Global Temperatures Are Mostly Fake

NOAA claims global temperatures are the hottest ever, based on some rather spectacular junk science. NOAA doesn’t actually have any temperature data over most of the land surface.

201606

201606.gif (990×765)

They never had any data from most of the southern hemisphere.

2016-07-21065627

TimesMachine: January 5, 1978 – NYTimes.com

And they made up much of their southern hemisphere ocean data.

date: Wed Apr 15 14:29:03 2009
from: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk> subject: Re: Fwd: Re: contribution to RealClimate.org
to: Thomas Crowley <thomas.crowley@ed.ac.uk>

Tom,

The issue Ray alludes to is that in addition to the issue
of many more drifters providing measurements over the last
5-10 years, the measurements are coming in from places where
we didn’t have much ship data in the past. For much of the SH between 40 and 60S the normals are mostly made up as there is very little ship data there.

Cheers
Phil

di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/2729.txt

The US has NOAA’s best data, and almost half it is also fake.

2016-07-20165821

This date in 1934 may have been the hottest in US history. The map below shows actual temperatures, not the “heat index.” Almost two-thirds of the US was over 100F on July 21, 1934 – with temperatures of 115 in Missouri and South Dakota, and 113 in Minnesota.

2016-07-20232345

The US has much less hot weather than it used to.

2016-07-20120807

No serious scientist would make claims based on fake data, which is why NOAA does it. Their climate people are propagandists, not scientists.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

342 Responses to Global Temperatures Are Mostly Fake

  1. Ed Klebacha says:

    Whether some of the data is fake or not is irrelevant. Extremists shouldn’t be making dire predictions, nor should opposite extremists be getting so worked up. The best practice should be to minimize all atmospheric pollutants so as to stabilize or ultimately reduce the overall concentration of those pollutants, precisely because we don’t really know what will happen.

    • Andy Fox says:

      In case this is what you are referring to atmospheric pollutants, Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, it is a naturally occurring gas that has been in the atmosphere since the beginning.

      • Car Michael says:

        Are there still people who don’t know global warming aka climate change is just a tax scam? FYI: Taking money from you is their solution. Why not blame oil companies for warming? After all, they blame gun manufacturers instead of shooters. The warming should be pinned on the royal owned oil companies, its their product, and their responsibility, not citizens.
        They are going to tax citizens for this, so citizens should read and follow their tax law, BEFORE they start taxing us for warming caused by THEIR products.
        Politicians are lying about taxes. Tax law, which include regulations, is codified and easy as 1,2.

        1.
        –Exempt Income, 26 CFR 1.861-8T(d)(2)(ii)
        “exempt income means any income that is … exempt, excluded, or eliminated for federal income tax purposes.”

        2.
        –Income Not Exempt, 26 CFR 1.861-8T(d)(2)(iii)
        “Income that is not considered tax exempt. The following items are not considered to be exempt, eliminated, or excluded income

        (A) In the case of a foreign taxpayer … gross income (whether domestic or foreign source)
        (B) gross income of a DISC or a FSC; [domestic international sales corp, foreign sales corp]
        (C) gross income of a possessions corporation
        (D) Foreign earned income as defined in section 911”

        Do you make Foreign earned income? No? According to code (law), YOU DON’T OWE any income tax. As usual, politicians are lying, and stealing money from citizens under color of law. Politicians are parasites.

        “The Service is bound by the regulations.”
        –Internal Revenue Manual, 4.10.7.2.3.4
        So, how come IRS ignores tax regulations?

        SOURCE- ecfr DOT gov
        HOW TO- Click Simple Search, find “exempt income means”

        MORE INFO-
        Computer scientist data-mines tax code, Whatistaxed DOT com

        • J West says:

          Sir, the political origin of the ‘climate change’ ( it was called global cooling at the time) agenda were created as a means to fund ‘sustainable development’. The Bruntland Commision report has been insidiously working it’s way through the system since the 70’s when it was decided that the politicians needed to devise a method of shifting tax revenues of the first world to the third as a means of creating what is now known as ‘globalization’. You’re right, it is a ‘tax scam’ on the highest political level.

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

          • Terwiliger says:

            You, sir, are correct.

            I started compulsory gubmint skrool during ‘Nam. One year of elementary school “science” was devoted, in about 80% of classroom time, to “the impending ice age.” The retching and rending of my “teacher” [propagandist] made a tent-revival preacher look like an Encyclopaedia Britannica salesman.

            The following year, we “studied” antiquity, with the focus being on how acid rain was dissolving all of its architecture: (1) the Pyramids (No, during the Arab Wars/Arab Invasion, they were stripped of their outer layers for construction materials for mosques, among other things); (2) the Sphinx, particularly its nose [No, Napoleon ordered a cannon be fired at it]; (3) the near dissolution of the Parthenon [No, a Greek–unhappy with the fact that the Turks were using it as an armory–tossed a grenade in it]… the list goes on.

            Now it’s global warming. Well, the Lord did say the next time he destroyed the world, it would be with fire. I just don’t see how anyone can draw parallels with “science” and religion. How preposterous.

            When I think back on the crap I learned in grade school, It’s a wonder I can think at all.

        • yiddishlion says:

          Still posting the income tax evasion dis-information and lies I see. Give it a rest fool.

          This all has been thoroughly fought over and settled in the courts…..DECADES ago!

          • Tommymag says:

            Imagine if that were the argument used to defend slavery.

          • Rational Thinking Skeptic says:

            Psst, yiddishlion, when impugning the intelligence of another, it is generally a good idea to use correct spelling, proper grammar and complete sentences. Otherwise, your credibility is shot to hell and you come across as a pompous blowhard. Now, please cite a few of these court cases that “settled” the basis for carbon taxes. I’ll wait…….

          • Leo says:

            If it was settled in courts, it’s legal, that doesn’t make it science.

      • mikecnj says:

        luvvin UR Sleestak

      • Claudia McAllister says:

        “Climate change” – Spring, Summer, Winter, Fall. We can all exhale now. So absurd!! yet so many believe. Looking forward to Obama taking over for “AlGore”. He wants some of that money in his pockets that he hasn’t had access to while President

        • B. Afraid says:

          Beware, in addition to man made climate change, we also have man made day turns to night. Nighttime is coming, my friend, beware! It will be so horrible you will want to sleep thru it. Hibernate if you will, until the next manmade day comes.

        • Vendicar Decarian says:

          Poor Claudia. She is mentally ill.

          Probably a Drumpf supporter too.

          Lol

          • DCW leftcoast says:

            Gorebull Warming Stopped in 1998 . . . even the last IPCC summary agreed . . P 37 !
            So they changed the name . . .
            Hillary supporter I presume . . . are you going to visit her in the Pen when she gets indited by AG Christie next spring?

      • jeff says:

        Not to mention that it’s total concentration increase, in the atmosphere, is .00012 since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution (280 PPM to 400 PPM source Wikipedia)

      • george fergusson says:

        The most recent Ice Age is ending. The next Ice Age will arrive shortly, geologically speaking. There is no way to stop the Earth from wobbling, so eventually ALL of the global warming man can “create” will not be sufficient to halt the encroaching glaciers.

        • Vendicar Decarian says:

          “The most recent Ice Age is ending. ” – George Fergusson

          Poor George. He just doesn’t realize that we are in an inter-glacial period and that the last glacial cycle ended 12,000 years ago.

          ” There is no way to stop the Earth from wobbling” – George Fergusson

          A 24,000 year wobble doesn’t produce a 100 year dramatic change in global average temperature.

          Poor George. Poor Stupid George.

          • AndyG55 says:

            “A 24,000 year wobble doesn’t produce a 100 year dramatic change in global average temperature.”

            That started in 1850 and THANKFULLY pulled us out of the Little Ice Age.

            No CO2 attribution there. DOH !

          • AndyG55 says:

            And the slight beneficial warming is ONLY DRAMATIC if you are a brain-dead alarmist.

          • Mesquite_Thorn says:

            The ACTUAL temperature data contradicts your statement. Doctored data is not factual.

          • Knucky says:

            Science midget. The definition of an ice age is anytime there is glaciers upon the land surfaces. Therefore, by definition we are currently still in an ice age. Officially the interglacial period starts as it says, After all the glaciers have disappeared. They have not as of the current date. The interglacial period will end when a glacier returns to the land surfaces. It would seem George was correct. Poor Vendi

      • Kevin says:

        What’s funny about CO2 is when there is more of it, plants grow faster thus producing MORE O2. Its an amazing thing, almost like there is a check and balance to the atmospheric gases.

        Its incredible, who would have thunk it!

      • Vendicar Decarian says:

        Dung is naturally occurring too.

        Would you call it a pollutant if it’s in your drinking water?

        • AmericanEagle1392 says:

          Yes, I would remove dung from drinking water, and particulates and noxious gases from the air we breathe.

          CO2, however, is not a pollutant, but a convenient proxy for emissions. There is no law of science that relates CO2 levels to warming and the correlations are also inconsistent.

          The biggest indictment of the hypothesis that tries to relate the two are the PREDICTIONS based on computer models based on trumped up hypotheses.

          These predictions have been wrong for almost 20 years now and a hypothesis without predictive value is, by definition, useless.

        • Colorado Wellington says:

          Vending Cart de Carrion! I was hoping somebody would pull it up.

          Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is like dung in drinking water! Hurray for progressive reasoning!

          Hillary 2016!

        • SquirrelCutter says:

          Not if it is below 400 ppm, you’d never know.

          Dumass.

        • DCW leftcoast says:

          Carbon is an element on the Periodic Table . . .
          All life has a carbon content . . .

          CO2 is the reason life exists on the planet today . . .

          This idiot at Stanford might be your fellow traveller . . .
          “There’s no such thing as a safe level [of CO2].”
          Dr. Stephen Schneider of Stanford . . . actually said that ? ? ?
          Imagine a world where CO2 levels were at say 100 PPM . . . or maybe even 50 PPM . . . don’t think we could ever get rid of it all . . .
          What do you suppose the World would look like ?
          Why the world would look just like the good Doctor . . . DEAD ! ! !

          • Richard says:

            CO2 is a requirement for photosynthesis. Early life existed *without* photosynthesis and had no need for CO2. Some life forms of this class still exist today. The statement, “CO2 is the reason life exists on the planet today” is just wrong on the face of it.

          • Ken says:

            Regarding richard’s comment below re organisms which do not require CO2. He is correct that there are some simple organisms, mostly one cell types that use nitrogen, sulfur for example. However, the current operable cycle is O2 and CO2 dependent. So his comment below is simplistic at best. Life on the planet at our current level of species differentiation and scope is indeed CO2 and O2 dependent. Nice try though.

        • Matt says:

          Wow, you seem really interested and angry about this topic.
          Your arguments all seem fallacious like most arguments I read from your side. This particular one here is a the “fallacy of false analogy”. While dung is unequivocally demonstrated, proven and observed to cause sickness such as diphtheria when added to drinking water, there has been no such comparable analysis of cause and effect as it pertains to the CO2 in the amount caused by humans to the Climate. You are simply comparing apples to oranges.

          Pertaining to your other comments, you seem to be responding to every person who uses the word “pollutant” and giving your definition that it is anything ” has undesired effects, or adversely affects the usefulness of a resource.” You make this kind of argument over and over in various comments, but never prove that CO2 has any undesired effects.
          Your argument could be stated as follows “Since my side is right, and CO2 causes undesired climate-change, therefore CO2 is clearly a pollutant.”
          You never provide proof what so ever that CO2 causes undesired climate change. This is a logical fallacy called “Begging the Question”.
          It takes the form as follows: “I know that CO2 is a pollutant because it is clearly bad for the environment”.
          You can see clear examples here and will see that your argumentation fits the pattern perfectly: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/53/Begging-the-Question

          If you’re going to keep going down the line of calling people stupid and insisting that CO2 is a “pollutant”, then you need to actually provide proof that it is in fact actually a pollutant.

          While you ramble on with this kind of argumentation, you call others uneducated, mentally-ill and suggest that they need to take 5th grade science classes.
          Perhaps you need to take Logic 101? You should seriously think about it.

          I’m a “Climate Change” agnostic by the way and haven’t made up my mind at all on it, but the argumentation I see from your side is pathetic.

        • NoOil4Pacifists says:

          Vendicar,

          Certainly not the EPA…

      • SepDosOctDos says:

        Carbon dioxide. Isn’t it just soda pop bubbles?

    • Neil Derry says:

      Carbon is not a pollutant. It is a required component for life to exist. Carbon levels have risen and dropped in the past and according to actual collected data had little impact on global temperatures. Making drastic changes to human energy use and economies that will have dramatically negative impacts on everyone is unreasonable, unnecessary, and reduces human freedom (which is what most of this whole effort is actually about.)

      • Chris says:

        Ding ding correct you hit the nail on the head congrats

      • Fred says:

        Imagine that? Carbon-based life forms are actually pollution-based life forms.

      • Mark David says:

        CO2 is not a pollutant.

        Liberalism, Socialism, Communism, Marxism and Collectivism are the pollutants.

        • Jason Brink says:

          Don’t forget capitalism

          • Gail Combs says:

            WHAT capitalism???

            Capitalism, with the exception of SELF FUNDED small business went extinct a hundred years ago thanks to fractional reserve banking.

