NOAA recently altered their data, to unilaterally wipe out the hiatus which the consensus had agreed upon for a decade.
January : Climate Change: Global Temperature | NOAA Climate.gov
September : Climate at a Glance (NCEI)
Now they are refusing to turn over their communications about this flagrant manipulation, just ahead of Barack Obama’s Paris scam.
NOAA refuses to comply with House science committee subpoena – CSMonitor.com
Make no mistake about it. This is the biggest fraud in history, and it is being directed by the White House.
Thank you, Steven, for all the work you do for the benefit of society.
Thanks to the pressure you and a few others are putting on the consensus science community, world leaders and puppet scientists are feeling more and more like rats on a sinking ship.
The relatively new ResearchGate blog, with a world-wide membership of scientists, is helping make that happen.
I repeat, our government is pushing federal research agencies to find convincing evidence of AGW before the Paris meeting next month, . . .
But there is NO convincing evidence!
To demonstrate that, the question was posted on ResearchGate: “Is there convincing evidence of AGW?”
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_there_convincing_evidence_of_AGW?
After a lengthy discussion, and many unsuccessful attempts to avoid the obvious answer, NOT ONE of the thousands of scientists on ResearchGate, claimed convincing evidence of AGW.
Heads may roll, but the WIDELY-CLAIMED 97 % CONSENSUS SUPPORT FOR AGW is apparently completely bogus.
Sent from my iPhone
After a lengthy discussion of the question, “Is there any convincing evidence of AGW?” on ResearchGate, none was identified:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_there_convincing_evidence_of_AGW
Why bother electing the congress or Senate when NOAA are the ones ruling your country?
I hope, Steven, that you have found a way to communicate information privately to Representative Lamar Smith of Texas.
Are the scales the same on the two graphs above? It seems that if they are correct it is even worse that it looks
They appear to be, because on the September graph the 1 represents °F, and it is in approximately the right spot on the Celsius scale of the January graph.
ahhh – didn’t catch the units – thanks – still ridiculous. How can they possibly justify changing the data from the year before with the same instruments recording the data. Just plain stupid.
Indeed!
They refuse to justify it — and they are not stupid, just evil.
I understood the comment to mean it would be stupid to think they could get away with it.
Hey Richard! hey ARW! I may have misunderstood…:)
The sad thing is that as stupid as it seems (to either make the changes or to think they can get away with it), the fact is that so far at least, they have gotten away with it. And they have been paid well. And they have taken very nice working vacations to exotic locations for conferences. And (this is the worst!) they have received respect from real scientists in other fields who have failed to look closely at the data behind the CAGW hoax.
The fraudsters WILL be found out by the public at large eventually — but even though the sceptics ranks grow daily, I still wish it were faster!
ARW, Richard & Jason:
Do you think The New Leader will give a secret climate speech at the upcoming Democratic National Convention? Or at least to the Politburo?
Until then this time-honored technique works just fine:
https://coloradowellington.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/airbrush-stalin-with-yezhov-in-out.gif
Voroshilov and Molotov up there look at Yezhov as if they thought: “When will you be gone, you puffed-up runt?”
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nikolai_Yezhov_conferring_with_Stalin19371220.jpg
Hey, Jason. I know exactly how you feel.
CW, I’m not really clear on whom you think he would be targeting, but I think if he gives any “secret Krushchev speeches” in the near future, it’s more likely to be over in Europe.
If by “secret climate speech” you mean a private venue where he would denounce actual or perceived opponents of his climate policies before a gathering of movers and shakers … yes, I could certainly believe that’s part of his MO. I think the Clintons, Carter, and some other well-known names on both sides of the aisle would feel quite at home in such a setting, were they to attend. All of these people have a common cause, a common way of thinking, and a common culture, but some hide it from us more than others.
What do you think?
Oh, I see the confusion, Richard.
I meant the ”Inevitable New Leader”*) to be named by the Party for 2016, not the old “New Leader”. After the new Leader denounces the old Leader like Nikita did, the press organs of the Party and the State may publish a denunciation of the NOAA and other saboteurs and wreckers but typically not before then.
