of systematic errors and data homogenization in the daily temperature Padova series (1725-1998). Clim. Change, 53, 77-100.

        – Durre, I., M. J. Menne, and R. S. Vose, 2008: Strategies for evaluating quality assurance procedures. J. Appl. Meteor. Climatol., 47, 1785–1791.

        – Guttman, N. B., and C. B. Baker, 1996: Exploratory analysis of the difference between temperature observations recorded by ASOS and conventional methods. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 77, 2865–2873.

        – Hubbard, K. G., and X. Lin, 2006: Reexamination of instrument change effects in the U.S. Historical Climatology Network. Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L15710, doi:10.1029/2006GL027069.

        – Karl, T. R., C. N. Williams Jr., P. J. Young, and W. M. Wendland, 1986: A model to estimate the time of observation bias associated with monthly mean maximum, minimum, and mean temperature for the United States. J. Climate Appl. Meteor., 25, 145–160.

        – Karl, T. R., H. F. Diaz, and G. Kukla, 1988: Urbanization: Its detection and effect in the United States climate record. J. Climate, 1, 1099–1123.

        – Karl, T. R., and C. N. Williams Jr., 1987: An approach to adjusting climatological time series for discontinuous inhomogeneities. J. Climate Appl. Meteor., 26, 1744–1763.

        – Menne, M. J., and C. N. Williams Jr., 2009: Homogenization of temperature series via pairwise comparisons. J. Climate, 22, 1700–1717.

        – Menne, M. J., C. N. Williams Jr., and R. S. Vose (2009), The United States Historical Climatology Network Monthly Temperature Data?Version 2, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 90, 993– 1007, doi:10.1175/2008BAMS2613.1.

        – Menne, M. J., C. N. Williams Jr., and M. A. Palecki, 2010: On the reliability of the U.S. surface temperature record. J. Geophys. Res., 115, D11108, doi:10.1029/2009JD013094.

        • wilwhite says:

          Thanks for posting these. I’m one of the few people actually on the fence. I’ve been looking at the striking effect of adjustments in a couple of stations from the 1940s to the 1970s. Hopefully those articles will help clear that up.

          I would have liked Goddard to explain his data processing steps.

        • wilwhite says:

          I’m afraid the Balling article didn’t have the intended effect. On the contrary, it concludes: “our results strongly suggest that the present set of adjustments spuriously increase the long-term trend.” But I’ll keep reading.

    • Bill Carson says:

      If “Data tampering”/adjustments alone turned cooling into heating for such a politically issue, both versions should be published with supporting reasoning for the primacy of each.

  48. Tampering with government data and filing false government reports is illegal. Someone needs to go to jail for this.

  49. OWL BORE says:

    Don’t worry, be happy. Big Brother knows what’s best for Big Brother.

  50. Fubo_2016 says:

    I work for/at NOAA. Without exception, the conservatives don’t believe in man-made warming while the libs DO.. without QUESTION. Science is truly dead

    • Matthew T says:

      If you work for NOAA/NCDC it is not in a role that advises on science issues. You would not be commenting, nor in the manner you did.

    • Bill Carson says:

      A friend posted a cartoon listing all the ancillary benefits of spending money on AGW that was meant to chide them for opposing it even if it weren’t true. I responded that I always figured that was why so many went along for the ride, but that it was short sighted because science in general would take a hit. That’s also why they can’t ever let their hoax be discovered. It’ll probably take a generation at best for the truth to be widely known.

  51. ETEE says:

    The more the Warminista’s have beaten their drum, the more jaundiced an eye I have focused in their direction. They seem to believe in the Environment, Gaia and Global Warming as a religion rather than a science.

  52. The next time you talk to a global warming nut, ask him or her this simple question. Ten thousand years ago there was an Ice Age and there were glaciers in Michigan and Wisconsin. The glaciers melted or receded back thru Canada. Ask the idiot how many SUV’s and humans were on the earth to cause the ice to melt because of CO2. Idiot won’t be able to answer.

    • John Hagman says:

      Nice I will use that! Thanks

    • jasonn13 says:

      I’ve been using that argument for years and you are right. None of the warming weenies have been able to answer it.

      • drewinmass says:

        They don’t have to answer it! Being a liberal is never having to say you are sorry or that you were wrong.

      • C alvin Grimallkin says:

        The warmists reply to this seems to always be that the causes of previous periods of warming and cooling were related to totally different causes and was not comparable to today’s situation.

      • dingels75 says:

        But we will never win that argument with them because they simply don’t care!

    • CityGuySailing says:

      Better yet, ask how many times they have crossed over the George Washington Bridge. Ask if they know how many glaciers it took to form Long Island.

    • Olaf auer says:

      Well said, Brian. Kind of sums up the absurdity of global warming hoaxers!

    • Bob Stair says:

      Good question Brian, fact is there are several possible things that can cause climate change. Bottom line though climate change can and does happen. Wouldn’t a reasonable person look for what causes climate change. I hope the scientists ar
      e wrong, but what if………..

    • Icarus says:

      ….or for the cows/methane crowd: Ask them why the millions of American Bison (Buffalo) that once roamed (and pooped on)the Great Plains didnt effect the climate but our beef cattle do?

      • SouthCoast says:

        I’ve used that before, with the additional fact that there about as many domestic cattle as there were bison, the latter being significantly larger, and correspondingly more flatulent than your average cow. All I get are enough crickets to stock a bait store! (And besides the Great Plains on this continent, there is also the Serengeti over in Africa.)

    • The Ice is melting on Mars, too. Dang those greenhouse spewing Rovers!

    • bike mike says:

      The peak of the ice age is when global warming started. Michigan was under about a mile of ice at that point.

      • RandomGS says:

        Just this week, I did read a response to a news story, the poster claimed that human camp fires brought us out of the last ice age. Oh, it was a news story saying that Greenland’s ice sheet could melt before the end of this century causing a ten foot rise in sea levels. I don’t think that we could melt it that rapidly if we raised global temps 10 degrees today till the end of the century. The energy isn’t there.

    • Mike Martin says:

      You’ve touched on the real issue which they are trying to cover up. The end of the Halocene Inter Glacial Period. I went back to school a few years ago to study Soil Morphology which involves glaciations. The Halocene is coming to an end an they don’t dare tell us the truth about that because there isn’t a damn thing they can do about it and it means 100,000 years of glaciations. Far worse than “global warming” which is just a cover. The truth would cause wide spread panic so they will avoid it as long as possible. The scientists have probably been bought with government grants and claims of the greater good.

    • FreeThinker says:

      There is a response. It’s a weak response because it’s not true, but it is a response. They say that the rate of warming now is far greater and the change is too rapid for the ecosystem to adjust.

    • justme says:

      Also mention that 150 years ago there were about 60 million american bison running around emitting huge amounts of the greenhouse gas methane,a much more potent offender than is carbon dioxide in terms of the climate. Take away those bison and what happened?? There should have been some easily demonstrable effect caused from that.

    • rodg says:

      the glaciers receded because of the forest fires caused by global warming that was caused by the heat from the fires. you deny facts. the great abama has spoken

    • Nearly 12,000 years ago. Ask him how much CO2 we should emit to prevent the near inevitable onset of the next ice age, which is due any century now…

    • Glenn M says:

      Thats NOT a good argument. Of course all ice ages end with warming as part of a natural cycle. Ice ages are normal just as warm phases are. You want to look for periods that defy the normal periods.

      There are at least 3 or 4 known periods when it is believed there was no ice anywhere on Earth. Temperatures and atmospheric CO2 were much higher than even predictions for 2100 are. There were also at least 2 known periods of time when the earth was covered 100% with ice. This is of course all pre humans.

      Look – I am all for cleaner fuels and energy. There are obvious health reasons why we dont want to burn fossil fuels and some other earth science reasons why taking trillions of gallons of liquid from inside the earth and burning it is a bad idea. But please – lets stick with science not fear.

      There is so much that is involved in earths climate that most humans have no grasp of. The obvious stuff are things like the seasons (distance from the sun and tilt of earth) that most people think about. Oceans and the circulation of currents are huge, earth events like volcanic eruptions can have an impact. Most people dont realize the Sun itself has an impact beyond simply “is it hot today”. The sun goes through cycles, first in 11 year spans but over a much larger time frame there are cycles where the sun is much less active than it is today and cools the earth. Earth magnetic poles occasionally swap and some wonder what impact that may have.

      Another area of research just being looked at is our solar systems position within our galaxy. Our solar system takes 250 million years to complete 1 revolution around the galaxy. During this time our system bobs up and down in the currents of space and moved in and out relative to center. In space are pockets of hot gas and gold gas. Some scientists have wondered what happens if (when) our system passes this one of these regions? We dont know and probably dont really want to find out.

      Everything scientists say about climate change is pure theory. Now, depending on the validity of the data the theories are compelling. But even if the data is accurate its still just a theory that no single human can honestly say will 100% become fact. Because humans have never lived in a serious period of climate change to record the results and only until many years have passed after climate change really happens and completes will humans be able to more clearly say why the change happened.

    • F.Henry says:

      Right on Brain , the ice sheet extended as far south as Salina KS 20,000 years ago ,also noteworthy was at the time the ice sheet over Salina was 5,000ft thick. Stats come from Kansas State University.

  53. Abel Garcia says:

    The official global warming temp sensor of this valley is in the part that is least populated, records the hottest temperatures of the valley, has the greatest temperature swings. Incidentally the NWS station is over 100 miles away in a city with a population of 1 million and near the coast so it gets cool breezes from the ocean.

    • warrenhigley says:

      And we are to take your word for this? Why?

    • Chris says:

      So why still lie about a warming trend???

      • Jake Ryan says:

        Because there is money, and control in it (taxes, specifically). Democrats never let a “crisis” go to waste.

    • daveginoly says:

      So, you’re telling us you live in a valley that’s more moderate in temperature than the location of the monitoring station. Did they intentionally position the station so that it would register the highest temperatures?

    • Jake Ryan says:

      There is a website out there that researches global temperature sensor placement. It’s called Watt’s Up With That. They have found sensors on top of buildings next to A/C units and in the middle of asphalt parking lots, among other insanely hot places.

  54. Jay Whiting says:

    So, who’s been fired for this? I’m sure they’ve cleaned house, correct? After all, publishing false data in a federal agency is a federal crime, correct? Oh wait, this is the Obama administration we’re talking about.

    So, who’s been promoted, given a cabinet position and nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize?

    Good luck with all of that.

  55. Looks like NOAA needs more gubmint money to continue the lie.

  56. SAMURAI says:

    According to RSS global satellite temp data, there hasn’t been a global warming trend in almost 20 years, despite 30% of ALL man-made CO2 emissions since 1750 being made over just the last 20 years:


    The discrepancies between CAGW’s hypothetical projections vs. reality already exceed 2 standard deviations, which is sufficient disparity and duration to disconfirm the CAGW hypothesis. In 5~7 years, the discrepancies will likely exceed 3 standard deviations, which is when the CAGW hypothesis can be run through a wood chipper….

    The ONLY reason this disconfirmed CAGW hypothesis is still around is because of the massive raw data manipulation being conducted by CAGW advocates, which is costing the world $trillions for absolutely no reason whatsoever…

    In the real world, if some businessman got caught committing a fraud that led to the theft of a few million dollars, he’d be thrown in jail for decades… But, alas, government hacks seldom deal in reality and they’ll likely get away with the largest government theft in human history involving $10’s of trillions of taxpayer dollars….

    And so it goes…

    • “We were only following orders”

      • Bill says:

        Wasn’t there a group of people in late 30’s to mid 40’s Germany that were “only following orders”?

        • bobinnc says:

          “Often in a German home or office or sometimes in a casual conversation with a stranger in a restaurant, a beer hall, a café, I would meet with the most outlandish assertions from seemingly educated and intelligent persons. It was obvious that they were parroting some piece of nonsense they had heard on the radio or read in the newspapers. Sometimes one was tempted to say as much, but on such occasions one was met with such a stare of incredulity, such a shock of silence, as if one had blasphemed the Almighty, that one realized how useless it was even to try to make contact with a mind which had become warped and for whom the facts of life had become what Hitler and Goebbels, with their cynical disregard for truth, said they were.”

          The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by Shirer, William L.

        • SAMURAI says:

          Yes, Bill, that was a common defense by the Auschwitz SS during the Nuremberg Trials…

          That defense didn’t end very well for those Nazi swine..

    • John Galt says:

      $trillions are exactly the reason. There’s gold in them there lies.

    • mmercier0921 says:

      They are global marxists. Their goal is the destruction of capitalism, in particular, and western civilization, in general.

      Have a nice day.

  57. worleyf says:

    Reblogged this on Conservative News and Views on Puerto Rico and commented:
    More info on how ‘global warming’ is simply a fraud.

  58. Tony says:

    The easy solution to all this is CAP AND TRADE A COMMIE !!! But trade for what? A World Caliphate? We are the Evil Capitalist according to Karl Marx that needs to go down. Never give up you FREEDOM. Never. Not even with soft Tyranny.

  59. Eric says:

    I guess we can go back to calling it “Human caused global warming” now.

  60. nuckingfuts says:

    And with all of this glaring data, surely now the MSM will jump on board in calling this fraud what it really is…… *crickets*

  61. Wade Russell says:

    The summer of 1988 was brutal. The tiny cable company in the tiny town I went to school in had very few channels and much of the time I watched WGN out of Chicago. I distinctly remember weatherman Tom Skilling saying that Chicago had recorded more 100 degree days that summer than it had since records began. Today if you check the NOAA “records” you will find no 100 degree days that summer. I wish I had the time to pull archived hard copies of newspapers from those days. I wonder whose memory is wrong?

  62. Tony says:

    THE Deviate Dems have Left their “Carbon Skidmark” on the World Stage.

