Global Temperature Record Is A Smoking Gun Of Collusion And Fraud

NASA claims that the blade of the hockey stick is settled science, which four different independent agencies (NASA, NOAA, CRU and JMA) agree upon very closely. The agreement is claimed to be within a few hundredths of a degree.

Screenshot 2016-04-08 at 04.59.54 AM-down

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Consensus

The graph above is utter nonsense. NASA temperature data doesn’t even agree with NASA temperature data from 15 years ago.


2016 version : Fig.A.gif       2001 version :

NASA has altered their own data by 0.5C since 2001, yet claims that everyone agrees within about 0.05C.


The Japan Meteorological Agency has altered their own data by a similar amount. In 1975 they showed no net warming in the Northern Hemisphere from 1900 to 1970.

Screenshot 2016-04-08 at 05.24.44 AM-down


But the story gets much worse. Phil Jones from CRU said that much of the Southern Hemisphere data is “mostly made up.”



In 1978, experts said there was no end in sight to the 30 year cooling trend, and that data from the southern hemisphere was too meager to be reliable.

Screenshot 2016-04-08 at 06.21.59 AM-down

TimesMachine: January 5, 1978 –

The 1990 IPCC report showed that there is insufficient data over much of the earth to determine temperature anomalies.

Screenshot 2016-04-08 at 06.08.29 AM-down


All of the agencies in the NASA graph at top use the same NOAA GHCN data for most of their database, and that data has 80% loss of stations over the past 30 years.


The only reliable long term data is from the US (which shows no warming in the raw temperature data over the past 80 years) and a few other isolated locations.

Screenshot 2016-04-08 at 06.44.39 AM

Long Record GHCN Analysis « the Air Vent

NASA has massively altered their US temperature data since 1999, to make a 1930-2000 cooling trend disappear.


The published NOAA US temperature graph doesn’t even vaguely resemble their own underlying data.


The claimed agreement in temperature data is simply not legitimate. The people involved know that their data is inadequate, tampered and largely made up. They all use basically the same GHCN data set from NOAA (which has lost more than 80% of their stations over the past few decades) and E-mails show that they discussed with each other ways to alter the data to make it agree with their theory.

Screenshot 2016-04-08 at 06.33.43 AM

The reason that the data sets agree is due to collusion, not independent research as they claim. It is the biggest scientific fraud in history.

About Tony Heller

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

258 Responses to Global Temperature Record Is A Smoking Gun Of Collusion And Fraud

  1. Steve Case says:

    You hammer away with jaw dropping posts like this one, and nothing much ever seems to come of it. I am speechless. A huge segment of the population continues to believe the bullshit. The bullshit is obvious and is more than just temperature. I keep hoping that somehow the whole rotting mess will be blown wide open with an exposè in the form of a well written book or other documentary that will explode upon the public, but it’s beyond the time that it should have happened. The Islamic State has declared World War III and world governments fret about Climate Change.

    • Much more is going on behind the scenes than you realize.

      • Steve Case says:

        I hope that what you’ve just said is true for the Islamic State as well has Climate Change.

      • rebelronin says:

        keep hammerin’
        I always notice the vertical axis is .O C increments
        and the horizontal is decades and centuries
        the graphic representations are laughably misleading
        we all know why

        I’m starting to hear you stuff reffered to in my little media world
        you’re not getting the credit yet
        but those of us paying attention know where it’s coming from

      • Everyone knows this. They will all pay by castration of every male having their DNA.

      • Eric Barnes says:

        Lets hope so. “Scientists” have been silent for far too long and have been bought off with federal grants.

      • Todd P. says:

        Just google “Agenda 21”, it explains everything concisely and completely. It also provides valuable insight into the Obama Administration’s agenda/tactics…..

      • Vendicar Decarian says:

        What a kook Goddard is. The 1999 data mirrors the 2016 data almost exactly.

        • Vendicar is a turd says:

          Have YOU read Agenda 21? Or perhaps you have friends who wrote it. Go play in traffic, troll!

        • Jeff Phillips says:

          Go away Scott, you’re so tiring

        • David says:

          You are wrong or you are not spending enough time comparing the graphs. It is hard to tell with the graphs flashing on and off. I do notice several things. First the annual mean temperature (MAT) data does not even match. The mean of any set of numbers never changes, unless you change the set of numbers. If your thermometer at your house in 2015 took the temp every day at noon and you calculated the mean, you get one number–the annual mean temp for 2015. If you did your math correctly, you should get the same answer every time. Look at the year 1990. The 1999 graph shows a MAT for 1900 of +0.4 and for 1934 (the highest peak) of +1.5. The 2016 graph shows a MAT for 1990 of +0.4 and for 1934 of +1.2. How can NASA justify these changes in a fixed number? Now lets compare the 5 year mean. The 1999 graph shows a MAT in 1935 of +0.65 and in the 2016 graph shows the 1935 MAT of +0.5. Similarly for the 1997 data, the 1999 graph shows a MAT of +0.2 and the 2016 graph shows a MAT of +0.5 was +0.2. So it does look like NASA changed its statistical approach between 1999 and 2016. It does show the MAT lower in the first half of the 20th century and warmer in the last part of the 20th century. Look more closely.

      • Richard Ducker says:

        Follow the money. While the scientific community is indeed on board with the myth due to grant money, the governments also perpetuate it as a way to extract huge sums from their taxpayers in order to distribute wealth around the world.

        There’s a big inter-governmental push going on to give massive aid to third-world countries, funded by carbon taxes and penalties.

        The greenies, of course, support this program for their own ideology, and help both scientists and governments keep the myth alive.

    • Average says:

      Could someone explain to a commoner like me how we compare temps taken 100 years ago by crude measuring devices to temps now measured digitally in increments unavailable in previous years? Just askin’

      • Latitude says:

        …you really can’t
        All the more reason past readings should not be adjusted

      • In this case one apparently just makes shit up to fit the predetermined model.

        • Joel Schoenberg says:

          No, they didn’t ‘make shit up’. The scientific community discussed the methodology for formulaic adjustment based on new information, implemented it, then changed the formula over time as more scientific knowledge and computer capability is gained over decades of science and research. This is basic science, people!! I can’t understand how armchair scientists think they know so much more than people who are skilled and educated as scientists for their entire lives.

        • There is one born every minute

        • Latitude says:

          Joel…the record data base runs an algorithm that “adjusts” the past temperature record, every time new temps are recorded.
          …that is most definitely not basic science

          But it does ensure that past temps are consistently lowered/cooled….

        • surfeagle says:

          So it’s all a big fake! If old temp’s are changed I call that fraud

        • Vendicar Decarian says:

          When new data becomes available, it is incorporated into the temperature reconstruction.

          Lots of new data prior to 1999 has been added between 1999 and 2016.

          Goddard thinks that new data is evil.

          Ahahahahahahah…. Mental illness I suspsct.

        • Latitude says:

          When new data becomes available, it is incorporated into the temperature reconstruction.
          Exactly, the algorithm changes the past data with every new entry..

          which changes past temperatures every time a new temp data set is entered…..

          in other words, it re-writes history…..

      • spock2009 says:

        Very sensible question.
        There is no way to make a comparison. In fact, it would be optimistic to claim even today’s global temperature accuracy within 5 degrees C or so. To make statements about the exact 100-year plus global temperature to one-hundredth of a degree is ludicrous to anyone who has an IQ above the double digit range.

      • MoreFreedom says:

        While older instruments were neither as accurate or precise, they are what we had and represent actual measurements in the past. You can compare them, but their precision (a statistical value where in the past the +/- of a measurement was not as good as today’s instruments) makes it more difficult to detect very small trends. A similar issue arises in trying to determine a mean global temperature. E.G., if 50% of the temperature measuring stations are in the US, and you see on average a 0.1 degree increase in temperatures, on average, in all the measuring stations, how does one adjust for the fact that most are in the US? How about satellite vs. ground based temperatures, or measuring stations that were once in the country but now have a lot of concrete around them?

        The government funded climate scientists have a lot of ways to finagle the numbers, and they always have their funding affecting their thoughts. And politicians who’d like to control energy use and have new energy taxes are always thinking of ways to make it happen.

        • Ktm says:

          And their satellites measure sea level to fractions of a millimeter, even though they can’t determine their own altitude to within meters…

          False, impossible claims of precision are one of the red flags you see again and again in the climate scam.

      • From one commoner to another, that’s a good common sense question. If my new digital China-made electronic medical thermometer measured and displayed hundreds of a degree, what would I actually be measuring? How would it compare to the data from the “crude” analog mercury thermometer?

        What would I learn If I would have taken and recorded my body temperature 50 years ago with the mercury device and compared it to the temperatures measured today with the digital one to a hundred of a degree precision?

        • Jeff Phillips says:

          I only see a tenth of a degree precision in your photo. I think it would be very close in this case.

        • Curt says:

          Well, there is a pretty easy way to determine the accuracy and precision of earlier instruments and readings. You keep both instruments for awhile. If you see a large step function after your new, improved, theoretically more accurate instrument is installed, you can determine the accuracy of older readings. If the difference in temperature is consistent across time, you get also have an idea of the precision.

          So, if you took your temperature with a reliable old Mercury thermometer and compared it to the new digital thermometer readings and it reliably indicated .5 degrees Fahrenheit less for numerous readings over several days, you would know that it is as precise as the new thermometer. Even temperature dependent accuracy can be determined. But the unknown here is the accuracy of the thermometers. So you would need to validate the accuracy of one with a known temperature as well as ensure that there was no difference in where, when, and how the temperature was being taken. Assuming the digital thermometer is more accurate (not necessarily the case), you could then determine what correction from previous readings you need to do. Of course, to ensure repeatability, you should scrupulously document what corrections you made.

          Too bad they never seem to do it that way with surface temperature readings.

        • I only see a tenth of a degree precision …

          Yes, Jeff, I know. There’s a reason for it. Nothing more precise makes sense when measuring body temperature. That’s why I posted it and asked what we would be actually measuring at a higher precision. Every doctor or nurse would tell us it’s worthless.
          Curt, I think you understood that my point was about the nonsensical treatment of the measurement records. A precision of one hundred of a degree? Our internal body temperature normally fluctuates in a very narrow range of only a few degrees and we don’t see the need to measure it more precisely than to a tenth of a degree.

          A weather station can normally experience temperature changes of several dozens of degrees in a 24 hour period. It makes no sense to claim an agreement with a precision of a full order of magnitude higher than when we are measuring body temperatures. If you look at the readings of a single weather station today you’ll see that it can fluctuate within a few degrees in any 30 minutes period. Scientists claiming that one hundred of a degree plays any role are either fools or think that we are.

      • Rick Mossop says:

        I’ve wondered the same thing. In Grade 9 science we were taught about the degree of accuracy of measurements and that the highest accuracy you could scientifically claim was the lowest degree of accuracy of the any measuring devices. So apparently either the thermometers of the 1800’s were accurate to a hundredth of a degree or they are practicing science at less than a Grade 9 level.

        • David says:

          Hate to make a contrary comment. However, measure absolute temperature and measuring change in temperature are two completely different problems. Both of the thermometers shown above must be calibrated to something. It is possible to build a mercury thermometer that is accurate to 1/10th of a degree. It will be an expensive mercury thermometer but it is still accurate. From what I read on Wikipedia, a digital thermometer uses an NTC thermistor, which is ideally used to measure change in temperature not absolute temperature. This is a bit technical, but digital technology is not always better than analog technology.

        • David A says:

          David, your message is orthogonal, not contrary. I take Rick to be saying that they have retroactively incorporate an impossible degree of accuracy into the older thermometer record which was never expected to have such a fine degree of readings.

          it is also true that just because a modern instrument reads in .1 or 01 units, it does not mean it is that accurate or precise. Fir instance, we have a .1 pound scale. I can weigh myself three times on it in three minutes, and I get three different readings all within about .5 pound at best.

    • spock2009 says:

      We are slowly spreading the word. They can’t ignore us forever. It’s factual information like this which helps us make the case for some sanity in this expensive farce.