Also, they will wait until the new Leader has formulated her strategic direction for the Party and the State, like corn production quotas for the next Five-Year-Plan, a better Constitution or something new and revolutionary about school lunches.
Meanwhile, the old New Leader may also be giving secret speeches but history shows they don’t matter, unless he publicly announces Great Leap Forward or Cultural Revolution and sidelines the reactionary new New Leader. Then all bets are off.
—————————————-
*) The inevitable candidacy of Hillary Clinton
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2015/04/inevitable-candidacy-hillary-clinton-150414053835495.html
Thanks for the explanation, and I apologize for the delay in responding.
At first thought, I was skeptical of your idea, but upon reflection, I do find it plausible. Do a mock purge of those who “have betrayed the cause”, and then promote new people into those positions who will “fix” the problems. That is one way they could go. It’s even possible that later on, when they’ve managed to sufficiently muddle up the record that almost no one can tell what was done when, those same victims could be rehabilitated.
I wouldn’t put it past her!
Of course, I would hope she wouldn’t get elected in the first place!
I guess I am just exasperated. The scientific method has been trashed by these types.
“Former NOAA employee, Andrew Rosenberg, told Nature that Dr. Karl’s team was merely updating analysis.
“There’s absolutely no implication that there is malfeasance of any kind,” Dr. Rosenberg told Nature.”
Not even a smidgen…….a drop, a tittle…..sure, right.
I believe “Dr” Tom Karl just has an honerary doctorate from NC State. I had to earn mine the old fashioned way (qualifiers, research, thesis…).
Sp. honorary
“there is malfeasance of any kind”
They are just doing their job. Unfortunately, their job is to create lies while pretending to be scientists. “We were only following orders!”
Steve — Do you have access to the original datasets to reproduce each graph before and after adjustment? It would be more convincing that overlaying image files.
Steve — Do you have access to the original data on each of these graphs so they can be reproduced. I love your work, but overlaying image files isn’t the most convincing way to do it.
Here’s another piece of evidence indicating that the recent adjustments made by NOAA/NASA are well out of line since 2010 with the massive amounts of surface data used to initialize the global weather forecast system four times each day.
https://oz4caster.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/figure-3-global-temperature-anomaly-estimates-1979-2015-um-ncei.gif
Wow. Roughly by eye it looks like 0.2 deg C since 2011. How can that possibly be right?
Their “adjustements” always go the same way. But each time their margin of error is around 0.001°C.
This is Climategate all over again:
…”Late Tuesday, NOAA provided Smith with some more information about its methods and data but refused to give Smith everything he wanted. NOAA spokeswoman Ciaran Clayton said the internal communications are confidential and not related to what Smith is trying to find out.
“We have provided data, all of which is publicly available online, supporting scientific research, and multiple in-person briefings,” she said.”
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/10/28/noaa-refuse-to-release-emails/
Internal communications are confidential. Uh huh. Like “ Mike’s Nature Trick… and Hide the Decline..
The data is publicly available on-line. Sure it is. Just ask the Climate Audit crowd what they went through.
But this one takes the cake:
…”Citing confidentiality concerns and the integrity of the scientific process…”.
What is this? Espionage? Whose intellectual property is this anyway? What with the confidentiality? Am I to understand we need confidentiality to protect “the inegrity of the scientific process…” What kind of scientific process needs to be veiled in confidentiality in order to protect it’s integrity. Are these people operating in some weird parallel universe?
Godspeed to Lamar Smith.
But Dick, [they] do lie and steal and cheat, don’t they?”
“Yes sir, they do.”
“I thought so.”
———-
A universally applicable assumption.
Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
When flatlining temperatures wreck your global warming agenda, refusing to rise after 18+ long years in hiatus, despite record human CO2 emissions over that same period, simply homogenise, adjust (tamper) with the data.
As simple, easy and as criminal as that.
“Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past.” is the political ideology of the totalitarian government of Oceania [Obama] in George Orwell’s [Tom Karl’s] dystopian novel [Gov Agency] Nineteen Eighty-Four [NOAA].”??
Yes, we live in an Orwellian world, ruled by misinformation ! Climategate emails simply opened our eyes to a reality we did not want to admit.
More of that there Transparency I see.