  63. curenado says:

    This is not man’s biggest problem
    It does not seem like commies aka “wealth redistribution”, that seems like a coping thought.
    It does not seem like those in power have any intention of distributing anything but body bags. Looks like that money is going up and staying. Coping with a couple or three billion people who’s life concept is that of a feckless dependent is man’s biggest problem.

  64. STW says:

    71 years ago intelligence was systematically inflating the number of Allied troops facing Germany across the channel. One German officer recognized the problem and, just as systematically, adjusted the figures back down. Unfortunately for him, fortunate for us, the original numbers ceased to be inflated while he continued to make downward adjustments. Just how wrong his final numbers were was exposed in June 1944. We can only hope climate scientists have a similar D-day epiphany. Popcorn should be given out free that day.

  65. Global Warming is scientism on steroids.

  66. Professor X says:

    Lol, fitting a linear model to highly periodic time series data and claiming to be able to predict a trend. You r-tards are preciously stupid.

    • Edward says:

      One can easily see the spread between the real data and the adjusted data without the linear curve fit. Duh!

    • Joel O'Bryan says:

      Prof X,
      While I agree in principle that linear fitting 95 years of data, when there is an underlying ~60 year cycle in climate temperatures, is a dubious proposition, but you fail to acknowledge the real point of the post.
      The real point is shown in the “final minus raw” plot. Those “synthetic” + adjustments are being systematically made to the more recent data, while the less robust past data is slightly cooled. Which makes no scientific sense in light of increasing UHI effects with urban and suburban growth patterns over the past century in the US.
      Further, a plot of those synthesized adjustments versus the M-L CO2 record since 1958 shows an R^2 of better than 0.95. That is far too high to be coincidence. It srongly suggests an acive manipulation at work, unless one is ideologically blinded to that truth. But it is still true, none the less.

      As an aside, anyone who calls herself/himself a “Professor” and starts out a comment with “LOL” demonstrates a weak, malleable mind, IMO.

  67. truthzzzz says:

    The cause is all that matters. it is all about the cause. The facts do not matter unless they support the cause.

    The social and political trend in the USA for quite a while.

    Refer to Mao, Alinsky, Stalin, Obama, Marcuse and Marx (Karl) concerning the cause.

  68. Daniel Sanchez says:

    This was a comment I made on the “Who is Steve Goddard” portion, but it applies here as well.

    I like how several people on this web site believe only individuals with degrees are capable of intelligent, coherent thought. I also enjoy their arguments that science is based on the opinions of others (peer reviewed). Since when was fact based on how many agreed on it being fact?

    With that off my chest, I would like to point out a very simple matter that would help clear up a lot of confusion. The world does not have a global temperature. The world is not a person whom you can stick a thermometer into its mouth and get a temperature. We have devices throughout the world that take various temperatures and then average them. We have already started with the false premise that a global temperature exists. It is an average of all temperatures. I could easily manipulate the data by averaging in more of the hotter temperatures than the cooler temperatures, or vice versa.

    Second, have we even been measuring the data long enough to establish if this is a pattern or a deviation from the pattern? Why do we continually bring everything down to the human lifespan level? Patterns could take 100s or 1,000s of years to show but we just assume it has to be shorter.

    Thirdly, people are dishonest. I don’t doubt the machines and equipment for the most part, but does anyone believe that someone who has dedicated their life to something would willingly come out and say I was wrong, I lied and I will return all the awards and money I received for my work? Very few people will tell on themselves. Instead, to avoid embarrassment and punishment, they will lie their faces off.


    • Ed says:

      I studied the raw data, back in the 90’s, while attempting to develop temperature and other weather indexes for Dow Jones, to be used for managing weather risk. We never created the indexes because the data was questionable, at best, and made up, at worst. The data goes back over 100 years but there were huge gaps in many locations that NWS simply took the average before and after to fill in the gap. Gathering locations changed quite significantly over the years, i.e. from a farm to an airport. Initially this wouldn’t have much of an effect on the data because both locations are flat and sunny, but when jet planes replaced prop planes the temps suddenly jumped. The discovery of the heat island effect convinced NWS to move recording locations out of cities and to the suburbs, again creating data gaps.

      The data produced today, while significantly more accurate than 50 years ago is still statistically questionable, to say the least. The newest tool they use in declaring global warming is underwater measuring devices to track temperatures in the ocean. They have a couple of thousand of these devices scattered over a rather small area, and at different depths, and from those readings they make assumptions for the rest of the oceans. This is about as meaningful as going to a college campus and asking 10 students who they like for president and then declaring 60% of adults back Hillary.

  69. Emma Morrow says:

    There are hundreds of NOAA weather stations placed right next to highways all across America, directly in the local heat islands produced by warm concrete. Move those thousands of instruments 60 yards West and GLOBAL WARMING DISAPPEARS.

    FOLLOW THE MONEY – the Global Warming Cult’s priests lose out on TRILLION$ if they tell the truth.

  70. Ellen Swensen says:

    I like to ask the “warmers” why Greenland is called Greenland, especially when they complain that its ice is melting!

    • Actually, the vikings discovered Iceland and Greenland. To confuse settlers, they called the best land for farming Iceland, and the worst land for farming Greenland. Maybe the Vikings were the first Leftist?

    • doug says:

      My history book, written in 1952, claims that the Vikings called it that to divert explorers from the island known as Iceland. Iceland as you know is habitable, and Greenland just had a few centuries of habitability.

  71. Bob Hickok says:

    All part of Muslim outreach, comrades!

    • Last two years were the exact opposite. This year is an El Nino.

    • AndyG55 says:

      Do you know of a temperature system called USCRN?

      It was established in 2005 to provide a even spaced, untainted temperature surface data (like the satellite troposphere data)

      Since it was established , it has recorded COOLING in the USA of about 0.3C/decade.

  72. I am sure their justification for this will generally fall under the category of “normalizing” the data, particularly since few people even know what that means.

    I do demographic research in the healthcare industry and have to normalize data on a regular basis so that we can use it in predictive models of healthcare trends. Normalization does NOT mean you fill in missing data points with assumptions (that are certain to be biased). It simply means you calculate KNOWN DATA points against an objective standard of measure so that you are comparing apples to apples when reporting.

    A clever statistician can use the the guise of “normalization” to manipulate numbers to say whatever they like, particularly if they are not fully disclosing all of their reporting methodology. In the rare instance that you have to “plug” an unknown value with a best guess, you have a obligation to DECLARE THAT FACT with a disclaimer, not try to HIDE it through obfuscation.

  73. ilovevictoriasbows says:

    Pope Francis cries, “Ay caramba!”

  74. The one thing that is clear is that our government thinks we are stupid sheep, and there is nothing wrong with lying to the sheep … if it’s for their own good. And Leftist will decide what’s good and bad for the unwashed.

  75. jim morse says:

    Scientist’s don’t necessarily generate sales or revenue, they mostly live off of grants. If I were a scientist and wanted job security I would be very tempted to fudge some numbers to help generate a scare in order for more grant money to be directed towards my department or particular field of science. The bigger the scare the likely more money is sent my way.
    Al Gore, is frankly a genius, he and some of his buddies saw an area they could exploit and were successful at creating the global warming scare. Carbon tax? wow, brilliant! Subsidizing the (failed) solar technology industry? Awesome! We all paid for it and a few got filthy rich from it before making a quick getaway.
    Scientists are good but you can’t trust some of them. They’re people too, with families to support and a regular life to live just like the rest of us. Unfortunately when it comes to job security there’s a conflict of interest at play. We have all been trained to trust the scientist and the so-called science they stand for but its sad we now have to look at their motives and then ask the question, is it true?

  76. Once again, FOLLOW THE MONEY!
    Human caused Global Warming is a Red Herring to make the great unwashed accept Cap and Trade and freeloading scientist(?) keep their grants. Then the Government has another monumental bureaucracy to control our lives. Bingo! Another freedom lost.

  77. NOAA, and all the alphabet agencies of the Leviathan have been corrupted to the point none can be trusted with the truth. Science is up for the highest bidder.

  78. W L Haynes says:

    I ask the question when I am told that the carbon dioxide is the highest it has ever been: “Where did all the carbon come from to form our coal and oil and gas reserves?” It stumps them or they will go into a political rant about the energy companies propaganda.

  79. Ron says:

    The socialist joo Federal Reserve bank and the socialist joo media push Global Warming as a way to further line their greedy socialist joo pockets.

    The greedy socialist joo Federal reserve bankers just printed themselves SEVEN TRILLION DOLLARS UNDER OBAMA, but that’s not enough.

    I guess none of you stupes have ever heard of QUANTITATIVE EASING…….

  80. The debate is over! Republicans are science deniers! They believe in some sky fairy not the one true God Alvin Gore. Any scientist that disagree with man made global warming must be fired!
    We need a carbon tax, so we can redistribute … er, I mean … save the planet.

  81. John Johnson says:

    Somebody send this to the Pope.

  82. Packard Day says:

    Follow the money.

    Above all else and before anything, follow the money.

  83. joelobryan says:

    This thread is now a Drudge Report linked story. That’ll make Tom Karl, NOAA’s Chief Climate Data Adulterer, cringe. Love to see the emails between him and John Holdren.

  84. Felix Rodkin says:

    I know the fascists/commies lie all the time about everything, even the obvious, but I have this question:
    why there are such discrepancies in reported temps to begin with, in 1920 measured was 53.5, but they reported 52??? Did they 100 years ago start this con?

  85. harry says:

    please – widest dissemination – spread it around

  86. This temperature denial stuff is such BS and so laughable. Check out this and then tell me how things are cooling

  87. Eric says:

    The only thing organizations like NOAA accomplish is to discredit themselves in the eye and mind of the casual observer.

  88. James Ferris says:

    Sunday on CNN Farid Zakaria had the head of NASA Dept for climate study showed a picture of Antarctica with receding ice, I froze the TV on that picture and looked at the 2015 picture of current ice status of Antarctica on Internet and it showed a completely different situation, blatant misinformation. His solution Tax fossil fuel. Last year a science ship sent to Antarctica was stuck in ice that was not supposed to be there.

  89. If there is a buck to be made, truth is often the first victim.

  90. robyn byrd says:

    What was the effect of 800 oil wells burning for up to eight months in the Gulf War? Nothing why a cover-up. this should be ground zero on temp data

  91. Mike Hamilton says:

    I’m curious. You folks who think AGW theory is all a conspiracy. How could such a conspiracy be set up? How would it be possible to get scientists all over the world…totally disconnected from each other, working in widely separated laboratories, in very different disciplines…all on one page with the “falsified” data?

    Is there a central hub of the conspiracy that sends out orders to all the climate scientists around the globe? What has prevented even ONE scientist from coming forward with any evidence of this conspiracy? Do the ringleaders of this plot somehow know in advance which scientists will be open to participating in the conspiracy?

    Is there a central research center where huge amounts of data are fabricated in order to supply material for the thousands of research projects and the tens of thousands of papers and articles supporting AGW theory that have been published over the last few decades?

    Is there a world authority that can tell all of the major scientific organizations around the globe that they have to endorse AGW as fact? Remember, these organizations don’t get grant money. So, how are they all somehow convinced to participate in this campaign of lies? Hell, the Geologic Society of America’s membership probably consists mostly of people in the energy industry, and even they have come out with a statement clearly endorsing the idea that the planet is warming and humans are the main cause. Why would they do that?

    Have the millions of peripheral people…that scientists who review the papers, the editors and publishers of the papers, the science writers and other media people who write about the research, and, the smart people, the folks who read the papers and decide that they make sense…have ALL these people somehow been bought off or persuaded to join the conspiracy?

    What force has been used to cause government leaders around the world, many of whom are complete enemies, to agree to set aside their differences in this case in order to advance the conspiracy?

    Remember…the whole conspiracy falls apart unless each and every one of the things I’ve listed happens just as described…in absolutely perfect secrecy.


    • richard says:

      They need more people like you to swallow their lies, spoonfed like a little baby.

    • Cheryl says:

      It was decided in the 1960’s in the Report from Iron Mountain that a common enemy would have to be created to control the masses. Some common enemy for everyone to fight against. That enemy was the environment. And yes, the conspiracy has been going on for a long time. Read The Creature from Jekyll Island. Watch http://infowars.com (free info) or http://prisonplanet.tv (paid subscription, support the freedom movement) You will learn how much is controlled by the globalists, including the media. Any day, look at the headlines on all the major papers, they mirror each other. You will only find out things that are not being published by going to the alternative press, of which Infowars is one of the leaders. When they report, they give camera shots of the data where they are getting the information, just so people know they are not making it up. Remember The Emperor’s New Clothes…the only one who could tell the truth was the little boy who was not one of the king’s men. By the time many people understand how they are being used, they are deep into it with careers, educational loans to pay off, large mortgages, etc., they have taken out thinking they could settle down and work the rest of their lives to pay these things off. All of a sudden they find out that to be a whistleblower they will probably be demoted, lose retirement (watch what happens to whistleblowers in government agencies). There is a high price to pay. Or, they find out they have been working for criminals. And, when it comes to “throwing someone under the bus”, it is usually the lower level peon who goes to prison, while the upper echelon of management goes free (ever seen a banker go to prison? a lot of times the charges are dropped or they are slapped on the wrist with a relatively minor fine). Again, read The Creature from Jekyll Island. Learn about the Bilderbergers, etc., these elite organizations that do make controlling policies for the world. Truth is stranger than fiction. Oh, and incidentally, a lot of their plans are put out in novels and films. It becomes plain what is going on when you know the background. You will also understand why certain stories are covered, why certain stories are ignored, why certain stories disappear from the news, why certain people never have anything happen to them, why certain things happen, why certain people commit suicide…rather…are suicided. It becomes like a chess game. You will see moves, countermoves, it becomes very plain. When you understand the high-level agenda, the rest becomes plain. In terms of secrecy, a lot of the Nazi scientists were brought over to this country under Operation Paperclip and it has gone on from there.