        • Mesquite_Thorn says:

          Deadlier than any nuclear weapon… left wing radicals have killed hundreds of millions over the last century.

      • Steve Gregory says:

        Every bit of food you eat … whether a carbohydrate from a plant or a protein from an animal … ultimately came from the CO2 in the air … to use reductio ad absurbum … no CO2 in the air = nothing growing = nothing for animals to eat = nothing for us to eat … We all die … to say 280 ppm = ideal and 400 = disaster is complete and total nonsense … more CO2 = more plant life …

      • JDB, Esq. says:

        Politicians, however, ARE a pollutant. We need some statesmen for a change.

      • Vendicar Decarian says:

        “Carbon is not a pollutant. ” – Neil Derry

        And neither is Oxygen, but build some CO2 molecules out of them in your tissues, and you have a metabolic poison.

        Why do you think that your body goes to the great extent it does to rid itself of CO2?

        Hold your breath for 120 seconds and tell us how toxic it is.

        • AmericanEagle1392 says:

          The problem with you argument is that CO2 has increased by 43% since the beginning of the industrial age while the average global temperature has increased by a whopping 0.85 degrees Celsius over the same period, hardly something to sweat over.

          Thus the hoax has no support in the actual record and is being kept alive by PREDICTIONS of dire consequences in the distant future to scare people. BTW, these computer generated predictions have been wrong for almost 20 years now, which means the hypotheses behind them are, by definition, useless.

          • CincyFlyer says:

            You forgot to mention that the temperature increase preceded the CO2 increase. I guess that means (according to some) that CO2 is prescient.

        • AmericanEagle1392 says:

          The executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, Christiana Figueres, has admitted that their hoax has nothing to do with the climate and everything to do with tearing capitalism down:

          http://poorrichardsnews.com/un-climate-chief-candidly-admits-goal-is-not-to/

        • jason says:

          You’re an idiot.

        • Gail Combs says:

          You do not know what you are talking about.

          What you are discribing is LACK OF OXYGEN. Increasing CO2 is used to heal lungs and keep the blood pH balanced.

          http://www.normalbreathing.com/CO2.php

        • AndyG55 says:

          “tell us how toxic it is”

          Nowhere near as TOXIC as you are.

      • Vendicar Decarian says:

        “Carbon is not a pollutant.” – Neil Derry

        By definition it is.

        A pollutant is a substance or energy introduced into the environment that has undesired effects, or adversely affects the usefulness of a resource.

        • DCW leftcoast says:

          Here are some comments from some of your fellow travellers on the extreme left !

          These are the predictions made on the first earth day in 1970.

          Didn’t believe them then, don’t believe them now . . .

          1.”Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” — Harvard biologist George Wald
          2.”We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation.” — Washington University biologist Barry Commoner
          3.”Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.” — New York Times editorial
          4.”Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.” — Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich
          5.”Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born… [By 1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.” — Paul Ehrlich
          6.”It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” — Denis Hayes, Chief organizer for Earth Day

        • Nobama says:

          That’s just it, CO2, introduced into the environment, has NO ill effects in concentrations quadruple of what we now measure. Its presence is wholly beneficial. And, by the way, holding your breath causes distress due to hypoxia, not because of CO2. Humans tolerate CO2 in concentrations greater than ten fold the 400 ppm found in the atmosphere without distress.

          • cdquarles says:

            Exactly. A person’s exhaled breath is about 10% water and 4% carbon dioxide. Where we have run into problems with high carbon dioxide concentrations, those were combined with low oxygen concentrations.

            What is a quick treatment for someone who is hyperventilating? Get them to rebreathe their own exhaled air. That gets their blood acid-base and carbonate concentrations back toward levels that ease the anxiety that prevents them from simply holding their breath.

      • Earl Mardle says:

        Oxygen is not a pollutant. It is a required component for life to exist.

        Therefore, more oxygen will be better for life to exist.

        How about you try an atmosphere of 100% oxygen for a while, I’m sure you’ll be so much more alive at the end of the experiment than you were at the beginning.

      • James Morris says:

        A little late to the argument but there is one thing that keeps getting left out of the CO2 debate. Al Gore liked to point out that based on samples taken from ages ago, there was a correlation to the amount of CO2 in the air and the global temperatures of the planet. Of course there was a correlation, when global temperatures go up, ice melts and when the ice melts, CO2 is released into the air. It reminds me of the old argument that smoking marijuana leads to cocaine use. They determined this by surveying cocaine users and most had previously smoked marijuana. Of course if they had asked the cocaine users if they had previously drank water, it would have been a higher percentage. When science is funded with a political agenda in mind, it no longer is science.

    • Madd Dogg says:

      I agree, but CO2 as a “pollutant?”

      • The Science Farmer says:

        Tell that to my forest, trees do not live forever no matter what the huggers say. As an example Birch, harvest at 35-40 yr, maple 45-50 yr, alder max at 40 yr. If you don’t adhere to these times then the tree starts to DEGRADE, yes it starts breaking down and actually gives off more CO2 than it takes in. So if the greenies are worried about CO2 levels than lets cut down ALL forests older than 60 years and replant with seedlings that consume high quanities of CO2.

        • bitmap says:

          Not to mention the release of massive amounts of Methane after the tree dies and the wood starts to decay :) – Remember when catalytic convertors were mandated we were told it was because the CCs took the nasty exhaust of your automobile engine (which was causing global cooling) and converted it to “harmless carbon dioxide and water vapor”? Or how about the removal of CFCs from your A/C which were supposedly causing an Ozone hole? Of course the R134 turns out to be a super potent so called “greenhouse gas”.

      • Vendicar Decarian says:

        A pollutant is a substance or energy introduced into the environment that has undesired effects, or adversely affects the usefulness of a resource.

    • Josh J says:

      I largely agree, but the tough question that remains is what is the appropriate amount of government intervention? When so many of the green projects propped up by public funds end up failing, and so many of the computer projections that drive the “emergency” laws and financial redistribution end up being significantly wrong in only a few short years, do we really believe that politicians and centralized government are the best entities to encourage change? I read somewhere that the simple USB thumb drive has saved millions of trees, so perhaps raising public awareness of the issue but allowing citizens and the free market to evolve toward more environmentally conscious choices is the real path to cultural change. There is a place for government involvement, but I’d argue the attempts at legislation and financial redistribution have been costly mistakes.

      • freedom rider says:

        You hit it on the head. It is all about the globalists financial redistribution.

      • Jersey Joe says:

        Carbon Dioxide is NOT a pollutant. Us “carbon-based life forms” add it when we breathe out. Should we hold our breaths?
        Trees and green plants also create it. Should we kill all of them and pave over our lawns? Maybe some of these Global warming idiots don’t know green plants also make Oxygen. IF schools are still teaching photosynthesis- did these idiots sleep in class through that…as well as sleeping through most of General Science class… and missing the part about what a humungous role the Sun plays in our very existence.

        • Blurry Face says:

          Joe I’m not sure anyone is listening these dummies can’t understand anyone but the PAID “expert” on their TV, common sense has gone out the window and most can’t think for themselves I guess that is why the fraud has gone as far as it has. I think it’s in Australia that they want to charge taxes for cow flatulence under the guise of global warming . But keep putting it out there maybe a few will remember their common sense and they will realize they are being conned .

      • woodNfish says:

        “…what is the appropriate amount of government intervention?”

        Answer: None. Zero. Nada.

        “…the simple USB thumb drive has saved millions of trees”

        So what? Our wood and paper and other wood products are mostly created from wood grown on tree farms. Trees are a crop just like corn.

        “so perhaps raising public awareness of the issue but allowing citizens and the free market to evolve toward more environmentally conscious choices is the real path to cultural change”

        This has nothing to do with the environment. The environment is fine in the USA. It is about money and power. Nothing in the constitution gives the federal mafia the right to brainwash, propagandize, perform social engineering, and lie to its citizens.

        Energy is not a natural resource – we produce it, and we should be able to produce all we want and more, because that drives the cost down, productivity up and increases wealth for everyone. And none of it is the governments business!

      • A Guy in LA says:

        If Climate Change was real the remedies would be scientific and engineering systems would clean it up. It would not be taking money from some people and giving to other people.

        • JOhnny says:

          Of course the climate DOES change. (ref: ice ages we know occurred). BLAMING that change on an insignificant gas (CO2) just because it comes from Exxon is what is unreal. Water vapor is a significant greenhouse gas.

          • thoughtsinadream says:

            And the planet is mostly water

          • Vendicar Decarian says:

            “Water vapor is a significant greenhouse gas.” – JOhnny

            And it is a gas who’s concentration is driven by more long lived greenhouse gasses like CO2.

            It’s grade 5 science JOhnny. Did you flunk out?

          • AndyG55 says:

            “And it is a gas who’s concentration is driven by more long lived greenhouse gasses like CO2”

            BULLSHIT !!

        • Vendicar Decarian says:

          Where do you intend to get the energy to “clean it up”? From burning more Coal, oil or gas, and creating more CO2?

          My goodness you are ignorant.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Mirror mirror..

            FFS, vendope.. you have not made one intelligent comment in 10 years or so of CAGW scamming and worshipping.

            You are an IGNORANT ANTI-SCIENCE NON-ENTITY !!

      • Len says:

        It is intentional dishonesty, not mistakes.

      • The “appropriate level of government intervention”? NONE.

      • Rational Thinking Skeptic says:

        Ahh, yes, but isn’t it the evil corporations that are our biggest threat? sarcasmoff/

    • Alec Rawls says:

      CO2 is not a pollutant. It is the beginning of the food chain for all life in earth and is the absolute best thing for the biosphere, which is still semi-starved for CO2, which is still near its lowest level in the history of the planet.

      • Vendicar Decarian says:

        pollutant definition:

        A pollutant is a substance or energy introduced into the environment that has undesired effects, or adversely affects the usefulness of a resource.

        It seems that Alec Rawls is ignorant of the definition of the word “pollutant.”

        He is probably ignorant of many other things as well.

        • Jl says:

          What undesired effects?

          • Gail Combs says:

            Let’s see…

            CO2 keeps plants from dying, causes the deserts to turn green, feeds more animals and people…

            Oh yes it also heals human lungs.

            Co2 is a really really strang pollutant. Sort of like the DREADED dihydrogen monoxide molecule.

        • DCW leftcoast says:

          You are completely Nuts man !
          We know that CO2 levels would need to reach concentration in air of 60,000 ppm (from current levels of 390 ppm) to become toxic for humans.
          We know that every single molecule of CO2 is surrounded by 2500 molecules that are NOT CO2 and therefore any theoretical blanket built from CO2 fibers that supposedly is surrounding the Earth is practically made of NOTHING.
          We know that all the knowledge about the physical world comes from experiments that can be validated and not from calculations that cannot be validated. And yet, everything about man-made global warming is about calculations and NOTHING about measurements.

          AGW is a Scam of Gorebull Proportions . . . wealth transfers and control is the goal.

        • Jl says:

          Vendicar-A substance added to the environment that has undesired effects would describe Al Gore or Michael Mann, not CO2. Please keep up.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “A pollutant is a substance or energy introduced into the environment that has undesired effects, or adversely affects the usefulness of a resource.”

          so , definitely NOT CO2

          The effect of raising atmospheric CO2 to any remotely possible level is TOTALLY AND ABSOLUTELY BENEFICIAL.

          There is NO MECHANISM that allows increased CO2 to cause warming in an open atmosphere.

    • karl says:

      What is an “atmospheric pollutant?” If it is a molecule that causes the temperatures to rise then we DO need to know if the data is fake or not. Why spend billions of dollars on programs to reduce “atmospheric pollutants” if there is no man-made global warming? Such money can be used for other purposes, not to address fake climate issues.

    • Kevin says:

      “The best practice should be to minimize all atmospheric pollutant..”
      What if that “best practice” attempt imposes an enormous cost on society.. especially poor people? Since you acknowledge “we don’t really know what will happen”, how do you know that the “pollutants” won’t just naturally dissipate without any great harm… and therefore, how do you justify imposing an enormous cost on society for an uncertain outcome? In other words, how do you know that it is, in fact, a “best practice” the definite economic harm?

      • jabusse says:

        If they sold this as smog reduction they would be far more successful.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Smog has nothing to do with CO2.

          Smog comes from other uncontrolled particulate matter and nitrates/sulphates etc.

          IN developed countries with proper electricity supply systems and properly controlled industry, smog is now a non-issue.

          Its when people are forced back into burning wood, bung etc by high priced or non-existent or irregular electricity, that the problem starts to reappear.

      • Apeon LastnmUnk says:

        oH yEAH!, to minimize ‘atmospheric pollutants, wear a brething mask that will collect all the feces from your lungs.

      • Brian says:

        Ed I agree with Kevin, I also know what game you are playing. Like all Liberals you advise us to follow what you believe are the “best practices”, which is always the established liberal approved solution. So what you tell us is “do this my way anyway because I have decided this is what we should do”. Hey Ed take you best practices and take a hike. All your evidence is based on what I call political science where liberals give scientist money and tell them what outcome they want to hear. The best practice is to recognize that this whole process is completely flawed and move on to the real concerns facing the US and the world. Not allowing the liberal socialists to take over businesses by controlling the cost of energy (and any number of made up crises) and destroying the prosperity we enjoy with with emery costs, high taxes and overregulation. The best practice is to ignore your liberal schemes and lame excuses about what we should do.