      • Vendicar Decarian says:

        Have you noticed that the denialist side is losing the argument big time.

        No one believes you because they can see the climate changing with their own eyes.


        • cheryl says:

          correct, its called weather

        • Mike says:

          So you can “see” the climate changing, can you? Did your finely-calibrated eyes also happen to see the Viking-era villages in Greenland that have recently re-emerged from beneath the ice? Do you possess the requisite deductive reasoning skills to figure out the staggering implications of that?

        • HarveyMushman says:

          Who pays you for this nonsense???

        • Listen you fool. You cannot deny science. Science is not based on Faith, its based on data. Your obvious lack of skepticism and constant derision of those who find it odd that data has been altered seems to require investigation, shows you know nothing about science. Science without skepticism is not science. Science is not done with consensus, it is done with data that can be shown to be accurate and show a trend. The complete failure of these alarmists who use this issue to obtain funding to accurately predict future temperature trends indicates they are engaging in fraud. Trends if accurate should allow for some accuracy for predicting future trends. These frauds are so off, they are obviously lying.

        • John Tremain says:

          Did you read the article, Vendicar? The hoax continues to be exposed. Let it go.

        • Bob Hays says:

          Obama visited a glacier outside seward alaska a couple months ago. He made a film there for tv. he asserted that global warming is melting the glacier. On the way there he passed road side signs that said the glacier was her in 1920 and then 1950 and 2000 and so on and so forth. He skipped the signs that said the glacier was here in 1820 and 1850 and so on. those were the first times the glacier was recorded. what was melting that glacier way back before the industrial revolution and cars? If I hadn’t already dismissed the global warming fraud this would have done it for me. I agree with you that I will trust my own eyes before I trust a lying president and scientist paid by the government. I have owned a piece of land 3ft above sea level in grandly harbor near Nome AK for 45 years. The ocean has not risen 1 inch. When it does I will sell that land to you at a good price. Yes… I believe my own eyes.

        • Bob Hays says:

          what melted the glaciers before 1850 ??

        • John Tremain says:

          I think it is the hoaxsters that are struggling.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Ven dic is telling us that the stuff he is taking is causing hallucinations and destroying his eyesight.

          Unfortunately for him, its probably too late for him to stop taking it and reverse the brain damage

    • Terry Lee says:


    • awfulorv says:

      What difference does it make, a comment wont change the minds of the ignorant, gossipy, Yeti believing masses.

    • Dave Sigman says:

      But…but…but…science is hard. The PUBLIC isn’t going to read through all these numbers much less understand them. People understand a polar bear ‘stranded’ on a melting iceberg. They don’t understand scientific jargon nor do they want to. Did you hear about the latest from the Kardashians?

  2. The Kyoto Protocol does not mention the word “China,” so that by exemption the Communist dictatorship is “benefited” by the suicide pact of sucker nations much the way organized religion “benefits” by exemption from the Communist Manifesto income tax they so tirelessly endorse and espouse. It makes one wonder whether a huge subsidy by exemption of Chinese pollution might not somehow benefit Japanese industry.

  3. Steve’s documentary idea could maybe be floated as a trial balloon on one of those venture capital websites…

    • Steve Case says:

      The idea of good readable book could be taken on by a publishing house and a good author (Michael Crichton is no longer with us) could be recruited. Here’s my list of chapters for such a tome:

      CO2 and Photosynthesis
      CO2 and the Greenhouse Effect
      Satellite Temperatures
      Weather stations
      Tropical Cyclones
      Greenland Ice Cap
      Antarctic Ice Cap
      Sea Ice
      Sea Level Satellites
      Sea Level Tide Gauges
      Polar Bears
      Coral Reefs
      Ocean pH

      Maybe that’s the sort of thing Tony was alluding to in his behind the scenes comment.

      • Bob says:

        Yes but Michael already wrote that book. It’s called State of Fear.

        ……. And it’s a great read that needs to be a movie……. But never will be

      • Mark SIXTwenty says:

        40% of the last 50 year ocean level rise is from water being pumped out of aquifers…it does not go back to the aquafers hens their lower levels…it eventually reaches the ocean…

  4. minarchist says:

    Thank you, Tony. This is a tremendous summary exposition of what these fraudsters at NASA have been up to, and I hope it gets the widest public exposure possible.

  5. Edmonotn Al says:

    I thank you also, Tony.
    I have sent numerous copies of articles, like the one above, to Government Ministers, Political leaders, and global warming alarmists, as well as to those people that should care about the fraud.

  6. HenryP says:

    you cannot compare temperatures before 1950 with temperatures after the 1970’s
    it is like comparing apples with pears.
    imagine somebody having to take a number of measurements a day and take an average compared to a temp. logger that measures and records every second and prints an average T for the day?

  7. 2ndprotectsall says:

    Liars are always eventually exposed, discredited and become permanently irrelevant.
    Unfortunately it always takes longer for the brain washed to wake up to a cult’s lies.

  8. Joe says:

    Expecting NASA and others who are promoting Climatism to come clean when their collusion is exposed is like expecting a three card Monte dealer to be honest about your chances of winning his game.

  9. no gard says:

    More unending fraud by the global warming hucksters. And the dumbed down buy into it.

  10. Smaug Carbone says:

    I guess Government approved Massive Chem-Trail sprayings hasn’t yet had the desired result.
    But continuing to pollute they will.

  11. Jack Coyote says:

    Climate nazis are nothing more than intellectual masturbaters.

  12. Mike Heuer says:

    I noticed the reference to the 30-year cooling trend in 1978. When you read articles referring to a “20th century average temp,” they just happen to use that same 30-year period as the average, which is ridiculous. I am equally certain I could find a much warmer 30-year period from the same century, declare the the average for the entire century, and, suddenly, much of the “global warming” no longer happened. I know the 1930s, for example, were especially warm. I bet if I declared the 1920s through the 1940s the average, or even the 1930s through the 1950s, we’d see far less “warming” since then.

    • Vendicar Decarian says:

      Mike Heuer doesn’t understand grade school statistics.

      He never will.

      • Latitude says:

        Vendicar doesn’t understand that picking and choosing the start and stop dates completely changes the “statistics”….it’s called cherry picking

      • AndyG55 says:

        Beats your kindy level maths, hands down , though.

        If you used the REAL temps from 1920-1940, I doubt there would be much warming at all.

        But as we have seen, those REAL temperatures don’t exist any more.

  13. I still need an explanation of how Eric the Red was farming and grazing cattle in Greenland in 1000


    • Jeff Gibson says:

      Excellent factoid of how climate changes ALL the time.

    • John says:

      Nick i am no scientest but that period ended and a mini ice age wrapped Europe and areas of the globe in a mini ice age that only ended in the 1700. The warm up and Europe could finally feed itself. Population growth was the big key to this warmth. The age of enlightenment followed. look at buildings after that change, large windows, thinner walls, roofs were not as pitched for ice and snow, and on and on. I work in communications and believe the SUN and its phase need to be watched for massive changes to identify why we have these hot and cold periods. The sun is currently in what one calls a cold phase now. It should get cooler not warmer. The Farmers almanac is probably the better source for tracking this, then tie it to sun spot activity if one can.. And Methane release from oceans…… It is not the ants that inhabit the earth although, some fools want to think we are that powerful… Or the money scam? I tend to believe the money scam game…. Al Gore is a huckster and will always be….
      Some one needs to really look at the points i made…. Putting the sun spot activity and phase matched against weather and temperature if it can be done. One can reverse calculate activity based upon current tracking and how it occurs.. to a limited extent better than guessing the temperature in the 30 s,40s, 50s…
      My wild guess was we had massive methane activity that changed the weather back then to warm it up not, carbon dioxide but methane….From the oceans why that is the question??? Mother nature doing her thing, earth quakes happen oceans and we are finally seeing them…. Massive Methane release…..

    • Bob123 says:

      Cows ate ice back then.

  14. The so called scientist by manipulating data for political reasons, have no credibility. When a scientist politicizes science, all bets are off.

  15. CO2isLife says:

    I’ve been arguing for an open source temperature reconstruction and climate model. There is no way the “adjustments” and statistical tricks like “Mike’s nature trick” to “hide the decline” would be accepted in an open source approach. Reproducibility and transparency are foundations of science, climate science has neither.

    • Vendicar Decarian says:

      The Berkeley Earth temperature reconstruction doesn’t use any temperature adjustments, and is privately funded. Original funding was largely from the Koch family. Furthere the Berkeley Earth reconstruction was done by a former Denialist.

      The Berkeley earth Reconstruction matches the other temperature reconstructions, almost exactly.

      • Latitude says:

        so your saying when temperature data is not available……berkley does not use a model to infill the missing data
        Vendicar Decarian says:
        April 8, 2016 at 11:00 pm

        When you mix lies with lies, you get Republicans.
        ……when you just flat out lie….you’re a democrat

      • David A says:

        Vendicar, you do know Mosher defends his Berkley adjustments to the level of fanaticism, where he reflexively defends all adjustments of every kind.

      • AndyG55 says:

        Berkley Earth is run by Muller, a proven fraud in his lies to Anthony Watts to get data, he WAS NEVER a skeptic of any sort…., and by his daughter, an absolute MANIC AGW believer.

        Mosh was hired as a frontman to try to add some respectability (he is not a scientist), but acts more like one of the Dodgy Bros 2nd hand saleman.

        OF COURSE the Berkley junk has been made to match the other fabrications !!

        And they do adjust, otherwise they would have things like “regional expectations” which is just another means of homogenising cooling trends to match UHI warming trends.

  16. l am convinced that it if served the U.S. government’s purpose to declare a dinosaur invasion; we would quickly be overwhelmed by supporting documentation issued by “independent” recipients of government largess!

  17. So this is where the guys in the tin hats meet!
    Never mind that 100% of the world’s scientific agencies, associations, Royal Societies, National Academy of Sciences of EVERY country in the world accept the science of human caused global warming. No, not you guys. Because you learned everything you ever needed to learn in high school or from the Bible right?
    I wouldn’t even try to change your minds because this is a special compartment in your brains that you have made impervious to reason.
    But you ARE criminally negligent and I hope that when the proverbial S*** hits the fan that you receive the full disdain and disgust that has up to now been reserved for war criminals.
    Of course, just like them, you will NEVER EVER admit that you were wrong even if the lives of your children and grandchildren are devastated by the inaction that you have supported.
    I wish there were a HELL so I could see the looks on your faces when you are forced to see the suffering your families will have to endure because of YOU.

    • These sort of brainless non-sequiturs from the religious faithful are to be expected.

      • I doubt he has a religion except Gaia worship.

      • Von Neumann says:

        Quick problem with your statement, Steven.

        Gauss – theist.

        Euler – theist.

        Descartes (you know, the guy that invented the idea of the graphs you cite) – theist.

        While you may consider yourself intellectually superior because you don’t believe in a God, you may wish to reconsider criticizing those who do. There’s real scientists out there that recognize that science is merely an attempt to explain what is measurable. That is to say, it is simply the observably provable room in a mansion full of other things that can neither be measured nor proven.

      • Most people are wired that way, as revealed by the Solomon Asch experiment of 1955. Real Science cuts the mesmerizing effect by abt a quarter simply by being on the air. This, incidentally, is why totalitarian mysticism cannot tolerate even token dissent.

      • wtf? This guy clearly identifies himself as an atheist, you incorrectly label him as a “religious faithful” and your fanboys run with it? Wow… I did like your article, but it’s too bad so many people lose reason in the process 🙁

    • Latitude says:

      George is so science literate….he had no problem quoting the science that disagrees with this post

      George, oddly enough……you just made the case that it’s you following a religion

      • Eric Barnes says:

        Yep. It’s appeal to authority and then deafening silence. That deafening silence is brought to you by George’s brain, which is completely incapable of independent thought.

