Are You A 97 Percenter?

Well behaved skeptics accept the “science” behind the claim that Earth has warmed over the last 75 years. I’m not one of them.

Earth was very warm 75 years ago, and the Arctic was rapidly melting.

The ice of the Arctic Ocean is melting so rapidly that more than one-third of it has disappeared in fifty years..

screen-shot-2016-09-28-at-7-17-17-am-down

Papers Past | WARMER ARCTIC (Auckland Star, 1940-12-14)

This fact wrecked their climate scam, so NASA and NOAA simply erased the warm 1940s

screen-shot-2016-09-28-at-7-25-20-am

Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis

They did the same thing in the US.

screen-shot-2016-09-06-at-6-39-45-am

They did the same thing globally.

screen-shot-2016-09-23-at-7-27-39-am

There is a consistent pattern of data tampering at NOAA and NASA to make the 1930s/1940s warmth disappear. NASA has known for 45 years that CO2 is not a threat to the climate, but their funding depends on maintaining this fraud.

2015-11-07-12-30-092015-11-07-12-30-39

http://vademecum.brandenberger.eu/pdf/klima/rasool_schneider_1971.pdf failed to load

Climategate E-mails show that they discussed this quite openly.

From: Tom Wigley <wigley@ucar.edu>
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>
Subject: 1940s
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
Cc: Ben Santer <santer1@llnl.gov>

It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”.

di2.nu/foia/1254108338.txt

Don’t be a 97 percenter. There is no valid reason to believe Earth is warmer now than it was 75 years ago.. It is all one giant fraud.

screen-shot-2016-09-06-at-6-18-58-am-copy

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to Are You A 97 Percenter?

  1. NASA is what you get when you take a bunch of NAZIs tutored in Goebbels big lie and give them all the cash they want.

  2. CheshireRed says:

    Tony, your posts are very strong but in their current format are dependent on the reader understanding what you’re saying and how data has been deliberately manipulated. Could you transform the impact of your message if they were in a short video format with narration? (say 60 seconds) Is that something you’d consider?

    I dare say cost / time / website format could also be issues but I reckon you could raise some funds with a bit of a special whip-round request. They’d fit well on facebook / Twittter etc and would probably obtain more reach than static posts. Just a suggestion.

    • geran says:

      CR, have you seen Tony’s excellent presentation here:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gh-DNNIUjKU

      • CheshireRed says:

        Yep, saw it a while back and it kind of reinforces my point. Tony knows exactly what he’s talking about, what he’s doing, what NASA/GISS & NOAA have done and how and why they’ve done it. As if that isn’t enough he has the credibility to justify his claims, which not everyone has and can be lost on a static presentation. People are lazy and to take this message to the masses needs the message to be understandable to the masses. In effect it has to be spoon-fed. Currently visitors have to come here and show an interest and understanding of the issues which isn’t the same as having an expert guide you through point by point. A message can also be spelt out on video in a way that isn’t possible in a static post. His vid’s would obviously be branded and because his information is so good it stands to reason videos would take it to the next level.
        I’m not having a go btw, just making a suggestion. This is Tony’s blog so it’s (obviously) his call.

  3. garyh845 says:

    News flash 1940:

    “The ice of the Arctic Ocean is melting so rapidly that more than one-third of it has disappeared in fifty years.”

    News flash 1979:

    ‘Update! Then it all froze again and expanded so rapidly that the 0ne-third that had melted is all back again.’

    . . move along.

  4. I’m guessing there was very little Arctic and no Antarctic temperature data 75 years ago, so if there were large high anomalies that were not monitored in either area, the global estimates will be too low. The 60-90 N and S polar zones only account for 7 percent of the global surface each (14 percent total), but the anomalies can sometimes be as much as 5C to 10C or more and thus they can have a big impact on the global temperature estimate. And that’s before any data tampering for the few Arctic stations that may be available, which could make it even worse.

  5. AndyG55 says:

    One of the few areas that Arctic sea ice is able to expand is around the Iceland region.

    It is instructive to look at the Icelandic Sea Ice Index.

    You can clearly see the growth in sea ice related to the LIA, and if you look you can see the effect of the 60-80 year cycle of the AMO

    What really is interesting to the long period of near zero index from about 1920-1960 then the RAPID CLIMB up to near LIA levels around the late 1970’s.

    We know the last 10 years have seen a zero trend in Arctic sea ice, as the AMO has been sitting on its broad maximum, but that AMO is now starting to drop, north Atlantic sst’s are also dropping quite quickly.

    • It would be interesting to see how the Iceland Sea Ice index compares in recent years to total Arctic sea ice extent. It might be a fairly good proxie. Has anyone run the index past 1998 and is it available as numbers?

      • AndyG55 says:

        Maybe some correlation..
        What I’ve done here is take a closer view from this graph

      • Andy, thanks for the graphs. After thinking about it a bit, I suspect that the Iceland Sea Ice index is likely to be dominated by winter sea ice and thus it would be more appropriate to compare it to winter average or maximum Arctic sea ice extent rather than yearly average Arctic sea ice extent. Also, since it is an index and not an anomaly, it would be better to compare it directly to Arctic winter sea ice extent (not the anomalies) for the satellite era since about 1979 to see if there is much correlation. If there is a decent correlation, that would imply that the entire Iceland Sea Ice index record could serve as a good proxy for winter sea ice extent in the Arctic as well.

  6. john says:

    It’s junior high school science being used by junior executive stock brokers to deceive the world. http://Www.globalcoolingcausesglobalwarming.blogspot.com

  7. Norman says:

    I think one must feel sorry for the NASA scientists. The goal of a scientist is to discover the Truth of the Natural World. If one needs to distort or intentionally twist data to earn a living it would be a terrible fate to go to work daily and need to go against the very thing you were trained to do, discover and uncover the Truth.

  8. AndyG55 says:

    totally OT,

    is anyone else finding that google search is extremely slow, if it works at all ?

  9. AndrewS says:

    I’ve been off internet for almost a month, How’s that Arctic Cruise going? Are they still up there sailing in circles?

  10. gregole says:

    Thanks Tony for the hard work you do and thanks AndyG55 for the graphics. Thought provoking.

    Here’s a thought: why isn’t it getting hotter? After all is said and done, shouldn’t it be getting hotter? I think it reasonably well accepted here that there was a little ice age and sometime toward the end of the 19th century, it has progressively been warming, warming a little bit, and in fits and starts, but warmer than the little ice age for sure.

    And then there’s the matter of the added CO2 in the atmosphere. So we have been in some sort of warming phase; add to that CO2; and we should not be surprised to see higher temperatures. But what we are seeing is nothing higher than what we saw in 1930s and 1940s. It’s 2016. Arctic ice is well within historic bounds; Antarctic ice is probably on the high side.

    Given that we are clearly in a warming trend since the little ice age, add the CO2, and for that matter add land-use changes, mass urbanization, and anything else you can think of that mankind has done; it wouldn’t be too surprising to me that it was warmer.

    But it isn’t much warmer. I think it is a very interesting question. It would make sense if it was getting warmer. But the warming has either slowed way down or even stopped. Why?

    • Jason Calley says:

      “But the warming has either slowed way down or even stopped. Why?”

      The most honest answer is “No one knows. There are MANY factors that influence climate, and their interactions are poorly understood and chaotic.”

      The scary answer is “the interglacial period is ending.”

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.