        • Joe says:

          Well said.
          The problem is liberals have taken over our government administration.
          90% of all government workers are dimocraps.
          They decide what is a problem and what is not.

        • woodNfish says:

          Ed is not a liberal, he is a leftist. Liberals believe in liberty and you can’t have liberty with huge government interference in every part of the economy and life. Leftists believe the government should tell you how to live and direct your life. Ed is a leftist.

          • Mark Luhman says:

            Got to love leftist they have caused 200,000,000 people to die prematurely in the twenty century and are trying to break that record in the twenty first. Climate change is one of the keys to doing it, after all leftist believe there are too many people in the world. The worst part so many useful idiot listen to them.

          • AndyG55 says:

            “all leftist believe there are too many people in the world. The worst part so many useful idiot listen to them.”

            No, the worst part is that they aren’t prepared to lead the way to that population reduction.

            Someone else’s money…
            Someone else’s life.

    • Terry Waters says:

      CO is not a pollutant any more than oxygen.

      • signtalker says:

        with a little bit of tweaking I’m sure I can convince most people that any part of the atmosphere is a pollutant.

      • mat says:

        “CO” (Carbon Monoxide) is indeed a pollutant, CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) however is plant food… And a great shielding gas for welding…

      • William Young says:

        CO is a poison. CO2 is not.

        • cdquarles says:

          Yet, human bodies make carbon monoxide as a part of their DNA/RNA metabolism. Human bodies deal with cyanide, too.

          Dose and route make the medicine. Dose and route make the poison. The solution to pollution is dilution. Sure, there are times and places where emissions may need limitations (allows dilution), but that’s not the case for carbon dioxide. It would take ambient concentrations greater than 4 parts per hundred to harm humans directly as a poison.

    • Freeport56 says:

      define “Pollutants.”

      • Ima Hawk says:

        In the words of one of our Presidents…”Define Oral Sex”!

        Has the same relevance don’t you think?

      • Vendicar Decarian says:

        A pollutant is a substance or energy introduced into the environment that has undesired effects, or adversely affects the usefulness of a resource.

        • Gator69 says:

          So by that definition, water is a pollutant. Got it. Ban dihydrogen monoxide.

          • Colorado Wellington says:

            I was just outside to introduce water into the environment. It had the undesired effect of my dog also wanting to introduce water—too close to my foot which would adversely affect the usefulness of my sneakers.

        • Jl says:

          Then that would not be CO2, sorry.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “A pollutant is a substance or energy introduced into the environment that has undesired effects, or adversely affects the usefulness of a resource.”

          So, NOT CO2.. thanks for that. :-)

          CO2 at any atmospheric level it could ever possibly reach is TOTALLY and ABSOLUTELY BENEFICIAL.

    • Mark Wesling says:

      nor should opposite extremists be getting so worked up.

      Opposite extremists are simply against a global consumption tax called carbon credit trading. Imposed on business but paid by all consumers purcha sing from these businesses

      • Mark Wesling says:

        nor should opposite extremists be getting so worked up.

        Opposite extremists are simply against a global consumption tax called carbon credit trading. Imposed on business but paid by all consumers purchasing from these businesses. That tax is in place now. Who is receiving that money?

    • Wes says:

      So why should we give up our money, freedom and liberty for a complete lie and con job. No one wants pollution but why should I have to pay for something that is an obviously con game. Just so Al Gore and the rest of these lying government funded quasi scientist that only want to feed at the government table can become rich while gouging middle America.

    • Art says:

      CO2 is not a pollutant and man is only responsible for 5% of the 400 PPM total in our atmosphere. On a 100 yard long graph the total CO2 would be represented by 1.4″ and man’s part would be 1/32″. It is a gigantic scam with Archer Daniel Midland at the money makers helm as the #1 lobbyist in Washington for the Green Movement! A small price they pay for 10 billion dollars in ethanol subsidies!

    • Macranthunter says:

      Technology will do this anyway. There is no point in crashing markets to rush products that will be ubiquitous in 50-100 years anyway. Let innovation do it’s job. The EPA didn’t clean up the 1970’s – technological improvements in normal activity did. Placing unnecessary requirements on the market today has the actual effect of delaying and putting emerging technologies in a bad light. Let electric cars emerge. Let clean energy emerge. Nothing is stopping them.

      • cdquarles says:

        Do you mean re-emerge? In the 1920s, battery powered electric cars were rather popular, for a time. Batteries didn’t get better (and there are some hard chemistry related reasons for that!) but ICEs did. The rest is history.

    • Apeon LastnmUnk says:

      You should start in your own Yard. Vacuum the entire yard, put all debris in a concrete solution, place Baking Soda at least 1/2″ thick over the entire yard, let it set for 15 hours, and then vacuum and bag it, and store it in your basement. Then get a chemical that will neutralize any acids that the baking soda missed, put a non-dangerous solution on the yard to kill all bacteria, and bag it as well, then start on your house. All this to reduce the danger, as WE DO NOT REALLY KNOW WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN.

    • Julius Evola says:

      Agreed. And we should scrap the carbon tax scheme as well and forcibly sterilize the third world who don’t have the will or ability to stop procreating like bugs this depleting the standard of living and resources of the rest of us.

    • Kaiser Derden says:

      except that CO2 is not and has never been a pollutant …

    • Al Gore says:

      Koolaid FX your ability to escape LIB Groupthink

    • Nun Yad Ambiz Ness says:

      REAL SCIENCE should NEVER USE FAKED DATA. It then ceases to be SCIENCE, and becomes POLITICS (or Religion, if you wish). Forget the extremists on the LEFT telling us the world is going to come to an end unless we all spend TRILLIONS to implement their “fixes”. I’m no extremist, I’m a realist, and I’ve warned many that any time someone says that “if you give me money I can fix your problem”, RUN. It’s a scam, just follow the money. Who’s getting, or trying to, get rich from this “science”?

    • Nun Yad Ambiz Ness says:

      REAL SCIENCE NEVER USES FAKED DATA. It then ceases to be SCIENCE, and becomes POLITICS. Forget the extremists on the LEFT telling us the world is going to come to an end unless we all spend TRILLIONS to implement their “fixes”. I’m no extremist–I’m a realist, and I’ve warned many that any time someone says that “if you give me money I can fix your problem”, RUN. It’s a scam, just follow the money. Who’s getting, or trying to, get rich from this “science”?

    • PR says:

      “opposite extremists”

      Since when did insisting on integrity and honesty in research on which PUBLIC POLICY WILL BE BASED become “extremist”?

      Not to mention the policy being advocated is nothing short of global wealth redistribution, which is nothing more than forcing others to work and earn for the benefit of those who do not. There is another word for this policy, by the way, which in every other context is considered evil.

    • Brooks A. Mick says:

      We don’ know what the heck is going on so for God’s sake do something!

    • James J Strom says:

      Occasional studies have indicated that part of the warming of the past 70 years is due to the gradual elimination of pollutants from the atmosphere, as various societies have tried to clean up. This is not really surprising, as many pollutants, especially particulates, can reflect sunlight. So we have a more transparent atmosphere with more sunlight reaching the surface. Wouldn’t it be amusing if it turned out that the best way to hold back the warming trend were to increase the level of air pollution?

    • hammerstamp says:

      Best practice is to not call natural atmospheric constituents that are essential for life (Co2), pollutants, when it is known that the sun drives temperature change and that atmospheric Co2 level changes lag that of temperature by about 40 years due to the respective warming and cooling, release and uptake of atmospheric Co2 by the oceans.

    • Jim B says:

      Except when govts are making drastic policies based on the bunk data!!!

    • Jason Calley says:

      Hey Ed! Is CO2 a pollutant? I suspect that we have crossed over from science into semantics. Certainly most people who describe CO2 as a pollutant do so while keeping in mind the negative connotations of the word.

      So, what exactly is a pollutant? I am sure that most people (sceptics and warmists) would agree that H2SO4 is a pollutant if added to the atmosphere. On the other hand, is water a pollutant if we add it to the Sahara Desert? Yes? No? How much water? Is extra frosting a pollutant if we add it to a birthday cake? Says who?

      • cdquarles says:

        I don’t, for natural fires and volcanic action both add that to the atmosphere. The line to be crossed is determining what concentrations do cause demonstrable and reproducible harms that outweigh benefits. When all source of emissions, human and the rest-of-nature’s emissions result in crossing that line, then and only then should humans reduce theirs and only to the point where diminishing returns make further reductions uneconomic.

    • CO2 is a natural compound chemical. It has properties that make it very good for plants to ‘breath’ in, especially wooden ‘Carbon’ trees. They keep the carbon and ‘exhale’ the Oxygen. CO2 is good in the air mostly, but it also gets into water which can lead to the water becoming too acidic. This may led to algae blooms or fish die offs. Perhaps the pH imbalance can cause breathing problems and disorientation in fish and sea mammals leading to beaching. Too much CO2 seems to be destroying some choral reefs and may be associated with the star fish die off. These events may all be part of the natural cycles but they are all localized events and not a global condition. The apparently increasing amount of volcanic activity around the globe is far more immense than any man made out gassing could possibly produce.
      We couldn’t tell if the Earth’s temperature was really increasing due to that activity because they have fudged with the numbers so much we don’t have an actual base figure with which to begin. Does the NOAA even factor in the effects of volcanic activity by measurement? Do they even measure any more or just make computer models?
      CO2 is a flailing boogeyman that was supposed to be a unit of measure threat for yet another tax on the uninformed public.

      • Natalie Green says:

        Christopher R Baker-so you don’t think that the tremendous amount of sunscreen leaching into the water from all of the people around the coral reefs has any effect?

      • AndyG55 says:

        ” CO2 is good in the air mostly, but it also gets into water which can lead to the water becoming too acidic.”

        Rubbish. The oceans are alkaline and are massively buffered against becoming more neutral. They already hold some 98% of all the planet’s free CO2.

        The slight change in atmospheric CO2 does not change the pH of the oceans by even bee’s dick… and will certainly NEVER make them acidic.

      • Happy Earthling says:

        Ah, singing coral. Choral coral is what we need more of.

    • Robbocop says:

      The term opposite extremist may actually be appropriate. When one realizes that their way of life and their income/wealth is under attack by a well orchestrated Orwellian attack on reason, there is every reason to become extremely p*ssed off.

      • Colorado Wellington says:

        “I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!”

        -Barry Goldwater

    • EJ Moosa says:

      You only get the media attention and research grants with dire predictions.

    • Brian Kelly says:

      Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. As a carbon type unit, you exhale carbon dioxide and consume the oxygen. Plants consume carbon dioxide as exhale oxygen. Both are needed by all living things on this planet.

    • David Newton says:

      The amount of the six primary pollutants (sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxcides, Particulates, Carbon monoxide, lead, and ozone) are down a combined 72% since 1970 even though our country produces over 50% more energy. If you look at CO2, our emmissions are below the levels of the mid 1990s. The free market is finding many ways of avoiding pollution (inefficient use of resources) by improving productivity.

    • David Newton says:

      from

      https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-national-summary

      Percent Change in Emissions

      1980 vs 2014 1990 vs 2014 2000 vs 2014

      Carbon Monoxide -69 -62 -46
      Lead -99 -80 -50
      Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) -55 -51 -45
      Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) -53 -38 -16
      Direct PM10 -58 -19 -16
      Direct PM2.5 — -25 -33
      Sulfur Dioxide -81 -79 -70

      Clearly the air is much cleaner today than since 1980. What is the appropriate amount of pollution for our society while preserving the quality of life? Should the US government impose huge regulatory and tax burdens that reduce the standard of living to try and reduce pollution further, which will reduce free market solutions that have proven quite adept at reducing pollution?

    • Walter Horsting says:

      Ed,

      Co-Founder of Greenpeace on CO2: https://youtu.be/WDWEjSDYfxc

    • jamman says:

      Since the history of temps without pollutants ranges from ice ages to ice free periods, you can not say what ‘a best practice’ may be. pollutants may well be minimizing or delaying glaciation that might be detrimental to huge swaths of human life.

      We can’t say anything precisely, precisely because we don’t know what will happen. Period.

    • yiddishlion says:

      Liberal ideologies are the ONLY dangerous pollutant.

      • gator69 says:

        Their ideologies are not “liberal”, they do not believe in liberty. Call them what they are, leftists.

    • P says:

      Yes, but not to the degree that the economies of countries are destroyed or severely hampered. If there is no global warming, the response shouldn’t be to enact draconian environmental legislation that cripples economies. We should enact laws that, as you say, minimizes pollutants. That’s always a good thing for all of us. Let’s do that in a way that doesn’t harm us economically.

    • Travis Tibbetts says:

      Nice try at being reasonable. Yes, we need to minimize true pollution, but CO2? Carbon dioxide was 20 times the amount it is hundreds of thousands of year predating the industrial age. When it comes to ‘climate science’, it has already become politicized and therefore, unless the incentives are taken away that fuel the lying, we will continue to get fed bulls**t.

    • Jess Sain says:

      If you like your junk science, you can keep your junk science.