    • Dan says:

      We keep waiting for S*** to hit the fan and it never happens, G. Murray. The dates for the catastrophic predictions by Algore, Prince Charles, et al, come and go and nothing ever happens. In the 1970s we were assured we would all freeze to death, “The Coming Ice Age,” (cover of Newsweek) and it never happened. Which one is it, you frauds? And no country (excepting the Western world) is agreeing to change their behavior, so it’s all for nought anyway, you frauds.

    • Michael says:

      Great send up. You sound just like those wacky warmists. Of course, you’re not serious. This is a joke, right?

    • Mitch Rapp says:

      Wow. You are the poster boy for the kool aid drinking, blind following global warming clones. Let’s just forget the ice caps are not disappearing. The ocean levels are not rising. And these so called researchers are scrambling like crazy to explain why the temperatures are not going up for the last 15 years. But you keep on swallowing spanky.

    • Perplexed Guest says:

      That is truly fascinating. I didn’t think it was possible to write the English language without also knowing how to READ.

    • Brian Duff says:

      I must have missed the Bible quotations in the article. Where were they?

    • George you really need to address your faith in the “published facts” the so called consensus of Climate “scientists” yet they don’t quote regular Earth scientists like me at all when the entire history of the earth is a record of climate constantly changing.

    • CO2isLife says:

      How the left is so willing to be deceived is mind blowing. They act like Lyschenco style “science” is new. If you ever wonder how complete societies can voluntarily destroy themselves, how people could cheer the arival of Castro? How could people cheer the arrival of Mao? His Hillary keeping a private email server is no big deal? The left simply is willing to ignore fraud, criminal acts, deciet and deception if you simply lie to them and tell them what they want to hear. The Progressive Policy Institute documented their MO in a white paper titled “The Politics of Evasion” which basically detailed the left’s Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing tactic of simply lying to their voters. They view their supporters as fools.

    • john says:

      how are your both grey cells doin’? Not too well

    • George Murray,
      “100%” of scientists don’t agree on ANYTHING! Not on physics, thermodynamics, evolution, et al. Real science is about falsifying theories, and your effort to proselytize on behalf of your faith exposes you as a shill attempting to cloak yourself in “science”. Good luck with that;)

    • B says:

      “But you ARE criminally negligent and I hope that when the proverbial S*** hits the fan that you receive the full disdain and disgust that has up to now been reserved for war criminals.”

      As a lawyer, this thinking is scary….Criminality keeps coming up with warmists in their approach to those who disagree. One would have to have checked their critical thinking skills at the door to believe in manmade global warming so absolutely that those who disagree are guilty of some criminal act, merely for critical thinking.

      But that is how certain the left is about their intelligence. Others should either shutup, comply, or risk going to jail.

    • Dav says:

      George, obviously you have psychological problems with objective data, a common problem with most rabid leftists. That’s why you scream about deviation from group consensus rather than focus on actual data. Remember, 100% of scientific groups once agreed the sun revolved around the earth. Only two fellows raised their hands in opposition and suffered for their correctness. Maybe, between your rants, you may have heard of them: Copernicus and Galileo.

    • Ima says:

      You sound about ready to shoot up a campus lest you explode. Talk about religious fervor! Relax, and sing along with me, Skippy:

      Welcome to your life; there’s no turning back
      Even while we sleep we will find
      You acting on your best behavior
      Turn your back on mother nature
      Everybody wants to rule the world

      It’s my own desire, it’s my own remorse
      Help me to decide. Help me make the most
      Of freedom and of pleasure
      Nothing ever lasts forever
      Everybody wants to rule the world

      There’s a room where the light won’t find you
      Holding hands while the walls come tumbling down
      When they do, I’ll be right behind you
      So glad we’ve almost made it
      So sad they had to fade it
      Ev’rybody wants to rule the world

      I can’t stand this indecision
      Married with a lack of vision
      Everybody wants to rule the world
      Say that you’ll never, never, never, need it
      One headline, why believe it?
      Everybody wants to rule the world

      Read more: Tears For Fears – Everybody Wants To Rule The World Lyrics | MetroLyrics

    • AndyG55 says:

      WOW,, This George bloke is truly a grade 1 NUTTER.

      I bet he votes Sanders or Clinton.

      Seriously , what a pathetic anti-scientific rant, based purely on brain-washed ignorance.

    • stimmy says:

      You are the epitome of the “Coulter Effect”: if you want to know what a liberal is doing, just read what he’s accusing a conservative of today.
      Your touchy feely dreamworld tin hat Kool aid drinking hypocrisy is breathtaking; you are a legend in your own mind!
      Sadly, nutters like you are allowed to vote.

    • John says:

      To believe in something that is invisible, not observed, and doesn’t exist … you religious people are wackos with zero knowledge and act like Tom Cruise being questioned about scientology. Oh yeah…I’m talking about you zealots who believe in man-made climate change.

      99% of the scientists who say they believe in climate change have never once observed land surface temperature, surface water temperature, deep water temperature, or any atmospheric temperature. They believe in science and automatically believe in their colleagues because they trust in scientific method. However: 1) global temperatures are not increasing; 2) data collection of historic temperatures has been marred by scandal and fraud; 3) forecasted temperatures have been astoundingly inaccurate when compared with corresponding actual temperature data; 4) future forecasts are assuredly inaccurate since they factor in extremely erroneous model projections (think – how often are economic forecasts, weather forecasts, or the projected forecast of a hurricane inaccurate??? A LOT because forecasts are an inexact process. My company gets budgetany / financial forecasts wrong all the time with very bright people. 5) there are notable scientists (e.g., a well respected MIT professor) and naturalists (e.g., one of the co-founders of Greenpeace) who deny mankind’s impact on climate change; 6) you’ve been duped by powerful imagery such as polar bears who can’t find land to stand on and have to swim, even though there is more arctic ice now than anytime in recent memory – and that’she another reason you all believe it; 7) scientists used to think the world was flat in addition to the religious. They are constantly wrong (coffee is good for you then it’s bad; wine is bad then good then bad; this food is great for you then bad for you; multivitamins are good then bad, etc.) 8) there is monetary interest for scientists to fudge data to keep study grants, and pressure to have conclusive findings even when they’re inconclusive so they can get published / attention; 9) scientists – maybe even more than the general population – are more likely to have huge egos and narcissist traits and they insist their opinion is right while attacking others for disagreeing with them. They’re often the twerps who got beat up in high school and as a defense mechanism, developed enormous egos and know-it-all traits in adulthood to compensate.

    • John Collins says:

      George Murray,
      There are hundreds of climate scientists, including many who have contributed to IPCC reports, who dispute the anthropogenic climate change theory. Even the IPCC itself acknowledges that a) there has been no warming since 1998; b) this contradicts the models; and, c) the error in the models has not been identified.
      NASA reported last Fall that, contrary to the predictions of the models, Antarctica had been adding about 80gigatons of ice per year. Warmists had been claiming that Antarctica was melting at a rate of about 50gigatons per year.
      Ice core data going back 400,000 years show a show oscillations in global temperature with a period of about 1500 years. Within the historical record there are several periods that were hotter than today. They further show that CO2 levels increase several centuries after temperature increases, I.e. elevated CO2 levels are the result of warming, not the cause.

    • Coggiedoggie says:

      Jail time is warranted for this fraud. Think of the monies invested and spent on this fraud. In another 10 years, 15 etc this fear mothering that you and others perpetuate, doesn’t come true… U pay fines and jail time. U willing to put your money and freedom where you mouth is tough guy.

    • Uncle Claw says:

      You start with an ad-hom, proceed to lie about 100% agree blah blah, then go on to ad-hom about HS, while at the same time demonstrate absolutely no scientific or critical thinking skills of your own, you then go on to “project” your religiosity onto others (because YOU will never admit you wrong, despite actual science, as opposed to political pseudoscience). You have fallen for one of the most common scams, and easiest to spot, of all. Clearly, you do not understand what you are even talking about, and have not done any scientific investigation of your own. Well, I have.

      Keep CO2 low = less food
      Less food = less population
      Less population = the goal of the NWO cult

      The real math shows us that human CO2 output is ridiculously insignificant in the grand, huge… no…. TREMENDOUS realm of the atmosphere.

      However, if we could double the ambient CO2, we could nearly double farm plant production worldwide. Every growhouse that uses CO2 boost knows this. And they dont have to add aircon either. Go ahead, look up a chart that shows plant growth in relation to ambient CO2. Doubling current levels would almost double the food supply, and have zero effect on climate. 290ppm, the goal of “warmist” idiots, is DANGEROUSLY low. Plants stop growing at 200ppm. 400ppm, as it is today, is too low. We would be better off and have much more food with about 800 ppm.

      Living in the tropics, I can say most of what is claimed by warmists is categorically wrong. Plants grow robustly in the relatively warm climate here. I can eat the weeds in my yard, food grows everywhere. No one is starving, not even the homeless, because they can grab food from trees on the roadside… etc. And THAT is why you’ve been brainwashed to think that CO2 is soooo terribly “bad”.

      Now, how about a little math and science.

      Facts (public info):
      total CO2 in atmosphere = 3.16×1015 kg (about 3,000 gigatonnes)
      TOTAL Human emissions = about 26 gigatonnes of CO2 per year.
      26 / 3000 = .0086667
      CO2 = .04% of total atmosphere
      H2O Vapor = 1%
      Total H2O vapor = 25x total CO2
      CO2 = 1/25 of H2O vapor
      Specific Heat capacity of H2O vapor = 1.93
      Specific Heat capacity of CO2 = 0.844
      H2O is 2.29 times more efficient heat carrier than CO2
      Everyone knows that water vapor dwarfs CO2 in GH effect, so this is a valid comparison. We can feel it when the weather changes. We cook with steam, not CO2. Just look and compare the specific heats and IR spectra for both. Water vapor kicks butt. This is why warmists dont want to discuss water vapor. It also forms a LENSE around the Earth (see below).
      If we stop ALL human CO2 emissions, we would make 1/25x.0086667/2.29 = .00016925 difference. JUST IN COMPARISON TO WATER VAPOR alone. About 1.7 TEN-THOUSANDTH of the effect of water vapor annually… but wait, it gets even smaller…

      See, there is also a “lensing effect” with water vapor — we know the ambient humidity is greater in the tropics (up to 4%), slightly less in the subtropics (3%), etc…and very minimal (nil) as we near the arctic and antarctic circles. This is a lense. This means that the areas of earth that receive the most direct sunlight, have the most humidity (3% & 4%), and thus the average of 1% is actually magnified. Since there is no lensing with CO2, this further diminishes the relative percent human (and all) contribution of CO2, down by a factor of about 2.5 (think of the profile of the earth and how much the tropics take up as they occupy the widest point), to about… 0.000068 (6.8 100,000ths) that of water vapor.

      Rather minuscule effect… at best, because that’s giving CO2 a plethora of benefits of the doubt. There are further diminishing factors… ocean dissolution of CO2, carbonate sequestering, plants, the fact that the Earth is a WATER PLANET, etc.

      The above doesnt yet consider that water vapor has a much broader and more complex IR absorption spectrum than CO2 nor the H2O IR feedback loop called the oceans (no oceans of CO2 on Earth). Nor that atmospheric CO2 is soluble in rain and some of that gets sequestered in the oceans nor that plants grow faster and thus sequester CO2 faster if levels rise (negative feedback). Nor that CO2 at 20ppm is practically “opaque” in the atmosphere at that point, any increasing concentration has diminishing effect. Now we’re really talking MINUSCULE.

      Now consider the rest of the 98.96% of the atmosphere. Sure, the IR spectrums are not broad for most of this, but it is a mega-huge mass not to be discounted. There are 3500x more N2 and O2 molecules to absorb light/heat. Sorry, but CO2 doesnt absorb light in 3500 different wavelengths, or even a fraction of that. Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation (IR) in three narrow bands of wavelengths, which are 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (µM). This means that most of the heat producing radiation escapes it. About 8% of the available black body radiation is picked up by these “fingerprint” frequencies of CO2. Further, nitrogen and oxygen both have higher specific heat capacities (1.04 and .919 respectively). This certainly makes CO2’s impact even more MINUSCULE, and our contribution in the completely insignificant range (.00000136).