A “long-standing practice in the scientific community to protect the confidentiality of deliberative scientific discussions”… It remembers me of the freemasonry, which pretends to bring light to the Humanity by gathering powerful people in the secret of their temples.
To their credit, the last time their “deliberative scientific discussion” made surface, it was called the ClimateGate. Obviously they dont want it to happen again.
At least in the US you have political people willing to do that kind of investigation.
Constitutional checks and balances. Executive branch lies, administrative branch says “show me your math.”
Polar vortex core shift between Greenland and Scandinavia.
http://oi63.tinypic.com/2lwazgo.jpg
This position is not favorable for America.
Ren: Please say why?
The polar vortex restricts the flow of air. In this arrangement, it may flow from Siberia over the Bering Strait. If flowed in from the Pacific would be a warmer.
http://vortex.accuweather.com/adc2004/pub/includes/columns/newsstory/2015/650x366_10291627_hd31.jpg
I certainly hope AccuWeather is right. We could use a “warm surge” here. I have fought hard wind blown rains the last two nights. Last night coming back from Bremen, Indiana up in the flat lake country it was a long three hours to get back home. Dark, wind blown rain, and gusts that were kicking my rig at times while driving two lane state highways bisecting the fields made it a less than enjoyable drive. I had to slow several times because of sideways rain being blown in sheets blanking out visibility. There is no relaxing behind the wheel in those kind of conditions. In some ways it’s worse than winter driving.
Reblogged this on SpinHacker.com this fall 2015 and commented:
The regulatory state powers set in motion by Woodrow Wilson are flexing with impunity today.
Congrats for your work being mentions in the daily caller.
To paraphrase the climategate email, “They spent years working on the temperature data, why should they share it with anyone?”
“Why should I know it to you when I know you just say it’s wrong?
Over on one of my favorite sites chock full of those on the other side of things pointed out that the “NOAA’s Adjustments *Lower* the Trend”. So I unearthed my file saved from last January and compared it to the current October issue and plotted the differences:
http://oi64.tinypic.com/2eokwub.jpg
Interesting, besides changes made in the earlier years that lower the trend, virtually all of the negative downward adjustments were made prior to 1980. How interesting is that? Some up and some down for the first 100 years, and for the last 35 years all upwards. It just gets more and more interesting as time goes on.
But it doesn’t matter who points this out, the word isn’t going to get out through the mainstream media unless there is some sort of an explosion that they can’t ignore.
NOAA’s refusal to disclose e-mails and other information is because the e-mails contain evidence of wrong doing. We Americans learned how crucial this type of correspondence is in the Watergate mess. If a US president was forced to hand over private recording that implicated him then these GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES don’t have a leg to stand on.
After the attacks on Willie Soon and other scientists. Tell me how in heck they can refuse to disclose GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES activities in the ‘Most Transparent Government EVAH!’ while demanding private citizens like Willie Soon disclose all?
Democrats call for information from seven climate testifiers’ universities Yes you read that correctly, Universities are getting called on by elected officials to disclose private info about University employees. Not about public grants but about PRIVATE grants.
From the Senator Ed Markey website:
The actual truth about Willie Soon:
As Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change said we are going to agree in December to totally restructure civilization WITHOUT full disclosure of everything that went into the design and the reasons why this is needed.
Based on the ‘evidence of Karl et al.’ the citizens of the USA will not only have their whole way of life restructured they will be fined a trillion dollars a year!
As one of those to be fined I darn well want to know what that G*& D^*!!@ evidence is and how it was arrived at. Other wise –They lynch traitors don’t they?
Thank you, Gail, for the information.
Fortunately we now have scientific evidence that shows how our Creator guides the force that holds spinning electrons and protons together as atoms, separates d- and l-amino acids in living organisms and endows humans with inalienable rights to “enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
The following links show how science became a tool of false government propaganda after WWII in a futile effort to hide the influence of the Sun on humanity:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Does_the_Suns_pulsar_core_induce_homo-chirality_in_the_molecules_of_life_and_climate_change_in_the_planets_that_orbit_it
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_there_convincing_evidence_of_AGW
Research-Gate Identifies seventy years of worldwide deceit (1945-2015)
“SOLAR ENERGY” https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280133563