    • WASPAPOI says:

      “Whether some of the data is fake or not is irrelevant.” So your “best practice” is based on what? Not knowing? With that logic, maybe we should increase the “pollutants” because we don’t really know what will happen.

    • Dwayne Keith says:

      Agree up until the point where we tax our citizenry into poverty while nation’s given free trade status pollute with abandon and spray chemicals on produce that were outlawed here decades ago. Since it is a global ecological system, lets start with the worst of the worst until everyone else catches up to the stringent, job killing, business bankrupting paradigm we already have here.

    • zeek wolfe says:

      Somerton’s Law: If the solution to global warming/climate change was lower taxes, fewer regulations and less intrusive government, the issue would vanish.

    • Cyril Draffen says:

      Carbon dioxide is essential to all life on earth so how can it be considered a pollutant? Is water a pollutant?

    • afree says:

      EXACTLY! Your are spot on. All reasonable people should agree that pollutants should be reduced as much as is reasonably possible. We should try not to waste anything. And to the commenter below, carbon dioxide can be considered a pollutant as can other naturally occurring substances.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Get it through your thick skull CO2 @ 400 ppm IS NOT A POLLUTANT! It is at a life threatening LOW LEVEL. If the earth goes into full or partial glaciation it could be TOO LOW TO SUSTAIN LIFE!

        That is based on real science.

        Royal Society: Carbon dioxide starvation, the development of C4 ecosystems, and mammalian evolution

        The decline of atmospheric CO2 over the last 65 million years (Ma) resulted in the ‘CO2-starvation’ of terrestrial ecosystems and led to the widespread distribution of C4 plants, which are less sensitive to CO2 levels than are C3 plants. Global expansion of C4 biomass is recorded in the diets of mammals from Asia, Africa, North America, and South America during the interval from about 8 to 5 Ma. This was accompanied by the most significant Cenozoic faunal turnover on each of these continents, indicating that ecological changes at this time were an important factor in mammalian extinction….

        And during the last glaciation we came very close to losing trees and other C3 plants (most of our veggies)
        Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America: <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/102/3/690.full"Carbon starvation in glacial trees recovered from the La Brea tar pits, southern California

        …As a result, glacial trees were operating at c i values much closer to the CO2-compensation point for C3 photosynthesis than modern trees, indicating that glacial trees were undergoing carbon starvation. In addition, we modeled relative humidity by using δ18O of cellulose from the same Juniperus specimens and found that glacial humidity was ≈10% higher than that in modern times, indicating that differences in vapor-pressure deficits did not impose additional constrictions on c i/c a in the past. By scaling ancient c i values to plant growth by using modern relationships, we found evidence that C3 primary productivity was greatly diminished in southern California during the last glacial period….

      • Gail Combs says:

        There is another more subtle aspect to the CO2 starvation level and that is partial pressure.
        Impact of lower atmospheric carbon dioxide on tropical mountain ecosystems

        …. Carbon limitation due to lower ambient CO2 partial pressures had a significant impact on the distribution of forest on the tropical mountains, in addition to climate. Hence, tree line elevation should not be used to infer palaeotemperatures….

        Effect of Low Glacial Atmospheric CO2 on Tropical African Montane Vegetation

        Abstract

        Estimates of glacial-interglacial climate change in tropical Africa have varied widely. Results from a process-based vegetation model show how montane vegetation in East Africa shifts with changes in both carbon dioxide concentration and climate. For the last glacial maximum, the change in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration alone could explain the observed replacement of tropical montane forest by a scrub biome. This result implies that estimates of the last glacial maximum tropical cooling based on tree- line shifts must be revised.

        Eco Physics Lab PDF

        …While [CO2] does not vary with elevation, CO2 partial pressure decreases in proportion to total atmospheric pressure. Under modern conditions, partial pressures of CO2 at high-elevation sites are 10–30% lower than at low-elevation sites, producing an even more conservative comparison between glacial and modern conditions….

      • AndyG55 says:

        You breathe out at some 40,000 ppm. Stop it. !!

        CO2 at any possible attainable atmospheric level is NOT POLUTION.

        Atmospheric CO2 at 400ppm is actually dangerously low for food production on a planet with an increasing population.

        Curtailing emissions of CO2 plant gas is probably one of the most STUPID things humans have ever done.

        • Gail Combs says:

          So true Andy,

          A few more glaciations and normal life on this planet would be done due to carbon dioxide starvation.

          • AndyG55 says:

            In a way, Its quite probable that human de-sequestering of fossil fuels has actually SAVED the planet.

          • Gail Combs says:

            Those are my thoughts Andy.

            If I was a major believer in God, I would think he put us here for that express purpose.

            (I am an Agnostic but it really makes you think.)

    • El gato says:

      You are full of hot air! Shut you up and the temperature in your area will drop.

    • Josey Wales says:

      hardly irrelevant when you see the end game is the redistribution of income on a global scale.not to mention the control of the food supply governments wish to expand even more than they already have.

    • shempus says:

      Umm. Nope. Should NEVER go along with policy based upon deliberate deception.

    • Bill Coenen says:

      You are far too resonable Ed. Hope you are not considering a career in politics. You wouldn’t stand a chance.

    • Gary Mathis says:

      CO2 is not a pollutant.

    • dave says:

      There are scores of environmental problems that need to be dealt with that are far more serious than CO2 levels. Unfortunately, these are not receiving the attention they deserve because the climate change issue is being driven by groups with a political or financial agenda.

    • bob says:

      who says this is best practice? you? it so happens that some “polutants” are known to be good for life. the problem is the treehuggers have politisized this to advance the big government agenda so nothing the global warming gang says now can be trusted.

    • mrm says:

      CO2 is not a pollutant, like carbon monoxide and sulphur dioxide it is one of the building blocks of life. It feeds plant life and is being exhaled by all of us all of the time.

    • Ray Roton says:

      I agree with you about pollutants.
      However, I do not believe CO2 is a pollutant.
      Carbon Dioxide, like Oxygen is vital for all life as we know it.

    • Jim McFarland says:

      The larger point is that the Earth is not warming due to anything other then natural variances and THE GOV’T IS LYING ABOUT IT! We do not need a gov’t that will not be straight with us, disbanding the federal gov’t would be preferable. The travesty of this topic is that we now know that the gov’t will now operate outside of it’s own laws to the detriment of it’s citizens. You libs need to stop lying every time you open your mouths. We would like to make sure that we are doing the right things just as much as you if not more.

    • DennisA says:

      “Whether some of the data is fake or not is irrelevant”

      Amazing statement.

      • Colorado Wellington says:

        Yes, it went into my archive of amazing statements.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Dennis,
        Only FEELINGS MATTER to the tender Snowflakes in their safe spaces in the current colleges.

        The Snowflakes are afraid that if the strong sunlight of truth shines on them they will melt, hence the fear of Global Warming.

    • Joan says:

      People are being lied to to control behavior. If we allow this behavior, where does this stop. You’re saying the end justifies the means. Disgusting

    • Matt says:

      CO2 is not a pollutant.

    • AmericanEagle1392 says:

      Pollutants like particulates and noxious gases are already being controlled for health reasons and should continue.

      However, the primary culprit of the hoax promoters, CO2, is not a pollutant nor is there any law of science that relates CO2 levels and warming. It was conveniently picked as a proxy for emissions. Controlling emissions means controlling economic activity, which enables them to control entire countries and regions if not the entire world.

    • Jl says:

      “Whether some of the data is fake or not is irrelevant.” Really? “Some” of it is 45% of it. On the contrary, it’s totally relevant, especially if we’re told repeatedly that the “temperature went up .02 degrees” or whatever. Nice trick to be that precise when almost half the data is faked. And if it’s faked and really doesn’t cause any appreciable warming, then of course it’s not a pollutant. But we already knew it wasn’t a pollutant to begin with.

    • Bill Scafidi says:

      Opposite “extremists” should not get worked up??? REALLY?? When billions of dollars are pilfered from us and the economy for a scam there should be no limit to our anger!

    • Drazen says:

      Fake date ARE relevant, but your( Ed ) knowledge is not.

    • Don Pettygrove says:

      CO2 is not and never has been an atmospheric “pollutant”. It is a naturally occurring and necessary part of the makeup of the atmosphere. Plant life depends on it as do we for the production of the very oxygen which we breath. If we were to rid the atmosphere of CO2 we would kill all plant life as well as animal life.

  2. John says:

    Yes, many of the temperature gathering places have been compromised by a myriad of things. Simple things like near cities that continuously get more crowded with heat producing devices such as AC, Furnaces, automobiles, ASPHALT. Ride in the country on a motorcycle in the cool evening some day and notice the large temp difference as you approach the city. There is quite a difference. Sensors set in the locations have certainly much higher readings. These have to be compensated for.

  3. Ronco says:

    THE JIG IS UP,
    THE AUDIENCE HAS LEFT THE BUILDING,

    GO FIND A REAL JOB AND LET SCIENCE REGAIN IT’S RIGHTFUL PLACE IN THE DISCUSSION

    Ronco

  4. Quail says:

    NOAA like NASA are frauds, liars and deceivers.

  5. I am Responding to Idiots says:

    Crackpots rarely know they are crackpots, so I’m just going to give you a head’s up — you’re one.

  6. DD More says:

    So Tony what have your detractors to the original ‘Fake Numbers’ identification come up with?

    A. Watts posted –

    NCDC needs to step up and fix this along with other problems that have been identified. And they are, I expect some sort of a statement, and possibly a correction next week. In the meantime, let’s let them do their work and go through their methodology. It will not be helpful to ANYONE if we start beating up the people at NCDC ahead of such a statement and/or correction.

    I will be among the first, if not the first to know what they are doing to fix the issues, and as soon as I know, so will all of you. Patience and restraint is what we need at the moment. I believe they are making a good faith effort, but as you all know the government moves slowly, they have to get policy wonks to review documents and all that. So, we’ll likely hear something early next week.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/28/the-scientific-method-is-at-work-on-the-ushcn-temperature-data-set/

    Any word on this 17 month old problem and did anyone see the fix / correction / statement? Any updates?

    Never did read about any corrections and from the above now near 45% still fake

  7. Dale Olson says:

    The Obama Administration wants to fundamentally change America. Government control of our energy sources is a great way to do so!

  8. Joe E in the IE says:

    And now for in-depth analysis, here’s Captain Obvious. Take it away, Cap’!

  9. Jack Coyote says:

    When politics knocks on the door, objectivity and reason go out the window.

  10. Sam Vaughn says:

    How about direct observation. We’ve been told for years that sea levels are rising due to global warming, right? Well, my great-grandfather built a house overlooking the ocean back in the 1870’s. An attorney and scientifically inclined he recorded the position of the sun the moon and high and low tides. The variance and the high and low tides is identical within standard deviation to the 1870s.

  11. Pingback: Climategate--The Final Chapter - Page 95 - Airline Pilot Central Forums

  12. Jim McCullough says:

    Quit with the hypocrisy! You cannot tax the climate to change. If… just if, there is a problem, then address the problem with a solution. I.E. The government should halt ALL flights on Monday, Wednesdays and Saturdays, except for emergencies, for 1 year… or a suitable period. If after that time there is no measurable change, then shut up about climate change being caused by using fossil fuel and it’s effect on the ozone. Get rid of the smog controls!
    If there is a change, then YEA you have found at least 1 solution.

    • tomboat48 says:

      Interesting page, but quite a lot of anus vapor. (Methane)
      This suggestion, however impractical is the only logical method of testing the warming theory that has been posted, so you all can “shout n shoot n spit but you won’t be fixing it” All Governments are lying and lazy, and they will always be driving you crazy with some new tax or other stupid or dangerous policies.
      This is something that I think we can all agree on.
      The real question behind all of this to-ing and fro-ing is “Can we as a human collective force a program of this magnitude onto the science community, and even if we could, would we have any faith in their results?”

      Ref Zappa Frank

  13. John Pepin says:

    Back when science followed the scientific method such shenanigans would have resulted in ruined careers. Today, now that science is a tool of political factions to forward their agenda, such misconduct enhances careers, driving increased funding by political actors.

    • SingleSpeeder says:

      Very well said John Pepin!

      This whole agenda is just for more of the elite to gain more power and for the ‘scientists’ involved to continue to receive funding.

  14. william contessa says:

    To the crazy “Climate Change” crowd it does not matter. Climate Change is their God, so telling them that God is dead will fall on deaf ears.

  15. Douglas Hoyt says:

    About 20 years ago, I did a temperature reconstruction. One method I used was to reconstruct temperatures in degrees Kelvin. If you have sufficient areal coverage than the temperatures for each hemisphere should be around 288 K. What I found was that for the Southern Hemisphere before 1957, the temperatures were not close to 288 K. There is insufficient data before 1957, the International Geophysical Year, to make a reliable reconstruction. for the Southern Hemisphere and hence for the globe as a whole.

    Even up to the early 1960s, this method shows a noisy signal with alterations from year to year of a degree or so, before it becomes more stable.

    For the Northern Hemisphere, you cannot get a stable answer around 288 K before 1900.

    Using absolute temperatures, rather than anomalies, is a good check on the reliability of temperature reconstructions.

  16. Steve says:

    Most of us already knew that. Nothing that comes from any govt. agency can be trusted anymore.