    • The answer to your first paragraph is money.

      Your second paragraph, the IPCC, and thousands of scientists have come forward (idiot)

      Your 3rd paragraph, GISS and NOAA

      4th, the IPCC

      5th, it’s not a conspiracy, it’s propaganda, and what you describe is it always works. You think government propaganda is something new?

      6th, money

      7th, you are an idiot

      8th, money

    • coyotewise says:

      Simple. Follow the money. And, though you would like to believe the line that 97% of climate scientist agree with AGW, that itself is a lie. There are quite a few who study climate who disagree. But, their views don’t wash with the desire for money and control (world wide problem needs a world wide government to solve) and the left stream media only reports the science of those in disagreement on an inside page, not out front in large headlines.

    • rokshox says:

      1) There are billions of research dollars at stake.
      2) If you don’t toe the line, you don’t get published or get tenure.
      3) You don’t enter the field of climate science unless you are predisposed to believe there is a problem with the climate.

    • You are trying to rationalize with a bunch of conspiracy theorists. Tin-foil hat wearing, Alex Jones watching, New World Order Illuminati believers. Low IQ and lack of education on top of that. Give it up. They are all nuts.

      • Bravo! You forgot Dunning Kruger, Koch brothers, ExxonMobil, big tobacco, and you misapplied the bit about New World Order. That’s you guys. You got them ass backwards.

      • AndyG55 says:

        “Low IQ and lack of education on top of that”

        Ah.. how introspective of you.

      • aamichael666 says:

        I think Michael Mann has and IQ of 400, and that his hockey stick was dropped into the un-mentionable basket by the IPCC after being their billboard, simply because Lisa Grimaldi and others like her have so much moral high ground that they don’t even need to use graphs anymore … because the ‘debate is over’. Whether you wear a green or a brown shirt, you are still the same under the skin Lisa: a fraud.

        Would you like some straw to help build your straw man arguments? … I can offer a hockey stick which might help build the spine of your straw man! Jump back on your band wagon, you fell off and landed in a field of sanity.

  92. steve koch says:

    Follow @SteveSGoddard, @tan123, and @hockeyschtick1 on twitter, all engineers with very interesting climate info and observations.

    • Mike Hamilton says:

      What, exactly, do engineers know about climate change? That’s like a group of biologists criticizing bridge design…

      • shazaam says:

        Engineers are a crusty lot and can be relied-upon to examine data for completeness and accuracy before accepting said data as valid.

        Engineers generally have very sensitive bullshit detectors and most will call fraudulently altered data a steaming pile of fraud.

        Given the massive discrepancy between the satellite data (accurate and trusted) and the massively massaged NOAA/NASA (government) ground station records, one has to ask why? Qui Bono? (Who benefits?)

        So, who better to document shoddy “climate science” statistics than a bunch of Engineers?

        Who better to point-out the fallacies of the computer generated fantasy climate models (that cannot even replicate the effects of clouds!!!) than a pack of inquisitive Engineers?

        After all, if the mann-made hockey-schtick were real, it would be those same Engineers working for solutions.

      • Smokey says:

        Mike H says:

        “What, exactly, do engineers know about climate change?”

        More to the point: what do you know about “climate change”? Do you have a degree in one of the hard sciences?

        You sound like one of those folks who gazes at TV commentators, head-nodding along with every ‘global warming’ and ‘climate change’ assertion they read to you from their teleprompters.

        Earth to Mike: I’ll bet not one of those talking heads is well educated in the hard sciences. So why would you believe their narrative?

        There’s an agenda at work, but you don’t see it…

        • aamichael666 says:

          Propaganda ‘could’ be considered a hard science I guess. Goebbels was a psychological scientist.

          I thought the IPCC head was a railroad engineer from India (and a rapist): true story!

      • coyotewise says:

        A scientist who is not first an engineer will never understand the topic of his/her study. One must be able to take something apart, understand the function of each and how interaction between those parts can produce what would be unexpected results based on the functional results of each part of itself (the sum being greater than the whole). Or must be able to design and build a model which can serve the same purpose. These are the tasks of the engineer and the scientist.

      • When Engineers fake data, people die! And said Engineers most likely go to jail! So as Shazaam says, they do have very sensitive bullshit detectors!

        (From an IT guy who has the “pleasure” of working with a large group of civil engineers.)

  93. richard says:

    John Coleman (weather channel founder) blew the lid off these frauds in 2009. Not only are they making up bogus temp readings, but these clowns were placing temp reading stations (thermometers) in places that don’t meet the correct criteria, such as on a black tar roof next to a hot exhaust vent of some industrial building. Coleman did a 2 hour tv special here in San Diego, and before it was over he was getting calls from the goddard center to cease and desist. What does that tell you?

    • Mike Hamilton says:

      Could you describe Coleman’s background in climate science?

      Just wonderin…

      • Smokey says:

        Could you describe yours?

        Just wonderin…

      • NotAgain says:

        Mike – here’s a simple question no Global Warming troll has ever answered for me: The city I live in, Chicago, was under almost 1/2 mile of ice 23,000 years ago. That was about 13,000 years before civilization even began farming. What caused that ice sheet melt? Was it a)man made global warming or b)exhaust from the rockets of alien visitors or c)the cyclic nature of climate on our planet. I’ll sit in my SUV with the engine running and wait for your response.

        • aamichael666 says:

          Since Mike has given no answer, please allow me to answer this question for him:

          ANSWER: There was no climate before the invention of the automobile, because that would require the alarm-o-sphere to not frame the ‘debate’: a heresy against objective ‘science’.

          … pooooof … and the mediaeval warm period was memory holed.

      • Victor Gump says:


  94. Those glaciers melted over the span of about 75,000 years – with the most aggressive melting occurring between 25,000 and 21,000 years ago. We are now seeing similar glaciation over a much shorter time span, 150 years, in a more northern area (Alaska, Greenland) hope that helps.



  95. asdf says:

    I’m confused. The last two charts say USHCN fake but the headline says NOAA fraud.

    • They actually say USHCN Data that was faked. The raw data is held by USHCN and NOAA is “interpreting” the data – because, of course, we are too stupid to understand how to read a thermometer. 🙂

    • Latitude says:

      USHCN = NOAA

      • Really... says:

        United States Historical Climate Network (USHCN) was developed at NOAA. It is comprised of 1218 weather collection stations in the contiguous United States. This means that NOAA is responsible for the data you see on the USHCN data charts. Sponsored and supported by the United States Government… Think about it…

    • William says:

      The USHCN (United States Historical Climatology Network) are where the data originates (collection points), and the NOAA is the body that compiles and ‘adjusts’ that data for presentation.

    • RichardS says:

      The comparison is the collected data versus what was reported

    • Walston says:

      The first one is Final numbers minus the Raw (or actually measured numbers). So it shows how much they deliberately changed the Raw USHCN numbers. The final chart show the percent of data that they deliberately changed. You can see that in 2015 they changed (or faked as the writer called it) nearly 50% (half) of the data.

    • It is ‘measured’ vrs ‘reported’, not USHCN vrs NOAA

      • Brock says:

        Go read the first 2 sentences again. USHCN reports raw data. NOAA takes the USHCN data, adjusts it however it deems necessary, whether that be scientific or to meet an agenda, and reports the corrected data. The discrepancy is between the raw data and the corrected data.

        • rokshox says:

          There is a second issue with the data. NOAA has disproportionately reduced the number of rural reporting stations. Yet, they continue to provide “estimated” temperatures for these ghost stations by smearing (“homogenizing”) the remaining stations – largely urban and influenced by UHI – over the discontinued stations.

    • Vendicar Decarian says:

      You will continue to be confused if you continue to read the garbage that Stevengoddard produces.

      What he isn’t telling you is that the U.S. temperature record was designed for weather forecasting and not for long term climate research. As a result changes in the way temperatures have been measured over the decades must be adjusted out of the data in order to make it as uniformly consistent as possible.

      The principle change in the measurements that constitute the USHDN network has been a change in the hour the measurements are taken.

      There has been a slow shift over the decades from measurements taken in the evening to measurements taken in the morning.

      Morning air is obviously cooler than evening air, in general, so in order to make modern measurements compatible with evening measurements the values of the modern measurements must be adjusted upward slightly to compensate.

      Now, if you don’t like data adjustments of this kind, then you can ignore the NOAA analysis completely and look at the Berkeley Earth analysis of the raw station data.

      Berkeley Earth uses a cleaner method of analysis in which discontinuities in the station data are identified. Once identified the discontinuity is resolved by matching slopes before and after the discontinuity.

      This is possible because the absolute value of the temperature is not particularly important, the change in temperature is what is being tracked.

      • You are an idiot And a liar.

      • Do you honestly believe that anyone takes you and your ilk seriously anymore? The data is fake. The scientists are lying. You are either a patsy or liar yourself. No one is buying your snake oil any longer no matter what label you put on it.

        No one.

        You people are laughing stalks. Glowbull warming hoax is made fun of on SNL for God’s sake. The most liberal trash program outside of MSLSD.

        • “Laughing stalks”, omg that is the funniest thing I’ve ever heard. Yes, we big stalks of celery are laughing at you nutjobs, because you are the only laughingstocks of society.

      • rokshox says:

        “What he isn’t telling you is that the U.S. temperature record was designed for weather forecasting and not for long term climate research.”

        USHCN stands for United States Historical *Climatology* Network

      • Bob123 says:

        that’s strange. I don’t think that i’ve changed the way I read a thermomiter in years.

        If the scientists were making legitimate adjustments to the data, why do they only adjust the numbers upward?

      • aamichael666 says:

        Yet the Michael Mann Hockey Stick ICON has disappeared from the wall of the Church of Green, right when the alterations ramp up … funny that … did you need to create a new icon for the faithful to worship?
        Answer us this: Do you respect the science of Michael Mann?

    • Michael Dean says:

      The first graph shows the raw data in Red and the reported data in blue. If you’ll note the blue data is consistently lower than the red data before 2010. This is because when temperatures are taken in cities and urbanized location the temperatures tend to record higher due to the missing trees and natural vegetation being replaced by paving, rooftops, low cut lawns etc. They typically used to report lower data than what was instrumented because it was a correction method for the missing natural vegetation that would have kept the area slightly cooler and this gives them a better idea of what the surrounding larger area temperatures are which is useful in local weather predictions. It’s an accuracy correction for the broader surrounding country side/regional temperature.

      What is clear is that around 2000 they began to shift the margin of suspected error due to urbanization and by 2010 they had matched the instrumented data and are now currently reporting higher than instrumented measurements. The lower graphs show by how much they began to falsify the corrective data. Corrective was below instrumented data and slowly became actual instrument data numbers and is now reported above instrumented Data thus the reported data method has been altered midstream collection and reflects an increase in temperature… it is either underhanded or scientifically unsound to change the urban correction method midstream of a data run and claim you’ve noted a substantial climate change. So the scientist responsible are either complete flunkies or liars for a political cause. It would appear these pseudo scientist appear around 2000 and or just before and begin to falsify the former urban temperature corrective adjustment method.

  96. duke says:

    Only 100 of the 1100 US measuring stations are accurate to less than 1 degree, the rest are off by 2-5 degrees or more. So not only do they make up data, the data they do collect is not accurate, especially since the so-called world rise is 2/10 of a degree. This is in the US, where we have “good” measuring equipment. Imagine in the 3rd world how much their stations are off. Oh, and BTW, they never, ever are off in the cold direction, always in the warm. Fishy huh?

    • So the eastern pacific is cooling?

      • The US Data is being modified to show a warming trend when it is actually cooling. The eastern pacific could still be warming, but the average for the country is cooling. I hope this helps.

      • Bob DeMan says:

        You are complicit in the fraud Juan!! Duke never mentioned the eastern Pacific and never said it is cooling. But since you need a footing to stand on you create a strawman argument. Congratulations you are officially a climate scientist: make sh!t up and attack anyone who disagrees.

      • California is having another ‘Socialism Drought’ which always seems to follow the adoption of such heavy handed state systems, like what happened to Stalin, Mao the Ethiopian Marxists, etc.

        • I am looking at the killing fields that used to be my front lawn. You are so correct it hurts. Oh, yes…and my water bill will be insane because of tiered rates to subsidize the people who voted for this nonsense.

        • stevefraser says:

          We had hardly any snow last winter.

        • Exactly. Many of the reservoirs were kept in “drain mode” in order to keep this or that minnow or snail or mother-in-law alive. We went through a pretty severe drought episode here in Texas, pretty much throughout the Republic of Texas. The judicious release of water from the various lakes kept them at least a bit relevant. A very wet past 18 months have filled most of the lakes, after five years of sparse precipitation. The snickering term, “Socialism Drought” is not sophomoric. It is accurate, and we should all snicker at the idea of saving something that will probably just move further down the channel. If the California Department of Parks and Wildlife had truly been concerned they would have adapted breeding tanks for the threatened minnows, for instance. California is essentially a barely functional insane asylum.

        • Vendicar Decarian says:

          David Christian Newton “A very wet past 18 months have filled most of the lakes, after five years of sparse precipitation.”

          When do you intend to have the subsurface aquifer that is still being drained, refilled?

        • Justan American says:

          The only drought in California is in intelligent rational people..

      • Not at the moment,
        because there is an El Nino!

      • John P says:

        The eastern Pacific IS cold…. the Humbolt Current is one of the coldest on the planet taking arctic water down to the Galapagos.

    • Daryl Reece says:

      Where do you get this claim about accuracy from? Have you seen the gage R&R studies? Temperature is easy to measure, so I’m dubious about your assertion.

    • ken henson says:

      I am not disputing your claim, but could you provide your source because you know the GWAs will be screaming.
      I have seen nothing to indicate the measuring stations in old CCCP which closed when the Union collapsed have reopened. These locations recorded moderate temperatures which lowered world averages, but if they have not resumed operation, temperatures averages will show increases.