      Of course there is more, and the more you factor in, such as the carbonate rock formation cycle, the less CO2’s impact becomes.

    • gator69 says:

      100% of the world’s scientific agencies, associations, Royal Societies, National Academy of Sciences of EVERY country in the world accept the science of human caused global warming.

      Every Christian Church agrees Jesus saves, it’s a 100% consensus!

      I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

      Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.

      In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.
      -Michael Crichton

    • David A says:

      George Murray, are you completely incapable of making one rational point, and only capable of mindlessly shouting the “consensus”?

      The theory is called CAGW (CATESTROPHIC ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING) It is dead on arrival. The attempt to rebrand CAGW into CC is due to the fact that neither the warming or the catastrophes predicted, are happening anywhere like the theory predicts, and the very expensive climate model projections, touted by the government, are wrong, all of them! So I will always call it what it should be; ”CAGW”. The C, the G and the W are MIA, not in the observations.

      It is easy to claim consensus, (which in itself is non scientific, as Einstein said, it only takes one fact to destroy a theory) It is harder to demonstrate it. The vast majority of the alarmed “climate scientists” in those deeply flawed scientifically meaningless 97% surveys, are not specialists in the CAUSES of climate change (attribution), but in the impacts of and remedies for such change. Most know zip about atmospheric studies.

      They may know a little bit about how in such and such region there was a drought, or a flood, and in that region these species were harmed, be it plants, animals, etc… and they then look at some stupid climate model (which according to all the observations are off by a factor of at least three) that says, “It worse then we thought, these events will increase in the future if we do not tax the air you breath now”.

      From there they project that frogs will get bigger, or frogs will get smaller, or penguins will get to warm, or polar bears will drown, or forests will burn up, or oceans will rise 20’, or bees will die, or earthquakes will increase, etc… (really) (This is not hyperbole, as the broken climate science peer review process has produced papers stating all of the above, and a far longer list of absurdity then written here)

      When the skeptics wish to demonstrate that there is a strong scientific community of thousands of PHD scientist who reject the theory of CAGW, they do it correctly. They start with a statement that goes to the heart of the matter…
      .“We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

      There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”
      OK, a clear statement directly addressing the “C” in CAGW. Now let’s take a look, at the ”flat earth bible thumpers” who signed it?

      31,487 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs

      Who wrote the petition? Dr Frederick Seitz, past President of the National Academy of Sciences, PHD – Physics. wrote the petition’s cover letter. You cannot get more ‘mainstream’ than Dr Seitz. Who are some of the signers, plus some of the other “flat earth bible thumping” skeptics from around the world…
      Professor Richard Lindzen who is the professor of meteorologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He may know more about the atmosphere than anybody else. There’s Shunichi Aksofu (ph), one of the two most cited scientists in the world in Japan who’s completely against it. There are people all over the world and thousands of them now, leading scientists like Roy Spencer and John Christy who do all the atmospheric measurements using balloons, radio signs and satellite, there is Fred Singer who established the U.S. satellite weather service. I could go on and on…

      “Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in history . . .When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, and award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

      Here are Seven Eminent Physicists; Freeman Dyson, Ivar Giaever (Nobel Prize), Robert Laughlin (Nobel Prize), Edward Teller, Frederick Seitz, Robert Jastrow and William Nierenberg, all skeptical of “man-made” global warming (AGW) alarm.

      There are literally thousands of skeptical peer reviewed published papers The only thing exceeding the ignorance of your comment, is the unattractive arrogant expression you choose to encase it in.

    • Jamie says:

      George you are a fascist. I am not criminally negligent for my beliefs and reasoning. We have the freedom of speech in this country and the freedom of the press. Rejecting the long-term weather predictions of the warmists, or any other scientific theory for that matter, is not criminal in a free society.

      You are like the Catholic church in the time of Galileo, wanting to actually punish those that disagree with you .. and buying into the oxymoron of: ‘settled science’

      When someone wants to lock you up for your beliefs because the ‘science’ is settled, they have moved from science and democracy to fanatic religion.

    • 100% of world’s scientific agencies? Uh no. You really should try and read more, think more, blather less.

  18. freedomfan says:

    Wow. Gee it’s so hard to believe Democrats would ever lie to us…

  19. macusn says:

    made Drudgereport

  20. surfeagle says:

    The climate has always been changing. It’s normal to see shifts and changes. It’s worse if messed with, because it will always be changing and it just might have unexpended results.

    The last 4 thousand years –

  21. Mad Dubose says:

    Meanwhile, cultural marxist terrorist, and class warfare imbecile Bernie Sandhead says “the science is settled”.

  22. Melody Chasen says:

    Global climate change is a conspiracy against smart people like me!!

  23. Charles says:

    There is monetary motive with those powerful people in this fraud. They just keep on getting richer.
    And now they threaten to take the deniers to court.
    Unfortunately, the media is complicit in this fraud being dumped on the people lacking basic knowledge in science.

    • Latitude says:

      …a result of laughing stock weathermen…elevating themselves to a science

      They can no more predict climate than they can predict weather..

      Obviously, when they have to resort to lying about it.

  24. Ryk Holden says:

    Great post. Where can we find the source for the chart “GHCN raw station count”?

  25. Jim Lea says:


  26. Ron says:

    When the independent “purity” of science is contaminated by “politics”…there are no men of integrity left. Any so-called scientist who goes along to get along is a despicable, dishonest, coward that has tainted the truth of science. The scientific community should be marching in the streets, that liberal political agendas have usurped the importance of scientific truth, but that would take character and integrity. They have succeeded in corrupting almost every human enterprise with their destructive world view.

  27. >Liars are always eventually exposed, discredited and become permanently irrelevant.

    By that time, the damage is done and that’s that.
    Silent Spring, anyone?
    Ozone hole?
    NASA has two goals: to support Global Warming and to declare that life came from Mars or somewhere else. Both are based on one thing–the desire for MORE MONEY.

  28. Jeffrey Gee says:

    The fraud should have been laid to rest long ago. Al Gore and his useless idiot followers should be jailed for corruption and trying to defraud people and tax them even more, for some made up BS!

  29. sunsetatdawn says:

    Damn it’s hot out here! It must be those damn humans driving cars on the sun again!

  30. Texas Rex says:

    More proof – Climate Change is not worth the resignation of my economic freedoms.

  31. hiram floss says:

    guaranteed grant money + (globalists x ManBearPig Gore – income from fake carbon credit facilitation) = “settled” global warming

  32. John Nowak says:

    The evidence is significant and overwhelming that sun spot activity has caused the temperatures to oscillate between colder and warmer periods on the earth.
    On the other hand I am an Environmentalist, and support justified environmental concerns.

    The truth of the matter, there is a secular religion in the 1800 government universities and colleges in the USA, including thousands of more unioversites and colleges in other countries. Its called morphed infidelism philosophy, which they use junk science as a God effect having a mere appearance of truth and correctness having only a mere appearance of unbiased science, instead is – extremely bias, having major conflicts of interest, deceitful, a stacked deck of open professing and leaning towards atheist and infidel philosophy tenured professors/scientists and administration who some coveted name recognition, political power influence as individuals, as a group, their own job protection and for lucrative government research grants; would be the panel of judges.

    (2012) Survey shocker: Liberal profs admit they’d discriminate against conservatives in hiring, advancement -The Washington Times-
    “…surveyed a roughly representative sample of academics and scholars in social psychology and found that “In decisions ranging from paper reviews to hiring, many social and personality psychologists admit that they would discriminate against openly conservative colleagues.”
    “…80 percent of psychology professors at elite and non-elite universities are Democrats.”
    “…90 percent identified as liberal and only 4 percent as conservative.”
    (2013) Why many professors are atheists: Academe as a secular religious community
    (2014) Retaliation Claim Vindicated “Seven years after Mike Adams sued the University of North Carolina at Wilmington, charging that he was denied a promotion because of his political views, a federal jury agreed”

    Global warming, climate change isn’t itself technically a secular religion being its only one particular very narrow scope, observation of nature.

    Global warming, climate change instead is being used by the secular religion of morphed infidelism to further its goals of world domination of both society and government.

    This is one factor why I am apposed to global warming, climate change junk science gate

  33. BeckyB says:

    News Flash: NOBODY CARES. I’m going to go out on a limb here and hypothesize that there is a massive conspiracy. SO WHAT? Clearly, people here don’t drink the Kool-Aid and are not negatively affected. Maybe you had to turn up your heat a notch, BFD. Life will go on and nobody will give a rat’s ass about this.

    And, if the opposite happens, and the world is actually warming, well, then you can continue to live your life peacefully in your mom’s basement. It’s cooler down there anyway.

    If/When our species begins to die off, for whatever reason, nobody is going to sit and talk about this one blog post from this one guy in 2016 that they happened to read.

    Thanks for trying.

    • stimmy says:

      You don’t care about the $trillion redirected (wasted) every year so the touchy feely dreamworld idealists can get in a butt to face circle and pat each other on the back?

  34. Kurt Smith says:

    Obama’s Nasa. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  35. Some of the main reasons why so many people seem to want the global warming theory to be true is that they both don’t want the poorer countries and people of the world to have abundant access to cheap energy in the form of coal, and oil etc.. (these obviously being energy resources which have and can continue to lift many millions out of poverty) and is because they wish to pretend that they have control over the weather which does not involve their moral actions.

    The Bible plainly states that those who are morally upright will be blessed with good rains and those who are evil will be punished with poorer climatic outcomes to their detriment. Jesus Christ, also, says that at the time of the end there will be natural disasters, and I think that that is obviously another reason why some want to blame poor weather events on the global warming theory instead of on their poor moral character and the judgements of God.

    I would add that many in the West may also want to weaken the power of non-western countries which have a lot of oil resources compared to the West, and they may hope that having more of the world shunning the use of oil resources and the development of oil extraction in the name of fighting “Global Warming” could be used to gain the economic upper hand over their competitors.

    • JohnKl says:

      Hi Anthony Michael Furtado,

      You stated:

      “Some of the main reasons why so many people seem to want the global warming theory to be true is that they both don’t want the poorer countries and people of the world to have abundant access to cheap energy in the form of coal, and oil etc.. (these obviously being energy resources which have and can continue to lift many millions out of poverty) and is because they wish to pretend that they have control over the weather which does not involve their moral actions.”

      More likely some used the theory itself as demagoguery to scare the mass population of scientifically illiterate plebs to renounce their constitutional rights to the resources of the country, in exchange for some vague promise that it will somehow somewhere help the planet. Once the population renounces it’s territorial claims to the planet the few in power then design to determine their lot including the right everyone shares in the world’s bounty provided by God. Peak oil (gas), Global warming and many other such pseudo-science tropes serve the purpose of those who spew such bull, to separate the masses from their legitimate claims as human beings leaving the gullible wretches left only to beg scraps from their chosen over-lords.

      Have a great day!

  36. ScottN says:

    Even the IPCC through out the Bradley /Mann / Hughes “hockey stick” graph as bad science long before the AR-4 report. AGW is complete BS.

    • Todd P. says:

      Roughly 70% of “Climate change” projections since the 60’s have been wrong. Why would anyone base their economic policies on data that would need 30 percentage points added to it just to reach an “F” grade?…..

  37. teddynovak says:

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

    Sheep, lemmings, inbreds, and Leftists are easily manipulated.

  38. teddynovak says:

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

    Sheep, lemmings, and Leftists are easily manipulated.

    zazzle DOT com/firstprinciples?rf=238518351914519699

  39. Hugh says:

    But if we believe as hard as we can, and wish upon a falling star while clicking our heels together 3 times, why, it will all come true.

    No, really, it will get warmer real soon, just you wait and see.

  40. John Fembup says:

    We have always been at war with Oceania.