  17. Tom Roberts says:

    Al Hore is not a scientist, yet he figured all this Global Warming science out! Amazing!

  18. HL Mencken says:

    Blind adherence to the precautionary principle is irresponsible. Had it been the dominant policy in vogue over the past two centuries there would be no modern technology that our economies and society at large depend on. The boys in the dirty undershirts at the Union of Concerned Scientists and their loyal following cleave to a myopic world view that condemns the Third World to an existence of eternal poverty.
    Following Obama’s ill-considered goal of reducing CO2 as a pollutant, even if it were possible, is an obtuse policy concocted to enrich a select few at the expense of the rest of us.
    HL

  19. Edmonton Al says:

    Thanks Tony.
    I sent this to many Canadian Government Ministers, including the Environment Minister and the Prime Minister, but I believe that they just send my mail to the “junk mail” bin.
    They will not listen to any scientific debate any more. They know they are wrong but push the political agenda no matter what.

    • Alan Davidson says:

      I do too from Ottawa to Environment Minister Catherine McKenna and to the global warming enthusiasts in Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s office. Never get any response in email or Twitter. McKenna consistently refers to CO2 as pollution. Either she has no clue what she is Minister of or perhaps is adopting US EPA terminology as she works closely with EPA and always has “great meetings” with EPA’s Gina.

  20. Terry Waters says:

    Garbage in, garbage out.

  21. E.Martin says:

    NASA has previously indicated that the satellite temperature measurements are the best measure of the Earth’s temperature — and they contradict NOAA’s claim of the warmest month and year ever which is based on surface temperature measurements — which are fraught with uncertainties and which look like they have been fiddled to show higher recent temperatures.

    Further, the satellite data (which are confirmed by radiosonde measurements) show no statistically significant temperature increase for the past 18 years.

  22. Kent Clizbe says:

    Stay on ’em, Tony.

    The scam is slowly crumbling.

    Hottest day/week/month/year/century ever “records” pile up and Joe Public ignores these charlatans now.

    It’s just a matter of time.

    The political climate is what the scammers should worry about. Cleveland has these fakers quaking in their boots.

    Thanks for all you do!

  23. MichMike says:

    The personal behavior of 1% of the U. S. population results in their CO2 footprint being 50 TIMES the average of the other 99%. Not surprising to anyone. What surprises people is that this means this small group is responsible for more than 33% of ALL U. S. CO2 emissions and were they to be responsible, via their personal behavior, for only 25 TIMES the average, OVERALL U. S. CO2 emissions would immediately (not over decades) decline 17%. MAYBE one of the AGW folks, or “scientists” can explain why all the plans being implemented and proposed will allow this small group to continue to be responsible for more than a third of all U. S. CO2 emissions while financially hammering the lower income and middle classes, just for being alive. Please hurry with your explanation for it is an emergency, we are told. Should we all wait here?

    • Gail Combs says:

      Great info Mike,
      And to add to it, according to the IMF, “.. the top earners’ share of income in particular has risen dramatically. In the United States the share of the top 1 percent has close to tripled over the past three decades, now accounting for about 20 percent of total U.S. income (Alvaredo and others, 2012).”

      • MichMike says:

        The corrupt and criminal ruling elites control both parties. While not new, this election season has certainly “outed” many republican leaders as being beholden to the corrupt and criminal ruling elites, including siding with Clinton! That so many people believe the democrat party is the party of the people is just indicative of the massive levels of simple minded and uninformed people in our country. Thanks!

  24. Italian futurist says:

    We need to get humans living off world.

  25. Tom Steyer The Liar says:

    Look deeper into any academic/scientific community supported farce and it won’t take long to find that at the root of it all is big money. Promised grants to fund their research, the junk scientists fudge data to keep demand for their services high, and politicians promote the agenda as they get rich themselves and whore to big donors like Tom Steyer. Mr. Steyer, having amassed a fortune on fossil fuels, one day decided he liked the whole green energy angle, and put all his money there. Then, he donated hundreds of millions of dollars to liberal democratic politicians, and asked them to beef up the Environmenal Protection Agency and its rules, kill the Keystone Pipeline, and fabricate all sorts of policy and propaganda that would drive people and businesses to buy the very green energy He had invested so heavily in. Don’t believe it? Research the $100 Million pledge he made to Democratic Congressional candidates at the midterms in return for their services.

    We need to replace corrupt politicians with honest self-made men like Donald Trump, and string the likes of Tom Steyer, Larry Page, Mark Zuckerberg and the rest of the “industrial titans” that want to manipulate and control the masses for their own financial gain.

  26. Seenitallbefore says:

    The world is getting hotter. The world is getting colder. So what, it been doing it for countless thousands of years. Get a life.

  27. Echo Sierra says:

    Dr. Peter Wadham, one of Britain’s climate gurus, predicted an ice free Arctic by 2013. The latest climate expedition blocked by unforeseen heavy ice, I believe somewhere off Siberia, indicates at least some of their modeling is woefully inaccurate. When are we allowed to stop calling them “experts “?

  28. robertv says:

    Like everything else, this all about money. Take money out of the equation, and no one gives a rip about “change” or “warming”, as neither is conclusive or controllable.

  29. M. Smith says:

    CO2 as a “pollutant” is a stumbling block for consensus. This is pure semantics, but it is a stumbling block. Yes, CO2 is naturally a part of the atmosphere, same as N2, H2O, etc.

    Nobody calls H2O a “pollutant”, but if humanity were somehow increasing the amount of H2O in the atmosphere by 2% each year (for example), it would still be a concern.

    Therefore, we should have a new phrase, used by all sides, something like “substance of concern”. Then we wouldn’t call CO2 a “pollutant”. Instead, it would be called a “substance of concern” (or whatever), and we could stop arguing over semantics and instead argue weather the increase in CO2 is anthropomorphic or not, and whether it is a significant risk or not, etc.

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      It’s not going to happen. It would take all the fun and leverage away from the screamers.

      I remember a cartoon of a wife yelling in the face of her husband:

      “I would appreciate if you stopped interrupting my emotional outbursts with appeals to reason!”

  30. Steve says:

    My Fav graph:

  31. DGR says:

    OK what about the microparticles from the pollution control equipment.

  32. no3gods says:

    Chemtrails are real pollutants, but all governments are spraying them in the air; what is anyone really doing about that? It’s a billion dollar industry that is tax payer funded.

    Check out geoengineeringwatch.org for more info. Man now has the ability to block the sun, and thus increase global cooling, which is by far worse than warming…because food doesn’t grow in the cold.

  33. no3gods says:

    The real pollutants…

  34. Joe! says:

    How does anyone “know”?
    I’m still waiting for someone/anyone to explain how or why they “know” the Earth’s current temperature, is “wrong.”
    The Earth has been much warmer, and much cooler, in the past, absent any man made CO2. I also understand the Earth is still technically coming out of an Ice Age. I also understand the Sun is major influence on Earth’s climate. Our technological advances in measuring and monitoring have enabled us to generate lots of data (and apparently estimate lots of data), but I think we’re far from understanding the complexities of the inter-relationships/inter-dependencies where anyone can say they know what the “right” temperature is for Earth.

    • Latitude says:

      LOL….exactly Joe
      They claim the “goldilocks” temperature

      Funniest thing is….if for the past 1000 years the temperature had been 10 degrees warmer….they would be screaming we need more CO2 before we freeze to death (but then they would have to admit that CO2 won’t do it)

  35. ClintfromTexas says:

    I have never heard of a study that looks at how, as man settled land there was a great reduction in wildfires. Wildfires that caused all kinds of pollutants? in the air. Perhaps we need to burn carbon in order to offset the decline in carbon dioxide that was generated by massive wildfires that occurred every year at some place on the globe and I am talking much more massive than we see now. We know there were periods of much higher carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in the past and we know that did not precede, but usually followed periods of elevated temperatures.

  36. Paul Schnurr says:

    Oil companies do not pay taxes, oil company customers, do.

  37. no3gods says:

    Irrefutable Film Footage Of Climate Engineering Aerosol Spraying
    https://youtu.be/iK9nVR9H34g?list=PLwfFtDFZDpwulG0PJ9IID0iypsRXDSa1E

  38. Rafe says:

    I have been looking at the Arctic ice pack data recorded by NOAA for the last 4 years. Of particular interest was the left wing reports that came out in 2014 that there was a downward trend of the Arctic ice pack melting away for 12 years which by their standards proved that there was global warming. And soon the eastern seaboard would be under water due to all the melting!!! Well this did not happen and never will!

    Indeed they were able to show a downward trend, but, how ignorant do these morons believe we are? The Arctic ice pack has been melting and refreezing for thousands of years. As much as 50 to 70% melts every year and refreezes. That only leaves another 30% to melt during the worst years. Certainly, if 70% of all available Arctic ice melted we should see major flooding everwhere!
    Has anyone seen the sea level rise to the flood levels that they claim would happen, of course not!
    Why is this the case? It is very simple, as we have all been taught for years water is the one substance unlike all other elements that when it cools it expands. Well this is only half true. First water is not an element it is a compound of oxygen and hydrogen (H2O). And like most other materials it does expand when heated and contracts when cooled. Its is just that during cooling when water reaches 4 degrees Centigrade a phase change occurs where the atomic bonding of the hydrogen atoms rearrange and create a low density material known as ice. This is why ice floats, it is less dense than water and the same weight of ice takes up more space than the same weight of water. So when that same unit of ice is floating on the water it is already displacing the water to a level equivalent to the same unit of water. Therefore, there will not and can not be an increase in water level when ice melts that is floating on water. If, however ice melts that is on land that would be another case. However, there is no evidence that land mass ice is melting at abnormal amounts. If land mass ice were melting at abnormal amounts we would first see streams and rivers over flowing and major flooding within the land mass before it would reach the oceans. So, don’t be fooled by the global warming propaganda.
    When I researched the NOAA data that the left was reporting, it only represented about 6% of all the collected data. The only data they reported was cherry picked data from the warmest months of each year which for a twelve year period did show the reported downward trend. However, what was ignored and not reported, because it didn’t support the left narrative, was that every year during the winter months of this 12 yare period the ice pack grew back to normal levels of ice pack.
    Of further interest is that when the data in 2015 stopped supporting the downward trend the government stopped NOAA from recording the new data. And, after a period of time of not recording the new data, that was not good enough, because, there was too much evidence contrary to there narrative for the left wing liars so they went back and removed all the historical evidence of all the ice pack data. Go to the site an see for yourself.
    By the way if anyone wants to see the historical data, I copied it all, before it was “WIPED CLEAN” by our corrupt government. Does this sound familiar?

  39. Roberto says:

    You’re so right – the “kooks and nuts” (Algore, Osama Obama and his administration, the radical left, the lame-stream media, etc.), who sought to use this scam to implement a massive socialist wealth transfer from the developed nations to the undeveloped ones have been proven wrong and have lost their influence. “The audience has left the building – indeed.”

    Their fabricated data and models have long since been outed – so that no one believes their drivel anymore. Anyone who had 8th grade biology understands CO2 IS NOT A POLLUTANT. It is the “air” which gives life to all forms of vegetation, which produces the oxygen which gives life to all forms of animal life. The increase in CO2 has supported the massive growth in vegetation all over the world to replace the vegetation we use for food and shelter, to support the growth in population.

    It’s a real “no-brainer,” which is why you would think even the “kooks and nuts” would get it. Or, perhaps why we understand their motive is so sinister.

  40. CO2 is Life says:

    This article really misses a huge point. The only impact CO2 has on global warming/climate change is that it absorbs radiation between 13 and 18 microns in the IR spectrum. That is its only contribution. The record daytime temperatures are caused by incoming visible radiation. There is no way for CO2, absorbing between 13 and 18 microns to ever cause such record daytime temperatures, especially is the nighttime temperature was below the previous day’s nighttime temperature. All CO2 does is absorb outgoing radiation and re-radiates it, there is no way for it to ever warm the temperature above the radiating body, unless we re-write the physics books. Every article written regarding CO2 driven climate change should be required to include an explanation as to how the observation can be caused by 1.6 W/M^2 being emitted by 13 to 18 micron IR. That is CO2 contribution to global warming/climate change with a doubling of CO2 from 200 to 400 ppm. BTW, IR between 13 and 18 microns won’t warm water, in fact it cools it through surface evaporation. Lastly, visit the U of Chicago’s Modtran program and change the parameters so that you are looking down from 0.1 km, N Hemisphere Summer, 1 for water vapor, and alter the CO2 from 200 to 400 ppm. You will see that in the lower atmosphere CO2 has absolutely 0.00% impact on the W/M^2. The first CO2 signature can be see 3 km up. All the ground measurements they use are within the 0.1 km from the surface, so what they are measuring is the impact of H2O on temperature, not CO2. The impact of CO2 vs H20 can be measured in the deserts vs the rain forests. Sleep naked in a rain forest, you sleep well, sleep naked in a dry desert and you freeze to death. Simply test the hypothesis that man does not cause climate change using the ice core data for the Holocene. You will see that there is nothing statistically significant about the past 150 years of temperature change. From this graphic, you can see that over the past 600 million years, CO2 has never caused catastrophic warming. Never in 600 million years.