    • Dennis Webb says:

      Russia mis-reported their data for decades. Russian meteorologists in cold climates were allocated heating oil in proportion to how cold the weather was. So they reported artificially lower temps to get more oil. Once the linkage between oil and temps was abandoned, the meteorologists began reporting honest numbers, which of course were much higher than what they used to report, which then showed (erroneously) large increases in temperatures.

    • Brock says:

      No, they are off in the cold direction plenty, but only when they are going back and correcting historical data. Unfortunately they have corrected the historical data colder so much that now pretty much all they can do I make things artificially hotter.

    • George says:

      I designed a built a digital thermometer that would have been capable (technically) of measuring down to .01 degrees. I took it to an in house ANSI Standards lab we had, and the guy just laughed at me. The had no way to calibrate something like that. He went on about how nobody measures temperatures like that.
      So much of what they’re saying, is actually mathematically obtained, like averages. It’s not measured.
      Not only what you said is true, but remember a while back when they had a “scandal” of having weather stations in places like parking lots (with black top) and outside heat vents on buildings etc…. A HUGE number of these stations were placed so there’s no way they could obtain accurate data other than rough trends (like “winter/summer”).
      I’ve not read anything about those weather stations being corrected. The whole thing has been a scam for years.

    • Vendicar Decarian says:

      You are confusing the concept of accuracy with the concept of precision.

      Accuracy is a measure of how closely a given device reproduces the results of a standard device.

      Precision is a measure of how closely repeated measurements match each other.

      For climate change measurements the “accuracy” of a thermometer is not relevant as only the differences in the measurements are used to compute how much warming or cooling there has been.

      Scientists know how to measure things.

      Those who do not should refrain from making silly comments.

      • And those who run cover for lying weasels intent on defrauding the entire planet, but especially the rich countries should have red hot pokers jammed in their lying pie holes.

      • AndyG55 says:

        You seem to be particularly ignorant/brain-washed about these things.

        It is you that should refrain from making silly comments

  97. asdf says:

    I see. Your using NOAA reported vs USHCN measured, then you shift terminology to USHCN fake by the end of the article. Don’t you mean NOAA fake? Presumably the USHCN measurements haven’t been corrupted by “tricks.”

    • USHCN is the data NOAA uses

      • Vendicar Decarian says:

        The revised USHCN data compensates for the shift in the time of measurement taking from the old time (evening) to the new time (morning).

        Is it your opinion that there is no difference between the air temperatures in the morning compared with evening temperatures?

        If thee are differences, shouldn’t they be compensated for?

        How do you explain how Berkeley Earth produces the same results as USHCN (modified) via a different method that uses no such data adjustments?

        • Mindless gibberish

        • AndyG55 says:

          Did you know that USHCN has a cooling trend since it was “regulated” by the new USCRN in 2005 ?

          Anything that is as massively adjusted as the GISS, NOAA, HadCrut data become absolutely worthless for any scientific purpose..

          Suitable ONLY for base level propaganda to brain-wash the low-end intelligence of people like you.

        • aamichael666 says:

          Why on Earth would the time of the measurements be switched from evening to morning if the historical records are all evening measurements? What dynamic changed in measuring like-for-like that USHCN would throw doubt over the entire historical record by deciding to change the goalposts?

          My first thought would be, that alarmist ‘scientists’ were finding it hard to cover up the lack of rising temperatures like-for-like, so they deliberately decided to muddy the waters so as to use plausible deniability to cover their claims of rising temperatures.

          Basically, the rule of thumb in modern climate ‘science’ seems to be that there are three methods to cover up the truth:
          1) Use crooked methods in the models (the failed Michael Mann method)
          2) The Big Lie method: Just use media and political apparatchiks to constantly repeat a lie and never waver on telling the lie (A damn good technique that never fails)
          3) Deliberately obfuscate the scientific method behind the collation of the data itself, thus throwing the entire historical record into a grey zone that even your opponents can no longer use as evidence against your frauds (Replacement Plan B for option 1 having failed).

          Method 2 is the most diabolical and useful, but doesn’t by itself claim scientific foundations, thus Methods 1 and 3 need to be juggled in the background to create the image of institutional consensus just long enough to get a Global Treaty (PARIS 2015) that ensnares sovereign nations forever.

          Great job screwing over centuries of progress towards liberation from oppressors. Thanks for consigning my child to a future of feudalistic technocracy by your open deception, blinding ignorance, or just down right indoctrination by group think. What Hitler and Himmler failed to do last century, a creeping technocracy has managed to do just 70 years later. Science is NOT consensus, and thermometers work quite fine like-for-like … quit with your jargon disguised cover ups for scientific fraud.

    • Smokey says:


      Quit moving the goal posts. Duke pointed out that 1,000 out of 1,100 temperature stations are 2º – 5º off. Yet these government bureaucrats claim to know past temperatures to within a few tenths of a degree??

      Satellite data — the most accurate global temperature data there is — shows that global warming stopped almost twenty years ago.

      The NOAA’s and USHCN’s “global warming/climate change” narrative doesn’t square with accurate satellite data. Those agencies are still trying to promote the “man-made global warming” hoax, despite decades of real world evidence that debunks their claim.

      Looks like they’re lying. For money and job security. Big surprise, huh?

      • asdf says:

        I’m not moving the goal posts. I was confused by what Steve wrote. I still am. There was another post prior asking for clarification that didn’t get modded up. You’re seeing my second post.

        In the language of this article, the story starts out NOAA reported is warming, USHCN is cooling. Then the story ends up, USHCN is faked. There are a number of problems with the prose that I found hard to follow.

        “They fill in missing rural data with urban data…” So where does the fill in occur? Is it the “NOAA reported” or the “USHCN measured”. I would expect “measured” to be as recorded. So then I expected the last charts should have been “NOAA reported” is faked.

        And just to defend myself, I don’t buy the AGW hypothesis.

        • Latitude says:

          asdf…..USHCN = NOAA

        • RichardS says:

          Reality: All the money in the world can’t stop global warming or global cooling, whichever you may think is happening… yet, with the Prog’s it’s all about spending other peoples money and personal sacrifice.
          Gut Check: Why do you think that is?

        • Latitude says:

          asdf….the first chart is raw measured USHCN
          the second chart is how much the total raw data was adjusted by NOAA
          The third chart is the percentage of all the raw data that was changed/adjusted by NOAA

          …read the USHCN Background post I made for you

        • Vendicar Decarian says:

          The unadjusted chart shows temperatures largely taken in the evening at the right, and largely taken in the morning at the left.

          Morning air temperatures are of course cooler than evening air temperatures.

          Hence the apparent – but fake – cooling.

        • Mindless gibberish

        • Dan says:

          USHCN is part of NOAA. It stands for US Historical Climate Network. Basically, the part of NOAA responsible for historical records.

    • Latitude says:

      USHCN Background
      station plot

      Since 1987, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA’s) National Centers for Environmental Information (formerly National Climatic Data Center) has used observations from the U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) to quantify national- and regional-scale temperature changes in the conterminous United States (CONUS). To that end, USHCN temperature records have been “corrected” to account for various historical changes in station location, instrumentation, and observing practice. The USHCN is actually a designated subset of the NOAA Cooperative Observer Program (COOP) Network. The USHCN sites having been selected according to their spatial coverage, record length, data completeness, and historical stability. The USHCN, therefore, consists primarily of long-term COOP stations whose monthly temperature records have been adjusted for systematic, non-climatic changes that bias temperature trends.


    • Kjb says:

      Don’t you mean “you’re.” Point: me.

  98. Kra Kar says:

    LoL…those global warmers are reincarnated snake oil shysters.
    Just ignore these cultists.

  99. Bobby Brown says:

    remember 97% of scientists believed the world was flat before someone took a boat ride.

    • NOBODY ever thought the world was flat! It’s about time you graduated the 3rd grade.

      • They thought you had to go east to go east.

        • Good one. Nothing like a nutard liberale to try changing the subject along with a personal ad hominem against the authors with no possible bearing on the facts. These people can all go F themselves. They’ve drunk the Kool-Aid, they hate science unless it falls into lockstep with their death cult ideas, and they, not we, are the ones who should be standing before juries or panels of psychiatrists defending their beliefs and their sanity along with it. So tired of the lunatics who’ve taken over the asylum.

        • Eric says:

          Wait……the earth ISN’T flat?!?!

      • Richard. Arthur says:

        I saw a video interview with a Muslim” physicist” who maintained a flat earth based on readings in the koran.

      • Really, NOBODY??? so then I guess that nobody ever believed that the world was a bowl on the back of a turtle either? Only an extremest would make such an extreme statement – perhaps you need to repeat 3rd grade.

      • Really? Then why was Columbus treated like a nut when he proposed reaching the east by sailing west? Actually, word has it he was a complete drunk: He sailed west to go east. Once he got there, he didn’t know where he was. Once he got back, he didn’t know where he’d been, and he got some woman to finance the whole gig – twice.

        • They didn’t think Columbo was a nut, they were just scared. Nobody knew what would happen if you go west. Maybe they even agreed with him, it makes sense, go west around the world, but everybody was scared. I bet Columbo himself was scared, of course he was. Cut the guy some slack.

      • rex says:

        Better research that claim, then remove your foot

      • YoSoyAmericano says:

        Many ancient cultures subscribed to a flat Earth cosmography, including Greece until the classical period, the Bronze Age and Iron Age civilizations of the Near East until the Hellenistic period, India until the Gupta period (early centuries AD) and China until the 17th century. That paradigm was also typically held in the aboriginal cultures of the Americas, and the notion of a flat Earth domed by the firmament in the shape of an inverted bowl is common in pre-scientific societies.

      • Chet says:

        Sounds like YOU need to do some “graduating” too…
        People in the middle ages thought the world was flat…
        Let me guess – YOU are a DEMOCRAT & voted for BARRY twice, RIGHT ?
        Admit it…

      • t says:

        Nobody ever thought the world was flat?

        I can assure you that this is a wholly incorrect statement.

      • No, Juan, actually many did, it’s just that they predated the Greek establishment of the rules of inquiry aka epistemology.
        But one could accurately say that 97% of scientists were wrong about any number of things, from the Bohr atom to a terracentric universe to the Steady State model of the universe.
        The fact is we know that EVERYTHING we think of as true in science today will be either heavily revised or replaced in the next two centuries as science is never infallible and real scientists know that.
        Why split hairs?

        • D'Glester Hardunkichud says:

          The whole flat earth crap is based on a single painting or group. The idea that everyone thought the world was round is silly. All of the planets were known about and documented (extensively) 6000 years ago. Read some history.

        • JM in San Diego says:

          I think Albert Eienstein predicted that splitting the atom would not produce any useful effects.

        • So in a hundred years, smoking will be found to have not caused cancer, the sun will be found to go around the earth, a triangle really has two sides, and that wingnut dipschitz of the early millennium really were brain damaged morons who in fact were brainwashed by repeated lies put forth by right wing fascist news groups.

        • JM in San Diego says:

          I can find no corroboration for my comment about Einstein. Please do NOT approve it or this one. I’m sorry for being careless about this.

      • Doug says:

        Umm, you obviously don’t know much about history. People most certainly believed the world was flat centuries ago.

      • Wes says:

        Not only did people think that the world was flat they also thought the sun revolved around the earth. These are your consensus science and it doesn’t look like they have changed. The only difference is back then they actually thought they were telling the truth. The ones saying it today no they are lying.

        • John says:

          There are still people in the middle east who think and teach the earth is the center of the universe and every thing revolves around the earth.

    • larnconner says:

      That never happened, look it up, you’re ignorance is showing. Columbus was looking for a route to India, not to prove the world was round which most people already knew way back into the ancient Greek times.

      • aamichael666 says:

        I think you have misunderstood the digressive effect of the Dark Ages on western intellectual thought and dialogue. Just because the Greeks were open minded, does not mean that the Holy Roman Empire was. Also, the average peasant was so distant from an educated way of thinking (purposefully by elite policy), that they probably thought the Moon was made of cheese and dreamt about it. Some people knew it was spherical, but most believed whatever they were told to believe … just like modern climate scientists and students studying earth sciences. If you don’t agree with the consensus then you don’t graduate, get grants, or get employment and tenure, and if you change your opinion later on you become a leper. Science is NOT consensus, and politicized group-think is a death blow to scientific method.

    • Yes. And “97% percent” of Climate Scientists reviewed the papers of other pro-AGW Climate Scientists and agreed with their findings. Talk about not taking a boat ride into uncharted waters…

    • That’s actually not even a little true. People knew the earth was round WELL before Columbus. The ancient Greeks were able to accurate measure the diameter of the earth to within a couple miles. The story of the flat earth and Columbus was written by Washington Irving in 1828 and was completely made up.

      But that’s not the point of your reply. You’re saying that scientists can be wrong sometimes. And you’re right, science sometimes gets it wrong. But that’s why we have developed a highly structured scientific method. If any scientist was able to definitively prove that man-made climate change was not true, they’d win a Nobel prize.

      The earth is getting warmer. This isn’t a question at all. We’ve known this for decades and it’s no longer a point of debate. Much in the same way that evolution, gravity, and germ theory are accepted. The question is trying to find the cause. Most of the evidence points to humans being the main driver (or at least a major contributor) to this trend. We believe this based on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (which we’re able to measure with incredible accuracy going back thousands of years).

      And that 97% number is misleading. First of all, it’s not actually 97%. It’s a little lower than that (91%). Second, it’s not “91% of scientists believe the world is getting warmer.” It’s “100% of scientists believe the world is getting warmer. 91% believe that humans are the main or only cause.” And third, just to put this into perspective: if you went to 10 doctors and 9 of them said that you had cancer and had 5 years to live, would you listen to the 1 who said that you were fine?