  41. Fred Ranney says:

    It seems to me that all global heating and cooling is directly related to the suns activity. This has been the case for several thousand years The proof is in the correlation between sunspot activity and global temperatures. The Vikings could farm in Greenland during the period from 900ad to 1100ad because there were enough sunspots to encourage warming. After that period, sunspots disappeared and we had none around the 1600 period during the little ice age. The current situation is that we are in a very low sunspot period which, based on past cycles could continue for another three to four years which would mean colder temperatures on average.
    The real problem is the increase in CO2 which has been caused by the destruction of the rain forests. Millions of acres in Brazil and Indonesia have been eliminated so the Palm oil plantations could be created.
    The net result is that the climate change argument is totally false but the CO2 increase is real.


  42. stimmy says:

    The simple fact that the SAME scientists who were getting paid to warn us of the coming ice age 30 years ago (The sky is falling! The sky is falling!) are the ones who are getting the big grants today to study global warming, is enough to make me question their veracity and credibility.
    Cheap ho’s who’ll lie for a buck, albeit BIG bucks.

  43. Gary says:

    When you say this is “the biggest scientific fraud in history”, I respectfully disagree. I would have to say the globe earth/space fraud, the Evolution fraud and the Big Bang frauds are bigger, and they were achieved by the Science Cartel using similar methods applied over centuries. Men are liars. God’s only son, Jesus Christ, alone deserves our faith. Jeremiah 9:6 “Thine habitation is in the midst of deceit; through deceit they refuse to know me, saith the LORD.”

  44. Todd P. says:

    “Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.
    Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
    – Dr. Michael Crichton, creator of Jurassic Park, ER, etc.

  45. Ed says:

    Joseph Goerbbels stated…“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

  46. Coggiedoggie says:

    Jail time is warranted for this fraud. Think of the monies invested and spent on this fraud.

  47. Daniel Shays says:

    Shhhh thousands of quacks make their living from the global warming BS.

  48. TexasTeaFinder says:

    Good article. The fraud has been visible to many since the beginning, however, what “climate change” is REALLY all about is “control” and the agenda of the “establishment” – this used to only include Liberal/Progressives, but now includes the RINOs as well. Basically, business as usual.

  49. Frank says:

    Cool story bro

  50. RAE_Hou says:

    As an instrumentation engineer, I have learned that all measurements are to be questioned, and only accepted after rigorous comparison to an independent standard. Sensors have numerous error sources, and they all drift with time. Clearly, historical measurements made with different instruments and recorded by different methods cannot be compared to modern measurements, without some element of healthy skepticism. Offsets and differing trends are issues for scientific discussion. Conclusions about recent trends, supported by periodic verifications can be useful. But conclusions drawn about previous centuries and millennia are speculation at best, and dangerous when extended to political policy. I contend that we cannot today agree to one degree about the temperature of a turkey in an oven, let alone the earth. It depends on the type, accuracy, placement, and method of reading the thermometer. We can watch with curiosity the trends in data, but acting on what we see requires healthy skepticism, and a disinterested judge.

    • David Moore says:

      Well stated.

    • shamijacobus says:

      GOD JOB..

    • Al Kydah says:

      wow, so I guess those glaciers aren’t really receding then, it must of been some “instrumentation error” that caused those photographs to be misleading. good to know. thanks.

      • gator69 says:

        Those receding glaciers were formed during an ice age. We are now in an interglacial. Did you hit your head?

      • Glaciers grow and glaciers recede. Often, one glacier is doing one thing and another is doing something else.
        Went to Alaska and saw the Mendenhall glacier. While waiting to get in, got to hear the government claptrap about the disappearing glacier. Looked up in their “story” book and found that back when the area was first settled (not sure, but maybe 20,000 years ago), there was NO glacier in the valley–it was many miles back. It then “advanced” over the next thousand years. It has now receded a bit from its maximum advancement, but it has MILES to recede to get back to where it was thousands of years ago.
        So, Global Warming must have been orders of magnitude worse several thousand years ago and that is why all life on Earth died out? Gee, I think life was quite diverse back then.
        Water is the major GHG, maybe the only significant one. CO2 is a minor factor and it is a virtual trace gas in the atmosphere, but it’s going to kill us all.
        Life has existed just fine with CO2 of 0.02-0.07%, so I don’t see the worry. Climate has been changing on Earth for 4.5 billion years and bureaucrats in Brussels will stop it…
        PS: Climate has been warming since the Little Ice Age ended, but NOW it’s going to kill us (until we hit another Ice Age, as I was warned was coming from the 1950s to the 1990s).

    • werner pluss says:

      Common sense and basic education alone should suffice to conclude that these UN COP21 Paris conference warming goals are a horrible hoax, to say the least, if not misleading and deceptive and, considering the consequences, social and financial, probably criminal in certain jurisdictions.

      How can one possibly be so preposterous to claim to be able to ‘limit’ (i.e. ascertain, control, apply corrective measures, ‘steer’, when necessary), an increase to ‘2 degrees C, better 1,5 C’, per the Paris climate agreement?

      That would require a worldwide recognized accuracy to maximum 1/10 of a degree C, never mind the precision of individual measurements, repeat-, reproducibility and most of all, a truly representative, worldwide grid of measurements, over oceans, mountains and valleys, cold sinks and heat islands, never mind related, representative CO2 concentration.

      From your post, I conclude that the COP21 goal of ‘2 better 1,5 degree C’ increase could probably pass if followed by an accuracy statement of ‘within +/- 5 degrees C’…LOL

      And if I see matters completely wrong, please let me know. I am not infallible…

  51. Gary Novak says:

    Here is a book and free PDF that explains the fraud in the science:

    Gary Novak

  52. Joseph Mack says:

    As a flight service specialist working for the FAA during the 70’s, pilot weather briefings were a large part of my workload. In the late 70’s I noticed a tremendous drop off in the accuracy of weather forecasts. Eventually I was fearful anytime that I had to give more than about a 6 hour forecast – they just were not accurate.

    As the U.S. geared up for WWII, airstrips and weather reporting stations were established all over the country. Meteorologists were trained and stationed at those reporting stations, and there they stayed. After years observing and forecasting, those people were very good forecasters.

    As those meteorologists started retiring in the late 60’s and into the 70’s, many of their weather reporting stations were closed, more in the north than in the central and southern parts of the U.S. Some were replaced by automated weather reporting stations, but gave and still give much more limited weather information than a trained meteorologist.

    Not only that, but many ‘official’ reporting stations are at airports that have continually grown, both in size and traffic – jet traffic, specifically. Both of these conditions lead to much warmer average temperatures being reported if the various sensors are not moved to better locations, and often they are not. Sorry, folks – I just can’t wrap my head around this supposed ‘global warming’ (Excuse Me!) — ‘Climate Change!’

    • Bob Ales says:

      DUMBASS!! All you have to do is live the last 50 years and note the changes in global temps. The winters in the north are much milder than they used to be and the south is cooler, such as Florida’s orange crop no longer exists above Orlando. The dry places the flooded places, you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to tell it has and is changing,

  53. Francoisbmarie says:

    Global warming is a buisness world wide
    1.3 trillions dollars , fellow the money .
    Sadly it is poor people who pay the most
    From the lies , look a Venezuela and South Africa or Zimbawee and the scientists who have the courage to expose the lies are
    Dismiss as idiot, look at Obama they are going after the people who reject the lies. Incroyable!!!

  54. These so-called ‘scientists’ have great faith in anthropogenic climate change.

    You will never shake their faith with facts, lack of evidence, or proof of doctored data.

  55. pyeatte says:

    The damage to the credibility of Federal Agencies will be long-lived. They have been ordered to come up with a predetermined AGW assertion. The scientists either comply or go look for another job. Data fabrication that affects so many people negatively is flat-out evil and illegal.

  56. Monnie says:

    It’s not just global warming. Scientists and their crony partners in corporate America and the federal government have heaped fraud upon lies. The low-fat food recommendations were fraudulent from the beginning and have killed & crippled tens of millions of Americans. More whistleblowers are coming out almost daily about the danger and lack of efficacy of vaccines. Doctors have been cooperating fully with the lies about cancer treatment (there are many suppressed CURES for cancer) because there is wealth to be gained from chemo, surgery, & radiation. Keynesian economists run the banking industry and populate the entire mainstream economics sector, although Keynesianism itself was long ago disproven to anyone with intellectual curiosity & honesty. The corporate media partner with our neocon-dominated federal government to promote lies about all our “enemies” and false premises to justify their wars of aggression, which in turn justify the massive military-industrial-security complex and all the “anti-terrorist” laws & regulations. Yet, most Americans continue to place unjustified faith in doctors, scientists, and even the leaders of “their” political party.

    • A Eagle says:

      Wow. That just about sums it up.

      Thank you, clarity and honesty!

    • Blackland says:

      Wow, you get it! Republacrats all stand to gain from this fraud. Dems appease their anti-industry base while Repubs help their corporate/industry donor allies profit from green technology that is really not needed. They all win and we all lose.

    • mf says:

      here comes an example of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Take one example: cancer. Do you think that doctors are made out of something different than you or I? When they get cancer, what do you think they do, die for profit? Actually, a fair number of people are leaving this world earlier than they need to because they believe in what you have said. They go to Mexico, and then it is too late to do anything for them. Not all that different with vaccines.

      • An excellent point, well made. The lesson here is, don’t believe everything you read or hear just because the writer/speaker appears to be erudite. They also may have barrows to wheel.

  57. Frank says:

    There will not be an honest exploration of this subject until you take away the grant money, and force BOTH sides to come to the table under a single project, one that does not threaten their careers and discuss the data honestly. Grant $$ corrupts science.

    • Gary says:

      Thank you for your comment. You are so right. I wrote federal & state grants for almost 10 years. You must write the grant to be in line with the governments pre-determined outcome, otherwise your grant will be rejected no matter how well it is written and no matter how logical your plan of execution.

  58. noneck mcgee says:

    But, but, but, science…….

  59. A Eagle says:

    Communist grifters will stop at nothing to accumulate, maintain and expand power and control.

    They would be funny, if not such a danger to themselves and others.

  60. Billions of dollars are sloshing around based on this data. How can its fabrication not be criminal?

    • David A says:

      Yes, they should be careful about pointing at skeptics and crying RICO, because the four fingers pointed back at them have ore then four times the evidence.

  61. Scott Mudd says:

    Ever wonder what happened to the Railway engineer that was head of the IPCC?
    “The chair of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Rajendra Pachauri, resigned on Tuesday, following allegations of sexual harassment from a female employee at his research institute in Delhi.”

  62. SAMURAI says:

    NOAA admits on their own website that huge “adjustments” have been made to the US land temperature datasets:

    It’s statistically impossible for all these US “adjustments” to miraculously match perfectly the “independent” datasets from the UK and Japan.

    In legitimate science, hypotheses are adjusted to match the empirical evidence. In climatology, raw data is adjusted to match CAGW’s hypothetical projections.

    Governments worldwide are now wasting $trillions to mitigate perceived threats projected by CAGW’s fraudulent data.

    CAGW will go down as the biggest and most expensive scientific fraud in human history.

  63. gregole says:

    Here’s a worthwhile essay:

    And an excerpt from the essay on temperature adjustments:

    “One of the problems with the “official” temperature records such as the Hadley series shown above is that the official record has been the subject of “adjustments”. While some adjustment of the raw data is obviously needed, such as that for the altitude of the measuring site, the pattern of adjustments has been such as to cool the past and warm the present, making global warming seem more serious than the raw data warrants.

    It may seem unreasonable to refer to the official data as “adjusted”. However, the basis for the official data is what is known as the Global Historical Climatology Network, or GHCN, and it has been arbitrarily adjusted. For example, it is possible to compare the raw data for Cape Town, 1880-2011, to the adjustments made to the data in developing GHCN series Ver. 3:

    [refer to the original for the figure…]

    The Goddard Institute for Space Studies is responsible for the GHCN. The Institute was approached for the metadata underlying the adjustments. They provided a single line of data, giving the station’s geographical co-ordinates and height above mean sea-level, and a short string of meaningless data including the word “COOL”. The basis for the adjustments is therefore unknown, but the fact that about 40 successive years of data were “adjusted” by exactly 1.10 degrees C strongly suggests fingers rather than algorithms were involved.