  41. anjado says:

    The CO2 in question is coming from the burning of fossil fuels that were previously trapped in the Earth’s crust, correct? Where did these carbon-based fossil fuels come from? The decomposition of ancient plant and animal life. How was this life generated? From atmospheric CO2. So it’s logical to conclude that we are actually restoring balance to the atmosphere by releasing this trapped CO2.

    • Kevin Price says:

      It took geologic ages to bury all that carbon but it is being released in the blink of an eye in terms of geologic time. No doubt CO2 is increasing.

      It doesn’t help clear things up that peeps on both sides have an agenda

  42. Latitude says:

    If this were real….the people that believe it would be freaking out
    …instead they are buying bigger houses, bigger jets, and traveling all over the world

    Controlling energy is just the biggest step to controlling all of us….globalization

  43. Pat McBride says:

    Don’t forget that the Russians were being paid to provide temp data after the collapse of the Soviet Union but they did not maintain their stations and, eventually, just supplied bogus data to keep the money rolling in.

  44. Leonard Washington says:

    “Carbon is not a pollutant”

    As every chemist/engineer/scientist/etc will say…..

    “It’s not the chemical that is harmful, but the dose.”

    For example, Vitamin A and D are a necessity for humans, but at high doses can be toxic.

    • Latitude says:

      Leonard, you need two words…logarithmic and saturation

      Look that up and get back to us….and no, it’s not the same as toxins

      • cdquarles says:

        Leonard’s correct, though, Lat. Every chemical is harmless. Every chemical is harmful. The line is dose or concentration. A toxin is a toxin only when the concentration is high enough to interfere with one or more desired chemical reactions.

    • dudefromdixie says:

      Actually when the body has enough vitamins absorbed, any excess is excreted. Now the same is not true for minerals. But your lack of understanding of this sort-of minimizes your response.

      • Donna K. Becker says:

        Actually, vitamins A and D are fat-soluble, rather than water-soluble, and any excess accumulates in the body and is not excreted.

    • AndyG55 says:

      As far as plants are concerned, atmospheric CO2 is barely past homeopathic levels.

  45. Oscarphone says:

    I like your numbers, I came up with something similar. The left uses fantastical numbers to scare but the Earth is a big place. So I ran the numbers myself (using their commonly stated tons of “pollutants”): If you define the Earth’s atmosphere as a square 6 feet on a side, man’s contribution of CO2 per year would be the size of the period at the end of this sentence. Hard to imagine that amount of plant food is killing the planet.

  46. GlobalWrench says:

    This narrative further divides the population on issue. It gives cover to the on going climate engineering taking place in your skies daily.

    Full Spectrum Dominance is the real issue everything else is just distraction.

    Wake up.

  47. Sum Ding Wong says:

    They – your govt, had to stop using the term global warming because scientist proved the numbers being used were less than honest. So O and his team came up with Climate Change. Prove climate change aint happening. All these NOAA and weather offices are getting boocoo money from towing the line. If they were to say everything was fine, then they cant justify more hiring, money, for research. Its a ponzi scheme lead by O, who IMHO hates oil companies and Coal land harons, two bastions of the south.

  48. D3F1ANT says:

    This is hardly “news” since we’ve all known for a long time that the Warmers create false evidence…though it IS necessary to continue to expose it. The Kool Aid crowd won’t listen anyway, but perhaps we can keep them from indoctrinating more sheeple.

  49. Pingback: Half of NOAA's "MMGW" temperuatures are made up.

  50. Don Cheney says:

    I’m looking at all the coal in the ground … billions and billions of tons. Not only did this coal come from live plants, ALL THE BURIED COAL WAS IN THE
    ATMOSPHERE AT THE SAME TIME!! Yet the earth did not go “Venus greenhouse”.
    In other words there are negative feedbacks to global warming that nobody is talking about.

  51. dave1billion says:

    Looks like you got linked on the Drudge Report again.

    Congrats, Tony.

  52. Pingback: More Global Cooling/Warming/Change hoax. - Page 98 - GT40s.com

  53. dudefromdixie says:

    The carbon cycle is what it is, just like the water cycle. The amount of carbon and water on this planet is basically a constant. The amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere from rotting vegetation so drastically outweighs that from man made pollution that it can’t even be compared. It then comes back to the earth mixed with rain and the cycle repeats.

    • harold vivaldi says:

      CO2 release from natural sources (mainly decay of carboniferous matter and volcanoes) is about 200 billion tons per year. Man made sources 7 billion tons a year. Also water vapor a more efficient heat trapper than CO2 by an order of magnitude or more. Who is proposing control of water vapor in the atmosphere? As Casey Stengal famously said, ” you can look it up.”

      • cdquarles says:

        IR absorbers, or more generally, light absorbers are also light emitters. IR active gases cannot trap heat. They only redirect the flow paths. These gases screen out the incoming radiation to a greater or lesser degree, depending on which gases and at what concentration, so the atmosphere is translucent to opaque to these, again depending.

        FYI, a bit over half of the incoming solar energy is in the IR and longer wavelengths, with much, but not all(!) from the ‘near’ IR. A bit less than half is in the visible and shorter wavelengths, with about 5 to 7% in the UV or shorter.

        But, but, but, we are told that the sun’s far IR is small, or more commonly, negligible. Maybe so, but small and negligible is infinitely far away from zero; and by chopping that part off, your models must expand their uncertainty bounds.

        If stars didn’t emit in the far IR and longer parts of the radiant EM spectrum, we couldn’t do microwave and radio astronomy.

  54. Bob Enyart says:

    almost half [of] it is also fake…

  55. Mike says:

    The fraud. Move manufacturing from countries with the infrastructure already in place and built up with the highest technology and the strictest air quality standards and rules on chemical disposal and move everything to countries with little to no infrastructure that had to be built up, low to no technology and absolutely zero air quality standards or a care where chemicals are dumped. This is what those did that cry global warming or climate change is man made and want to force their fraud on everyone for a tax. They’re thieves. They enriched other countries so they can increase the global warming scam. What, the air over China is different than whats over America, I thought this was global?
    Exploitation of slavery was far more important and beneficial than global warming to these thieving deceivers and now those exploited slaves want cars and toasters and everything else under the sun that contributes to this so called man made global warming. All while these fraudulent scam artist preaching climate change jet set around the globe to preach it. Don’t agree and get on the same page as these tyrannical dictators, well they’ll simply lock you up. Unbelievable!

  56. Colorado Wellington says:

    Notice in the comments that so far the alarmists chose not to defend the NOAA temperature divinations but instead want to talk about “CO2 as pollutant” and vaguely invoke the “precautionary principle”.

    Where are the Climate Science Rapid Response Team oracles? Stand up and bear witness for climate! Show us the Earth is on fire! Do it for the children!

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

    Economics is the study of the allocation of scarce resources. This requires an assessment of risks and benefits, what are the certainties of the expected results of human activities.

    If we have a case in which there is little or no harm but possible significant benefits, the decision to provide seed money is easy. These rarely occur; they are often called break through events. Climate change is not one of these. It is the exact opposite.

    Man can not survive without fire. The combustion of carbon and the release of its main chemical reactant, CO2, supplies over 80% of man’s energy and without it he will suffer and/ or die. That is a certainty. Climate change is a largely unsubstantiated notion that at some ill defined year, bad things will happen as a result of the man’s use of fire. It is unsubstantiated because man’s activities occur within natural processes and, as yet, scientists can not isolate the effects of human activity. Here it is the death of directly measured surface temperature data over the southern hemisphere. and the sensitivity of the conclusions, harm, due the data.

    The consequences of greatly expanded exploitation of fire vs. the severe cut backs on its use is presented as a terminal threat to human existence. The challenge is to size the risk and the benefit and assess the certitude of the projection.

    If view of the certain destruction of wealth creation and epic suffering from the denial of the benefits of fire, the burden of proof falls on the proponents of climate change, to prove, with almost infallible certitude than man must cease using fire.

    They have scientifically failed to carry their burden of proof. Indeed, society has wasted too much funding on the effort vs other opportunities, e.g. finding a cure for cancer.

  58. Jon says:

    Methane is actually a far worse so-called “greenhouse gas” than Carbon Dioxide (CO2) and also occurs naturally (not just from biological decay), and in fact Methane exists in the ground deep under the oceans in a layer of minerals, and is released into the air at anytime. The point being, people get so focused on what they are told, they forget about everything else, and the thing is all those gases have always been around to varying levels. Anyway, besides the trees in forests, the oceans have vast amounts of algae of all kinds which regularly take in CO2 and release the O2 (Oxygen). Studies have even indicated even with all the forests being cut down, algae in oceans alone, would sustain the Oxygen levels and remove the CO2. Plant life uses the C and gives off O2, opposite of humans that need the O2 and give off CO2. I guess all us 7 billion humans are polluting the atmosphere – oh we have all got to go. Speaking of going, cow dung also also give off Methane and the feds charge farmers tax on their cows for that reason. It’s a load of bull-winkle.

  59. Pingback: Global Temperatures Are Mostly Fake - Hotgas.net

  60. Kevin Price says:

    Data massaging is extremely common in studies. With all the grant money available and everyone knowing what results are wanted I remain slightly hopeful this is possibly one of many examples of scientific mass hysteria. I don’t see a problem in presenting just the raw data without extrapolating and “adjustments” why is that so hard?

    • LAbillyboy says:

      It’s exactly like political polling… whoever is paying for the poll gets the result they want. Same here, the Democrats are paying for results proving their religion of global warming is legit.

  61. OldOllie says:

    There is no context in which “hide the decline” can be construed to mean anything except “falsify the data.”

  62. Indigo Red says:

    Temperature isn’t real.

  63. Norm says:

    Extrapolation is the flaw in Obama’s “Climate” worries… He’ll never admit it though… Neither will all the so-called scientists on board for his deception!

  64. LAbillyboy says:

    Nobody, not even Republicans, wants dirty air or water. The nutty “science” of global warming extremists was invented solely to justify the Democrats desire to increase taxation on industry to fund their Socialist welfare state.

    12,000 years ago, North America was under hundreds of feet of ice and sea levels were 350 lower than they are today. Without any help from humans it warmed up a whole bunch which allowed humans to thrive. What actually causes the Earth to get warmer and colder? The distance from the sun as it’s orbit changes. Yes, it will get very cold again and there is nothing humans can do about it. It is pretty silly to believe humans can alter climate to any significant degree… Even if you believe the alarmists, they are talking about a sea rise of 4 to 12 feet at most and temperature increases of less than 10 degrees… that’s nothing. We will be happy to be starting from there when we go into the next ice age.

  65. Pingback: CLAIM: GLOBAL TEMPS FAKED… | Curtis Ryals Reports

  66. CeeBee says:

    Using several measurements from distant stations was (and probably still is) very common for the (US) military. When working with AF Global Weather Central in the 90’s, various government agencies would submit RFI’s (requests for information) with specifics on how the data was to be collected and processed. This led to a high degree of false data, mostly to support funding requests. (With government agencies, it’s all about the funding.) For example, USDA would request forecasts for rainfall, temperature, days of sunglight, etc., for a region. They would then specify the collection stations or areas that they wanted to draw data from and then extrapolate from those actual numbers the values for the areas around and between the collection points. While this is common practice to compensate for lack of coverage, it was abused by specifying sensor locations that included areas covered by other sensors and/ro areas too large to return valid extrapolation values. To increase the budget for farm insurance and subsidies based on drought forecasts, 3 or 4 stations would be selected in areas of historically dry locations. Then, based on that data, forecasts would be made for rainfall levels in other areas that typically receive more rainfall. Anyone with access to historical weather records could have exposed this, however, it was in everyone’s self interest to back the bogus data as more money in the budget is more oversight, more government jobs, and more power for the administrators and politicians. More citizens relying on government subsidies increases the political power of the politicians. The only losers were the taxpayers and the farmers. Man-made global warming, carbon emissions, greenhouse gasses, etc., it’s all driven by funding, and the funding is driven by worrying the electorate and selling government, legislation, and taxation as the only solution.

  67. UteDB23 says:

    The NOAA website is nothing more than a propaganda arm of the Democrat Party.

  68. Ford says:

    Wow this article is a masterwork in statistical obfuscation. I guess the Arctic is still impassible because of ice, and glaciers aren’t melting.

    • tonyheller says:

      ROFL. The latest global warming Arctic expedition is currently blocked by too much ice. Chicago was under two miles of ice 20,000 years ago. Thinking is hard for progressives.

    • AndyG55 says:

      Amazing that melting glaciers occasionally have tree stumps and human artefacts under them, isn’t it ;-)

      • Gail Combs says:

        I always like the fact that the switch from the Wisconsin Ice Age to the Holocene happenned in ONE YEAR! No human intervention needed.

        Dr. Richard B. Alley in 1992

        …”The ice that had formed from falling snow during the transition from the last of the cold, dry, windy ice ages to the first of the warm, wet calms of the modern 10,000-year-long Holocene climate is 1,678 meters, just over a mile, down the GISP2 core. Rendered in ice, what exactly would it look like, this boundary of epochs? …

        “‘You did not need to be a trained ice core observer to see this,’ recalled Alley. ‘Ken Taylor is sitting there with the ECM and he’s running along and his green line is going wee, wee, wee, wee – Boing! Weep! Woop! And then it stays down.’ Dust in the windy ice age atmosphere lowered the acidity of the core to a completely new state. ‘We’re just standing there and he just draws a picture of it,”‘Alley said.”