    • Anybody observing that boat leaving port and saw the ship disappear from the bottom until the top of the mast was visible – and then gone – KNEW the world wasn’t flat. No one has thought the world was flat since at least the 6th century BC!

      • aamichael666 says:

        I have personally studied mediaeval velum manuscripts from across Europe, and can categorically say your ‘No one has thought the world was flat since at least the 6th century BC’ is completely fallacious. Mediaeval manuscript illuminators tried over and over again to illustrate a model of the Earth, all of which show a difficulty to explain the ‘edge’ LOL. I trust my own eyes and it is quite clear you are quite incorrect. The Dark Ages washed away Greek logic, and many organs of the Holy Roman Empire persecuted anyone even suggesting progressive intellectual discourse on this subject up untin the Renaissance. On the other hand, I have seen some illustrations such as by Hildegard of Bingen which expounded a spherical model also, and she was considered orthodox because she was a Catholic Mystic. To say there were ‘none’ is just plain wrong. If even the manuscript illuminators (the educated class: less than 5% of the population) found a spherical earth hard to imagine, I’m quite sure the average peasant hadn’t even considered the question at all.

    • To be accurate, Pythagoras figured it out in the 5th century B.C.

      Now for commonly well known phenomenon that was, at one time, considered false by consensus, we just need to talk to Robert Goddard and his rocket or Alfred Weneger with plate tectonics. It was a well known scientific “fact” in the 1930s that a rocket could not make it to the moon and as late as the 1950s that the continents and land masses were where they are now for all of time. These individuals were vigorously attacked for their views which, as we know today, were right.

      If science was up to the democratic process, we wouldn’t be able to operate our GPS – both because we wouldn’t have bothered to create adjustments for continental drift nor bother to build a rocket to send the satellite up in the first place.

    • Joe says:

      Aristotle knew the world was round in 400 BC.

    • Vendicar Decarian says:

      Sorry Bobby, but no one ever thought the world was flat.

    • Dan says:

      Well, that’s pretty much BS. And really, you could say that there were not any scientist in the modern sense prior to the enlightenment. Even at that, science was pretty much an amateur hobbyist pursuit until the mid 1850s, something done by the idle rich for their own curiosity.

  100. tymtrvlr says:

    I don’t believe in the global warming, cooling environmental change B.S. . All those ” scientific ” figures are put together by degreed sociologists that want to shut down the U.S.A.’s industrial complex, have the taxpayers paying for society’s parasites, and spread the wealth to sh-ithole nations that are too da_mn lazy to get off their rears and work for a living.
    My concern and I have been very adamant about this for several years is the water on the planet, aquifers are drying up, surface waterholes are drying up, water bottling companies have depleted resevoirs around the world. All that water is sitting in 100 of thousand warehouses around the world. When the Earth’s surface is dried out, it retains the heat from the sun, causing the intensified heat to where there is no evaporative cooling effect when the wind blows, it is hot. Man is creating the problem, but not from driving cars, it is a lack of water on the Earth’s surface, we will find that that too is causing trees to die off, streams heating up killing off fish.

    • “water bottling companies have depleted resevoirs around the world. All that water is sitting in 100 of thousand warehouses around the world”

      come again? source?

    • twayneking says:

      All that bottled water in warehouses wouldn’t fill a lake. Then, when people drink it, they pee and back it goes into the water cycle. What they drink from bottles, they don’t drink from the tap and water is conserved there. Water is water whether it’s from a bottle or a pipe. And what people drink is passed through as pee or evaporated as sweat and re-enters the water cycle. You’re looking for villains and it turns out, if we’d just calm down, the water use issues could be dealt with. Manufacturing process that pollute the water are the major issue. If you use water to make something, you should be obligated to purify it when you are done with it. Clean up your own mess folk. That’s all there is to it.

    • sam says:

      Not only is the water being captured in bottles but also in swimming pools, arctic ice and ugly bags of water that walk around on this planet. There are now 7 billion bags of mostly water walking around.

    • bryan says:

      Where exactly is the warehouse that stores the oceans? Thanks.

    • Are you serious. says:

      Are you serious … All of the water in every bottle of every bottled water company world wide… heck lets include sodas, and all other bottled liquids intended for human consumption is not even a drop in the preverbal bucket to the 326 million trillion gallons of water in the world… The world is a basically closed system and through the process of evaporation of the oceans in to the cloud that then travels over land and dumps its harvest from the oceans on to dry land where it begins its journey back to the ocean via the rivers and streams through the land . During that and several other events are taking place such as gravity pulling the water down through the earth along its path to the ocean and replenishing the below surface water reservoir… In other words there is NO NEW WATER… every drop you have ever drank has already been through someone’s kidneys.
      and to plan anything on uniformitarianism is pure madness nothing stays the same ever anywhere so to forecast what will happen if nothing changes is pure stupidity…

    • MrCatman6 says:

      *Politicians are people who, when they see light at the end of the tunnel, they go out and buy some more tunnel.
      *~John Quinton~

      • I like that. It’s absolutely true… I’ll return the favor with my favorite quote from G.K. Chesterton: “It is terrible to contemplate how few politicians are hanged.”

    • Kjb says:

      The water on Earth is a closed-loop system. H2O is too massive to escape Earth’s gravity. You have heard the phrase, what goes up, must come down, yes?

    • ElGordo371 says:

      You could bury every square inch of the earth’s land mass one mile deep in water bottles and still not ‘dry out’ the earth. That’s an actual measurement of land mass vs sea mass on the planet.

      Just sayin… Maybe the fear of desertification via water bottle isn’t well founded?

      There’s a lot more ocean than land on the blue marble!!!

    • CurlyDave says:

      The fact that you are complaining about water bottling companies “depleting reservoirs” etc. just demonstrates you scientific naiveté. I know this is hard, but get out your pencil and compare the amount of water flowing into any one of the sources you claim are being “depleted” per year vs. the amount bottled and stored in warehouses. The engineering term for this amount is “a fart in a hurricane.”

      Now I do not believe in man-made global warming either, but my beliefs are based on science and being able to do the energy balances and see that variations in incoming solar radiation are the elephant in the room. There is huge scientific fraud going on, and we need to stop it, but bottling water is not the environmental disaster you think it is.

    • Victor Gump says:

      DiHydrogen Monoxide can kill you!

    • aamichael666 says:

      Nice attempt at discrediting skeptics by faking dissent and attaching a fallacious argument. The effect of dried up or tapped out fresh water would probably be about as relevant to warming as every coal power plant in the western world (not very).

      For Gods sake, supernovas that cause higher seeding rates for cloud cover, effect the temperature more than bloody CO2.

  101. Reblogged this on Vancouver Citizen's Voice and commented:
    The road to Paris #COP21 is littered with the bodies of false data sets and bad climate model projections. This latest example from my friend, Steve Goddard.

  102. SDKight says:

    If you want to know more about climate change read DARK WINTER by John Casey

    • Chet says:

      SD: Give us a quote or two from the book which would indicate the underlying opinion of the writer… You know — just enough so that we can tell if he / she is FULLUH SHlT…

  103. tymtrvlr says:

    Until these marxists sociologist ” scientists ” quit lying and fudging numbers, and look into the real cause of Earth’s problems, we will never resolve the problems. It is their useless marxist agenda to foist more taxes on America, we do not owe the world anything, the rest of the planet needs to get involved, instead of holding both hands out looking for a monetary placebo instead of a cure.

    • I concur completely, well written…

    • Chet says:

      Everyone of these “punks” should be CUT-OFF if they are getting paid by ANYONE under ANY taxing authority which takes money from us & gives it to WORTHLESS MOTHER-FKCU-ERS LIKE THIS…
      MILLIONS OF FAMILIES ARE HAVING A HARD TIME MAKING ENDS MEET, AND OUR GOVERNMENT ( under that “beautiful” leadership of that punk in the whitehouse, Barry Soetoro ) IS GIVING AWAY MONEY TO LIARS… FCKU-ING LIARS…

  104. which set of people do you trust most:

    1) climate scientists
    2) economists
    3) meterorologists
    4) gypsy fortune tellers
    5) astrologists

    i would go with the gypsy.

    • Boondoggle says:

      Definitely the gypsies.

    • Mike Haluska says:

      The first 3 rely on the futile attempt to model a non-linear, non-deterministic system with linear regression computer models. All 3 fail just as miserably as Dr. Edward Lorenz proved back in the early 1960’s that small changes in initial input have dramatically different changes in output. That’s a fancy way of saying that no matter how “accurate” your data is and no matter how powerful the computer is, long range forecasting of systems like the economy, climate, etc. is IMPOSSIBLE.

      • Mike Gilmore says:

        I disagree with your use of the term ‘non-deterministic’. I believe that climate systems are deterministic but we haven’t found a way to model them deterministically, because it is deterministic chaos – which invokes Edward Lorenz whom you mentioned.

        This has important implications because accepting this would force the climate change folks to admit that they really don’t know how to model global temperature change because there’s really no accurate model that currently exists. Ergo, climate alarmism is simply a waste of everyone’s time – which agrees with your general statement.

      • When I was a weather observer we always used to fudge the temperatures or cloud layer coverage a bit to help the forecasters meet their correct quotas. Pilots always wanted the cloud level raised so they could fly. No one would ever really notice. A weather chart that looked consistent plus or minus 2 degrees over 100 miles was fine. A reading that was 5 degrees off was suspicious. And those did occur from time to time. A wick thermometer was used to determine temperature and dewpoint. You moistened it and spun it in the air for 60 seconds to get the readings. We used the same thermometer for a year with no testing. We put the readings on a teletype and sent them to weather central. on the hour, every hour, 365 days a year. Late 70’s. Early 80’s. These days modeling scientists would be pressing me to change my observations to meet their budgets.

      • One cannot predict the behavior of these systems with 100% accuracy but one can understand the odds and try to keep them in your favor.

        The underlying problem however is that the climate sciences have come so corrupted with ideological need that the only solution is to strip the field of all government funding.

      • Joe says:

        Linear regression is one method, but definitely not the only. Those models use all sorts of math that is above and beyond linear equations.

    • asdf says:

      #2. But you have to understand the limitations of economics. The law of supply and demand is economics. That’s good stuff. The claim that GPD represents the ecomony, that’s the scientism that Hayek warned about in his Noble speech.

    • Mad Dog says:

      I’m not playing unless I can choose “phone psychic.”


    • aamichael666 says:

      Gypsies would make predictions that were more accurate because they would be right 50% of the time on an up or down question. IPCC models however are like taking financial advice from a communist.
      All you need is a Gypsy in the White House (or a caravan on the White House lawn), and you’re already seeing a great improvement.
      Astrologists would be a close second …

  105. Crazy and corrupt leftists…

  106. gjl6 says:

    I remember a couple years ago NOAA had to go around the country to all their weather stations and move their temperature gauges used to keep official track of the temperature for their research. All the gauges were mounted outside beside the exhaust fans of the building air conditioners; thus giving false higher temperature reading`s.

  107. Russ Ramey says:

    Figures don’t lie but liars figure. Who makes money of AGW? Not the deniers… The Algores of the world, iT’ S ALL ABOUT POWER AND MONEY. .

  108. steve says:

    You guys know where this is eventually leading to right? Look up Climate Justice. Reparations. There is also a growing opinion that people…overpopulation is the problem, So it will be ethical to cleans the Earth of those who want to harm her.

    • aamichael666 says:

      Bingo. There is a reason that whenever O’Bomber is dribbling official APGW liturgies, that John Kerry is standing next to him. This is a Foreign Policy issue, and unfortunately for all of those 3rd World dupes who think they are going to get reparations, they will be made to buy Carbon Credits and Derivatives from New York and London, or their Aid Budgets will be sanctioned. Their Food Aid will also cost more because of the carbon tributes being paid to the ‘Market’, thus their deficits will increase and they will become more dependent. Ignorance is a two-edged sword, and these third worlders crying for reparations will learn quick smart and in a hurry, exactly why begging for ‘Market Solutions’ to non-existent problems created by western institutions, is like begging for more Jim Jones cool-aid.

      I was watching a green-zombie on Australian ABC Q&A the other day railing against ‘capitalism’, and why a socialist model putting a price on Carbon is the only way the human race could move forward, and when asked why she thought Carbon Trading was not Capitalist or could be performed outside of a Capital Market, she was totally stumped. Yeah, Al Gore won’t be making any profit under Carbon Trading, LOL. Monopoly Capitalists are in fact Communists of a slightly different uniformed flavor, and they both hate the middle class. It was so funny to watch the look on this gals face when she realized she had no idea what she was begging for. Socialism becomes Communism when Capital Markets are removed. They’re totally economically illiterate, and even worse when it comes to science.

  109. Major Johnson says:

    I’m at the point where I trust a scientist about as far as I can throw a politician.

  110. Weather stations are often located at airports. Most are located in rural areas and was surrounded by urban growth in the last few years. An airport close to me was surrounded by cotton fields less than ten years ago. It’s now enclosed by an industrial park. The cotton field irrigation cooled the air quite a bit. Now the concrete and steel from the industrial park retains the heat that was lost in the cotton fields. I’m sure it show dramatic warming in the last ten years, but does not prove an overall warming trend.

  111. Russ says:

    Look where NOAA puts their temperature sensors – next to blacktop parking lots, near air conditioning exhaust, in enclosures with light bulbs powered on. A fifth grader would know you can’t get valid readings that way… but NOAA does not want valid readings.


  112. the mountain says:

    In order to understand the science of climatology and origins of anthropogenic cause, one needs to look at the history of climatology. In the olden days, climatologists were called rainmakers and voodoo priests. They cut the heads off of chickens and drank blood from their necks, smeared pig fat all over themselves, organized huge drum circles, convinced villagers of their guilt, and hurled their virgin children into volcanoes to appease non-existent rain and crop gods, while creating an impression of having a connection to an occult we mere mortals cannot understand.