    There has been so much tampering with the “official” records of global warming that they have no credibility at all. That is not to say that the Earth has not warmed over the last couple of centuries. Glaciers have retreated, snow-lines risen. There has been warming, but we do not know by how much.”

    How a trivial, minute, warming, which effects are largely positive for the biosphere, can be uncritically assigned to “Mankind”; and then demonized, is a tribute to mass-media propaganda and mass-brainwashing.

  64. Andy DC says:

    It would seem logical that with population increasing in general and greatly increasing around rural/suburban airports that opened between 1940 and 1970 (where many of the “official” records are kept) that if there were going to be adjustments, they should be to warm the past and cool the present due to increasing urban heat island effect. Instead, they are doing just the opposite, to give a false impression of warming that is not taking place. It is totally farcical and fraudulent.

  65. What is the temperature actually doing in Gulf stream I need to know immediately I believe if it has raised then we may be in real deep shit my theory would introduce haarp or some forms of man induced earthquakes which could explain the recent rises in Co 2 I’m no professional scientist but would like to go to school or apprentice but I feel time is short anyone feel free to call me in Florida I’m homeless but my number is 8632410007

  66. Klarn Mxyzptlk says:

    They actually maintain that man controls the environment. Bwa-ha-ha-a!

  67. Bob says:

    Al Gore said the artic ice cap would be completely gone by 2014. Hello???

    Here’s the kicker……

    …… if Al Gore had been elected president he would have enacted all kinds of initiatives to (in his mind) battle global warming.


    Like being played a sucker? Pure KoolAid.


  68. Miner49er says:

    It seems they’re caught red-handed. I feel like a crime victim. But why, WHY are they intentionally doing such deceitful things?

  69. August Braun says:

    There is a simple explanation to all of this that is outlined in a report that the MSM has stifled and/or totally ignored. The 92 page report composed by the U.S. Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works outlines in great detail how billionaire “green” foundations are funneling vast sums of money to “grassroots, non – profit” non governmental organizations that are nothing more than proxies for these foundations. Here’s the report titled “The Chain of Environmental Command: How a Club of Billionaires and Their Foundations Control the Environmental Movement and Obama’s EPA” – This report was first issued in July of 2014 and seems to have died a slow death. What is the status of this report and why hasn’t there been any hearings on it to expose this serious threat to our democracy? It contains the essence of what is going on and how the media has launched an incessant and unrelenting wave of “news” articles about climate change, the latest being how it is now responsible for the earth’s rotation being affected. Insanity is too good a word for this.

  70. John Q. Public says:

    Five Scientific Reasons That Global Warming Isn’t Happening:
    1) There hasn’t been any global warming since 1997.
    2) There is no scientific consensus that global warming is occurring and caused by man.
    3) Arctic ice is up 50% since 2012.
    4) Climate models showing global warming have been wrong over and over.
    5) Predictions about the impact of global warming have already been proven wrong.
    Worse, however, has been “the deliberate deceptions, misinformation, manipulation of records and misapplying scientific method and research” to pursue a political objective. Much of this is clearly unlawful, but it is unlikely that any of those who perpetrated the hoax will ever be punished and, in the case of Al Gore and the IPCC, they shared a Nobel Peace Prize!

  71. idunno says:

    The science is settled. You can’t argue against settled science. If you do, you’re a denier, and a heathen, and you also believe that the world is flat and that the sun revolves around our world. Worst part of arguing against global warming, is that, you are almost for certain a republican. The best indication that global warming is real, is that, our dear president, Obama, also believes in global warming. And as we all know, the president of the U.S. would not lie to the American people. So, get a grip and stop being a denier and get educated. The world is burning up, and we must stop using our fossil-burning autos and all of those coal-burning factories. Also, we should be allowing a 90% tax on incomes, so that we can combat global warming and which will also allow the redistribution of wealth. If everybody were to be equally poor, nobody would have huge homes and fossil-burning cars and high-poution yachts. So, let’s all do our part, and stop reproducing too. The planet is way overpopulated. The plae planet was way better off when nobody used oil or coal or natural gas. So, let’s get back to the stone-age. The planet needs us.

  72. mfthe3rd says:

    Okay, so let’s assume you have truly exposed the fraud of global climate change. Does this also mean that mankind is not pollution the water, land, and sky in a reckless way? I hate being lied to and seek the truth, but even if someone lies when they cry wolf, it doesn’t take away the fact that there are wolves out there. Everyone, just chill for a second and put some real thought and consideration into your life before just spewing “us or them”, “left or right” nonsense. Or get off the Internet and let the people willing to think before speaking make the comments.

    • gator69 says:

      Does this also mean that mankind is not pollution the water, land, and sky in a reckless way?

      You are off topic. CO2 is not a pollutant, but an essential ingredient that makes life possible on this planet, and man only contributes a tiny portion of the CO2 budget.

      And to address your concerns about pollution, read Bjorn Lomborg’s “The Skeptical Environmenalist” and learn that our air and water are cleaner now than they have been in over a century. Time for you to exit the alarmist echo chamber and see the real world with your own eyes.

    • … before just spewing “us or them”, “left or right” nonsense …

      I completely agree. I kept trying to talk sense to the Commies but they wouldn’t listen.

  73. Noel Brunson says:

    What the hell are you talking about? Even without the data, we should have the the sense to know we can’t put everything into the atmosphere that humans (US, China, India, etc.) put there and expect that it won’t have an effect on the climate. Follow a truck around for a few minutes or better yet sit in your car in the garage with the motor running for a few minutes and see how that effects your environment. I would rather try to live greener and cleaner and be wrong about the planet getting warmer than stick my head up my ass and find out later I should’ve made some changes.

    • gator69 says:

      I would rather try to live greener and cleaner and be wrong about the planet getting warmer than stick my head up my ass and find out later I should’ve made some changes.

      Would you rather kill seven million people each year? Because that is what the Trillion Dollar Climate Industry prefers to do. Instead of using our vast resources to save millions each year, we waste it only a leftist falling sky story.

  74. noseitall says:

    Amazing that four different independent agencies (NASA, NOAA, CRU and JMA) agree exactly on all the minute details of this.

    It’s almost as though they had all been coordinated to do so by a higher authority.

  75. john says:

    Solar Power is still THE answer we need. What is the point of this argument that climate change isn’t man made? That we can burn fossil fuels and not worry about it? That fracking should continue? NOT using the energy of the sun to power our civilization is just allowing the energy to be wasted. Who throws away free energy? Who doesn’t use what is free? Carbone and methane are greenhouse gases. The earth’s atmosphere is like a greenhouse. It is impossible that the changing volumes of these gases in our atmosphere are not changing the temperature within. When you add a greenhouse gas to a greenhouse, it gets hotter, thus the greenhouse reference. Don’t let these folks totally corrupt the issue with conflicting data.

    • Neal S says:

      What makes you think that solar cells are actually better than cheap fossil fuels? Do you have any idea how much energy it takes to make solar cells? And if the hydrocarbons really are fossil fuels, then we ARE using solar power every time we burn them. That would be stored solar power. And do you really hate plants so much, that you want to deprive plants of life-giving carbon dioxide? And wouldn’t you be surprised to find out just how little effect increased CO2 has on warming the earth. But don’t let real facts get in the way of your fantasy. You have drunk the kool-aid and believed the lies because you are either incapable or unwilling to think for yourself. Or maybe you have some other reason you want to spread the cult religion of AGW.

    • Who throws away free energy? Who doesn’t use what is free?

      John, you are absolutely right about everything with just a few exceptions:

      1. Making solar power available is no more “free” than crude oil, coal or natural gas. It actually costs more, otherwise everyone would be doing it.

      2. Dramatic “climate change” cycles have been documented for hundreds of millions of years. Man’s presence on Earth, not so much.

      3. “Carbone” is not a greenhouse gas.

      4. Somebody told you wrong about the “greenhouse” reference. Ask someone else.

      5. The Earth’s atmosphere is not “like a greenhouse”. It doesn’t have a roof. Ask any middle school science teacher. Some of them may know that.

      6. Growers pump carbon dioxide into their greenhouses not to make them hotter but because it is essential plant food and it makes veggies grow faster and bigger. All growers and plants know that.

      Other than that, most of the rest is mostly true. And we shouldn’t let folks corrupt the issue.

  76. John Powell says:

    Al Gore, G5 is now about 7 years old, time for an upgrade.

  77. brian moench says:

    Don’t you charlatans at Fox Nation ever get tired of wallowing in your own bullshit? Just once in a while wouldn’t you like to visit reality, and the evidence based world, just to see what you’re missing?

    • gator69 says:

      Sorry brian, but it is your climate priests that base all of their scary stories on fantasies called “computer models”. Skeptics do</i< actually use real world proof to refute silly alarmist models.

      Alarmists = Fantasizing about doom

      Skeptics = Living in the real world

      Whether or not you know it brian, you are projecting.

  78. SissyCar says:

    Perhaps this has to do with paying 3rd world nations with our tax dollars for alleged injustices to their, and our, climate (climate change),,, not to be fair, but in the interest of big gov/corporate economics, to bring the 3rd world countries out of poverty so they can, as soon as can be expected, begin buying the industrialized countries goods and services,,, as well as create and grow their own economies… Most fraud, war, etc, has been for economic trade routes/reasons. If the governments of the world (world monetary fund, world bank etc) would be on the up and up and just speak the truth, lots of folks might actually get behind the “we need your tax dollars” spiel.

    • gator69 says:

      The way to get third worlders to buy our crap, is to supply them with cheap energy. So no it isn’t about economics, it is about control, it is about Big Brother.

  79. Mike Merritt says:

    It’s not even an assumption that many of these people reporting to/for the government have specific instructions on what the “outcome” will be. How would you ever get a different answer by using the same “provided” information? Those two facts are spread around the world in the form a group conclusion. One that has a specific purpose and it isn’t global warming. It’s about money being taken from the richer countries to pay the poorer countries so they can’t industrialize. Had they started this line of BS 50 years ago China wouldn’t be spewing things into the air. We’d all be paying more for this or that, being limited in what we can or can’t do for the reason of sending money to those countries who won’t be allowed to industrialize. Nine state AG’s are now considering taking Exxon Mobil to court for saying global warming isn’t true. How dare you tell a different story than we are attempting to force the entire country accept, seems to be the shrill cry of those who want to silence everyone else. In the past couple of years, there have been several Federal cases involving engine technology and who owns it, plus any modifications that can be made to a private vehicle. Tractor manufacturers went to court to stop OWNERS who had bought and paid for tractors from reprograming their computers to pull more power or efficiency from their equipment. You could understand them not wanting equipment that had been leased to be modified, but when bought and paid for, who actually owns it? Just recently the EPA has taken the approach that you don’t own your vehicle and it can’t be “modified” to be a race car or even weekend race car. The soul purpose being taking an entire industry out and killing the racing industry as a whole. Cap and trade is coming and if you don’t step up and get it stopped right now they will be telling you how far you can drive each week. What you can drive and when will be the norm. Don’t forget the increase in taxes for energy that is coming in every single form there is known.

  80. 4TimesAYear says:

    Reblogged this on 4timesayear's Blog and commented:

  81. Speedy Winger says:

    As a relative newbie to all this climate fun, and in the interest of fairness, is there any site anyone can recommend that can disagree with skeptics? Being old enough to have lived through cold summers and warm winters, I quite frankly don’t buy the ridiculous and contradictory claims made by Al Gore, but I would like to see a non “sky is falling” rebuttal to the skeptic if there is such a thing.

  82. Philip Shehan says:

    Goddard fails to show that the adjusted data is wrong, let alone that it is the result of a deliberate intention to mislead, which is required to justify the claim that it is “A smoking gun of collusion and fraud”.

    And the collusion claim can only be justified if it is shown that NASA, the Met Office Hadley Centre Climate Research Unit, the National Climate Data Center and the Japanese Meteorological Society colluded to produce the fraudulent data.