        “Spontaneous celebration was followed by a sudden and unexpected quiet. ‘I think we cheered,’ recalled Alley, ‘and then we were all a little sobered. Because it was just so spectacular. It was what we’d been looking for, and there it was, and then we’re sitting there. Holy crap.'” ….

        “In the GISP2 science trench, the tray holding the section of core rolled down the assembly line and then it was Alley’s turn at the ice. “It slides across in front of me and I’m trying to identify years: ‘That’s a year, that’s a year and that’s a year, and – woops, that one’s only half as thick.’ And it’s sitting there just looking at you. And there’s a huge change in the appearance of the ice, it goes from being clear to being not clear, having a lot of dust.”
        Climate Crash: Abrupt Climate Change and What it Means for our Future by John D. Cox,
        John Henry Press, an imprint of the National Academies Press,

        (With a lot of dust = Wisconsin Ice Age)

  69. Jerry Walker says:

    Global warming is the climate science of finding a pattern to statistical noise.

  70. a p garcia says:

    This article said Antarctica is melting and as proof they showed a polar bear on a sliver of floating ice!

  71. Craig says:

    Nuclear winter is caused by increasing the amount of particles in our atmosphere. Gradual warming then occurs as particles settle out and more sunlight is able to penetrate and hit the ground. Since the enactment of the clean air act, we have scrubbing particulates out of air. Thus man made warming is actually being caused by the environmentalist!

  72. TheMadKing59 says:

    In other recent news of the climate science “experts” getting stuck in arctic ice, if they were such experts why couldn’t they predict how thick the ice would be before the they got stuck in it? Perhaps a better name for this left-wing money-grubbing junk science which has yet to validate one serious prediction (e.g. no snow in Britain after 2010, raging hurricane seasons) would be Climate Scientology. If any expert or authority in nuclear physics made one-tenth of the failed predictions or fabricated one-hundredth of the data Climate Scientologists regurgitate on a daily basis, they’d be ostracized from the profession in disgrace.

  73. Anarchy Al says:

    Good intentions make for good science! Redistribute all wealth before the polar ice caps melt!

  74. Gail Combs says:

    Another BIG LIE is the 180 ppm cut off for plants. They get that number from studies of plants already started from seed at normal CO2 levels and then ‘starved’ Therefore the plant has a stock of food to live off of and is not a true test.

    They found the cut off was 220 ppm….not 200 ppm.
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2010.03441.x/pdf

    Under stress the seeds will not even start.

    The biology of seeds can be divided in three important phases: development that includes zygotic embryogenesis, dormancy that prevents seeds from germinating under unfavorable conditions and germination (seed emergence). The transition between dormancy and germination represents a critical stage in the life cycle of higher plants and it is an important ecological and commercial trait. Seed germination is regulated by endogenous hormonal cues and external environmental signals such as water, low temperature and light, which influence whether an imbibed seed completes germination or remains dormant. Seed dormancy, a temporary quiescent state that is observed in seeds from many plants species, prevents untimely germination and ensures plant survival by adjusting vegetative development to seasonal changes in the environment. A dynamic balance between synthesis and catabolism of the abscisic acid (ABA) and gibberellins (GAs) controls the equilibrium between dormancy and germination. At the molecular level, the ABA/GA balance is in part determined by the antagonistic control of ABA and GA on each other through their reciprocal regulation of the transcription of their metabolic genes.

    The ABA, derived from epoxycarotenoid cleavage, serves as a plant-specific signal during development and in response to environmental stresses such as cold, drought and high concentrations of salt in the soil. The ABA also elicits, among others numerous physiological functions, the closure of stomatal pores to restrict transpiration, adjustment of metabolism to tolerate desiccation and cold temperatures, and inhibition seedlings growth. Likewise, ABA represses germination and is presumed to function to stabilize the dormant state. ABA, like other hormones, functions through a complex network of signaling pathways where the cell response is initiated by ABA perception which triggers downstream signaling cascades to induce the final physiological effects.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2819511/

    A piece of less obvious evidence is while C3 plants maybe able to just barely survive at ~200 ppm THEY CAN NOT GROW MUCH OR PRODUCE SEED! Also the less CO2 the slower the growth and the longer to maturity. During Little Ice Ages or true glaciation this means plants bump up against

    #1. Lower CO2 due to colder oceans and Henry’s law.
    #2. Last frost/first frost problems as the season shortens.
    #3. More stomata and thus more water loss under the drier conditions and greatly expanded deserts during glaciation.

    And the CAGW types never mention…

    …About 85% of plant species are C3 plants. They include the cereal grains: wheat, rice, barley, oats. Peanuts, cotton, sugar beets, tobacco, spinach, soybeans, and most trees are C3 plants. Most lawn grasses such as rye and fescue are C3 plants…

    Moore, et al. say that only about 0.4% of the 260,000 known species of plants are C4 plants

    Moore, et al. point to Flaveria (Asteraceae), Panicum (Poaceae) and Alternanthera (Amarantheceae) as genera that contain species that are intermediates between C3 and C4 photosynthesis. These plants have intermediate leaf anatomies that contain bundle sheath cells that are less distinct and developed than the C4 plants….
    Systems of Photosynthesis – HyperPhysics

  75. Osamas Pajamas says:

    GASEOUS AL GORE, DOOMSDAY CULT CHAIRMAN OF THE APOCALYPSE

    The planet has been “cooling” for at least the past 18 years, or so — the recent cook-the-books massage job by NOAA notwithstanding. And the so-called “experts” have never “once” demonstrated, recorded, or proven human causation for “any” global warming — it’s all been projections based on computer models subject to bad historical data, divergent / incompatible or inconsistent instrumentation, exaggeration and the-sky-is-falling alarmism, and manipulation-for-profit — for taxpayer-paid government grants, carbon-credits schemes, and studies required by environmentalist wacko government regulations.

    The anthropogenic [“man-made”] global warming religion has proven very profitable for those who own the religion and who drag around by the rings in their noses the useful idiots, airheads, and drooling, googley-eyed, bobble-headed sycophants who have an intense itch to be followers, “a part of a cause bigger than themselves” — who project an arrogant condescension onto those ignorant, unwashed dissidents who, unlike themselves, remain…. unbrainwashed.

    Contemplate Gaseous Al Gore — that lying fascist sack of sh it and doomsday cult Chairman Of The Apocalypse — who sold his failed global-warming alarmist TV station to Al Jazeera — a propaganda arm of some murderous oil dictatorship, somewhere out there in Kaboomistan.

    Now, didn’t Al Gore buy a 6,500 square-foot, $9 million, very-high carbon-footprint mansion in Montecito — “only” 480 feet above sea level where it is sure to be inundated by the HUGELY TOWERING WAVES of polar ice cap melt celebrated in scare-em-silly fictional environmentalist quack movies — if his bul lsh irt theory of man-made global warming actually proves true to reality? And this is in addition to his 10,000 square-foot mansion in Tennessee, another huge carbon footprint! And hasn’t OhBummer already bought the ocean-front Magnum-PI property in Hawaii? His bloody “rising seas” ought to swamp and drown him — else he is a lying hypocrite.

    I have no problem with people becoming fabulously rich in the capitalist system, but the stink of hypocrisy of Gaseous Al Gore — that lying fascist skunk — is annoying. He must be laughing up his sleeve at all the idiots who have enriched him through his scam, his hoax, his fraudulent religion — man-made global warming.

    So desperate now are the profiteers of his nutty religion that they are resorting once again to Hollyweird for scary big-screen movies and TV shows to carry their lunatic propaganda.

    They turn scientific method on its head, demanding that skeptics prove “that there is not” any man-made global warming, but no one is obliged to prove any such thing — for the same reason that we are not obliged to prove that the moon “is not” made of green cheese.

    It tells me something useful about opposing the OhBummer dictatorship when my reference to the moon and the green cheese in the past year was hijacked for an OhBummer speech. Possibly his speech was written by Biden The Magnificent, that lobotomized serial plagiarist who serves as OhBummer’s principal criminal accessory.

    The ecofreaks and enviromaniacs? Destroy them. Let’s just focus on ensuring clean air and clean water.

    Replace asterisks with periods, below. ~:<)

    http://www*tpnn*com/2014/03/17/weather-channel-founder-explains-the-history-of-the-global-warming-hoax/

    http://www*climatedepot*com/2014/12/30/global-sea-ice-breaks-all-time-record-high-antarctic-sea-ice-also-breaks-all-time-record-high/

    http://dailycaller*com/2015/06/04/noaa-fiddles-with-climate-data-to-erase-the-15-year-global-warming-hiatus/

  76. pimaCanyon says:

    okay, we can give you the benefit of the doubt here. The historical record of global temperatures is spotty at best, so we can’t say for sure what the average global temp was 100 years ago.

    But if global temperatures are not rising, as you claim they are not, then how do you explain more and more of the Arctic ice pack melting in recent summers? Wouldn’t that take rising temps to bring that about? And the melting of glaciers in Greenland AND alpine glaciers in many (most?) of the earth’s mountain ranges. I have seen this first hand in the North Cascades in Washington State. It’s supported with photographic records there, in Glacier NP in Montana, in the Swiss Alps, etc. Why would these glaciers be melting if global temps were holding steady or going down?

    • Gail Combs says:

      CYCLES, dude. There is at minimum the ~60 year ocean cycles and several different solar cycles. I write all the time about the Milankovitch cycles, ‘Dansgaard-Oeschger events, Heinrich events, Bond events and link to peer -reviewed papers.

      I also write of the Gleissberg cycle and the 200-year solar cycle de Vries cycle as seen in: NASA Finds Sun-Climate Connection in Old Nile Records

      Here is another example:
      Solar variability and climate change: Geomagnetic aa index and global surface temperature

      E. W. Cliver, V. Boriakoff andJ. Feynman

      DISCUSSION

      …In this view the absence of pronounced 11-year temperature fluctuations (related to the unshaded area under the aa curve in Figure 3), is attributed to the damping effect of the thermal inertia of the oceans. Wigley and Raper [1990] have shown that such damping can reduce the impact of even a relatively strong solar cycle with ~0.1% peal-to-peak irrafiancevariation [Willson and hudson, 1991] to a barely detectable temperature signal (~0.02C). Thus it is the slow variation of the underlying solar signal, as revealed by the aa min time history,rather than the 11-year cycle in either aa or sunspots that shows up most strongly in the temperature record.

      The fact that the aa index at solar minimum retains a value proportional to its flanking sunspot maxima, rather than falling to near zero values like the sunspot number, is thought to be a reflection of the interchange of poloidal and toroidal (sunspot) magnetic fields via the solar dynamo… The point we wish to make here is that the aa index provides evidence for a long-term (low-frequency) component of solar variability that persists through sunspot minimum and may therefore affect Earth’s climate.

      And the nadir resolution is 90km X 90km

      While we hypothesize that the changing aa baseline is somehow related to a long-term irradiance variationon the Sun, there is another possibility and that is that the solar wind itself influences climate…

      Our study suggest that solar variability has contributed significantly to the long-term change of earth’s climate during the past 350 years…

      While acknowledging the importance and threat of such anthropogenic forcing, we are reminded that there is evidence, albeit mixed…, for temperatures comparable to present day values during the interval 900-1250 A.D., well before the industrial age. The later part (1100-1250 A.D.) of this so-called Medieval Warm Period had inferred solar activity comparable to present levels….

      As of this writing it appears that the average aa value of 1997 will be even lower (~16 nT) than that of 1996. Such leveling off or decline of the long-term solar component of climate change will help to disentangle its effects from that of anthropogenic greenhouse warming.

      Our aa-based inference of a fiat or declining secular component of solar irradiance contrasts with the results of a recent analysis of satellite-based irradiance measurements Willson [1997] who found an increase 0.036% for the 1996 of solar minimum relative to that of 1986.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Not only has the warming out of the Little Ice Age been beneficial it occurred as a Step-Change!

      Ice cores from the Freemont Glacier show it went from Little Ice Age cold to Modern Warming warm in the ten years around 1850 — Naturally.

      ABSTRACT
      An ice core removed from the Upper Fremont Glacier in Wyoming provides evidence for abrupt climate change during the mid-1800s….

      At a depth of 152 m the refined age-depth profile shows good agreement (1736±10 A.D.) with the 14C age date (1729±95 A.D.). The δ18O profile of the Upper Fremont Glacier (UFG) ice core indicates a change in climate known as the Little Ice Age (LIA)….

      At this depth, the age-depth profile predicts an age of 1845 A.D. Results indicate the termination of the LIA was abrupt with a major climatic shift to warmer temperatures around 1845 A.D. and continuing to present day. Prediction limits (error bars) calculated for the profile ages are ±10 years (90% confidence level). Thus a conservative estimate for the time taken to complete the LIA climatic shift to present-day climate is about 10 years, suggesting the LIA termination in alpine regions of central North America may have occurred on a relatively short (decadal) timescale.
      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/1999JD901095/full

      Dr. Evans Solar Notch-Delay Theory predicts a delay of about 11 years from a change in solar conditions to a change in earth climate.