    While the exact procedures have evolved somewhat, the field, its intent, conditions, and ultimate repercussions remain very similar. The only thing scientific about climatology is the level of malfeasant academic fraud involved.

  113. Boondoggle says:

    Again, federal workers engaged in political activities while at work and conducting and reporting fraud are still on the job.

    And we wonder why DC is on a severe downward spiral.

    These federal workers should be in prison.

  114. Mike Haluska says:

    I wouldn’t believe the “Climate Change” crowd if they predicted global cooling, global warming or global temperature stability. ANY study based on “Consensus Science” belongs in the same ash-heap of discredited theories such as Eugenics, Pellagra, DDT, etc. I defy anyone to show me a single law of physics that is based on “Consensus”! Nobody “voted” on Newton’s Laws of Motion, Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, Bohrs’ Quantum Theory, Maxwell’s Equations, etc.

    You never hear legitimate scientists say things like “97.23% of scientists agree that the Earth is 93 million miles from the Sun” or ” 96.23% of a UN Panel of Gravity Experts agree that the acceleration due to Earth’s gravity is 9.8 m/s/s.” You never hear legitimate scientists claim “the correlation between variable X to variable Y is proof of causality.”

    • My first grade teacher was Mrs. Haluska. Weird.

    • Jay Lozier says:

      Tell us about the discredited pellagra theory. Is it not a vitamin deficiency corrected with B3/niacin supplementation in food? Isn’t pellagra basically gone in the US? What is your theory?

      • edwatts1969 says:

        Scientists in the early twentieth century recommended treating pellagra by ingesting arsenic compounds.

      • shazaam says:

        The pivotal medical instrument likely developed for people who uncritically accept government pronouncements as fact was invented long ago.


        Those who seek facts, avoid wielders of such instruments and all purveyors of snake oil (climate change propaganda) like the plague.

        Given that the computer-generated fantasy climate models have failed miserably (they cannot even account for the effects of clouds!!) why anyone could or would believe these “climate science” shysters would make a fascinating study in the effects of mass media propaganda.

    • Tom Star says:

      Well said.

    • coyotewise says:

      Though I like the direction of your comments, I do have to say that each and every one of these Men had to publish their work and findings, others had to take said documentation and replicate the work to see if the findings were the same. At which point, these testing the process and findings would either say, “Yes” I agree or “No” it is false. Peer review is the constant companion to new discovery in science. Peer review is why we know NOAA’s and the IPCC’s numbers are false.

      But, I do get your point. Even without these men and their “discoveries”, the laws of physics still exist. And, no consensus would ever amongst the “elites” could ever change the fact that an apple dropped from 10 feet will approach the Earth at the speed and force governed by said physical laws.

    • derdagian1 says:

      This is no better than psychology theories and their methods.
      Of course they are just lying. Anyone who is 50 yoa. knows that nothing has changed visa via the climate.

    • Mike Smith says:

      How is pellagra or DDT discredited?

      • edwatts1969 says:

        In the first decades of the twentieth century, the treatment for pellagra was to administer arsenic orally, which caused many preventable deaths, mostly among poor Southerners. Since “Silent Spring” caused the use of DDT to be forbidden, there has been no study which verified that DDT caused thinning of eggshells and all of the other faults attributed to it by Rachel Carson. On the other hand, much suffering and millions of deaths have occurred due to insect-borne disease which could have been avoided with the use of DDT.

        As for eugenics…

        …It is accepted science; we breed pets, livestock, and plants, hoping to accentuate desirable characteristics and eliminate undesirable ones. Yes, it works on humans, too, but forcing a population to be culled in the quest of “improving the breed” is simply not acceptable in today’s world.

        • aamichael666 says:

          The only problem with DDT is that as publicity stunts they sprayed it directly onto the skin of people as a fumigant. That’s where most of the birth deformities were caused. But when sprayed in the air in mosquito breeding zones it saved far more people than any it may have harmed. It makes me wonder sometimes whether the skin spraying was done on purpose to get severe side effects, so that they had a reason to ban it by UN dictate. I reccon they realized that saving so many people in third world countries was counter to eugenics and pop-control directives of the Rockefellers et al. Thus they deliberately concocted a scandal in order to ensure high mortality rates. Same people today who rant about over-population are on the Carbon control band wagon. Bill Gates and Ted Turner etc…

    • edwatts1969 says:

      “Nobody ‘voted’ on Newton’s Laws of Motion, Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, Bohrs’ Quantum Theory, Maxwell’s Equations, etc.”

      That’s because they weren’t hanging on the taxpayers’ teats and getting paid for trying to destroy “America, the Great Satan”!

  115. alan says:

    Another thing about global warming is this. The world is becoming industrialized which means more buildings, more heat being generated by man made structures. If the data recording devices are located near cities and towns that are growing, the censors will be picking up this increased heat and its being record as climate warming as opposed to regional warming due to radiant heat.

  116. Jim Greaves says:

    “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed…
    by endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.” — H.L. Mencken
    “Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts” — Richard Feynman
    “Experts are drips, formerly under pressure” — Jim Greaves
    “Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up
    and hurry off as if nothing ever happened” — Winston S. Churchill

    • Chet says:

      ” These lying aasholes are using OUR tax dollars to LIE TO US… WILLINGLY — I suggest we shoot the mother-fkcu-ers…”

  117. Kracker says:

    I work at a power plant and report weather to NOAA. The weather that we report is from a weather station that records ever thing 6* higher that actual. It is situated where heat from generation and a building complex affects it.

  118. Please, don’t tell the Vatican Communists, Liberals, Atheists, Pope Francis and his earth worshipers friends and Al gore.

    After all, Pope Francis, thanks to Al Gore’s lie, convinced God with his encyclical, that humans are going to die if the population is not reduced. Too many people = earth is warming and will explode. Therefore the Pope is going around asking Catholics to stop breeding like rabbits, as he said on his way from his trip to the Philippines.

  119. omanuel says:

    Thank you Steven aka Tony for “holding their feet to the fire!”

    The alphabetical agencies will fall like a long line of alphabetically labeled dominoes, starting with the CHIEF CROOKS that review budgets of all the other agencies for Congress – THE UNITED STATES NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES (actually a private, self-perpetuating group of “consensus pseudo-scientists”)): NAS:NASA:NOAA:NSF:etc.

    • Chet says:

      I think the term you might be looking for is ” LYING AASHOLES, USING OUR MONEY ” ?

    • Vendicar Decarian says:

      Omanuel should go back to his “the sun is a giant ball of iron” schtick.

      Now that is comedy.

      • Acres of Statuary says:

        First sensible comment you’ve made here.

      • Victor Gump says:

        “Around 2001, a group of researchers found observational evidence suggesting that there is 30 percent to 50 percent less oxygen, carbon and nitrogen in the sun than models had previously predicted and observations had previously seemed to show (discussion continues among scientists about which interpretation is correct). When those reduced numbers were incorporated into solar models, the results conflicted with observational data about the internal structure of the sun (deduced by studying sound waves that travel through the star). Scientists wondered if the observations were incorrect, or if an entirely new stellar model was needed.” http://www.space.com/28146-sun-iron-heart-behavior.html

  120. Wizard says:

    I lived in a small town near Butte, MT that used to have a weather station. Guess what, it was damn cold there. In the summer of 03 I was also assigned to a remote town in MT called Opheim. They had a remote weather station there too. They removed it that summer. It also just happened to be a damn cold place too…..

  121. Ben Powell says:

    @SteveGoddard: looked at the TAR files to which you linked.

    Could you please post the following:
    1. A data format explanation for the .TAVG files
    2. A link to the data source on station sensor quality / sensitivity / accuracy
    3. A link to the data source on the fabricated (estimated? interpolated?) data points

    Because I’ve worked professionally with a variety of temperature sensors of varying accuracy
    and stability, I’ve long had unanswered questions regarding how NOAA was obtaining highly
    precise temperature data from automated stations. If NOAA’s data includes readings obtained
    from thermocouples, then the data quality is highly suspect. Those things usually are plus/minus
    2 degrees C. at BEST, and they drift.

    Platinum RTDs have been available for some time, but then the electrical / electronic device
    measuring the varying resistance needs regular calibration and validation.

    AFAIK, the ONLY device capable of idiot proof long-term high accuracy is the precision
    mercury thermometer. But then operator bias becomes an issue.

    This has all left me, not with the certainty that AGW is false, but with real doubts concerning
    how NOAA would know whether it was true or false.

  122. Joy crane says:

    It has to be man made global warming – the sun will not pay them anything

  123. Marie Smith says:

    Global warming, “Climate Change”, climate disruption caused by man has nothing to do with climate or science, it is simply a new form of marxism and political control which seeks to destroy capitalism and the industrial revolution, – they are degrowthers…

  124. Chet says:

    I don’t remember the names of the worthless aasholes, but they were “Scientists” and “Professors” with some universities in England, which BLEW their own covers with their recorded messages to each other asking what they were “…going to do…” with the informatiion they had come into contact with, showing that the temp was COOLING, and accordingly their entire BULLSHlT theories were NOW WORTHLESS…
    Can’t remember the names of these liars, the name of the university with which they were associated with… Two or three different liars…
    And getting PAID to lie, as well…

  125. bill says:

    Read somewhere years ago that they placed the measuring stations in rural areas that with urban sprawl are now right next to large parking lots for the new mall they built. Hot asphalt on a warm day will heat the air around it hence the higher readings…

  126. SukieTawdry says:

    If I remember correctly, from the beginning they’ve had a problem demonstrating warming in North America. Wasn’t there early speculation that the continent is a giant carbon sink?

  127. c butts says:

    Our guvmint wants us to live free of oppressive and burdensome rules, so this reportage can’t be right….(right?).

  128. Real science does not rely on lies and manipulated data.

    If man’s use of fossil fuels is causing global warming, what caused it to keep warming and cooling for millions of years before man entered the picture?

  129. gary Levine says:

    Fire every last person that had anything to do with this. Our Government is corrupt. That is all there is too it. And. the 99%ers in this deal are Democrats. Liars like their leadership

  130. Richard says:

    Do you have complete faith in the weather forecast for this weekend? Why would anyone with any common sense at all believe they can predict 50 or 100 years into the future when they can’t get right 3 or 4 days away.

  131. George says:

    Why can no one ever tell me what the desired target temperature should be – and why?

    Until then, I call BS on “climate warming, cooling, etc.”.

  132. Ruckweiler says:

    This entire “climate change” nonsense is just that. If my high school science students “played” with the data like this I’d flunk them all. Probably, no one at NOAA will be fired or reprimanded over this. Scientists? Hardly.

  133. 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 too surprising with their use of private jets, heavy discretionary commercial air travel, specifically flying first class, massive living space / person, across multiple homes, and a myriad of other behaviors. But do you realize that this means this small group is responsible for more than 33% of ALL (that’s right, ALL) U. S. CO2 emissions? I keep trying to find an AGW believer to explain why all the plans being implemented by the president will allow this small group to continue to spew CO2 unabated while financially hammering the lower income and middle classes. NONE have been able to explain this (because it is a scam). Just a different way to look at / expose the scam for were this small group to only emit 25 TIMES the average, OVERALL U. S. CO2 emissions would IMMEDIATELY decline 17% and OVERALL PLANETARY CO2 emissions would decline 2.7%.

  134. Climate scientists appreciate probabilities. A halt in a warming trend need not be permanent if the human-generated atmospheric changes driving it continue to exist.

    • 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 too surprising with their use of private jets, heavy discretionary commercial air travel, specifically flying first class, massive living space / person, across multiple homes, and a myriad of other behaviors. But do you realize that this means this small group is responsible for more than 33% of ALL (that’s right, ALL) U. S. CO2 emissions? I keep trying to find an AGW believer to explain why all the plans being implemented by the president will allow this small group to continue to spew CO2 unabated while financially hammering the lower income and middle classes. NONE have been able to explain this (because it is a scam). Just a different way to look at / expose the scam for were this small group to only emit 25 TIMES the average, OVERALL U. S. CO2 emissions would IMMEDIATELY decline 17% and OVERALL PLANETARY CO2 emissions would decline 2.7%.

  135. Tc says:

    Scientist behaving badly. Funding we need more funding!

  136. Jim Goller says:

    So you are going to take a two paragraph BS article to counter NASA, and four decades of predictions exceeding expectations, I really doubt that the instruments that measure ocean temps are off by 5 degrees LMFAO (or even a fraction of a degree. I have two pool thermometers that read the same frikken temp and one is digital and the other mercury/thermometer type. and one of them cost $3.99. I would like to see if my comment even sticks, since it looks like the author deletes the opposing viewpoints. According to NASA, 97% of climate scientist, and the god damn POPE, the world is warming and last June was the hottest ever, this year will be the hottest ever, and last decade was the hottest ever! The notion that the planet is cooling is so heavily debunked by people who read “words,” that I feel like I am talking to toddlers here posting links like this…http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/07/17/3681260/june-2015-hottest-year-record/

    • MichMike says:

      Jim, I am so glad I found you! 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 too surprising with their use of private jets, heavy discretionary commercial air travel, specifically flying first class, massive living space / person, across multiple homes, and a myriad of other behaviors. But do you realize that this means this small group is responsible for more than 33% of ALL (that’s right, ALL) U. S. CO2 emissions? I keep trying to find an AGW believer to explain why all the plans being implemented by the president will allow this small group to continue to spew CO2 unabated while financially hammering the lower income and middle classes. NONE have been able to explain this (because it is a scam). Just a different way to look at / expose the scam for were this small group to only emit 25 TIMES the average, OVERALL U. S. CO2 emissions would IMMEDIATELY decline 17% and OVERALL PLANETARY CO2 emissions would decline 2.7%.

    • Is that what’s going on, they delete all opposing opinions? They haven’t deleted mine yet, I don’t think. I couldn’t figure how there could be so many people who are so stupid, with no rational people in sight. What a bunch of idiots, done wasting my breath.