    The second graph has no reference to the 2016 data or an explanation of why it is different to the earlier data.

    Goddard says of the first two graphs:

    “The graph above is utter nonsense. NASA temperature data doesn’t even agree with NASA temperature data from 15 years ago. ”

    Well, no. That first graph and the data “from 15 years ago” in the second graph are in agreement.

    The temperature data is higher in 1880 than in 1900, but not in the 2016 graph. (The major difference in two graphs in that period may simply reflect the fact that the older data is less reliable and may have been altered in a later evaluation of the data)

    Since there is no evidence that the other three organisations 2016 data matches that of NASA, there is no evidence of collusion, even IF the data is wrong and IF the data is deliberately misleading.

    The display of the 2001 and 2016 data on the same graph with data grids that do not in fact apply to both sets of data because the data is “normalized to the 1990s”.

    Well ,one would expect that the 1990’s data would be a close match as little adjustment from raw data is required, but this seems very much at odds with the third graph (no source given) which indicates that the 90s show the largest discrepency, apart from the jump between the in 1890. If so, this would account for the steeper 2016 data in the normalised graph.

    But it is very difficult to see what s going on. More references sources are required to properly evaluate this information.

  83. fh says:

    Just came across a 1981 paper by Hansen and a few other authors at NASA which shows the NASA view at that time of the global temperature trends. Their Fig 3 is very similar to the Japanese result cited here, but the Hansen et. al. paper is about a decade later. The paper is available at

    The text discussing Fig. 3 contains some interesting analysis. In particular they state:

    “A remarkable conclusion from Fig. 3 is that the global temperature is almost as high today as it was in 1940. The common misconception that the world is cooling is based on Northern Hemisphere experience to 1970.”

    Note the phrasing “almost as high today” where today refers to 1981.

    • Philip Shehan says:

      Yes fh. Hansen et al’s paper, which used only 3 parameters, CO2, solar and volcanoes was published at a time when the northern hemisphere was cooling and the global mean temperature still below the values of the early 1940s. They confidently predicted a rise in temperature due to increasing CO2 emissions, and predicted that the anthropogenic warming signal would appear above the “natural” variation later that decade.

      This prediction has stood the test of time:

      • gator69 says:

        the anthropogenic warming signal would appear above the “natural” variation later that decade.

        Really? How can they know? Prove it.

        1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then quantify them.

        2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

        There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

        • Philip Shehan says:

          gator69. The authors were making an empirical observation. The warming signal was not evident in the data prior to 1980. Indeed as they noted, the northern hemisphere was cooling and the global mean temperature still below the values of the early 1940s. In the absence of a theory to predict what would happen global temperature could have cooled by an undetermined amount, remained more or less constant, or warmed by an undetermined amount. Hansen et al used their theory to predict that temperatures would rise, and quantified the rise. Their prediction was correct. That is evidence that their theory was also correct.

          Science does not “prove” things. It collects evidence which either support or disagree with theories. But here is one graph from NASA attributing the effects of major forcings:

          There are a mountain of papers that “refute” the claim that present warming can be ascribed to natural forcings only. Every paper that provides evidence of AGW, like Hansen et al’s does so.

          Of course the climate has changed greatly over geological timescales. Everyone who knows anything about climate science knows that. global climate has varied due to large scale , long term forcing changes like Solar output, volcanic eruptions, even continental drift etc from “snowball earth” to vegetation and dinosaurs at the poles.

          What we are discussing here is the relatively stable climate of the last 10,000 years which determined where agricultural societies developed, built their cities and other infrastructure, often on present day coastlines.

          AGW is changing that geographical distribution of favoured areas for human settlement. We cannot, as our hunter gatherer ancestors did, simply gather up everything the owned and walk to literally greener, unpopulated pastures.

          I am not a denier. I changed my views on wheter AGW was real as the evidence for it accumulated. I present evidence to back my assessment.

          If you want to see a denier, take note of AndyG55 here. Not a scintilla of evidence, just a stream of abusive ad hominems. That is what deniers are left with when they cannot refute an argument.

          I was banned from WUWT and Jo Nova because they are not skeptics and could not tolerate my arguments. Contrary to what Andy says, being a scientists I know how to analyse data to and put a scientific argument with facts figures and references. I constantly rained on their parade and they did not like it. On Jo Nova, “skeptics” actually brag to each other how they drive dissenting opinions off “their” blog, and I was to be next. They could not do it themselves, Ms Nova had to do it for them.

        • gator69 says:

          There are a mountain of papers that “refute” the claim that present warming can be ascribed to natural forcings only.

          What a complete load of BS.

          re·fute r??fyo?ot/ verb 1-prove (a statement or theory) to be wrong or false; disprove.

          Nice try at hand waving Phil. The models are abject failures, and all of your CAGW crap is based upon models, and of course fraudulent numbers.

        • Centurion13 says:

          @gator69: Absolutely. Notice the reliance on consensus? The scientists say it, the editors allow it to be published. It must be true! Ignore that man behind the curtain! Who’re ya gonna believe, me or your lyin’ eyes?

          There are logical flaws in the AGW ‘argument’ big enough to drive a snowtruck through. I won’t bring even one of them out. You folks know how to use Google if you desire to see AGW refuted in a professional manner. MIchael Crichton was right – even if his novel ‘State of Fear’ was meh, the appendices are priceless. And so is the explanation of the ‘State of Fear’. It jibes perfectly with everything I know about rotten, selfish, foolish corrupt humans.

          The data has been diddled, and conclusively SHOWN to be diddled, and yet these wretched men keep going back to their cooked computer models and screeching “THE EARTH IS BURNING!!!” You’re all bad people if you don’t give all your money and time and blind obedience to the nice man in the white smock. Never mind who is behind him, pulling his strings. Do you really have to ask? Follow the money.

          I have a certain amount of faith in authority. I would have to live like a savage in a cave if I did not. But there comes a time when the scientific method moves from the laboratory into the living room, and goes from a means of discovering truth about an objective reality we know almost nothing about, to a means of defining reality itself according to whatever some corrupt naked ape wants this week.

          Michael Crichton called that one, too. Environmentalism IS a religion. AGW is just one of their liturgies.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Doctor BRAINLESS Hi, you moronic BOZO.

          Are your monkeys still doing meaningless linear trends for you, straight across EL Nino steps.

          Its all you have, and all you ever had.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “being a scientists I know how to analyse data ”

          ROFLMAO !! Monkey see, monkey do.. and you know it.

          Your pseudo-science is based on juvenile cherry-picked maths with zero understanding of what is actually happening with the climate.

        • Latitude says:

          What we are discussing here is the relatively stable climate of the last 10,000 years..

          well that’s a relief….we are still solidly within that same range so there’s nothing to worry about then is there?

        • AndyG55 says:

          And the remarkably stable climate for the last 100 or so years.

          Almost certainly warmer in 1940’s than now

          And it was absolutely certainly warmer in the MWP, RWP, and most of the previous Holocene Optimum.

          Less extreme weather, hurricane.

          We live in times of a rather BENIGN CLIMATE, compare to that of past history.

          We are VERY LUCKY to live in a SLIGHTLY warmer period after the coldest period in 10,000 years.

          And I bet Dr Brainless lives somewhere warm… Never in Siberia.

          Inner city latte set, aren’t you, o Brainless one…, with heating and air-conditioning on call thanks to plant food producing coal-fired power.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “I constantly rained on their parade ”

          What a load of SELF-IMPORTANT, ARROGANT BULLSHIT !!

          Totally baseless.

          You never produce one single bit of anything that wasn’t based on monkey like cherry-pick misinformation.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “They could not do it themselves, Ms Nova had to do it for them.”

          Diddums, slimo. !

          The fly in, run-away, she-man runs away again.

          Try not to use your wet nappy to dry your tear.

        • Philip Shehan says:

          gator. If you insist on using refute in such an absolute sense, to mean “disprove” rather than provide evidence against, let me rephrase your question.

          “Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes anthropogenic CO2 as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.”

          You cannot prove that increasing temperatures are not due to anthropogenic emissions of CO2. Therefore you cannot refute that claim.

          You may be able to produce papers that give evidence, or purport to do so, that the warming is due to natural forcings only.

          Similarly I can produce any number of papers that give evidence that CO2 is a contributor to global warming.

          I have not “hand waved.” I have responded to your points.

          AGW this not based on models. The theory is 120 years old. It is in fact a very simple theory based on well established physics. Callendar first quantified the rise in temperature with doubling of CO2 in 1938, before models and computers. His figure is in agreement with empirical observation. There are no models involved in the following:

          The temperature rise with doubling of CO2 (ECS) for this data is 2.5 C.

          For those who prefer satellite data:

          ECS =2.2 C

          Both figures are in agreement with Callendar’s calculation and with the IPCC predicted range of 1.5 to 4.5 C.

          As for the claim that models are abject failures, I provided an example of Hansen’s 1981 model that correctly predicted a rise in temperature and got the amount of rise correct.

          Furthermore the models in fig 9.8, page 768 here have a correlation coefficient (the measure of the fit of data to the models of 99% (Fig 1. page 824). How is that “abject failure”?

          Centurion. Contrary to your assertion, nowhere have I mentioned or relied upon a consensus.

          Scientists do research, they submit the results to journals, the editors send the manuscript to referees, who carefully examine the work. The may recommend publication nof the paper, with or without revisions or further work or recommend against publication. I have been on both sides of the referee process. How many papers have you written had published or have refereed to gain such a definite opinion of the process? If the paper is published other scientists will read it. It will not automatically be “believed”. They will assess it. They may accept it’s conclusions in whole, in part or not at all.

          There are flaws in AGW big enough to drive a truck through, but all you offer is the opinion of a novelist.

          Tell me where this is wrong then. As I wrote AGW is simple, straight forward physics.
          going back almost 200 years and the theory of the anthropogenic contribution was enunciated120 years ago.

          Since that time a better understanding has come about with advances in bonding theory and quantum theory. The following is from what I learned and taught in universities, independent of its application to climate.

          The C=O double bond in CO2 has stretching and bending frequencies that match the energy of radiation in the infrared band. A quantum of that energy can be absorbed by those bonds, increasing the kinetic energy of those molecules. Temperature is a measure of molecular kinetic energy. The energy can be transferred to other molecules by collisions, or the energy can be re-emitted in any direction, including back to the surface. So IR energy that was going out into space is retained in the atmosphere or redirected to the surface, warming the earth.

          The absorption of IR energy by CO2 molecules can be observed in the laboratory by simple experiment. It is used by astronomers to identify CO2 in space.

          Every university chemistry student is aware of the C=O absorption band in infrared spectra of organic molecules. That is how the CO bonds in a chemical sample are identified, helping to determine the structure of the molecule. I used to teach that to undergraduate students in the lab.

          I have given examples of the empirical evidence for AGW above. The match between the rise in CO2 and temperature is more than a correlation, it is as predicted by the theory. That makes the observed data evidence that the theory is correct.

          Latitude. regarding your graph. Even Jo Nova thinks that the Roman warm period was only as warm as the early 20th century. (You have to add an extra 0.8 C of instrumental warming on to the proxy data ending in 1950.)

          Andy again demonstrates that he is incapable of responding to scientific argument with anything but peurile abuse.

          Skeptics must love having him on their side.

        • gator69 says:


          Philip says; “Not one paper in 120 years shows that natural variability has been usurped by man, but you must believe in CAGW anyway”.


        • gator69 says:

          Phil says: “Correlation proves causation, when it comes to CO2, over cherrypicked periods of time”.

        • gator69 says:

          Gator syas: “… CAGW crap is based upon models, and of course fraudulent numbers”.

          Phil creates a strawman: “AGW this not based on models”.

          AGW is not CAGW, and all of CAGW is based upon models and bogus numbers. AGW is not the issue here Phil. And yet even AGW cannot be shown without models. Models who have one flaw that is over 100 times larger than the signal they are designed to detect. That’s just one flaw Phil.

          There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

          In am willing to discuss this with you further at a later date, but you need more time. You have not thought your arguments through, and you obviously have not reviewed all the evidence.