      So what happened around 1840? Solar Cycle 8. It began in November 1833 with a smoothed sunspot number of 7.3 and ended in July 1843. Max sunspot number ~210. The prior Solar Cycle 7,began in May 1823 with a smoothed sunspot number of 0.1 and ended in November 1833. Max sunspot number ~105. And thus began the Grand Solar Maximum, highest in 3,000 years which has just ended.

      In the journal Astronomy and Astrophysics, Usoskin et al. “present the first fully adjustment-free physical reconstruction of solar activity” covering the past 3,000 years, which record allowed them “to study different modes of solar activity at an unprecedented level of detail.” Their reconstruction of solar activity displays several “distinct features,” including several “well-defined Grand minima of solar activity, ca. 770 BC, 350 BC, 680 AD, 1050 AD, 1310 AD, 1470 AD, and 1680 AD,” as well as “the modern Grand maximum (which occurred during solar cycles 19-23, i.e., 1950-2009),” described as “a rare or even unique event, in both magnitude and duration, in the past three millennia.”

      http://www.co2science.org/articles/V17/N32/Usoskinetal2014b.jpg

      PAPER: Usoskin, I.G., Hulot, G., Gallet, Y., Roth, R., Licht, A., Joos, F., Kovaltsov, G.A., Thebault, E. and Khokhlov, A. 2014. Evidence for distinct modes of solar activity Astronomy and Astrophysics 562: L10, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423391.

      Also SEE: A History of Solar Activity over Millennia

      • Gerhardt v. Hohenheim says:

        By Golly!
        Didn’t you know that sunspot numbers are a result of terrestrial Global Warming‽
        I can see that you haven’t read Albert Gore’s marvelous scientific treatise that explains this in language a 6th grader can easily understand.

  77. Al Nonamus says:

    When I was a student pilot, a long time ago, I remember Gila Bend Arizona was the hottest place in the country. Weathermen, working at airports mostly, would, in the old days, submit hourly weather observations that were sent out by Teletype. These observations were to be submitted in the last 10 minutes of each hour. The Gila Bend weather observation was always the last one submitted. It seems the Gila Bend weather observer or observers checked out the surrounding temperatures first and then jacked Gila Bend’s temperature up buy a degree or two. Thereby, making Gila Bend the hottest. Those “temperature adjustments” were just for fun. I can easily imagine someone doing the same thing today by means of “data adjustments”. Except today, the temperature is adjusted to deceive gullible citizens and extort from them their money and freedom.

  78. CO2 is Life says:

    Organic chemistry is the chemistry of carbon. CO2 consists of 2 of the 4 molecules necessary for life. C, O, N and H are the elements of life.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Too bad they no longer teach that in school.

      GACK, I can remember learning (memorizing) the infrared spectra for each of those functional groups and then being given several unknowns and having to ID the coumpound based on the IR spectra and other characteristics without a cheat sheet.

      • cdquarles says:

        Nice. I also had to do IR spectroscopy, but I was much better with the gas chromatograph and other surface chromatography types, such as paper or thin layer color chromatography.

    • cdquarles says:

      You’re missing quite a few elements needed for life as we know it. Still, I also remember having to learn that chart. It brings back fond memories.

  79. The Truth says:

    I smell pseudoscience, biased and conspiracy theorist garbage page..
    Typical oil company worshiper who believes in lies and pseudoscience from oil companies who pays lobbyists to spread lies,
    Your page is a stupid CONservative that is an agenda just to attack liberals and generalize it.
    You make a stupid claim that NASA manipulate stuff.
    YOU manipulate stuff like your lies that no1 reads but losers and loners.

    Anyone even with a shred of a brain would know too much Co2 is bad.
    Causes oceans to become acidic, killing coral etc.

    Page is immature and acting childish by posting slander and libel toward Al Gore.
    Nobody heard of hicks and morons on this page nor will care.
    Only brained people will expose this trash. of a page.

    • tonyheller says:

      Moron alert

    • AndyG55 says:

      Poor “Truth”… more like, a total LACK of truth.

      And absolute lack of any knowledge of anything to do chemistry, atmospheric physics, etc etc

      ZERO knowledge of anything as far as I can see !!

      Oceans are NOT becoming acidic, and never will.
      CO2 cannot change the ocean pH , the buffering chemistry will not allow it.

      You bring your MORONIC IGNORANCE with you.

      Are you a low end failed first year arts hack.. ie low-end barista at Starpucks.

      Or something even worse?

    • Steve Keohane says:

      Boring psychological projection…

  80. I followed up a remark and graph discussed by Richard Lindzen in a lecture.

    The graph was published in 1987, by the American Meteorological Society in a paper by Stanley Grotch of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, University of California

    https://geoscienceenvironment.wordpress.com/2016/06/12/temperature-anomalies-1851-1980/

  81. Roberto says:

    There really should be no debate about all of this.

    As Algore and Osama Obama have said many times its all settled science. That’s right the majority of scientists have ruled – nothing more needs be said.

    That’s right – about 900 scientists and meteorologists have ruled that there is man-made, CO2 caused global warming (no matter what the evidence over the last 18 years indicates)… and only 31 times as many (that’s 31,000 for you folks in Rio Linda) say there is no evidence to support such drivel.

    Yeah – I’d say that’s “settled science” after all!

  82. Pingback: JULY 22, 2016 - 75 IMPORTANT NEWS STORIES YOU NEED TO KNOW - End Time News

  83. Pingback: Global Temperatures Faked? - Intellectual Gumbo

  84. Leitwolf says:

    I would like to point out, that there is no such thing as green house effect at all. Strangely enough there seems to be little talk over the most obvious problem.

    As we all know a green house effect of 33°C/K is postulated, based on 15°C observed and -18°C “calculated” temperature. The formula hereto takes into account solar radiation and earths albedo. That same formula also tells, that Venus should be cooler than Earth, despite solar radiation there is about 2 times as strong. Talking about common sense…

    Well .. taking albedo into account allows for the fact, that earth does not absorb 100% of solar radiation, ie does not behave like a perfect black body. Of course not! But when it comes infrared deradiation from earth, that is exactely what is being assumed.

    If, for a moment, we would assume, that both sides (absorbtion as well as deradiation) were equally imperfect as compared to a perfect black body, then the albedo would become a neglicible factor, which could be set to zero. In this scenario, the calculated temperature would be (for the sake of simplicity) (1/(1-0,31))^(1/4) * 255 = 280°K, or +7°C.

    The green house then would only be 8°C/K.

    Let’s look at the two sides of the “equation” in detail. Earth does not deradiate like a perfect black body, with a emission coefficient = 1. More realistically this value is around 0.9, which can be approximated if we average the coefficients of specific surface types.
    The albedo (the absorbtion coefficient if you will) on the other side, is 0.31. Much higher than those of Mars, Moon or Mercury (all in the 0.1 to 0.15 range). This so despite the fact, that the dominant surface of earth is very dark (down to only 0.04 specific albedo), which of course is water. Just look at a picture of earth to see how dark the ocean is..
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Earth_seen_from_Apollo_17.jpg
    It is quite obvious what raises earth’s albedo to 0.31 – clouds! “Clear sky albedo” would rather be only around 0.9. Keep in mind that ice and snow only have a very limited impact, as only about 1,5% of total solar radiation hits such surfaces.

    So .. if it were not for clouds, emmission- and absorbtion coefficients would indeed balance out and our zero albedo approach would give us the best estimate.

    Now, while clouds are for real, they are one thing NOT: surface. By increasing the albedo of earths “surface”, clouds open up 17.5°C of the “green house effect”. On the other side, common climate models postulate, that it were almost exclusively green house gases heating the planet, with clouds contributing only about 10% hereto, or 3-4°K, if at all.

    In other words, clouds would strongly cool the planet by reflecting sun light, but would hardly keep it warm, by reflecting infra red back down to the surface. The cooling effect would dominate by a relation of roughly 5:1.

    This however is not in line with observations. We all can tell how temperatures are falling sharply during a clear night, while they remain very stable if it is overcast. With clouds being able to reduce the nocturnal cooling by up to 80%, which is about the rate they can block heating during day time, the common climate models are clearly falsified. In fact, clouds do not at all have a negative effect on average temperatures, which they would need to have, if climate models were acurate.

    Once we accept, that clouds have no cooling effect (rather they are heating the planet, like they do excessively on Venus), and we relax the absurd assumption of earth deradiating like a perfect black body, there is little green house effect remaining. More than that, green house gases are losing the role they are supposed to play.

  85. Pingback: The Daily Gouge Archive, Friday, July 22nd, 2016

  86. OLD DOC says:

    Population explosion (too many people). IF CO2 and rise in temperature are a factor—it goes to reason that NUMBER OF HUMANS (many furnaces) are major contributors of heat, CO2 and methane —the more weight, the more each human contributes. We need to slow population growth and reduce obesity. Human over population also contributes to unhappiness and anger and wars. Fewer people less anger and violence. The more poor humans create many rich politicians.

  87. Pingback: NOAA Engaged in Outright Fraud - FINAGG.COM

  88. Reuben Scepticscience says:

    It was just a couple of hundred years ago that all scientists in unison said the earth was flat.
    And just a couple of decades ago all scientists in unison said that DDT was gods gift to mankind.
    I wonder what scientists say in unison in 20 years.

    • Dennis Mueller says:

      Actually the scientists claiming the world was flat were those who feared for their lives and supported religious dogma . The Egytians knew the world was pretty much sphere shaped well over 2000 years ago, and even had a fair estimate of the earth’s diameter. (Columbus could have used that knowledge, if he hadn’t happened on the Americas, he would have run out of supplies before reaching land.)

    • Dennis Mueller says:

      You have the time on DDT wrong, it was after scientists the impact of DDT in the 1950s and 60s that DDT was banned. That is about 60 years ago. DDT was very effective at what it was supposed to do; it just had some serious side-effects that several years to appreciate.

      Scientists will say whatever the data tells them is correct. Of course, new data can often change things (hence Dark Matter and Dark Energy). When there is sparse data, conclusions can be wrong, but as more data is filled in, better conclusions are made.

      The global temperatures have been increasing since the 1950s since that time ever increasingly complete modeling of climate has consistently pointed the finger at the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere (as well as methane). Anyone who thinks the data on global warming are based on lies is incorrect. Few scientists would claim we have a perfect data set, but it is very good and unlikely to be far off in the trends the data indicate. Sites like this that invoke grand conspiracies as a reason to not believe the data are simply put silly.

      • tonyheller says:

        Alarmists can’t discuss data, so they blabber mindlessly about black helicopters. It is much easier than thinking.

      • Sunsettommy says:

        Dennis, you are just parroting more misleading bullcrap.

        The IPCC from 1990 onward,projected at least a .20C per decade warming trend, with .30 being the average rate per decade.

        Satellite data show it is only .12C per decade warming rate. No warming since 1998……..

      • gator69 says:

        … modeling of climate has consistently pointed the finger at the increase in CO2,,,

        Of course they do, that is what they are built to do, and it is how grantologists get paid.

        Because that’s where the money is.
        -William Francis “Willie” Sutton, Jr.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Dennis Mueller says:
        “…Scientists will say whatever the data tells them is correct…”

        Are you REALLY that naive?

        Scientists, and especially US scientists will say what they are told to say. They are NOT professional engineers and have ZERO protection. So if the boss tells you to lie you either lie, (and update the resume) or you quit.

        I know I had a long and expensive talk with a lawyer on the subject. A licenced professional Engineer BTW does have legal protection and can not be forced to lie.

        SCIENTIFIC FRAUD:
        US scientists significantly more likely to publish fake research, study finds
        “Source: BMJ-British Medical Journal
        Summary: US scientists are significantly more likely to publish fake research than scientists from elsewhere”

        Stanford researchers uncover patterns in how scientists lie about their data
        “When scientists falsify data, they try to cover it up by writing differently in their published works. A pair of Stanford researchers have devised a way of identifying these written clues.”

        How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data
        Abstract

        ……This is the first meta-analysis of these surveys.

        …… Survey questions on plagiarism and other forms of professional misconduct were excluded. The final sample consisted of 21 surveys that were included in the systematic review, and 18 in the meta-analysis.

        A pooled weighted average of 1.97% (N = 7, 95%CI: 0.86–4.45) of scientists admitted to have fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once –a serious form of misconduct by any standard– and up to 33.7% admitted other questionable research practices. In surveys asking about the behaviour of colleagues, admission rates were 14.12% (N = 12, 95% CI: 9.91–19.72) for falsification, and up to 72% for other questionable research practices.….

        Considering that these surveys ask sensitive questions and have other limitations, it appears likely that this is a conservative estimate of the true prevalence of scientific misconduct.

  89. Pingback: Are the NOAA stated Global Warming Temperatures Fake? | What is Global Warming

  90. Pingback: A Voice of Colorado No. 379: | A Voice of Colorado

  91. Pingback: The Sound of One Hand Clapping | libertariantranslator

  92. Too Much says:

    I cannot see much references in the figures published. The graphs presented looks like they’ve been made in an old version of excel, with no explanation of the way the numbers have been used or from which source they’ve came from. I reject this page and will read it if proper citation is mad

  93. Pingback: Globale Temperaturen sind meistens Schwindel – EIKE – Europäisches Institut für Klima & Energie

Leave a Reply

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