    • Ha ha ha ha. You quote the 97%, use the phrase God Damned Pope and then link to thinkcommunist.org and think you are worthy of being vomited on by real scientists. RALPH!!!!! You were not worthy, I was being generous.

  137. JM in San Diego says:

    Fun fact: Some temps are recorded at airports and are reported as “official” for the city. (My San Diego is that way.). A few of the airports around the country have temperature sensors that are influenced by jet exhaust, depending on the wind direction. Those cities are no doubt the “faves” to the Warmie Crowd. As more aircraft operations are added, the upward tenperature trend is confirmed. Bogus but “confirmed.”

    Local joke: “Why are they telling me the temperature at the airport? Nobody lives at the airport!”

  138. Doug says:

    The most idiotic idiots of all idiots, “professor” Al Gore has made nearly $200 million off of perpetrating this anti-capatalist climate change fraud on the rest of us. He also said 10 years ago the Polar ice cap would be melted by now but according to satellite data the ice cap has actually expanded by an are larger than the size of Alaska so why isn’t he laughed out of the business and humiliated as he should be? But people still believe this moron and he keeps getting richer. It’s sick and detestable that this nutcase won a Nobel Prize for this crap too.

  139. Scott says:

    steven, the three screenhunter links you provided all went to the same place, “percent of ushcn data fabricated”. could you fix this so we could look at the other graphs? thanks for the good work.

  140. Jery Messing says:

    Global warming—-IT all sounds fishy to Me. I FEAR GLOBAL COOLING (and it is happening-NOW).The ice age was real. Evidence is all over our landscape. And Glaciers here in Montana are growing and have been for 2-3 years. You can verify it in person! Take a horseback trip to Glacier Park!! Yet the manipulators’ are still singing the same song— In Schools, on PBS and all socialist friendly medias.
    CO 2 is not a greenhouse gas, as CO 2 is CONSUMED as FOOD by green growing plants- and green growth all over our earth,especially evergreen trees of all varieties. And,guess what these plants and trees convert this to?? You really do already know—OXYGEN !!!!!), Hum mm I wonder why We NEED this gas??? Look at the color photos by NASA and You will see the beautiful color of Oxygen-NOT co 2!!
    Get real. It is all exposed here and in the fact that temperature measurement 100 years ago was as accurate and reliable as their (“autos”),and digital accuracy today, (as with police radar), is one degree + – 1%. for a perfect thermometer, at 100% that is + or – two degrees, and the earth has warmed 1 degree in 100 years?? Measured how? at what depth? Or what location?. Of course, as with a law trial where evidence is share ahead of time, these LIARS, have been able to make up those “facts” filling in the blank areas, to make it appear scientifically correct. Lastly–look up the meaning of the word POLITICAL, as in POLITICALLY CORRECT!! I was a NASA Engineer in the 50’s at GDA San Diego Ca.

  141. lgvenable says:

    This jibes with the computer models which actually show that the water vapor in the environment cools it rather than heats it up,. The big argument is how the models, which are pretty unsophisticated given the complexity of the ecosystem could support warming. The data from the effects of the water vapor in the ecosystem is that it cools the environment; not warms it. Yet the hucksters on global change, global warming have written all sort of arguments based on less than accurate computer modeling, which indicate exactly the opposite of this data.

    The truth will set you free, and eventually this controversy will go away as folks realize that global warming is a farce. Too many people want to trumpet their beliefs based on having read an article, few ever question the tenets of the computational science done to reach these specious claims. Sadly fewer still even understand enough science to understand that the claims are valid, yet they blindly trumpet that we need to spend extra money on energy costs..essentially making us uncompetitive on the global stage to China and India -> who will NEVER do anything about these claims.

    Its nice to see that the ACTUAL data supports the REAL UNADULTERATED observations and is completely counter to the claims the global warming hucksters would tell.

    If it were up to those idiots every family in the western world will spend an extra $100USD per month on stuff that is absolutely useless. I dont know about everyone else, but I can sure spend an extra 1200/year on stuff my family needs not extra energy costs which are a complete waste of resources.

    Of course if youi want to spend this money then the Democrats will have a candiadte for you to vote for here in th e US thats for sure, since according to their Lord and SAavior Barrack Obama this is all settled science.

    Science is never settled. Ask Galileo and the Catholic Church who was right and who was wrong….that a was a case of settled science too.

  142. Glenn Quagmire says:

    The science is NOT settled. Not by a damn sight. Mr. Trump, you need to keep hammering away at these environmental activist bullies for the frauds they are! The Republican weenies have already caved to the pressure.

  143. Vince R says:

    I believe the issue of whether temps are rising/falling is moot. The real questions are:
    1. are human activities significantly effecting the climate (one way or another)
    2. what exactly is the idea of the steady state of the earth’s climate.
    3. what should be considered “ideal”


    1. humans are a mere “rash” on the earth’s ecological grand scale. A few years of increased volcanic activity in the Pacific Ring of Fire would prove that.

    .2. since dry places on earth now (like the great salt flats in Utah) were once covered by water, and other areas (like Antarctica} were once exposed land masses, then what exactly is the definition of the steady state of the earth’s climate. Clearly we can’t determine what is to be considered “normal”

    3. Ideal climate for humans living at the artic circle are not the same as someone living on a tropical island, I prefer to live in a more moderate climate. So, in my case, I would welcome a long term warming trend in Southeastern Pennsylvania (somewhat tongue in cheek).

  144. flavrt says:

    Congrats for making Drudge Report. You deserve the exposure.

    • Freeland_Dave says:

      So what else is new?

      Having a high tech/scientific background and having watched the way they gather and process this information I have known they have been dry-labing their data to achieve the desired results for at least 4 decades and most likely a good deal longer.

      One of the ways they have done this is by claiming accuracies of data and precision of data gathered from instruments that actually do not exist and if they existed they don’t exist in the numbers necessary to support their theories. Then they adjust the already incorrect data to fit the curve of the model they desire to see.

      It’s all magic with numbers. But since it’s a Fed organization no one cares. But if an independent organization not paid off by the Fed did it they would be sued by the government three ways from Sunday for producing fake data to pass off their product to the public.

      NOAA and NASA are filled with politically motivated people who will lie through their teeth to maintain their government grant monies and jobs. I know this from having worked with them for over 50 years of my life and I wouldn’t trust any of them much further than I could physically throw them.

      Incidentally, for over 20 years I collected precision weather data at one specific location not far from San Francisco and when they were saying the planet’s atmosphere was heating up my data indicated just the opposite. Why? Because I was a civilian contractor and not a government worker. They found my data book one day and after looking at it tossed it into the garbage because it didn’t conform to what they were saying was happening.

      • jambalaia says:

        hope you made copies.

        • Robert says:

          I have young people at work ( I am 60 ) complaining about global warming because it is July and the temps are between 85 and 90 degrees. I tell them “It’s summer, it isn’t supposed to be 68 degrees during the day”. They have been programmed to think “climate change” the instant the ambient temperature goes past 78 degrees!!!

      • PersonX says:

        Fantastic response, I wish people didn’t lack critical thinking skills. It’s nice to hear this from someone with experience in the matter, although it’s painfully obvious through sufficient research that global warming and climate change are all motivated by lies, psyop manipulation and more taxes etc. . Not to mention the majorities view that their government and subsidiaries are infallible Hollywood stars to be looked up to like Idols and don’t lie. People need to follow less and think more instead of letting mainstream news and TV do the thinking for them.

  145. Beano says:

    NOT surprised. The world is full of lies and liars. We even have a fraud in the White House. Can you imagine the rest?

  146. Bobby Bomber says:

    Al Gore sais we’ve got ten years. Ten years left to save the planet from a scorching. Okay, we’re going to start counting. That was January 27th, 2006. We began the count, ladies and gentlemen. You have to love these people — from afar, and from a purely observational point of view. So, 182 days, 10 hours now to AlGore’s DOOMSDAY!

    • Mj says:

      Never trust a climate alarmist who owns three private estates, all climate controlled and a 100+ foot houseboat that tows two jet skis. AKA Al Gore.

    • Ellen DeMoss says:

      Ten years is up for Al Gore’s prediction which went the other way. Let’s roast his feet to the fire. Where’s Al?

    • Al Gore could be quite right. I profess a Christian belief, but no evangelical, so indulge me in a bit of fun.

      Christ said repent or face consequences. Those consequences are often likened to “fire and brimstone (molten sulphur)”. So if we assume mankind is sufficiently corrupt to warrant a “Sodom and Gomorrah” experience (Genesis 19:24-25), imagine that scenario on a wide-spread basis. Pyroplastic flow from Vesuvius into Pompeii put temperatures inside of buildings up to the 400 degrees F or higher, and eliminated the inhabitants.

      So, Al Gore and all his pals have some time to repent or face the consequences. Perhaps that could occur in the next 10 years, and it will be obvious enough to render
      precise “climate monitoring” unnecessary. 🙂

      If liars, thieves, corruptocrats, and other moral sewage exist in sufficient quantity to warrant such an event, it would lend accuracy to the prominent prophet of global thermal catastrophe’s attempt at being truthful, but I doubt that would spare him from the “housecleaning” crew, eh?

  147. David Bate says:

    Also any scientist who values the data from large city heat islands is fooling his or her self

  148. Vendicar Decarian says:

    Just in case there might be a honest person here looking for information, go here to find the real story behind the measurements.


    • You have no ideA what you are talking about

      • Gunner Tee says:

        In June 2014, Goddard attracted considerable media attention for his claims that NASA had manipulated temperature data to make it appear that 1998 was the hottest year in United States history. In fact, he claimed, it was 1934, but NASA had started incorrectly citing 1998 as the hottest year beginning in 2000.[6] Goddard had been promoting these claims for years before this, including in a chapter of a book by Don Easterbrook,[7] but the mainstream media had not paid significant attention to it before then.[8] Those who promoted the claim included Christopher Booker, in a June 21 article in the Daily Telegraph,[9] and Fox News Channel host Steve Doocy three days later in a Fox and Friends segment.

        The claim was dismissed by Politifact.com, which rated it as “pants on fire”—its lowest possible rating. Politifact contacted Berkeley Earth scientist Zeke Hausfather, who told them that the problem with Goddard’s analysis was that it ignored the changes the network of U.S. weather stations had undergone over the last eighty years.[10] Goddard’s claims were also criticized by fellow climate skeptic Anthony Watts, who argued that his assertions of data fabrication were “wrong”, and criticized him for using absolute temperatures rather than anomalies in his analysis.[11]

        You’re a scam.

      • Rick Savard says:

        I live just outside a US Air Force Base in Florida, just south of Canaveral. This base is one of the support bases for launches. About a year and a half ago they installed a new digital sign just inside the busiest gate, complete with a temp gauge. When the air gets very warm, say mid to high 80s it ALWAYS reads higher, e.g., if it is 86 degrees outside that gauge will tell everyone it’s in the low 90s. When the air temp is in the mid-90s I’ve seen it trying to tell me it’s a 100 and four degrees outside!!! Soooo, do they use those numbers in their reporting system?

    • templeknight says:

      And you believe NOAA, you must also believe in unicorns, mermaids, and honest politicians.

    • Latitude says:

      roaring laughing!!!!….
      Vendicar Decarian says:
      July 28, 2015 at 6:31 pm

      Just in case there might be a honest person here looking for information, go here to find the real story behind the measurements.
      That’s a NOAA link!!!!

    • Kevin Scully says:

      Did you actually read anything in the link you provided? Every statement of ‘fact’ that noaa provides proving the validity of their observations is followed later in the same paragraph by a statement disproving what they just proved. Typical governmental double talk.

    • Freeland_Dave says:

      Going to a government owned and operated site to determine if the government is telling you the truth is tantamount to believing that Bill Clinton isn’t a horn dog womanizer. Sorry but I have worked closely with the government for far too long to trust much of what they put out as factual information.

      • Moltobene says:

        Goddard doesn’t engage on the points raised regarding his “fellow climate skeptic” Anthony Watts, who apparently criticized his data fabrication assertions and his analysis. Very Telling.

    • Ben says:

      This blog is a bit deceptive in that it implies that truth is to be found in the raw data. Clearly that’s wrong. On the other hand, your rebuttal implies that we need to trust NOAA’s methodology. I don’t and if you were an honest person you wouldn’t either.

    • Woad the Tet Sprocket says:

      Oh Look – Trolls are out today. Google “Vendicar Decarian troll” for the goods on this shill.

      • AndyG55 says:

        Its almost like one of those bot programs that put together junk phrases.

        Except the bot program makes more sense than this mindless twerp.

    • Jon Lewis says:

      NOAA are the ones doctoring the data. Why no recommend going to Hillary’s site to learn about Benghazi.

    • Joel Hammer says:

      I believe NOAA and the IPCC. NOAA and the IPCC say that the human contribution to the influx of CO2 into the atmosphere is 3% of the total, natural forces contribute 97%.

      I guess human produced CO2 is a really, really powerful greenhouse gas.

      The land based system of weather stations is a joke. Siting issues are just one of many problems. Who, for example, maintains them? . Have you ever visited one?

      • That’s not a valid argument, please don’t use it. Humans contribute 3% of CO2 on an annual basis, sure but the other 97% is the carbon cycle and is re-used every year. It doesn’t count as the INCREASE in CO2. As for the increase in CO2, humans account for 100% of it. You should not use this argument because it makes our side look bad.

        • spren says:

          So according to you, nature differentiates between CO2 based on whether it originates from natural sources or human sources (and everyone knows humans aren’t part of nature). It naturally recycles the CO2 from natural origin, but allows the human originated CO2 to remain in the atmosphere. Gotcha.

        • Who said you had to differentiate it? What a stupid argument.

          If you make 100 dollars a day and spend 100 dollars a day, and your mother gives you 3 dollars a day, she only accounts for 3% of your income but 100% of your savings.