          PS – I have a peer reviewed paper that shows CO2 has a cooling effect. So much for your 120 year old hypothesis.

        • Philip Shehan says:

          Gator says Philip says; “Not one paper in 120 years shows that natural variability has been usurped by man, but you must believe in CAGW anyway”.

          No. In fact I have referenced such a paper.

          gator say Phil says: “Correlation proves causation, when it comes to CO2, over cherrypicked periods of time”.

          No. I have said that correlation matching theory is evidence for the theory. That is how science works. Here is a period of time covering most of the priod of anthropogenic warming, since 1850, also matching the theory.

          Gator syas: “… CAGW crap is based upon models, and of course fraudulent numbers”.
          Phil creates a strawman: “AGW this not based on models”.

          No, as I said the theory has been around for 120 years and Callendar quantified it in 1938, some time before computers and “models”.

          “strawman”? No, a statement in response to your claim: “The models are abject failures, and all of your CAGW crap is based upon models.”

          gator employs the all purpose denier get out clause. “The data supports AGW? Then the data is corrupted. It’s a conspiracy”
          Including skeptic poster boy Christy and Spencers uncorrupted, unsullied pure as the driven non-melting snow satellite data?:

          ECS is 2.2 C. In agreement with Gistemp data from 1958, data from 1850 and Callendar’s calculation.

          “CAGW” is opposed to AGW is a strawman invented by skeptics.

          PS – I have a peer reviewed paper that shows CO2 has a cooling effect. So much for your 120 year old hypothesis.
          And there are countless papers demonstrating that CO2 has a warming effect. I have presented empirical evidence here to that effect. But by all means, put up a link. I do not need any more time to think through how to deal with your nonsense.

        • gator69 says:

          Phil says: No. In fact I have referenced such a paper.

          No, you haven’t, because there is no such paper. Remember? No refutation?

          Phil says: I have said that correlation matching theory is evidence for the theory.

          Word salad.

          Phil says: No, as I said the theory has been around for 120 years and Callendar quantified it in 1938, some time before computers and “models”.

          Once again Phil, put down the strawman, we are discussing CAGW. Nothing but models and fraudulent figures support CAGW. Next time don’t forget the “C”.

          The rest of Phil’s post deviolves into what appears to be an alcoholic collapse and rambling rant.

          Poor fumblimg Phil cannot disprove the obvious driver of climate, natural variability.

      • AndyG55 says:

        Dr Brainless.. non-master of the cherry-pick, no-knowledge linear trend mis-information.

        How much of your love for data manipulation did you pick up during your doctorate?

        • AndyG55 says:

          For those that don’t know him, Dr Brainless is the equivalent of a monkey with a straight edge.. just learnt to use it.

          So he draws random , knowledge-lacking linear trend that go wherever his ruler lands.. always with a positive trend.

          He pretends to have some knowledge of maths, which barely exceeds 1st year pass-grade uni.

          Someone has taught him to do meaningless trend calculations with the SkS trend calculator, that always seem to go across step changes. DOH !!

          He has basically ZERO UNDERSTANDING of anything to do with climate system, and a major anti-science AGEW propagandist on several Australian web sites.

          Banned from WUWT, JoNova etc etc because of his incredible idiocy.
          but has ZERO UNDERSTANDING

        • AndyG55 says:

          ignore that last line. was hiding.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Philip Shehan/Hansen are myopic and are talking weather not climate.

        It appears, the Dansgaard-Oeschger (D-O) temperature cycle is driven by a solar magnetic cycle change, as there are cosmogenic isotope changes at each and every D-O cycle. What is missing is a physical mechanism to explain how a solar magnetic cycle change can cause the planet to cyclically warm and cool, sometimes abruptly cool.

        In the last 10 years, the geomagnetic field specialists have found that geomagnetic field changes correlate with past climate changes. What delayed the geomagnetic field analysis (consensus on the finding), is there is no explanation as to why the geomagnetic field is changing cyclically and as the geomagnetic field changes are significantly faster than is possible with the current assumed model for how the geomagnetic field is generated.

        The following are two papers that note there is a 100,000 year cycle in the earth’s geomagnetic field and that the geomagnetic field is abruptly changing. The analysis is confused however as the researchers do not understand the fundamental mechanisms and there are multiple fields involved.

        Orbital Influence on Earth’s Magnetic Field: 100,000-Year Periodicity in Inclination

        A continuous record of the inclination and intensity of Earth’s magnetic field, during the past 2.25 million years, was obtained from a marine sediment core of 42 meters in length. This record reveals the presence of 100,000-year periodicity in inclination and intensity, which suggests that the magnetic field is modulated by orbital eccentricity. The correlation between inclination and intensity shifted from antiphase to in-phase, corresponding to a magnetic polarity change from reversed to normal. To explain the observation, we propose a model in which the strength of the geocentric axial dipole field varies with 100,000-year periodicity, whereas persistent nondipole components do not.

        Is the geodynamo process intrinsically unstable?

        Recent palaeomagnetic studies suggest that excursions of the geomagnetic field, during which the intensity drops suddenly by a factor of 5^10 and the local direction changes dramatically, are more common than previously expected. The `normal’ state of the geomagnetic field, dominated by an axial dipole, seems to be interrupted every 30 to 100 kyr; it may not therefore be as stable as we thought…. …Recent studies suggest that the Earth’s magnetic field has fallen dramatically in magnitude and changed direction repeatedly since the last reversal 700 kyr ago (Langereis et al. 1997; Lund et al. 1998). These important results paint a rather different picture of the long-term behaviour of the field from the conventional one of a steady dipole reversing at random intervals: instead, the field appears to spend up to 20 per cent of its time in a weak, non-dipole state (Lund et al. 1998).

        This paper notes there correlation of past climate cycles D-O cycles and Heinrich events with geomagnetic field changes.

        Earth’s moment of inertia during glaciation
        The effect of changes in the Earth’s moment of inertia during glaciation on geomagnetic polarity excursions and reversals: Implications for Quaternary chronology

        Geomagnetic polarity reversals and excursions in the Quaternary correlate well with interglacial-to-glacial transitions and glacial maxima. It is suggested that this relationship results from interactions between the Earth’s mantle and core that accompany decreases in the Earth’s moment of inertia during ice accumulation, which weaken the geomagnetic field in order to try to counter the decrease in differential rotation between the mantle and inner core that is being forced. In the Late Pleistocene, geomagnetic excursions directly correlate with brief phases of rapid ice growth that accompany falls in global sea-level, notably during the Younger Dryas stage, Dansgaard–Oeschger interstadials 5 and 10 that precede the rapid melting events during Heinrich events H3 and H4, and during the transitions between oxygen isotope stages 5c-5b, and 5e-5d. It is proposed that similar relationships between instabilities in climate and the geomagnetic field also typefied the Middle Pleistocene. As a result of the transfer of some of the mass of the oceans into polar ice sheets, the climate instabilities that initiate these rapid ice accumulations redistribute angular momentum and rotational kinetic energy between the Earth’s mantle and inner core. These changes weaken the Earth’s magnetic field, facilitating geomagnetic excursions and also causing enhanced production of cosmogenic nuclides, including 14C. The subsequent phases of rapid ice melting, Heinrich events, reverse this effect: strengthening the field. This explanation, of forcing of geomagnetic excursions by climate instabilities, provides a natural explanation for why, during the Middle-Late Pleistocene, excursions have been numerous but none has developed into a polarity reversal: the characteristic duration of the climate instabilities is too short.

        Below, is the Greenland Ice sheet proxy temperature data for the last 12,000 years. The Greenland ice temperature date shows the so called Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle (named after the paleoclimate discoverers of the cycle) which is a cycle of warming and cooling with a periodicity of 1450 years plus or minus 500 years. With abrupt changes up to 16C.
        Until these D-O events can be explained the Climastrologists are just looking at fleas on a mamoth.
        Seems I can’t post the graph.

  84. Mark says:

    Correct me if I am wrong but isn’t using fear to further a political or ideological aim the actual definition of terrorism?

    As such Al Gore is guilty of the dictionary definition of terrorism, so is Obama and Holdren

  85. Henry P says:

    Noel Brunson says
    sit in your car in the garage with the motor running for a few minutes and see how that effects your environment
    Henry says
    1) You would not die of CO2 poisening, as CO2 is not a poison.
    2) You would die of asphyxiation, i.e. a lack of oxygen…..

    Various testing by myself showed there is no man made global warming. That is just a hoax. Everything of the climate comes and goes natural, depending on a number of factors.

  86. tlhonmey says:

    And this is all ignoring the troublesome detail that the world has, several times, been either far warmer or far colder than it is now, without any human intervention at all… Unless you’re going to suggest that the reason you don’t see any woolly mammoths in your back yard is due to those darned cave-men and their coal-fired power plants… And just ignore those archaeological findings involving human dwellings and mines that are just now melting out of the ice they’ve been encased in for the last 600ish years…

  87. Norman Page says:

    To see what is actually going on see Fig 1 at
    and quotes
    3.1 Long Term .
    I am a firm believer in the value of Ockham’s razor thus the simplest working hypothesis based on the weight of all the data is that the millennial temperature cycle peaked at about 2003 and that the general trends from 990 – 2003 seen in Fig 4 will repeat from 2003-3016 with the depths of the next LIA at about 2640.
    3.2 Medium Term.
    Looking at the shorter 60+/- year wavelengths the simplest hypothesis is that the cooling trend from 2003 forward will simply be a mirror image of the rising trend. This is illustrated by the green curve in Fig,1.which shows cooling until 2038 ,slight warming to 2073, then cooling to the end of the century.
    3.3 Current Trends
    The cooling trend from the millennial peak at 2003 is illustrated in blue in Fig 5. From 2015 on,the decadal cooling trend is obscured by the current El Nino. The El Nino peaked in March 2016. Thereafter during 2017 – 2019 we might reasonably expect a cooling at least as great as that seen during the 1998 El Nino decline in Fig 5 – about 0.9 C
    It is worth noting that the increase in the neutron count in 2007 seen in Fig 8 indicated a possible solar regime change which might produce an unexpectedly sharp decline in RSS temperatures 12 years later – 2019 +/- to levels significantly below the blue trend line in Fig 5.

    To the detriment of the reputation of science in general, establishment climate scientists made two egregious errors of judgment in their method of approach to climate forecasting and thus in their advice to policy makers in successive SPMs. First, they based their analyses on inherently untestable and specifically structurally flawed models which included many questionable assumptions. Second they totally ignored the natural, solar driven , millennial and multi-decadal quasi-cycles. Unless we know where we are with regard to and then incorporate the phase of the millennial cycle in particular, useful forecasting is simply impossible.
    It is fashionable in establishment climate circles to present climate forecasting as a “wicked” problem.I would by contrast contend that by adopting the appropriate time scale and method for analysis it becomes entirely tractable so that commonsense working hypotheses with sufficient likely accuracy and chances of success to guide policy can be formulated.
    If the real outcomes follow the near term forecasts in para 3.3 above I suggest that the establishment position is untenable past 2020.This is imminent in climate terms. The essential point of this post is that the 2003 peak in Fig 1 marks a millennial peak which is totally ignored in all the IPCC projections.”

  88. Steven, you’ll like this. I downloaded all of Environment Canada’s daily temperature data for all their stations back to 1900 (only 12 stations go back that far). This is Station 4333 (Ottawa) summer TMax:

    Number of days above 30C:

    Record breaking July days:

    Winter TMin:

    The period before the 1930s we had long deep cold winters with short hot summers. Now we have longer cooler summers with shorter less cold winters. That’s what’s driving the average up:

    And this is bad how?

    • HenryP says:

      Hi Richard
      I am struck by the apparent relationship between falling ozone concentration (the very graph before your first graph) and decreasing T max. (your first graph)
      It does exist, as I discovered in Alaska:

      Currently, ozone is recovering and therefore we are returning a bit to the old situation, which is a bit bad…..
      [cooling/freezing generally does not promote more life]

Leave a Reply

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