        • Just to clarify, she gave you $3 on top of the $100 you are already getting

        • AndyG55 says:

          “As for the increase in CO2, humans account for 100% of it. ”

          That is highly debatable. The small amount of warming in the oceans due to the series of strong solar peaks last century, would lead to outgassed CO2.

          Yes, we have had a contribution, and nature is thanking us, but 100% of the increase.
          I doubt it very much.

        • Theresa says:

          Three volcanoes produce more CO2 than all of Human production. And there are 1500 volcanoes erupting right now on this planet! So why is not the temperature of the Earth not a Hellish 900 Degrees like on Venus?

        • Outgassing from temperature changes would only happen if the oceans were at their saturation point for CO2. The oceans are nowhere near the saturation point so CO2 levels have nothing to do with temperature. This is a myth a lot of people don’t understand.

          In fact, CO2 levels are lowest near the poles and highest in warm ocean water because of the decomposition of organic matter in warm water, and lack thereof in cold water. Ocean pH is much lower in tropical water.


        • Theresa that’s horse manure

        • Latitude says:

          Morgan…your argument is saying that the 97% means the carbon cycle is saturated…

        • The oceans are far from saturated with CO2. A bottle of Coca Cola is saturated with CO2. Is there fizz in ocean water?

        • AndyG55 says:

          No Morgan,

          Its to do with equilibrium constants.

          A slight warming will require a slight outgassing.

          Basic chemistry.

        • Latitude says:

          The oceans are far from saturated with CO2…..

          really?….but yet the 3% man contributes accumulates

        • Warming of oceans causes an increased production of CO2 due to decomposition of dead plants and animals, which results in the lower pH in warmer waters, as seen on my chart, but the excess is outgassed, so yeah, whatever.

        • spren says:

          Morgan, it is your argument that is stupid one. You are claiming that prior to human CO2, the environment was in stasis regarding the carbon cycle. That is complete nonsense. As more CO2 has gone into the atmosphere following warmer temperatures, the biosphere responds in kind. What accounts for the greening of the planet if not from better growing conditions accompanied with more plant food, CO2? I understand the argument you are making but it is only true if the climate system remains stable, which it most certainly does not.

        • Spren, let me fix that for you:

          “Morgan, it is your argument that is intelligent one. You are claiming that prior to human CO2, the environment was in stasis regarding the carbon cycle. That is true. As more CO2 has gone into the atmosphere following human burning of fossil fuels, the biosphere responds in kind. What accounts for the greening of the planet if not from better growing conditions accompanied with more plant food, CO2, from fossil fuels? I don’t understand the argument you are making, because I’m a dumbass who thinks fossil fuel combustion doesn’t make CO2.”

        • spren says:

          No Morgan. I don’t think you are a dumbass at all. I just think you are completely wrong on this. I don’t think nature has any concern from where the Co2 originates, natural or fossil-fuel generated. It is CO2 period and nature employs it accordingly. Climate is never in a static condition, it is always changing. It either warms or it cools. But the biosphere does respond to increasing levels of CO2 by producing more life on the planet. The models project much more atmospheric CO2 than what is actually observed. They puzzle over the missing CO2. It seems to me that it goes to promote the development of the biomass on the planet, whether on land or in the seas.

          CO2 is CO2 regardless of its origin. I don’t think nature cares what isotope it carries. I enjoy reading most of your comments and positions, but I sure can’t follow you on this. I think you are being defensive and obstinate on this issue.

    • Neil says:

      Thank you for the link. Sorry, but it is scientific double talk and very much subject to the influence of predrawn conclusions.

      Early in the article it attempts to contradict the changes upon the measurement sites that would introduce a bias. In reality, in the late 1990’s under the influence of VP Al Gore, there was a mandate that all weather reporting stations require paced access. Perhaps that was to fulfill the updates the article inferred; however, it totally disregarded that the monitoring stations are now adjacent to or surrounded by black asphalt. Many sites that would not allow paved access were taken out of service at that time. It is also the period of the highest jump in surface temperatures in the Continental US.

      Please note that the hand recorded readings may have been statistically more error prone in random input, they were considerably less prone to electronic manipulation or biasing.

      Specifically, the article spends many words rationalizing why their biasing is necessary while denying that biasing is occurring.

  149. Bruce says:

    Follow the $$$$$$$$, stupid!

  150. M Scott says:


    Thanks for the work you are doing.
    I have been trying to find the best way to view my raw local data and compare it to the current adjusted NCDC or USHCN data.

    I downloaded the two files linked to your first USHCN Comparison chart and found my local individual station information but no headers. “USH000***** 1892 879b 1460 1427 1921 2259f 2504 2528 -9999 2399 -9999 -9999 1247a” .

    Can you help me determine the headers, or point me to an easier way to bring my local raw data and adjusted data into Excel?

  151. Jeffrey Gee says:

    Their funding should be pulled for providing fraudulent research. No one tell Al Gore he was wrong again! Keep letting him live his dream that he can control the climate and all of us!

  152. Mark Twain says:

    Y’all most really enjoy your echo chamber of ignorance and conspiracy theories. Your guru is a fraud.
    Steve Goddard does not have a background in climate science. He has primarily published his articles in blogs and newspapers using a pseudonym, and it is unlikely he has ever been published in a peer-reviewed journal on the subject.

    Meanwhile the world changes and you absolve yourselves of responsibility.

      • Gunner Tee says:

        Nice reply! Substantive, respectful, and factual… All things we should expect from someone who isn’t an actual scientist.

      • Freeland_Dave says:

        And if this is really you, which I sincerely doubt, you are a liar. I know you to be a liar because I have worked for you in the past. You were a liar then for political purposes to win government grants and you have not changed a bit.

        You may fool some of the people but you don’t fool me and Steven Goddard is a liar. Now track me down and prosecute me for telling the truth. It will be a media feeding frenzy. I suggest you clamp your lying mouth shut and remain silent before you are really exposed for the things you have done in your career.

        But as I said at the beginning of my post I doubt you are THE Steven Goddard. A liar perhaps but not the same lying Steven Goddard that I know.

    • Jerry L Kreps says:

      “Echo chamber”? And you cite desmogblog to ridicule Tony Heller? Desmogblog is run by a PR man, Jim Hoggan, and a Left Wing ideologue, Brendan Demelle who, because of his lack of training in any scientific discipline, MUST echo the opinions of other Marxist media outlets, who themselves echo other “Progressive” media sources. At least Tony Heller holds a Bachelors of Science and a Bachelors in Electrical Engineering.

      By the way, desmogblog makes a point of Heller using a pseudonym, claiming he is trying to hide his real identity. What is YOUR real identity, “Mark Twain”.

    • D. Self says:

      Analyzing temperature data doesn’t require a PHD in Climate Science. A lot of science and engineering degrees roam this blog. And your degree is in what? Liberal Arts?

    • David Quinn says:

      Salmon are probably dying from radiation poisoning they got out in the Pacific. But nobody talks that.

      So they’re releasing reservoir water to cool the Columbia River. Are they aware there’s a drought in the area? Or, are they trying to make that worse too?

    • How many Google pages did you have to sift through before you found this “HNGN” article? Also, the story cites the Ass-ociated Depressed as their information provider, which isn’t a very believable “source” to rational adults who stopped believing that unicorn tears were the energy wave of tomorrow a long time ago. Your “proof” was ALL of six paragraphs, with NO cause and effect as to why the salmon were dying…just an “AP reports,” after their specious claim. As Goddard said below, you’re an idiot and an easily-led fool.

    • Smokey says:

      Check out this chart.

      Satellite data (the most accurate temperature measurements we have) shows there has been NO global warming for almost twenty years now — and during that time harmless, beneficial CO2 (the sawtooth in the graph) is steadily rising.

      Inescapable conclusion: The trace gas CO2 does not cause the endlessly predicted global warming. The predictions were wrong. All of them.

      Furthermore, the rise in CO2 (“carbon”) is causing a measurable GREENING of the planet: agricultural productivity is rising in lock-step with the rise in harmless CO2.

      Folks, they’ve been lying to you all along. The “carbon” scare is completely baseless. It is designed to help pass a “carbon” tax — which has always been every government’s wet dream: to tax the air we breathe.

      Think about it. No global warming at all for almost 20 years. And every scary prediction they’ve made has been flat wrong. But they’re still lying about it.

      As usual, follow the money, and ask yourself: “Cui bono?” — who benefits?

      And it ain’t you or me…

    • iurockhead says:

      “Steve Goddard does not have a background in climate science. ”

      Neither does Jim Hanson (astrophysics). Nor David Suzuki (genetics). Nor do many other “experts.” Understanding data, and recognizing it’s manipulation, does not require specialization in the field.

    • AndyG55 says:

      As soon as you cite desmog, you mark yourself as a piece of low-life excrement.

  153. ho hum says:

    Thanks for bringing visibility to this information. Can you tell me where this data was procured and is it accessible to anyone/everyone? (In other words, can you point to a link on a government-sponsored site that contains this data?)

    This would be great information but I always need to know the source of the data before I fully subscribe to conclusions drawn by it.

  154. YouGotToBeKiddingMe says:

    The fact that the scientists are now lying to us sends a chill down my spine. See what I did there?

    • Vendicar Decarian says:

      The unadjusted chart shows temperatures largely taken in the evening at the right, and largely taken in the morning at the left.

      Morning air temperatures are of course cooler than evening air temperatures.

      Hence the apparent – but fake – cooling.

    • Dan Thompson says:

      They have been lying about global warming and plenty of other things over the decades. Their “ancestors” are the same who swore that Piltdown man, Java man, Peking Man and Nebraska man were absolute proof of evolution. All were exposed as outright frauds. Take what a scientist says with a grain of salt when there is a hidden agenda whether it be the cult of man made global warming, evolution, etc.

    • Jerry L Kreps says:

      In the late 1980’s NOVA produced a one hour show titled “Do Scientists Cheat?” After giving several examples, some involving PhD work which was used to support medical treatments which could be life threatening, their research of the two NIH scientists who published the report on which the program was based led them to the estimate that 48% of all research is fraudulent due to cherry picking, padding,, trimming or created data out of thin air. The end result was that the two NIH scientists were sent to desk jobs in the boonies. Most of the original whistle blowers cited in the show were sorry they reported the felonious research because doing so hurt their career as much as the crooks were harmed. The CRU was revealed in the two leaked zip files to have exercised all of the cheating techniques mentioned in the NOVA episode, and they even discussed it in the 1,072 emails in the first zip file. The HARRY_README.TXT file is replete with complaints about the sordid condition of the data files on which the hockey stick files were supposedly based. Following the profanity in the file leads one to the blatant admissions of “synthetic” data, missing data, and all the trimming, cooking, and cherry picking one would have imagined would have never made its way into real scientific research. However, one the review panels of the climate journals are hijacked by AGW ideologues who “peer review” each others papers, the claim of peer reviewed research rings hollow.

      • Joel Hammer says:

        Everything you say is true. Especially the fate of whistle blowers. Nobody likes a snitch. You have to go along to get along in every job or profession. Honest people are a threat to the whole system.

        And, it is odd how quickly down the memory hole those emails went.

  155. What I find interesting is that it seems every newscast begins with an “extreme” weather story. I think it is a subtle means to condition us to the global warming mythology.

  156. Mike says:

    You want the answer to the money trail?

    Though loaded with short sentences to get the message across here – no time to write today, start back in the late 80’s, go to Chicago, root out the creation of the Joyce Foundation (about 1991 as I recall) and related connections. Yep, you will find some familiar names there like Maurice Strong, Barack and Michelle Obama, Valerie Jarrett, Al Gore, and more.

    They conceived of a plan that we know today as Cap and Trade. They knew that there was a coming globalization of the energy and social justice cooperative movement that would result in the sovereignty barriers dropping and global taxation was on its way. Since the Kyoto Protocols were formally rolled out to the world the concept of the G1 nations were to start paying for the G+ nations global footprint (includes emissions, trade, social justice, et al) and that there was going to be a tremendous financial opportunity building itself into place to create a business called the Global Cap and Trade exchange system. Their proformas showed that once the exchange system got off the ground and running their own 10-year projections working at a skim (exchange fees) would put about 10 billion $$ in profits after EBITDA, and that just the beginning. Essentially, the whole model is linked to the concept that we consumers of air, water, and energy must pay to play and they intend to get paid a % of that money.

    Do you your homework and always, I repeat, always follow the money.

  157. John says:

    97% of Scientists! Could someone explain where that number comes from? Perhaps a list of the scientist’s names and titles so one can compare the numbers of who is for and who is against the Global Warming / Climate Change matter. Put one list in one column and one in another column for ease of comparison.
    Names would allow one to look them up on line and find out out more about their qualifications and publications. Are noted Physicists, Statistics experts, Geologists, etc.with contrary opinions included in this list?
    Climatology is a new discipline so just listing “Scientists” who carry that title would skew the comparison as would listing only “Scientists who publish in Climatology Journals” which often are biased in whom they accept for publication. I never see negative results reported and negative or refuting studies are just as important in proving or disproving scientific theory.
    Otherwise this 97% number is meaningless.
    More than 97% of the “greatest scholars and learned men” in the world of the 16th Century opposed Galileo and Copernicus. I certainly hope that we do not now validate science by an election vote of some kind. That hasn’t been very successful with our political leaders so far.
    I’m not strongly for or against in this controversial issue, I just want some believable data.
    Listening to the Pope espouse on the matter is amusing to say the least given the track record the Catholic Church has had in the realm of Science.

    • rokshox says:

      They falsely categorize the 97% of scientists who agree that CO2 causes *some* warming as believing it will be catastrophic.

      • The 97% number comes from a non-study by non-scientist and true science crank named John Cook, who runs a web site I don’t remember the link to, something about skeptical science or some other horse manure. Not worth going there or knowing about it.

        • AndyG55 says: