NOAA September Temperature Fraud

NOAA claimed record heat in numerous locations is September, like these ones in Africa and the Middle East.


201609.gif (990×765)

This is a remarkable feat, given that they didn’t have any actual thermometer readings in those regions in September. In fact, NOAA didn’t have any thermometer readings on about half of the land surface.


201609.gif (990×765)

Satellite temperatures showed that September was close to normal in those regions which NOAA declared to be record hot.


ch_tlt_2016_09_anom_v03_3.png (730×450)

Not only is the land data fake, but much of the ocean data is fake too.

date: Wed Apr 15 14:29:03 2009
from: Phil Jones <> subject: Re: Fwd: Re: contribution to
to: Thomas Crowley <>


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.


The global surface temperature record is garbage. This is the 21st century, and it needs to be replaced by satellite temperatures which show little or no warming this century.


Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

366 Responses to NOAA September Temperature Fraud

  1. bailcon says:

    I understand that satellites show much less warming than Gavin’s readings, but I also see that they do show warming. If the interactive graph is pushed back to 1985, there appears a jump after the 1998 El Niño, and when the El Niño went away, the temperatures stayed higher than they had been beforehand. How am I to interpret this? It seems that satellite data only started getting collected in the 80s, so we can’t go back too far. I guess the culprit is either CO2 or the sun’s rays being stronger. Also, what do people here think of the 30-year lag, as proposed by James Hansen? The idea that we are now living in the climate we created 30 years ago, vis a vis emissions. Does that hold scientific water?

    • tonyheller says:

      Warming from 1977 to 1998 was caused by the PDO shift and the AMO. It has nothing to do with greenhouse gases or the sun.

      • bailcon says:

        I am not familiar with those concepts. I will look them up.

        • Robert Austin says:

          Long term cycles. PDO about 70 years. Layer this on top of recovery from Little Ice Age and you have a credible explanation that does not require CO2.
          On topic, I am in awe of the huge record warming square northeast of New Guinea fabricated from who knows what.

          • Doc Johnson says:

            Volcanic activity, especially that which we cannot easily view in the depths of ocean faults, often far from the emitted streams of super-heated waters from a great depth.

          • TroyToYou says:


          • Kevin says:

            Fabricated from hot air.

          • Jesse Reich says:

            I think the sea temps come from moored and floating buoys which the data isn’t shown here.

            “The Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature (ERSST) dataset is a global monthly sea surface temperature dataset derived from the International Comprehensive Ocean–Atmosphere Dataset (ICOADS).”

            If you go to the ICOADS site you’ll see the locations of where the buoys are during the month.


          • Jesse Reich says:

            I disagree about the New Guinea data being fabricated from nothing (see my other comment about the ICOADS data set)… but.. why is there no cooling shown on the west coast US and Eastern Europen. Both land measurements and satellite imagery shows some negative temp anomalies yet there is no cooling in the final output??

          • lester says:

            The planet has been warning since the peak cold of the last ice age. Nothing to do with man.

          • Robert Austin says:

            Jesse Reich,
            You are correct, the big red square must be divined from sea surface tempertures. The October sea surface temperatures shown do not indicate exceptional temperatures NE of New Guinea but I could not figure out how to pull up the September sea surface temperatures for comparison.

          • Freeland_Dave says:

            Robert Austin
            Fabricated is the perfect word. I didn’t exactly work for NOAA but I did work on much of their equipment and helped to build some of their satellites, along with the sensors those satellites employ on their payloads. It was then I made a startling discovery for myself that took me several years to explain. I too had noticed ‘gaps’ in NOAA’s ‘data’ so I set forth to discover why? One of the first things that I discovered were the weather data gathering stations dotted all over the planet. When I delved into them closely I found that much of the equipment was antiquated and way out of calibration. To fill in many of the holes NOAA just gave it ‘their best guess’ and used those numbers in their final analysis to determine if the overall climate of the earth was warming or cooling. The other thing that I noticed is that most of these stations were installed in the late 1950’s and were still in their original locations, despite the local micro-climate had changed significantly due to human encroachment on these stations. One I remember well at Redding California. When originally installed it was in a remote field several miles away from human habitation. Today it sits just behind the aircraft engine warmup where these aircraft sit on the tarmac waiting for permission to take off. When working on their satellites and their sensors, we had to calibrate their repeatable accuracy to .1 degrees. The problem is that’s a plus or minus figure meaning a .3 degree spread and possible error. So you can see I seriously doubt any claim that NOAA makes when it says something to the effect that our ocean temperatures have risen by .1 degrees over any period of time. Why? Because .1 degrees lays in the noise of the sensor establishing that temperature. In order to factually establish that claim you would have to repeatedly resolve temperatures to an accuracy of .01 degrees. NOAA has been fudging their data for decades and finally the truth is coming out. Why does NOAA and agencies like NASA do this? Politics and lots of money. I know NOAA people and when they are speaking honestly they say the same thing. But they don’t do it publicly because their employer has far reaching abilities and they need their jobs. You don’t exactly want to hack off your boss and get fired do you?

          • Hugh K says:

            I disagree Lester. At least with the “nothing to do with man” part. Certainly CO2 appears to be a myth or at least there is no hard data to support. But the ‘urban heat island’ warming is certainly real. As these megalopolis’ expand, warming is increased. Of course this topic is avoided by globalists that prefer to shove us all into concrete jungles for better physical/mind control. Maybe I’m wrong on the motive but it is strange that few climate elites if any bring this form of warming supported by hard data into the debate. Maybe it is as simple as no big money to be gained from containing UHI as compared to the riches we have seen acquired by fighting anthropogenic global warming supposedly fueled by CO2.

          • Neal S says:

            US 48 states has about 1.4% area covered with concrete. UK has 900 square miles or nearly one percent. I doubt that other places will be much greater than these percentages and likely many if not most will be much less. So overall the world has much less than 1% of land surface covered with concrete. Do you really think this is going to have a huge effect?



          • Robertv says:

            Neal S It does have a huge effect if most data you’re using is coming from that 1 % covered with concrete.

          • Neal S says:

            About as much effect as a thumb on the scale when your meat is being weighed at the butchers, or holding a match under the thermometer.

            What I mean is while it affects the measurement you are making from UHI contaminated areas, it is not actually having much effect if any on the surrounding countryside or the globe.

          • Andy DC says:

            The first order of business for the Trump administration is to check the siting and calibration of all thermometers maintained at NWS stations.

            I suspect massive cheating in that regard, which probably accounts for large percentage of the alleged warming.

            Then they have the utter nerve to “adjust” the already tainted data sets to cool the past and warm the present. They obviously should be doing the opposite, with airport stations that used to be in rural area that are now in densely populated suburbia.

        • William Stanley says:

          You certainly use a lot of words impertinent to the discussion, bailcon. Perhaps you should consider if you actually know at least s0mething ab0ut what you’re talking about before you present yourself as someone that knows anything at all, bailcon. I’m guessing that you’re a hockey fan that believes in Mann caused global warming/cooling/whatever costs countries billions in taxpayers to do nothing about because there is nothing to do anything about.

          • Oh Stop says:

            William Stanley, so far, you are the prime example of one who is not talking on topic. There is no need for personal assault. Blind believers and skeptics are welcome here. If you do not want to address someone’s points, go to Twitter or Facebook please.

          • Reese says:

            Did you not bother to read the next couple comments after his op? If not, you’ll see he’s apparently very receptive and open to learning things so calm your puss before it gets grabbed.

          • hiram floss says:

            uh, William I think the word you were unsuccessfully looking for was IRRELEVANT not impertinent – unless you meant to indicate flippant, mocking, making fun of or humorously taunting but in the context of your “intellectual” statement I don’t think that was the case. and anyone who spends more than 10 minutes actually researching globull warming will find out how BOGUS the AGW “problem” is

          • Aleric says:

            Hiram are you calling people who disagree with the BS Global Warming Religion as Deniers??

          • rellimnj says:

            I think you meant “irrelevant to the discussion.”
            I don’t think words can be impertinent – only people……….

        • Bob Roberts says:

          Generally, Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism proposes the atmosphere drives both the CO2 level and the heat level of the oceans. In reality the ocean is the much greater reservoir of both heat and CO2 and it drives the atmosphere. The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and others are robust fluctuations in ocean conditions. The Madden–Julian oscillation, or (MJO) is one of the related fluctuations in atmospheric conditions. The sea conditions drive the atmospheric conditions, as noted previously.

        • joetsunami says:

          Kudos bailcon for being so obviously willing to learn!

          • E Biggins says:

            I couldn’t agree more. Wanting to learn and see where the facts are is what Science is all about… When Politics enter the discussion people refuse to look at the facts and go off of feelings. It is so refreshing to read that someone (Bailcon) was willing to learn new concepts.

          • bailcon says:

            Thanks guys!

        • uitdeketting says:

          The minute they pass cap & trade the clamatechange/warming (which is it) will be over.

      • Reality Checker says:

        “It has nothing to do with greenhouse gases or the sun.”

        Wrong . . . the primary factor driving changes in the Earth’s climate and that of the other planets in the solar system is the Sun! To discount that, as the past four IPCC “reports” have done is totally fraudulent. This is nothing more than garbage science.

        • flipping mad says:

          Exactly. That giant electric heater in the sky controls enormous realms. Mankind however is interfering with the nature of things with their HAARP systems worldwide and their microwaves doing things that they should never be doing. All this manmade activity using the microwave heaters and the brains of scientists needing to control the weather and weather related events is the culprit of everything going haywire. From the weather patterns to the temperatures to the lack of rain or too much rain, etc. mostly all having results that are hugely detrimental to this planet.

          • Lynn says:

            Yep. mankind or man-cruel. Please watch the most current and then next video on YT from 1PacificRedwood to know what the real weather of the day is. We are seeing nothing but TV talking heads blowing smoke at us. Any of you read the Gov Document Owning the Weather by 2025? Our weather is already being manipulated. Look up. Gee wiz…Can’t you tell the difference between the skies of today and the skies of the 60’s?
            Looking at the CODUS, the MODIS and the MIMIC-TPM images should open eyes as well.

          • Lynn says:

            that’d be CONUS…

          • Jojopanama says:

            Doesn’t the Earth wobble on its axis, not make a perfect circle around the sun, and Sun spot flares have a lot to do with this?

          • RAH says:

            “Jojopanama says:
            November 18, 2016 at 6:45 pm
            Doesn’t the Earth wobble on its axis, not make a perfect circle around the sun, and Sun spot flares have a lot to do with this?”

            It’s called “precession” and it is one of three major factors in earths orbit which effect climate/weather.

        • Rick says:

          @Reality Checker –

          Oh ! . . . . . . Maybe CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere is the cause of Solar activity. In turn, that affects hockey sticks.

          Note to Climageddon Alarmists: Climate is VERY complicated. The causes of many of the cyclical events are poorly understood.

          Milankovitch cycles ( variations in eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession of the Earth’s orbit), Solar activity cycles, asymmetric events (asteroid strikes, volcanoes), reflectivity of polar ice caps & desert, etc.

          Atmospheric CO2 is nearly 4 parts in 10,000. (This is NOT in dispute). The major GHG (green house gas), over 95% is . . . . . . . . H2O.

          Further – we have only a tiny idea of what goes on with the oceans. Variations of salinity, temperature, deep currents, have big unknowns.

          • Howitis says:

            “Poorly understood” brings us to the true problem: many citizens don’t want to find out after the fact that their hard earned tax dollars have been wasted (read: that they have been played by people who are using fear tactics to line their own pockets) by premature expenditure on a “poorly understood” issue.

          • Pilot Dave says:

            one major issue I have with the “Al Gore” type of stance is, it was a one sided view – supply side of CO2, nothing about the demand side. Nothing about the 10x stronger greenhouse gas our “Modern lifestyle” makes so much of…. Research and adaptation… For certain, this Earth can not sustain 7B people without burning vast quantities of fossil fuel. This simply will end badly without some changes in the equation. And no, Jet aircraft and John Deere industrial ag will never run on solar electric. (Nature already solved energy density storage long ago)

          • Don M says:

            Not only is climate complex, it is not predictable long term (more than 7 days or so). The Navier Stokes differential equations describe fluid flow, with changes in temperature and density. They are nonlinear, chaotic, with sensitive dependence on initial conditions. Because of that nonlinear, chaotic, and sensitive dependence, long term prediction is not possible. This has been known since 1963 when Edward Lorenz wrote “Deterministic Nonperiodic Flow” explaining the above, and proving it with nearly the simplest possible non-trivial Navier Stokes system. Since then, any who pretend to predict distant futures for a NS system are either incompetents, or frauds, or both.

          • bailcon says:

            Pilot Dave, what gas are you referring to when you say “modern lifestyle”. H2O? I agree with everything else you said btw about demand side. So many things for which fossil fuel cannot be replaced.

          • Pilot Dave says:

            bailcon – great question… most “Modern Lifestyles” include more meat based food the more economically developed a country gets, thus more Methane from the life stock operations. The more farming, plant food production, etc… they all add far more green house gas effect than just the burning of fossil fuel for the non-food production things we do… On “demand side” I am talking about trees, increase in plant growth including plant food production caused by more CO2, etc… Deforestation of the forest that produces 50% or our O2 and thus the DEMAND for plant food – CO2.

        • JohnD says:

          What? Do you mean that big red ball in the daytime sky could affect the temp? Who knew?

        • Gino Dalpiaz says:


          Then there was global warming… Oh, I’m sorry: I mean “THE ICE AGE IS COMING” (see Time Magazine—also Walter Cronkite, Sept. 11, 1972). There were many articles back in the 1970s that discussed the whole Ice Age problem). Oh, no, cancel that: “GLOBAL WARMING IS COMING.” Oh, no, change that: “CLIMATE CHANGE IS COMING”…..

          What hubris, what arrogance has taken possession of us poor little creatures on this mortal coil, that can makes us think that we little ants can change the weather on this huge planet. We forget that glowing star out there that we fondly call the SUN, which from time immemorial has been sending us its powerful rays, its warmth, its energy.

          We forget the powerful forces in the very belly of our magnificent planet, a planet we think we can tame. We’re acting like little gods.

          The Global Warming people often confuse global warming or climate change with ecology. And they say: “Yea, look at India, look at China. How dirty their air and water is.” True, but that’s got nothing to do with global warming or climate change. That’s ecology. We all want clean water, clean air, clean lakes and rivers, unpolluted peppers and tomatoes, magnificent landscapes. And today, at least in the United States, we’ve never had such clean air and water and lakes. Our cars are using fewer and fewer toxic ingredients. Why, even Great Britain’s Daily Mail for Jan. 2, 2015, has this comforting headline: “Carbon dioxide emissions help tropical rain forests grow faster: Study shows trees absorb more greenhouse gas than expected.” Praise the Lord!

          But that’s all ecology. We’re all for that. In fact, lets leave our children an even more beautiful and healthy planet than we inherited. But let’s not try to change the climate and temperature of this temperamental Planet Earth. It won’t work. Instead, let’s try to enjoy and beautify this unique and magnificent home lost among the trillions of other planets and stars.

          Ecology has nothing to do with global warming or climate change, which is the greatest scientific fraud ever perpetrated on mankind. In a news conference in Washington D.C. on May 13, 2014, French foreign minister Laurent Fabius went so far as to warn the world that “we have 500 days to avoid climate chaos.” Could a French foreign minister be wrong? I figured we earth-dwellers had only a few days left, and Armageddon would descend upon Planet Earth. “Earth, we have a problem.” Stop the world; I’m getting off! Come to think of it: the “climate chaos” predicted by the French foreign minister was to have taken place on September 25, 2015!!! Are we dead or still alive? Oh well, maybe we still have time to make our last wills and testaments. Oh, shucks, there won’t be anyone left to execute them.

          Former Vice President Al Gore invented his own “tipping point” clock a few years ago. Excerpt: Former Vice-President Al Gore came to Washington on July 17, 2008, to deliver yet another speech warning of the “climate crisis.” “The leading experts predict that we have less than 10 years to make dramatic changes in our global warming pollution lest we lose our ability to ever recover from this environmental crisis,” Gore stated.

          Finally, on Jan. 2, 2015, Great Britain’s Daily Mail gave the world another big scare with this headline: “Mystery at the sun’s south pole: NASA reveals huge ‘coronal hole’ on the solar surface where winds reach 500 miles per SECOND.” Now we’re having trouble with the SUN! But somehow—with God’s help— we’ll muddle through. We always have.

      • Dornan H says:

        The email addressing is from UEA in the UK.
        The Univ of East Anglia.
        This is the same university whose climate data folks (7 culprits) were caught 5 years ago manufacturing higher global temps in static data from the past few decades.
        The scam was mostly by rounding up temps with statistical manipulation techniques used by banks, lenders and money managers who profit in the margins – a penny here or there.
        Their email trail revealed a vast conspiracy and is the backbone of the moment against ‘climate claimers’.

      • daddy warbucks says:

        As the NWO gets bigger, because they produce nothing and provide no revenues, they need to create more ways to tax you for their existence, it has nothing to do with ‘global warming’. It’s about a few dynastic families usurping  the sovereignty, resources law making, control of nations and it’s people through the UN, NATO and their current effort to form a ‘global police force’ and having us pay for it.

        With the full complicit backing of our federal monster government, the UN is ramming ‘Agenda 21’ and ‘Common Core’ down the throats of the world, the UN’s World Bank is complicit in forcing poor farmers off their own land in Africa and South America for corporate and endowment ‘tree farm/carbon credit’ investments, is deeming sovereign resources off limits, trying to eliminate (citizen’s only) the right to bear arms, our country’s sovereignty and our individual freedoms and now trying to force a ‘world’ climate change tax and ‘world’ wealth tax on us AND under the guise of saving us from asteroids the UN is trying co-opt our US space program, it’s technology, resources and getting control of the internet.

        YOO HOO! Imagine the savings if the USA stopped funding the UN and reduced our federal monster government back to it’s Constitutional mandate (before it self creates it’s own full blown tyrannical plan)
        Too many layers and layers of non-producing federal government and UN parasites in suits needing evermore revenues for their opulent salaries, lifestyles and ever growing pensions (and who are getting more and more authoritarian and predatory toward it’s citizens.
        How about staring here; all states reject ‘federal’ funding, demanding reconstitution of states rights, taking back federal confiscation of state’s property and kick the UN the hell out of our country:
        One dollar spent on a ‘FEDERAL’ level cost 10 times more than if that same job was done on a ‘STATE’ level, logic would point to keeping federal government no bigger than our constitutional mandate, notice the federal government taking states property and states rights away form states and handing control of US properties and law making over to the UN?
        Now add in the cost of the UN and the obscene waste and inefficiency of ‘world’ dollars:
        Wikipedia the UN and see how BEHEMOTHIC it now is with all it’s agencies, impotent peace keeping forces, organizations, commissions and each comes with their own building complexes, vehicles, uniforms, equipment, support complexes, staff, salaries, travel, security, food and energy expenses, conferences AND the now hundreds of thousands of UN retirees (mostly foreign) and their pensions, perks and benefits.
        YOO HOO, who do you think is paying for all of that?
        And most UN employees don’t even pay any tax (some ‘internal’ tax …whooppee).

        … So, how many UN ‘world’ (foreign) pensioners are we funding with our taxes?

        Imagine how much extra money we would have if we defunded the world’s behemothic tax parasites and redundant layers of government that are becoming more and more tax hungry and authoritarian towards it’s citizens.
        The UN and all of it’s huge organizations, commissions and agencies including the IMF and World Bank, generate no revenues, are not subject to the laws of any country it operates in, pays no tax, produce nothing, is dictating ‘world’ regulations, confiscating your wealth through federal taxation and backdoor taxation through complicit federal government agencies like the EPA.
        YOO HOO! Imagine the savings if our country stopped funding the UN.
        Lagarde’s (IMF) salary is over $300,000 + per year PLUS tens of thousands in ‘stipends’. and she PAYS NO TAX.
        “most UN employees pay no tax”.
        The IMF and World Bank are UN agencies of now countless agencies, commissions and organizations, one big Trojan Horse and tool of a few dynastic families, sucking the wealth, sovereignty, freedoms and life out of the world.
        The IMF is nothing more than a world asset stripping debt collector for the western alliance globalist elites.
        Global taxation, a ‘one world’ currency and open borders are all part of the globalists plan to eliminate sovereignty of nations.
        10 nations that control the world’s gold – MarketWatch
        Oct 20, 2012 … The International Monetary Fund is the third-largest official holder of gold, with more than 2,814 tonnes.

        Where’s all that IMF gold coming from? (Ask NATO?< Libya? Egypt? Tunisia? Ukraine? soon Syria?) And Germany can't get their's back?
        The IMF is ANOTHER UN agency, it is not a 'nation', it has been deemed 'supranational sovereignty' (deemed by the UN's 'International Court of Justice' -yep, another UN agency). so the UN creates an agency to deem itself and it's other agencies supranational sovereignty over the world and makes it's own laws, decides it needn't pay any tax nor provide any revenues -sweet deal if your a UN employee.
        "A monarchy is that which calls itself a monarchy" (only if the people allow it).
        UN? Proven corrupt, unelected, made up mostly of 3rd world dictatorships.
        NATO, the UN and all of it's agencies, commissions, organizations, etc  (UN agencies include the IMF and World Bank), all have the same boss, they're all really just tentacles of the giant, globalist vampire banksters squid.
        Notice the elimination of individual accountability? 'NATO' decided this or that, the 'UN' deemed this or that, and we must all comply regardless of our rights, freedoms and laws of OUR OWN COUNTRY. Any official that your taxes fund needs to be thrown out if they support the UN. The working tax payer needs to be mobilized against funding the UN.
        We have to stop giving credibility and decision making powers to unelected foreign entities that we are forced taxed to fund while they supplant our own country’s laws and sovereignty and take control over our resources.

        Time for individual states to reject 'federal money', take 'federal land' ownership and control back to the individual states it BELONGS TOO, re-instate all states rights, Pull out of NATO, defund and take away the UN’s ‘supranational sovereignty’, restitution of it's assets (starting with the IMF's (stolen?) gold hoard) claw back foreign pensions (US taxes for foreigners) and kick them the hell out of our country.
        Know Your Enemy Part 63 – The United Nations Background – By The Fuel Project

        Know Your Enemy Part 64 – The Spiritual United Nations

        Know Your Enemy Part 65 – The World Core Curriculum

        Know Your Enemy Part 66 – Alice A Bailey

        Know Your Enemy Part 67 – The War on Parents

        The Green Agenda – Deep Ecology

        "It appears that the Global Green Agenda includes controlling every aspect of human activity, especially our reproduction. Humans, as a destructive pest species, must have their population tightly controlled, and even significantly reduced according to some."

        "The Global Warming crowd has been exposed to be perhaps the greatest scientific fraud of the century. If anyone in the financial industry did this, they would be sent to prison for 20 years or more. They outright deny the existence of any cyclical evidence and have basically pissed on the graves of everyone from Isaac Newton on." – Martin Armstrong
        Armstrong Economics

        With now all the mountains of evidence and exposed (and admitted) fraud, warmists are the real deniers and the new useful idiots.

        The IPCC Exposed

        More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims
        Challenge UN IPCC :Panel
        By Global Research News
        Global Research, September 21, 2014

        Global warming will kill us all, warns Common Core-aligned homework. 

        Clueless greenies

        • The Oracle says:

          Some good points – but it went way too long. No one has time for, or wants to read, a dissertation that takes an hour to wade through. Just sayin’

          • BUZ says:

            Liberals whine and call real facts bullying, is that what you are trying to do or are you trying to belittle Daddy Warbucks to make you look good to your global warming buddies?

            Daddy, keep on talking, you are saying the same thing I’ve tried to tell people for 25 years!

          • Pyramid says:

            Oracle. With all due respect no one held a gun to your head to read the comment. Why not just scan through longer comments like this looking for phrases or topics that pique your interest and delve deeper in that section? You can always go back and read parts you skipped if get deeper into the message or the author. Bet you are a school teacher.
            I do appreciate your desire to improve communications on the internet.
            Just sayin’

        • Ben Snyder says:

          Thank you for all this. I agree with everything you have said against the UN and our federal government-especially under Obama. You write very well (except for the apostrophes in “its”-incorrect, except if you are using the word to say “it is”. Little grammar tip!).

        • dazed&confused says:

          Umm, can you repeat that?

        • Robert Clary says:

          My friend daddy you have hit all the nails right on the head! people like you an some others hear to numerous to name help restore my faith in my fellow man. These are complicated issue and convoluted by design to confuse the general public to keep them from realizing they are being scammed I for one appreciate all the hard work you have put in digging up the FACTS of what’s being done to humanity on a global scale.To all who don’t have time for all that please return to your TV for your 45 second sound bites that or close yur yap an let Daddy Warbucks teach you a thing or 2!

        • Pilot Dave says:

          Well said daddy warbucks..

          You had me with the second fact… most liberals would have clammed up after reading the first fact… Facts are too scientific for their ilks.

      • Chuck says:

        Is it possible that the actual global warming that was observed was caused in part by the Clean Air Act, in the sense that the “smog” was greatly cleared over the same period as the “warming” and this observation was misinterpreted as caused by greenhouse gases? This would explain why there was brief period of unusual increase which has since slowed, corresponding to a reduction of the particulate matter in the atmosphere which was concentrated in the areas where the readings were taking place. Smog of course has increased in other areas of the earth since but perhaps these areas are not where the monitoring stations are.

      • Louis W Berard says:

        It’s called weather. It changes from day to day, week to week, month to month, year to year, decade to decade, century to century. Sometimes it gets colder, sometimes it gets hotter. Sometimes ice develops a mile thick in some places and then that ice melts over thousands of years. Sometimes people are on the planet, sometimes they were not. You can’t control it, scientists can’t control it, Obama can’t fix it. Just relax and enjoy it today because tomorrow it will change again.

      • Jeff Patterson says:

        Exactly right, mostly the AMO. Unaware of its existence, scientists mistook it’s positive phase in the eighties and early nineties as a signal of man mad global warming, just as its negative phase thirty years early brought fears of global cooling. The climateers “tuned” their climate models to match the observed rise by setting the climate sensitivity to CO2 much too high. When the AMO began to turn downwards at the turn of the century, the resulting “pause” befuddled them. Now it has become clear that the models predict much more global warming than has been observed, despite the unrelenting efforts to bias the temperature record upwards to match the the models! Those in charge of the satellite data (God bless them) refused to go along with the sham resulting in the divergence seen in the chart above.

        The best empirically based evidence puts climate sensitivity to C02 at about a third of what the IPCC claims. Unfortunately the climateers, fighting for grant money and relevance, have not fessed up. This will result in trillions being spent on a non-problem, depriving billions in under developed nations access to cheap energy and the higher standard of living that brings. Hopefully President Trump’s team will expose all this and end the madness.

      • lester says:

        The planet has been warming since the ice age began to melt. It is going to continue until the onset of a new ice age. Man has nothing to do with this.

      • ShrNfr says:

        The AMO is synced with the solar magnetic cycle for the past century or so. I suspect that the solar magnetic/TSI is a driver, but that is a hypothesis to be investigated.

      • micro6500 says:

        “If the interactive graph is pushed back to 1985, there appears a jump after the 1998 El Niño, and when the El Niño went away, the temperatures stayed higher than they had been beforehand. How am I to interpret this? ”
        There was a shift in the effective CS to solar when this happened in the 20-~35 North Lat, and it did stay and not leave.
        Either, it changed how water vapor got distributed over and, increasing the amount of water vapor ending up over land, which would show up as higher temps.
        Something else I’ve noticed is that there was a global cooling in the temp record in 86, that I think became the heat the El Nino released a few years later.

      • Judy says:

        So the PDO and AMO are natural events. What if the Greenhouse Effect is a failed hypothesis (Robert Wood 1909 and Nasif Nahle 2011) What if there is a supposed Greenhouse Effect, but its so minuscule that measuring it is analogous to measuring the petrol that runs down the side of your car when you fill up at the bowser ie measuring the back flow in an otherwise very efficient system.

    • the 30-year lag, as proposed by James Hansen?
      Is this another dodge to avoid having to admit that all their data has been cooked and that their simulations are on a par with rolling dice?

    • Robert of Ottawa says:

      Tjhe whole point is not IF there is warming but, IF there has been warming, prove it is not due to natural variation.

      This is the NULL hypothesis and it has never been addressed.

      • Castor virginianus says:

        Bobby, I think you got some curds or gravy on your keyboard. The null hypothesis (H-naught) is: There has been (or is) no warming. Which from about ’97 to about ’15 there wasn’t. ’16 appears a little warmer, but one data point does not a trend make mon frère. H-alt is: There has been (or is) warming. If we can prove that, we can move on to the next H-naught: Warming is due to natural variation and the H-alt is: Something else (humans) caused it. That’s how this null-alternate hypothesis thing really works, eh?

      • Rich 182 says:

        As currently presented Global Warming is not possible. The basic global warming theory is that somehow trapping the sun’s energy in the atmosphere vice in the water & land mass of the earth somehow leads to a increased energy absorption.

        Two major problems with that 1) the mass of the earth is 200M times greater than that of the atmosphere. According to the laws of physics as we know them today [I hedge because maybe global warming alarmists are more knowledgeable than Einstein, Heisenberg, etc.] in order for the atmosphere to heat the earth 1 degree there would need to be a temperature differential of 2 degrees per unit of mass, i.e. 400M degrees. 2) Since the surface of the earth and the oceans already absorb all of the energy directed toward the earth that makes it through the atmosphere, I fail to see how absorbing a tiny bit more in the atmosphere leads to the cataclysmic events described by the alarmists.

        • mark says:

          that is a point I have never heard before; makes total sense.

        • Slartibartfast says:

          I think the argument is not that the atmosphere absorbs heat, but that it prevents heat the ground absorbs from reradiating back out to space.

          • rich 182 says:

            toe – may – toe, toe – mah – toe. Whether the argument is that suspended carbon molecules attenuate the suns rays coming in or block thermal energy going out, the heat transfer argument is the same. According to the laws of thermodynamics, as we know them today, in order an object to increase the temp of another object 1 degree, there needs to be a sustained temperature differential of 1 degree per unit of mass between the two. Therefore in order for the average temperature of the earth’s mass to to increase one degree, the mass of the atmosphere would need to be 2 degrees, per unit of mass, hotter than that of the earth.
            And because of the exponential differences between the mass of the earth and that of the atmosphere, there would need to be a corresponding exponential difference in temperature, or the time for change to occur would have to be exponential.
            I am open to the possibility of being wrong. Just show me a heat transfer formula accounting for all sources of heat produced on the surface of the earth and how carbon emissions have caused that to change over the last 4 or 500 years and I’ll review the math.

        • Storm says:

          Your problems are nutz, your first claim that it takes 200M times more energy to heat the planet a degree is wonky.. The planet’s crust doesn’t transmit heat well. which keeps us from playing a carpet lava game for real.

          The sun raises the planet’s temperature about 500F from where it would be in the void of space. So a single percent of that number is still significant

          • rich 182 says:

            Your paraphrasing of my statement illustrates your ignorance. All I did was to rephrase the basic principle of heat transfer. That is in order to heat an object 1 degree there must by a temperature differential differential of at least 2 degrees per unit of mass. Since the earth has so much mass and the atmosphere has so little in comparison, there has to be an extreme temperature differential for the atmosphere to heat the earth. Assuming everything else is constant, i.e. the amount of energy coming from the sun, and the only change is that the amount of carbon molecules in the atmosphere has increased -which is the basic premise of man-made global warming- then either carbon suspended in the atmosphere is a heat source or the suns rays attenuated in the atmosphere have some disproportionate influence on the earth’s surface temperature then those same rays being attenuated in the land and water mass of the earth.

        • R. Shearer says:

          You should do some study on basics of chemistry and physics, beginning with energy and mass balance, heat capacity, etc. Carbon is an element. Molecules are compounds of 2 or more elements. Therefore, carbon cannot be a molecule (allotropes are a different thing altogether).

          Often in climate discussions, carbon is usually incorrectly and really means carbon dioxide.

      • jjwright says:

        Huzzah, my friend! I am not a climatologist, merely an economist;
        I gainsay that using the last 30 years as a baseline is sheer Tomfoolery!

      • GeorgeM says:

        With no null hypothesis the entire Mann-made climate change argument might better be considered religion –but it’s not science.

      • Bob Roberts says:

        Well… they did sort of admit that the changes we’ve observed over the past couple of decades are in fact due to natural variation/internal variability, didn’t they?

        … the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade) … is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade).

        SOURCE: (page 2, bottom, is where it starts)

        It has been claimed that the early-2000s global warming slowdown characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming, has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is unsupported by observations. The evidence presented here contradicts these claims. A large body of scientific evidence — amassed before and since the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change indicates that the surface warming slowdown, also sometimes referred to in the literature as the hiatus, was due to the combined effects of internal decadal variability and natural forcing.

    • Jersey_Prophet (@stringed) says:

      Positing global warming to a natural event (El Niño) should be in and of itself sufficient to lay waste to any implications that it is anthropomorphic.

      • mark says:

        use “anthropogenic” meaning coming from man. “anthropomorphic” means having physical characteristics like man. warmists will give you grief over misuse of a word.

        • Climate Adapter says:

          Silly you. Isn’t it now officially called “Climate Change Denial”, as opposed to “AGW Denial”? It’s much, much easier to skewer a Climate Change Denier (Which is as absurd as a “Sun Comes Up In the Morning Denier”).

    • JRSTern says:

      >30 year lag

      Don’t see how it could. The theory has always been that CO2 has immediate effects, and temperature been basically flat for 20 years now while CO2 has nearly doubled. The amount of warming seen, if any, is basically within the error bars. Baseline has to go back at least to 1960 to see if there’s any large pattern, that’s baseline of the data we do have, we don’t get to make it up.

    • chicago860 says:

      Keep in mind, CO2 increases lag warming rather than lead it. Increased CO2 is more an effect than a cause.

      • mark says:

        so true. gore put up a chart that seemed to show a direct correlation of rising co2 and rising temperatures. problem was he used such a long time frame you could not see that temps rose for 800 years before co2 caught up.

    • HawaiiRules says:

      Get a grip–it’s a fraud. Global Warming is a fraud perpetuated by Globalist Elites as a reason to exercise bigger government, greater control over your lives, and diminish individual freedom.

      • BrianG says:

        Liberals made up the religion of global warming so they can PRETEND to be the savior of the planet. Just as they PRETEND to be the savior of the poor, the blacks, the gays, the feminists, the unions and dozens of other special interest groups too lazy, ignorant and weak minded to think beyond the media lies.

        • flipping mad says:

          And please add to that premise the money, always the money to be scammed off the world for fraud CO2 payments to suit their agenda.
          Everything that the Jewish cabal can set up within governments to scam the public and the government into believing that something they are doing is causing this problem is the object.
          While the Jew backed scientists cause the problem in the upper atmosphere where no one sees nor understands unless they read up on HAARP. A good start would be “Haarp, Chemtrails and the Full Spectrum dominance of Planet Earth”, by Elana Freeland.

          • Andy DC says:

            Why pick on the poor Jews? Most are productive, harmless, well educated, tax paying and loyal Americans, who are an asset to society. I can think of a lot worse.

        • cspanjunkie says:

          “[t]he poor, the blacks, the gays, the feminists, the unions and dozens of other special interest groups too lazy, ignorant and weak minded to think beyond the media lies.”

          I suggest you take this stuff to other web sites; there are plenty of which to choose.

          • kokoda says:

            cspanjunkie…..BrianG did make a valid point. There is a political connection to obtain votes and give the appearance that they actually care, when they don’t.

            Example – how can you believe that the liberals care about Blacks when they practiced Eugenics, mostly on Blacks, for many decades; and then that was morphed into abortions, mostly Blacks. It’s comicl – the liberals have championed the reduction of the Black population, yet the Blacks vote for the liberals.

    • icerebri says:

      Read the “Global Warming Forest’ @ for a long term perspective.
      It’s been posted for a while but still holds up against scientific and empirical observations.

    • Charles Samuels says:

      World wide Satellite data is available from NOAA weather satellites beginning in about 1960 with the Tiros and later the AVHRR satellites.

    • jramsix says:

      Look up Vostok ice core samples and you will see the scientific proof that CO2 does not cause increased temperatures, at least that was true over the last 400,000 years. I’m sorry to say that NOAA has lost me. They have become a political body instead of a scientific organization. They have been caught many times going back and changing raw data, Changing previous temperature charts, and even Changing mathematical algorithms so they can construct the results they want from the data when the data does not fit their idea of what the results should be. Be very careful with NOAA….

    • James says:

      A couple years ago, Discover magazine showed that the temps were definitely getting hotter near the north and south poles . . . of Mars.
      That’s why the climate change charlatans (especially if they’re trying to sell anthropogenic warming) have to fake data. It’s a scam on a global scale.

    • anonymitty says:

      Whether there is a delay is a tricky business. It may be that some of the energy captured from the sun and not re-radiated in the IR to space is going to warming deep ocean water. To whatever extent that’s happening, it’s slowing the rise in surface temperatures. Sooner or later, of course, that heat sink has a capacity limit. Same with the ice caps.

      The cleanest indicator of whether the climate is changing is the state of mountain glaciers around the world. Thousands of these have been photographed many times over the years, and we can go back and compare their current size to their earlier size.

      Most of them are retreating.

      • F. Ketchum says:

        We have ‘Exit’ glacier 3 miles from town. Signs along the road leading to it show it retreating since the 1600’s

        • Slartibartfast says:

          I live on what was the bottom of a glacier about 25 thousand years ago and the bottom of a huge lake for thousands of years after that. Thank goodness the Earth warmed since then.

      • Yep glaciers used to cover New York . They have been retreating for hundreds of thousand years .
        At present we are recovering from the Little Ice age and the earth has been getting warmer for these last 400 years .
        Without fossil fuels for all but the last 50 years so very little if anything to do with Co2 , a beneficial plant food .
        Oh and one more thing – warmer is better

      • AndyG55 says:

        And they are finding trees and human artefacts under quite a few of them.

        Good thing for you to remain anonymous… wouldn’t want people to know you were an ignorant moron.

      • Lightoftruth says:

        Let’s review Glacier 101. In order for a glacier to be called one it must do one thing, MOVE! Otherwise its just a frozen lake or ice field. Those stupid videos of glacier ice dropping in to Glacier Bay is what is SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN! That is not a consequence of anything man made and since we are not currently in an ice age to replenish them, they will just melt away as they should.

      • bailcon says:

        I feel like this site does a good job of debunking the glaciers retreating argument. The news articles showing alarmism on that front going back to the early 1900s seem irrefutable to me.

      • Douglas Kubler says:

        Mountain glaciers retreat whenever the temperature is over 32F. Retreat over an era does not prove the world has warmed, only that it’s not freezing all the time.

    • Gerkmonster 1 says:

      All the satellite records started in 1980… Which is right at the end of big cooling period where, at the time, they estimated the Earth had cooled 0.7C.. (Then that didn’t work so they went back and revised all the data).

      So basically, we’re at the same temp we were in 1940… Yes it’s possible that CO2 has a slight warming effect… Slight.

    • corkie says:

      Most skeptics don’t deny warming. Most don’t even deny that it could be caused by human CO2 emissions. What they doubt is that human CO2 emissions will ever cause catastrophic levels of warming.

    • DylanJimenez says:

      James Hansen used his government job as a campaign tool for the DNC. He spent millions of our tax payers cash for beautiful Euro vacations (climate conferences during peak tourist seasons in 4-star hotels). It was also proven that he faked (adjusted) historical data to prove global warming until he got discovered. He then birthed the movement to change wording to climate change. After he left, James Hansen mysteriously became extremely rich. As always, libs stay poor and their gods get rich.

    • Ron says:

      So your going to use 20 years of data against 10000-1billion years? And what is 20 years compared to one billion years ?

    • Paul says:

      The USA has politically driven its data now for at least 24 years. I applied for a job at the NOAA office in Tuscaloosa Alabama. The office will deal with flooding and produce the models for it. I am very skilled in finite element modeling which is the issue here. Such should only be done on pure science. It became clear in interview that the whole goal was to manufacture models that lied and told Global Warming. No desire for fact was allowed. It was just lies they wanted. I hope the new administration purges this office of the ideologues and returns science to the NOAA data processing.

      • Sam Dennis says:

        Let the Trumpsters know what is going on there, otherwise it will be covered up by the progressives who depend on fraud to gain funding.

    • Sam Dennis says:

      What is wrong with our scientific community?

      The actual and only verifiable cause of Climate Change and global warming is commonly known as Al Gore!

      Without him there would be no significant change in Earth’s Climate.

    • albert stein says:

      It is not stronger sun’s rays, it is an accumulation of stronger solar output. The output from the sun oscillates within a range. When it stays in the upper range for a longer period of time, heat accumulates on earth (and the other planets). We saw shorter solar cycles in the last half of the 20th century which has the effect of the sun producing more heat when there are more output peaks in a given period of time. The solar cycles are longer than normal now, and the earth is actually cooling. You can tell by the excessive number of clouds we have now. Pay attention to cloud cover. More cloud cover is an indicator of cooling. Less cloud cover is an indicator of global warming.

      • bailcon says:

        Thank you. Great explanation. Does AMO and PDO factor in to accumulation of stronger solar output? Those seem to be very good partial explanations of warming. Also, what is your understanding of ocean acidification? How does the rational scientist conceive of that problem?
        I ask sincerely.

        • Neal S says:

          AndyG55 wrote in:

          Seas cannot “acidify” They are massively buffered by limestone, basalt, and carbonate seabed deposits. The rivers that have flowed into the oceans for millions of years have been mostly less than pH7, some even down to pH5.5… yet the oceans remain steadfastly around the natural equilibrium of pH8.1 +/- a bit. They already contain some 98% of the planets CO2, and anyone that thinks a tiny change in atmospheric CO2, a significant amount that has probably come from the oceans anyway, is going to change ocean pH by even a tiny amount, is playing fantasy games.

        • Latitude says:

          Also, what is your understanding of ocean acidification?
          bail…how about a common sense approach to it

          The ocean is constantly producing acids in massive amounts…in order to believe in ocean acidification you would have to believe either of two things..

          1. the oceans buffer changes pH and buffers the ocean at a gradually lower pH
          2. the ocean completely runs out of buffer..and the entire system does not slowly lower it’s pH…it crashes all at one time

          What buffers the ocean is carbonate…think about where the carbonate comes from

    • Ken says:

      Best real Climate, etc. source is .

      • bailcon says:

        That link doesn’t work.

        • Mark Allan says:

          Try this one:

          Ben Davidson puts out a video everyday that is not only informative and interesting, but fun too.

        • RAH says:

          “Acidify” is a leftist scare term. For a base/alkaline which is what sea water is, to become acidic it must first become neutral. Nothing basic on this earth “acidifies” without first passing through neutral and nothing acidic on this earth becomes basic without passing through neutral.

          pH 0 – 2 Strongly acidic
          pH 3 – 5 Weakly acidic
          pH 6 – 8 Neutral
          pH 9 – 11 Weakly basic
          pH 12 – 14 Strongly basic

    • The NPP says:

      You want to know where these readings are coming from? Seriously? It’s quite simple! The readings come from the funds provided to produce them!
      Same as back when 4 out of 5 doctors said smoking was safe. RJ Reynolds paid a LOT into the research and got what they needed.
      Al Gore’s pockets are deep with funding to prove Al Gore’s beliefs.
      Want to end Global Warming/Climate Change? Stop funding the research. It will magically go away and some other “Chicken Little” research event will come up to draw in the funds. Scientist need to eat and the path or least resistance is almost always followed.
      In this case, someone is offering “you” a million dollars if Global Warming will doom us all. “It will, now where’s my check?”

    • Gil says:

      As someone who worked for a number of years in instrumentation, doing a lot of temperature calibrations/installs, there is no way you can establish, that precise level of temperature.

      You can see trends, but you to throw the baby out with the bathwater over 0.05 change in a degree? Hell, even if it is Celsius that is a stupid small deviation.

      I have a very hard time believing they have any temperature reading devices that can be that accurate, remotely.

    • MB says:

      The late 70s were a cooling period, which happens to be when the satellite data started. Imagine if you started keeping track of temperatures in January, by June you’d be getting pretty worried.

    • Cormac says:

      Seriously I am NOT a science guy and I see all the rather detailed comments around processes I know little about e.g., PDO, ERSST, etc.

      My immediate question is why bother to ask the questions or make comments when the information that is the subject of discussion is either 1.) faulty and/0r 2.) it has been “massaged”, to put it kindly .

      Time and again the Climate Change hucksters get caught fabricating, fudging and distorting data, the information gatherings techniques are not even ” settled” add the fact that they have a vested interest in this scam and I have to
      say this is even funnier the old vaudeville skit ” Who is on first”?

      (Well, maybe it is not so funny given the taxpayers money being wasted when it could be put to good use taking care of immediate and REAL environmental issues.)

    • lester says:

      The planet has been warming since the ice age started to ebb.

    • Brent says:

      The lag is a false narrative as the whole point is based on constant state of carbon reflection of heat energy. A lag would require a build up before effect which would then trigger an immediate spike, not a gradual increase nor would it allow for downward fluctuations as the theoretical buildup would only continue to grow. Also, the lag/buildup idea would imply its too late to change anything, while Hansen argues we can change the outcome now. Kind of self contradicting.

      • bailcon says:

        Right, that’s how I saw it. If there is a lag, then we better start thinking about putting sulphates in the stratosphere right now.

    • bailcon: Nothing James Hansen says carries and “scientific water.” He sold his soul to the global warming zealots a long time ago and has been right about NOTHING.

      It would be great if we could have an HONEST discussion about climate including the ideas of the climate realists but the zealots will simply not permit that to happen. They can’t. They’re bought and paid for by the cronies raking in billions by selling a scare.

    • frank stevy says:

      If it was not for global warming we would still be in the’ Ice Ages ‘ Humans can be so arrogant to actually think they can control the Earth … how did we survive and the planet make it without all the rocket scientist without Lives ?

    • Mike says:

      Couple of questions for the more knowledgeable here:

      How are the predictive climate change models validated? Is there anything to be learned from how effective the models were at predicting climate 5,10, 20 years into the future?

      Given the span of history, what is the “optimal” average surface temperature? Warming suggests that temperatures are higher than they should be? What should they be and why at that temperature?

    • Solomon Anderson says:

      This entire GLOBAL WARMING JUNK SCIENCE is designed to enslave the countries as the Agenda for the Global Governance really tries to take hold. Climate Models have been manipulated for the last 50 years in trying to show there is warming going on. News Flash: The Earth is always warming and cooling it has for the last 1 million years. The Vostek Ice Core Samples have proven this to be fact. We are actually in a cooling phase in the Earth.

    • Freeland_Dave says:

      It’s a very interesting observation that you have stumbled into with your statement about how far back we can go with satellite data, the 1980’s to be precise. Another thing to remember is that these first satellites were rather primitive and their sensors were not as good as what is being produced today. You see, as satellite technologies improved their sensor arrays improved as well. Back in the 80’s we were satisfied if we could construct a temperature sensor that would provide repeatable inaccuracies to one degree, a three degree margin of error. +1 degree, 0 degree and -1 degree. Today we have improved those repeatable inaccuracies ten fold which is a substantial improvement but not enough to establish claims of a .1 degree rise in our planets climate temperature overall. the repeatable accuracy of those sensors today are about .1 degrees, a .3 degree spread of +.1, 0 and -!. To establish a .1 degree change you would need to resolve the accuracy of the sensor to be .01 degrees. The three point spread then would be +.01, 0 and -.01 degrees. Then, over time, you could establish the ,1 degree rise in ocean temperature as being accurate. Go look at the raw weather station data on ocean temperatures around the globe and you will see that the temperature of the water is all over the place when looking at the .1 degree level. That’s because that area of data lays within the noise envelope of the sensor. Then too, unless you are present, and NOAA does all of this data gathering remotely, you don’t really have any idea of what environment the sensor is in at the time the data was taken. A good rainstorm changes the temperature of the ocean waters it falls onto at the surface where these measurements are typically made. Same for clouds or no clouds. A bird or a fish near by might be the culprit as well. Or it very well may be accurate and because the data point doesn’t fit their established curve, it’s thrown out as bad data. No, NOAA fudges its data all of the time primarily because of politics and money. I wish it were different but from having studied the problem for well over 10 years and with my experiences with building and calibrating such equipment, I am always skeptical of their manacle claims that we are slowly cooking ourselves to death and it’s all because of man on the planet. Incidentally, you remember that hole over the Antarctic that was created by our use of Freon? Well we haven’t used Freon for several decades now, the original Freon, and guess what? That hole in the ozone over Antarctica is still there. Big in their summer when exposed more to the sun, and less in the winter when there is no exposure to the sun. And we destroyed many people’s jobs in the US all because of an inappropriate and inaccurate view of what Freon was doing to our Ozone layer. The man who developed that sensor, a person I personally met, didn’t like what the government did with his development and he confessed to me one day that developing that sensor was the worst thing he had ever done in his life because of the way the government mishandled it. He didn’t believe in man caused global climate change either. Not to say that he or I didn’t believe in man cause micro-climate change because that’s pretty evident even to most non technical people if they pause to think about it and not just believe everything they are told. “I’m not a real scientist but I play one when dressed up for the local television news station.” Think about it.

    • reidh says:


    • Sunsettommy says:


      yes there has been a small warming trend since 1979,the first year of Satellite data. However the Satellite temperature PER DECADE RATE, is well below the minimum IPCC per decade rate of .30 C.

      1990 IPCC report quote;

      “Based on current model results, we predict:
      • under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A)
      emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century of about 0 3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0 2°C to 0 5°C per decade), this is greater than that seen over the past 10,000 years This will result in a likely increase in global mean temperature of about 1°C above the present value by 2025 and VC
      before the end of the next century”

      Satellite data show about a + .13 C per Decade rate since 1979.

  2. bailcon says:

    Tony I’m so glad to have received a reply from you-I must ask another question: When would we start to see generalized cooling, if the sun is weakening?

    • bailcon says:

      Sorry, just read your reply that it had nothing to do with the sun. So do you believe that sun has caused warming this century?

      • AndyG55 says:

        Apart from the current El Nino, there has been no warming this century.

        • dking, pg says:

          I notice there is faster cooling followed by gradually warming. Thinking of how the oceans absorb and distribute heat energy, what changes are occuring there? I was taught ocean salinity naturally increases at the ocean rift zones. Salinity level should affect heat absorption of ocean water. Has anyone correlated temp with changes to seawater?

          • Gil says:

            FAA Instrument test question, “What causes weather? The sun.”

            The sun is damn near proportional to that graph, for output increase/decreases.

            The ocean’s salinity has nothing to do with the sun’s output.

      • AndyG55 says:

        In fact, there was little to no warming between 1980 and the 1998 El Nino either.

        • Charlie says:

          That is why they changed the name from global warming to climate change. All it is is a wealth distribution scheme, just follow the money.

          • LanieLou says:

            Even the concept of “Wealth Redistribution ” is a scam… the $trillions collected go to the Globalists like Soro’s, who supposedly decide how to disburse it.

          • RJ (@DottiMatrix) says:

            Nailed it…follow the money. Can we use it somehow as bread crumbs leading to arrests…

          • flipping mad says:

            Yes Charlie, YES indeed. The scam and the sham and the fraud all rolled into one criminal event of collusion. Just more pay to play courtesy of the Jews and their minions.

      • AndyG55 says:

        There may have been some warming from mid 1960’s, but there was also cooling from 1940 to mid 1960’s.

        (note, I am going by original data, not the much adjusted GISS or HadCrut, where the Tom Wigley 1940’s peak has been well and truly squashed)

        • Freeland_Dave says:

          Just remember too AndyG55, those instruments in the 40s-through 60’s are not as repeatably accurate as the instruments that we have available today. There is also the problem of standardization where all readings and measurements are taken the same way. That didn’t start happening until the mid 50’s to the mid 60’s and even then, those instruments were not as accurate as today’s instruments. It’s difficult to establish meaningful results when the tools that you have used over time have so vastly changed in their ability to collect repeatable and accurate data.

      • AndyG55 says:

        And bailcon.. Tony is totally correct when he says that the warming in the GISS data this century is absolutely nothing to do with the sun….
        … or CO2 ( except in a very round-about way ;-) )

    • chicago860 says:

      You really need to understand the sun and sunspots. I did my research. Please do yours.

  3. bailcon says:

    I guess I should say, does the evidence show that warming has occurred this century? And, if so, has that warming correlated with sun spots? Or AMO or PDO shift? I am still fairly new to all of these concepts. Any help is appreciated. Sincerely.

    • Bob Weber says:

      I’m one who thinks the sun causes ENSO’s, the PDO, and the AMO, and global warming. SC21 & SC22 were two of the highest solar cycles, back-to-back, and SC23 was no slouch. The TSI record bears this out.

      • AndyG55 says:

        SC19 was the largest peak in 600 years at least SC21, 22 were 2nd and 3rd.

        Oceans suck up that extra energy, then distribute it by ocean currents or release it into the atmosphere at El Nino events. The last release has now all been channelled to the Arctic where it is seen as a big warm anomaly gradually dissipating, but with the sun being a bit weaker, it will take quite a bit longer to build up again.

    • AndyG55 says:

      “I guess I should say, does the evidence show that warming has occurred this century?”


      See above

    • Tom Yoke says:

      It is important to try to avoid unwarranted embedded premises. In your previous posts you asked whether temperature changes are due to CO2 or to changes in the sun’s strength? The thing is, there is no good reason at all to limit the possibilities to just those two choices. Here is a very partial list of other possibilities:
      – Changes in albedo due to differences in the degree of cloud cover
      – Changes in albedo due to aerosols like sulfates or ash
      – Changes in albedo due to snow cover.
      – long term coupled oscillations like PDO.
      – Lag factors such as ocean heat storage.
      – Errors in the use of the fragmentary historical temperature record
      – Errors in the human record keeping.
      – Errors in the instruments (this is a warmist objection to the inconvenient satellite record).

      I’m sure there are many other possibilities including a long list of unknown unknowns. Consider that only 12,000 years ago, Chicago was under a mile of ice. That is only an eye-blink in geological time. No one knows with any degree of certainty why there was sudden warming at that time, yet the magnitude of that obviously “natural” temperature change is FAR beyond anything reasonably projected for this century.

      Our understanding of the climate is still quite rudimentary, and the notion that we will solve “the problem” with a few dopy government regulations is a comical instance of leftist hubris.

      • flipping mad says:

        The government is dumping aerosols into the upper atmosphere. The government is responsible for decrease in sunlight and increase in cloud cover. The government is controlling snow and rain fall in certain pinpoint areas as well as severe drought.
        Add up all this and the fact that Wall Street has betting on weather derivatives.

      • bailcon says:

        Thank you. This brings to mind DO events, where the world warmed up like 8 degrees over a matter of decades. I read about them in a New Yorker article that scared the crap out of me. Now I am seeing that there are much stronger climatic forces than CO2.

        • Freeland_Dave says:

          Oh yes they do. Take a wooded area up in the Northwest. Take temperature readings for a couple of years to establish the normal temperature in that area. Now cut down all of the trees and pave it over with asphalt. Now take those temperature readings for a couple of years and compare the results. What you will see is a dramatic rise in the local micro-climate which is exactly what you get with human encroachment. It doesn’t mean that the entire planet has heated up, just the local micro-climate. Move ten miles to the east or west away from the encroachment of man and you find the temperatures that you saw when the land was in it’s natural state compared to the land that had been paved over by man. One would think this might have an effect on climate temperatures over time but the Earth is pretty good at shedding this excess heat. It’s called radiation cooling as that heat is dissipated directly into space and is not as accumulative as many scientists incorrectly have surmised.

      • Freeland_Dave says:

        What an insightful comment. Good job, you nailed it and said it in fewer words than I could have said it. One thing you forgot though is NOAA’s admission that they have ‘adjusted’ their raw data. Nice to have the ability adjust your raw data so that it fits your per-established curve isn’t it? In engineering circles it’s called dry-labbing your data to get the results you are looking for. In other words, the data is fabricated.

    • anonymitty says:

      There are multiple indications that temperatures have risen over the 15 year course of this new century. First, we have the thermometers themselves. 2014 was the warmest year on record at the time. Then 2015. It is all but certain that 2016 will top that.

      Second, Arctic sea ice extent and thickness is declining. Not in a nosedive, but in a downward zigzag. This isn’t just a measurement thing; the previously fabulous Northwest Passage has opened in September for a few weeks in several recent years. That never used to happen.

      Third, vegetation such as shrubs is colonizing sectors of the Arctic tundra that used to not sustain that not-so-cold-tolerant stuff.

      • Neal S says:

        But somehow the satellites just don’t seem to be on board with this supposed recent temp rise. And just because some people with vested interests are declaring this or that, does not actually make it so. And your claim that the northwest passage never used to open for a few weeks, is false. There were times in the past when it was open. And if it were really true that the NW passage was open so much recently, why has there been no cargo vessels taking advantage of this. Absolutely none in this past year and just two in the recent past, while on the Russian side which is supported with numerous icebreakers, there are literally tons of cargo vessels going back and forth.

        And whatever you think is happening in the arctic, just wait and see what the next couple of years produces. Your lies are pathetic. Do you have anything of value to offer?

        • Freeland_Dave says:

          Don ‘t call them lies. That’s pretty harsh. Call them misinformation. At least he’s attempting to think on his own. He’s just looking at the wrong information is all. Doesn’t mean he’s lying. Can’t we have civil discourse without personal insults?

        • Neal S says:

          I didn’t call it any names so I don’t understand how my writing was a personal insult. Is there any chance that you might be over-reacting?

      • Freeland_Dave says:

        Oh yes they do. Take a wooded area up in the Northwest. Take temperature readings for a couple of years to establish the normal temperature in that area. Now cut down all of the trees and pave it over with asphalt. Now take those temperature readings for a couple of years and compare the results. What you will see is a dramatic rise in the local micro-climate which is exactly what you get with human encroachment. It doesn’t mean that the entire planet has heated up, just the local micro-climate. Move ten miles to the east or west away from the encroachment of man and you find the temperatures that you saw when the land was in it’s natural state compared to the land that had been paved over by man. One would think this might have an effect on climate temperatures over time but the Earth is pretty good at shedding this excess heat. It’s called radiation cooling as that heat is dissipated directly into space and is not as accumulative as many scientists incorrectly have surmised.

      • Freeland_Dave says:

        Never use to happen. Tell me then, why was it called the Northwest Passage if no one could ever use it? In the past it must have been open so you can understand why I challenge your comment that it never use to happen. Incidentally, according to scientists who examine the ice the ice-pack seems to be growing and not shrinking as you have suggested. I suppose it all depends on which government paid scientist you listen to doesn’t it? Note: That’s not science is it?

      • AndyG55 says:

        You keep posting

        And keep showing you are an ignorant moron.

        Good thing to remain anon. !

        1944, Larsen passed through the NW passage on a route that was still totally blocked this year

        Learn some basic history or be forever thought of as a FOOL.

  4. Pingback: Even as governments pronounce September to be the ‘hottest on record,’ there are no scientifically calibrated long-term thermometers in place in vast reaches of the earth » Lysander Spooner University

  5. Cam says:

    It will be interesting to see what they do in the November picture for the north Pacific. All month, there has been a major cold anomaly building across the entire basin except near the Bering Strait area.

  6. JV says:

    This entire enterprise is nothing more than an extension of critical theory and cultural marxism.

    When the solution to the “scientific” findings is to redistribute wealth from advanced societies to non advanced societies how exactly does that address anything “scientifically”?

    I have read zero solutions involving true science from anyone advocating the crisis exists.

    Using our rational thought and the associative property from math we can easily surmise a simple answer, it’s all nonsense.

    • Filet-O-Fug says:

      Well put JV. Documentation of the problem lacks veracity. Proposed solutions are not well defined. Costs don’t appear to be clearly understood. Metrics not clearly defined. This project, as a solution to a problem, would be D.O.A. in any private sector, for profit organization. All I see is “just give us the money”…like a robbery.

    • Darren says:

      Yes, been saying it for years. Anyone wi5h the smallest degree of critical thinking skills can see that it’s nonsense. The science has been fabricated to show warming that does not exist. The media, academia, the marixists all screen that everyone will die if we don’t gI’ve them trillions of dollars for more research. Come on people, are we really this Stupid?

    • Deplorable says:

      Please, JV! You are so wrong! They are not redistributing wealth! They’re collecting it. They’re suckering the developing nations into supporting the redistribution, then taking the bulk of the money themselves. Silly! Question is what precious metal or gemstones they are socking it into, or perhaps they will leave some national currency intact like yuan and store it there.

    • Bob Roberts says:

      Also note part of their reasoning is that keeping this at “crisis” level justifies diverting a lot of money to them, sending them on all expense paid junkets all over the world. And you know they spewed carbon all the way there, all the time they were there and all the way back:

      1 1995: COP 1, The Berlin Mandate
      2 1996: COP 2, Geneva, Switzerland
      3 1997: COP 3, The Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change
      4 1998: COP 4, Buenos Aires, Argentina
      5 1999: COP 5, Bonn, Germany
      6 2000: COP 6, The Hague, Netherlands
      7 2001: COP 6, Bonn, Germany
      8 2001: COP 7, Marrakech, Morocco
      9 2002: COP 8, New Delhi, India
      10 2003: COP 9, Milan, Italy
      11 2004: COP 10, Buenos Aires, Argentina
      12 2005: COP 11/CMP 1, Montreal, Canada
      13 2006: COP 12/CMP 2, Nairobi, Kenya
      14 2007: COP 13/CMP 3, Bali, Indonesia
      15 2008: COP 14/CMP 4, Poznań, Poland
      16 2009: COP 15/CMP 5, Copenhagen, Denmark
      17 2010: COP 16/CMP 6, Cancún, Mexico
      18 2011: COP 17/CMP 7, Durban, South Africa
      19 2012: COP 18/CMP 8, Doha, Qatar
      20 2013: COP 19/CMP 9, Warsaw, Poland
      21 2014: COP 20/CMP 10, Lima, Peru
      22 2015: COP 21/CMP 11, Paris, France
      23 2016: COP 22/CMP 12/CMA 1, Marrakech, Morocco

    • anonymitty says:

      The associative property of math says that if you have three numbers a, b, c, and you add a to b, and then take that subtotal and add c, you get the same answer as if you first add b to c, and then add a to that.

      Ditto for multiplication. But neither has anything at all to do with climate science nor with wealth redistribution.

  7. Jack Wood says:

    All these articles looking at temperature trends are mental masturbation. They attempt to “prove” global warming through correlation. I don’t care if your R^2 is 1, correlation simply cannot prove causation. Temperature graphs are meaningless for proving that the tiny amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere by man is the driving factor for global atmospheric temperatures.

    • Bigjimslade says:

      Agreed. To me the worst part of this fraud is that it has completely sucked the air out of the room when it comes to legitimate environmental issues. No one is talking about habitat destruction or endangered species. Perhaps worse, who is going to believe the next legitimate claims of an environmental crisis if one really happens.

      I remember studying the greenhouse gas concept early on and CO2 was considered a weak minor player. Methane was the focus b/c it has a stronger affect animal rights activists saw an opportunity to blame cow farmers. Then some politician realized CO2 was produced by literally everything an economy creates and it could be taxed. That’s when it exploded. All of it based on the high temperature on Venus where the atmosphere is 95% CO2 and has clouds of hydrochloric acid. Nothing good happens when science and politics mix.

    • Deplorable says:

      Thanks Jack!

    • Michael Scott says:

      Correct and it’s aka – spurious correlation

    • Bob Roberts says:

      Not only that, but we simply do not have the technology to measure the SURFACE TEMPERATURE of Earth (using thermometers, anyway) to any claimed degree of accuracy even once, let alone twice or multiple times. As shown above, there are vast areas we are not taking ANY measurements. Now satellites – they have their own issues – what they may be able to show is some aspects of change over time. I am not confident they give a completely reliable surface temperature reading – an estimate, at best, with known issues. Whether the various corrections resolve these issues is for others to discuss.

      • Callan says:

        To Bob Roberts:
        Finally someone states the obvious! It is IMPOSSIBLE TODAY to determine a single temperature of the earth at any given time to the degree of accuracy that is being advertised by the multitude of Global Warming graphs most less going back a hundred years. There is no way that the historical temperature of the planet can be determined within the accuracy being presented by the Global Warming Alarmists.

        Robert Perry was the first person to visit the North Pole in 1909 and Roald Amundsen was the first to visit the South Pole in 1911, so where did the temperature data being used to represent approximately 1/3 of the planet (extreme northern and Southern latitudes) come from and what is the margin of error of this data?

        The total margin of errors obtained from the compilation of sampling errors, thermometer errors, reading errors, human errors, timing errors, source errors, compiling errors, etc., is not insignificant as the Global Warming Alarmists would have us believe. Or put another way, if the margin of error was shown on the same graphs as the “results.” the trend would be buried as background noise and would be inconclusive at best.

        Most of the temperature graphs I’ve seen plot the delta between one years temperature and some “reference” temperature. So, mathematically, what is (60 degrees +or -.5 degrees) minus (60 degrees +or – .5 degrees)? The answer is 0 degrees + or – 1 degree, i.e., the margin of errors are additive.

        We have lots of data, but nothing is conclusive as the results lie within the margin of error ….as a result, we can only rely on anecdotal evidence.

    • anonymitty says:

      The logic does not depend entirely on correlation. We have night vision devices that can see in the IR, and CO2 gas is murky in the IR. It’s only invisible to our naked eye because we don’t perceive IR.

      A good old light bulb filament radiates in the visible spectrum, but if you reduce the current it still radiates in the IR. The earth, like that filament in a bulb, radiates in the IR. That’s how we avoid cooking ourselves. The sun heats the earth as its visible-spectrum light hits us. We return the energy to space as IR. Now CO2 and water vapor both obstruct this return of energy and as a result the temperature of the earth is greater than that of the moon. It must be for the incoming and outgoing radiation to balance.

      The effect is evident because even deserts are warmer than the moon and that’s not because of any water vapor greenhouse gas contribution.

      As we add more CO2 to the atmosphere (it’s up about 40% from 1800 levels), we must expect and we do see rising temperatures. Scientific proof is about multiple lines of evidence and logic all fitting together. And that’s what we see with the climate and CO2 levels.

      • Roger says:

        The moon has a temperature of over 200 degrees f and-200 on the shaded side, (round numbers). How can that be cooler than the earth?

      • Callan says:

        Interesting that you bring up water vapor and CO2. Water vapor makes up 2-3% of the atmosphere whereas CO2 makes up 0.04%. Water vapor is 50-75 times as significant as CO2 as a green house gas and varies significantly on a daily basis. The change in the amount of CO2 on temperature is insignificant when compared to the effects of water vapor. Even if C02 is up “40% since 1800,” (a dubious claim since it is impossible to know the amount of C02 in the air in 1800), the effects of water vapor would still dwarf any effects by CO2.

      • Guy says:

        How much did CO2 go up from 1700 to 1800 and how much did temperature go up?

      • AndyG55 says:

        As we add more CO2 to the atmosphere (it’s up about 40% from 1800 levels), we must expect and we do see rising temperatures”


        There is not one iota of proof that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere.

        You are welcome to present such proof… otherwise you are just another GULLIBLE , BRAIN-WASHED IDIOT !!

      • Sunsettommy says:

        Anonymous, you keep bringing up assertions without a shred of evidence to support it. Your level of delusion that it is CO2 doing it fascinating, since the small warming trends from 1990 to now has NEVER reached the minimum warming per decade trend projection posted by the IPCC.

        Since 1982, according to a number of published papers,all warming events occurs with El-Nino events.

        Since 1982, Temperature Records Show No Warming Other Than That Due To Natural El Niño Warmth-Inducing Events

        “Over time, net step-changes induced by each successive El Niño warming event may lead to an overall surface warming trend. The more frequent and/or powerful the El Niño event(s), the greater the net step change. These internal ocean heat circulation processes that lead to more or less heat welling up to the ocean surface can significantly account for the warming trend since the early 1980s, meaning that the increase in temperature could be mostly explained by natural variability, not anthropogenic intervention.

        This conclusion has been reached by scientists Large and Yeager (2012), who maintain that, over the 1984-2006 period, the observed “diminished ocean cooling [i.e., warming] due to vertical ocean processes” imply that “natural variability” can explain the rise in sea surface temperatures since 1984 rather than anthropogenic climate change.”

  8. Miguelito Jose says:

    Globull warming is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated against mankind. Well, except for Barry’s presidential eligibility that is.

    • Jersey_Prophet (@stringed) says:

      $100,000,000 USD sure can persuade the minds of many nations that climate change is a fact.

      Wonder how many nations would have climbed aboard if the US offered these 3rd worlders a C note to consider the data.

    • RJ (@DottiMatrix) says:

      No wonder the Clinton’s & Obama’s love this scam…they are HUGE fans of wealth redistribution…just ask Haiti.

      • cspanjunkie says:

        Now, now. The tons of plastic forks and paper plates would not have been available to the suffering Haitians were not for the CGI.

    • Ramon says:

      I second that!

  9. Jeffrey Shultz says:

    I suspect most (all?) of these ideological liars, deceivers and manipulators will be looking for jobs come January 2017. :-)

  10. Pingback: More NOAA Temp Fraud... -

  11. Peter C Jordan says:


  12. Global warming (aka climate change) is the religion of the stupid.
    Sheep, lemmings, and Leftists are easily manipulated.

  13. Terry Lembke says:

    I hope that the new president and his staff will allow the real data and scientists to come forward and expose the fraud . There are several things to consider here.
    1 while the usa might observe the phony evidence regarding global warming and punish our industries and workers . The other countries will never cut their industries or production . This will put us further behind economicaly as a nation.
    2 The only thing that the goverments are looking at is TAXES. That is the only thing . Brought to you by What the KGB would term useful Idiots.

  14. scott wallace says:

    You guys need to have a Facebook and Twitter share buttons on your site and articles. Drudge linked to you on his site. Would be interested in the number of visitors you increased by?

  15. Roger says:

    Unless the Viking decendents start another settlement in Greenland where crops are grown and livestock raised (just like they did 900 years ago), I will remain unworried about global warming and climate change. The entire theory is predicated on junk science and the desire to enact global governmental controls for political and financial purposes. I have yet to see a viable explanation for the middle age warming of Greenland.

  16. Bobby S says:

    Total BS! Global warming is a hoax! I pray The Donald sticks to it and everyone of these so called scientists have to go out and get the jobs they are really qualified for. Micky-D’s and Burger King are hiring hamburg flippers. Maybe they qualify?

  17. D. Lee says:

    I am a conservative, and I do believe that human activity is having an affect on the chemical composition of the atmosphere. The problem, as I see it isn’t ‘global warming’, ‘climate change’ or ‘climate impact’. I think the real obstruction to discussing this issue and proposing action is that all of the ‘solutions’ offered have the form of a tax or other mechanism to take people’s money. If someone would propose a serious solution that would not simply provide government with tons of capital to do God-knows-what with, more people might listen. I doubt many conservatives will as long as we feel we are getting fleeced.


    NOAA, caught “cooking the books” (pun intended) again.

    An entire “agency” under the Department of Commerce that needs to disappear with telephone call and the stroke of a pen on January 23rd, 2017.

  19. Fern Hight says:

    There is much more to the science of climate change than what the public is being led to believe. Some of the effects are celestial. The last major ice age occurred roughly 11,000 to 12,000 year ago. Our Earth wobbles on it’s axis, called precession, which is best described as the effect that occurs as a top slows down. This wobble results in the Earth being warmer when the axial tilt is toward the Sun and colder when the axial tilt is away from the Sun. The wobble cycles over a 23,000 year period (periodicity) and we are currently approaching the period where Earth is at its warmest part of the Precession. Two other factors affecting Earths temperature are the eccentricity of its orbit around the Sun. The orbit of Earth constantly changes its path around the Sun from nearcircular to eccentric. The last factor affecting climate is axial tilt. This 41,000 year cycle is caused by the axial tilt changing from 21.5 degrees to 24.5 degrees of tilt measure to the plane of the Earths orbit.

    • bailcon says:

      Very interesting. Thank you. Overall, I can tell when someone knows what they are talking about. That is one reason that I am increasingly persuaded to believe that AGW is doesn’t merit the alarmism it is receiving: the depth of knowledge on this site, coupled with humility that the climate is extremely complicated, give me more confidence than sites like Their rebuttals seem to boil down to: no, it’s like this.
      I am also aware that 99% of the public have not delved into doing their own research on climate change. They see that it has gotten warmer, and people tell them it is CO2, and they accept it. One last thing: I tend to assume people are genuine. I remember vehemently defending George W. Bush in college on the Iraq war, when friends were saying he was only doing it for the oil. I also think President Obama is genuinely a good man, and is among the many who have been lead astray on AGW. Heck, I still harbor some fear that AGW is catastrophic and real because I know that I am not a master of the science. There is a lot on here that I don’t understand. But I don’t buy the “follow the money” argument for why some scientists pursue AGW. I buy a groupthink argument. I buy the ideology argument. And I supposed I buy the self-importance argument. But I don’t think that James Hansen is knowingly scamming the world. Thoughts?

      • Colorado Wellington says:

        I don’t buy the “follow the money” argument …

        You may want to educate yourself on the broader issues of research funding. You will find that the ongoing effort to keep receiving research funds occupies substantial amount of time of scientists across all fields, not just in climate studies. With the powerful political support the CAGW alliance has been receiving, it is no accident that there are very few individuals willing to stand up to them because the consequences are so severe. Dr. Bill Gray’s resistance is an uplifting exception but unfortunately there are not too many scientists of his character and stature.

        Whether one agrees with the proposed solutions or not, this paper provides a good general description of the problem all research scientists are facing:

        The New Normal in Funding University Science
        by Daniel J. Howard, Frank N. Laird

        It seems you are a very trusting individual and I’m afraid life will bring you some disappointments.

      • Doug says:

        But I don’t buy the “follow the money” argument for why some scientists pursue AGW.

        After January 20th, you may be correct.

  20. Jim Kress says:

    Spurious correlation:

  21. Dave Weaver says:

    It’s hard to refute the mean sea level trend data from the last 100+ years. Most sea level trend data starts in the 70’s but there are a few stations that have been around longer. Note the chart indicates a steady rise – no rate of change increase as human population/industry increased.

    • James Drouin says:

      “It’s hard to refute the mean sea level trend data from the last 100+ years.”

      Wrong. It is, in FACT, quite easy to refute … tp begin with, when in the history of “science” has stating an observation been accepted as “proof”.


      – What were the recording gauges manufactured from that they lasted for decades when exposed to seawater;
      – When those gauges were replaced, what method was used to ensure calibration;
      – What were the gauge-base uplift and subsidence rates over that time period.

      And that’s just 4 rather simple points.

    • Callan says:

      Are you saying that it is possible to know the mean sea level of the pacific ocena in the year 1850 to within .1 Meters? How was this measured? Real data or “Proxy data?” And, mean sea level has to be measure to some kind of reference, what reference was used. Also, why would you be surprised to see mean sea level rise? As time continues, more “earth” is washed into the oceans. At the end of time all of the earth will be below water…it’s the law of thermodynamics….. Note also that this graph title is “San Francisco.” How much of the increase is due to the water table rising and how much is due to the earth sinking (especially considering that the aquifers under California are being pumped out at an alarming rate). Too many questions to take this graph at face value…

  22. JGA says:

    It appears to this simple man that NOAA has become just another political organization doing cigarette and marijuana smoking barry’s bidding. The bastard has corrupted every federal agency he has touched.

  23. Aaron says:

    So if there are no thermometers and the satellites don’t show temperature increases, on what basis did NOAA make their conclusions?

  24. Mobetta Jenkum says:

    Dammmm that looks like the ELECTION MAP… LOL!…
    …If Dem0nrats TRULY CARED about the environment (and were not using this as a tool to surrender nations to treaties/treason for a global-organization), then they would tell their voters to stop mass-reproducing and exceeding our planet’s “building-capacity” with the carbon footprint added by all of their feral fatherless 3rd-world offspring!…

  25. Jawbone says:

    Worst of all is the erosion of faith in science we once had. Far from the heady days of Apollo 11 and the dreams of JFK. Work must be done to re-instill this faith again. Far too much cynicism… but deservedly so.

  26. Michael Kanuch says:

    Why are the glaciers in Greenland melting faster than any time in recorded history? Guess a warmup has to have something to do with it.

  27. Beachhawk says:

    NOAA has about has much credibility on climate change as Chicken Little does on the state of the sky.

  28. TheMadKingII says:

    A man who’s shown he’s mentally ill,
    Is of the same opinion still.

    You cannot reason with these madmen.
    You can only take their funding and jobs away.
    Don’t have long to wait.
    Thank God for President Trump :)

  29. TMark says:

    Climate warmists continue perpetuating the myth that increased carbon emissions have and will result in more warfare and suffering. If only they examined the two defining criteria — war deaths and famine deaths — they would discover how embarrassing their alarmism really is. War, famine and suffering are at record lows; indeed dramatically down during the modern carbon era.
    Famine fatalities: According the UN’s own data, from the 1920s through the 1960s, famine killed an average of 5.3 people per 1,000 globally, but only 0.5 per 1,000 since then. That’s a stunning 91% reduction and yet it coincided with the globe’s highest carbon output. (In this new century it’s just 0.08 per 1K so far, or down 98.5%.) Don’t credit UN grain bags; relief shipments have dropped through the decades. Famine of course leads to wars, which brings us to…
    War fatalities: Catastrophic World War II would make this too easy, so let’s begin with the 1950s. According to data from the International Peace Research Institute, annual combined civilian/combatant war deaths averaged 6.0 per 100,000 globally during the 50s, dropping to 4.7 during the 70s, then 1.9 in the 90s, and most recently 0.7 per 100k. All told an 88% reduction since the 1950s. The number of conflicts began dropping when the Cold War ended 25 years ago and today nearly all conflicts are internal/civil wars with death tolls remarkably lower than previous wars.
    So why all the alarmist hyperbole and the ease with which a populace would believe it? Could it be that constant 24/7 news, global video transmission of warfare, handheld devices, the Internet and social media combined have saturated our minds with a false impression that violence and suffering have worsened? Is it also possible that each generation believes its own era is more pivotal and cataclysmic than prior ones despite contradicting data? Are those two considerations so overwhelming that alarmists don’t even bother to research the historical record? Today’s alarmists say we humans are doomed, but the facts indicate humankind has already saved itself.

    • Steve Gregory says:

      Let me just add to your comments that every bit of food eaten on the planet has derived from the CO2 in the atmosphere. Crops grow and feed us by converting the CO2 in the air into the carbohydrates, proteins and fats either by themselves or their consumption by animals used for food. To take it to the absurd extreme … with no CO2 in the atmosphere we’d have to learn how to convert the fossil fuels in the ground into foodstuffs … burning them for energy and generating CO2 for the natural food cycle is much more palatable and efficient …

  30. jerry6 says:

    Facebook and twitter will block ANY post or article that does not agree with the religion of global warming /climate change

  31. Mark says:

    Global warming is FAKE

  32. Steve In Missouri says:

    There has been general retreat of glaciers in the arctic and in mountain regions.
    I think there may be some glacial retreat in the Himalayas as well, probably in the region of the Tibetan plateau.
    The glaciers at the top of Mt. Kilimanjaro in Africa and practically gone, while they had fairly large extent previously.
    There appears to be melting of the permafrost in high arctic regions.
    This could possibly be an interglacial period, since there was extensive glacial retreat of continental ice sheets about ten thousand years ago, with massive development of outflow valleys, at least in the North American Midwest, the area I am most familiar with, with large valleys from the Ohio, Mississippi and Missouri rivers, much larger than is explained by current flows. It is believed that glacial outflow rivers could have been a hundred times as large and the current river flow.
    There is extensive beach sand, the snow white beaches of Northern Florida Gulf Coast, from glacial outflow from the last ice age.
    Previous ice ages may have lasted for hundreds of thousands of years with rather brief interglacial periods, perhaps as we are experiencing now.
    It may be that prior ice ages were due to the solar system going through galactic dust clouds, perhaps when the solar system was moving through galactic arms.
    There also appears to be oscillation of the solar system through the plane of the Milky Way galaxy, perhaps causing increased transmission of solar energy, and then when passing through the galactic disc, increased density of space dust may reduce transmission of solar energy to the earth, resulting in global cooling.
    I don’t know where in the galaxy the sun is right now, whether above or below the galactic plane, or going through a galactic “arm”. It may be helpful to know where in the galaxy the solar is currently. It might give a clue about global cooling or warming.

  33. Pingback: More NOAA Temp Fraud... | America Gun Ban

  34. Pingback: GOOGLE may face policy setbacks under Trump... | America Gun Ban

  35. Pingback: UN frantic ‘climate’ push… – Curtis Ryals Reports

  36. John D. Brown says:

    If global warming is caused by man, then somewhere there is a progressive think tank working on the idea of how to reduce the population of the world by about half. Perhaps we should find the median age and ask everybody over that age to volunteer to eliminate themselves for the greater good of the younger half. And should volunteerism find a stiff decline in willingness, some mandatory government agency could be created to see to it that the demand is met. Or perhaps a more pragmatic think tank could settle on testing IQ and eliminate everyone with an IQ below 100 (which is average.) Same result. Or in line with political correctness, we could find the world’s median income and eliminate the half that is above average. Thus killing two of the four birds with one stone. That is, ending global warming and achieving wealth distribution at the same time. But you can be sure of one thing, the planners, whoever they are, will not find themselves in the group needing to be eliminated.

  37. Pal117 says:

    Has there ever been a corraltion between all of the above ground nuclear testing and the debris we kicked into the atmosphere, and the fact that we created a small nuclear winter effect? And now that the ‘dust has settled’ temps will of course rise slightly.

  38. Eric G says:

    Most of the NOAA numbers have been falsified by NOAA workers. At KDFW airport “the official reporting point” for Dallas/Ft Worth TX the temperatures we always 1.4-1.7 deg F higher that our on board instrument’s. A Davtron thermometer and a GSN-X FMS. Both our units were re certified every few years with no major adjustments needed. .1-.3 deg. DFW, LIT, ABQ, PHX were ALWAYS higher than our equipment. Myself or any other Pilot I ever talked with found any station lower that any airplane! ( funny if it was a law of averages you would find both high and low correct?) I find the whole think to be a very interesting set of numbers.

  39. John says:

    In short, if the warming was actually happening, they wouldn’t have to lie.

    Occam’s razor I’m afraid.


  40. BradA says:

    Every time I see one of these reports, it reminds me of how clueless these so called “climate scientists” really are. They do not even understand the basics of what they are measuring. Temperature and heat content (BTU/lb) are two different things. When talking about warming or cooling, it is heat content that you’re really talking about. In a well mixed system, like a pot of boiling water, temperature can provide an indication of heat content. But the atmosphere is anything but a well mixed system. There are significant variations in pressure and composition. The most important of which is humidity. For example, 50 degree F air at 50% RH has more heat than 55 degree F air at 25% RH. In other words, to go from 50F/50% to 55F/25% you actually have to remove heat. Yet their studies would call 5 degrees a massive increase in warming. I’ve not seen any of the underlying temperature measurements normalized for humidity or any other variables for that matter. I’m more than willing to look at studies comparing atmospheric heat content, but the current representations seem to be lacking.

  41. W.R. Merkley says:

    TMark ,

    You are in for an alarming surprise. 2017 will be the most cataclysmic, frightening
    Year you will ever experience.

    • AndyG55 says:

      “2017 will be the most cataclysmic, frightening year ”

      Only because the far left will be pushed like CRAZY to maintain their totalitarian agenda.

      Already happening.. look at the VIOLENCE perpetrated by the far-left because of Donald Trumps election

      They cannot take being LOSERS..

      Are YOU one of them ???

      Is your name Merkel, rather than Merkley ?

    • RAH says:

      Nostradamus, is that you?

      • Colorado Wellington says:

        Could be, but we had a wild bearded guy shouting similar things at the Pearl Street Mall in Boulder some decades ago. I don’t know what happened to him but he didn’t go by Nostradamus.

  42. JPinBalt says:

    Galvin Schmidt at GISS and his math degree have been very good at manipulating and revising land based temperature readings with TOB, dropping ruralstations, ignoring urban heat island effect, perpetuating scientific fraud and propaganda while collecting big money speaking fees. The fact that he maintains a climate “science” website with that proven hickey stick fraudster Michael Mann would say enough also. This is a complete corruption of science,and lay people still do not know it. A elementary school kid could look at temp and CO2 rise after a lay from the ice core data, and explain 98% of CO2 is dissolved in the oceans relative to 2% in the atmosphere and how like when a soda pop gets warm it releases more CO2 and holds more when it is colder in the fridge, and see the lag CO2 rise after temps rise in the ice core data to put that hockey stick stuff Al Gore used to rest as the reverse causality is true. If you look at the TLT RSS temperature data and do a statistical analysis there has not been any significant rise in temperature for about two decades. CO2 is a socially beneficial trace gas which makes the world greener by feeding plants, not a pollutant increasing warming in the atmosphere or causing more tornadoes, hurricanes, and the sea level rise (which has been going on since end of last ice age and has not accelerated). A look at clouds cover and temperature is more enlightening (and we have low spot SC24 with low magnetic field letting in more cosmic rays relative to solar maxima cycles prior just passed so possible to point to seeding more clouds in the the future and cooling in future, but that is a scientific theory to be investigated, not a consensus.) But we have the government funded propaganda instead of science where they teach nonscience and warn of a biblical catastrophic by forecast where old forecasts have not come true. We have natural variations. Anthropomorphic global warming is not science, it is religion, and is the biggest scientific fraud since the world was flat or sun revolves around the earth. I can not wait to see Galvin lose his job since this is not a mistake, this is outright scientific fraud he is doing at GISS, manipulating and making up numbers. $ billions have already been wasted, and outright bad policy choices like Paris lowering welfare depend on the propaganda as support. It is my opinion, he should not only lose his job, he should go to prison, inasmuch as Enron or Worldcom executives who cooked books, for the fake and “adjusted” (aka manipulated) temperature data he spews to make it appear things are getting warmer when such is opposition to the most accurate data we have which is satellite data. Government agencies should not be propaganda hubs.

    • AndyG55 says:

      “have been very good at manipulating and revising land based temperature readings with TOB, dropping ruralstations, ignoring urban heat island effect,”

      Well no, he only thinks he has.

      He has been caught out time after time.

      He should be sacked just for his basic incompetence.

      • JPinBalt says:

        It is not simple “incompetence” with Galvin, it is outright fraud with a political agenda, gov media shows on record temps again and again based on manipulated data; sort of reminds me of Hillary and claiming incompetency with no security for her top secret information sent in her email communication versus fraudulently bypassing the FOIA to hide pay for play State Dept. favors netting $200 million for the Clintons’ and Clinton Foundation and other violations of federal law on record keeping plus deleting emails on her private server while under a Congressional subpoena to preserve, not incompetence, similarly Galvin knew exactly what he was doing.

  43. Sean says:

    The models they employ are overly simplistic, given the vast Eco system and atmospheric system. They have already cored the earths crust and discovered much more varied and altered climate changes than we have experienced in our tiny (in relation) human history.

    The breakdown of organic material, both plan and animal, not to mention cow gas dwarfs the burning of fossil fuels. Even if we did contribute a bit, I doubt there is anything of significance we could do.

    Another subject that bothers me is the whole argument that the oceans will rise. Those models are Overly simplistic as well. The global shorelines are so complicated, varied with nooks crannies, rivers, inlets, bays. All those the even more complicated by different and varying heights et al. An analogy might be to pour a gallon of water on your driveway. Does it spread evenly everywhere and raise the “water level” everywhere on you entire driveway? No. Now imagine the complexity of ALL the global coastline. I mean seriously they talk like anyone within miles of the ocean will be underwater. Ridiculous.

    I’m not a scientist, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

    • DD More says:

      Sean on Oceans will rise. But using NASA’s calculations what would be the effect?
      “(4) Calculate the sea-level-rise answers by dividing the water volumes determined in #3 by the global surface-water area determined in #1, thereby spreading the effect of the ice sheet’s water throughout the expanse of the Earth’s surface-water area. The answers are:
      (a) (2,343,728 cubic kilometers)/(361,132,000 square kilometers) = 0.0065 kilometers = 6.5 meters for the Greenland ice sheet;
      (b) (26,384,368 cubic kilometers)/(361,132,000 square kilometers) = 0.0731 kilometers = 73.1 meters for the Antarctic ice sheet;
      (c) 6.5 meters + 73.1 meters = 79.6 meters for Greenland and Antarctica together.”

      So by NASA reasoning we will get meters of sea level rise, but still have the same sized ocean (361,132 Km^2). No place gets drowned by the new rise, so why worry.

      Stay 2 nights and be smarter than a Rocket Scientist.

    • bailcon says:

      Good stuff.

  44. MavenNevermore says:

    A question? If the temperature increases by 2 degrees, the temperature in the polar regions would go from -40 degrees to -38 degrees. This is still below the freezing point of water so any increased water vapor in the atmosphere from the more temperate zones would precipitate causing the ice cover to increase but all the regression analysis models used by the climate change advocates require the reverse. Why?

  45. Jack Brechwald says:

    “NOAA claimed record heat in numerous locations is September, like these ones in Africa and the Middle East.”

    “these ones?” . . . you sound like a seventh grader. The correct way is, “like these in Africa . . .” If you’re going to publish your work, better have somebody proof read it first.

  46. Joshua says:

    What I find interesting is that, on more reliable data showing temperature variation vs. CO2 levels in our atmosphere, temperature increases PRECEDE increased CO2 measurements. Seems like if there is correlation, it is that temperature increase actually appears to CAUSE increased CO2 and not vice versa.

  47. Deplorable Me says:

    PEER REVIEW: The act of banding together a group of like-minded academics with a funding conflict of interest, for the purpose of squeezing out any research voices that threaten the multi-million dollar government grant gravy train.
    SETTLED SCIENCE: Betrayal of the scientific method for politics or money or both. DENIER: Anyone who suspects the truth.
    CLIMATE CHANGE: What has been happening for billions of years, but should now be flogged to produce ‘panic for profit.’
    DATA, EVIDENCE: Unnecessary details. If anyone asks for this, see “DENIER,” above.
    CLIMATE SCIENTIST: A person skilled in spouting obscure, scientific-sounding jargon that has the effect of deflecting requests for “DATA” by “DENIERS.” Also skilled at affecting an aura of “Smartest Person in the Room” to buffalo gullible legislators and journalists.
    JUNK SCIENCE: The use of invalid scientific evidence resulting in findings of causation which simply cannot be justified or understood from the standpoint of the current state of credible scientific knowledge.

  48. William Smith says:

    We really NEED a bit of warming since the planet has been cooling for over 3.5 million and oscillating between interglacials, like now, and deep glaciations. Before 3.5 million years ago, it was several degrees warmer than now. That is thought of as a climate optimum!
    And, Lady Liberty is just where she was in 1880, with no discernible ocean rise.

  49. Pingback: Past Breaking News Headlines For November 2016 – (TCP)CHICAGO « The Critical Post - Chicago

  50. Michael Buley says:

    I appreciate all the above comments. I haven’t studied global warming — or the suggestion of — for quite a few years. I don’t have the science background that you fellows have, and I do get the basic idea that books and numbers have been cooked, for the overall purpose of taxation and redistribution of wealth. The actual science — that we are not warming, or if so, not due to CO2 emissions caused by man — is so smothered by the story that global warming is fact, that it can be easy to believe the overall story. But anything that government preaches, is usually a lie. Thanks for re-igniting my interest in studying this again — the real science. As one fellow said above, it’s no longer global warming — it’s climate change. Because there is no warming. Thanks for all the thought you all shared here.

  51. OldOllie says:

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

  52. Kirk T says:

    So how do we get this info out to those few of us in the world who care about the truth? How do you fight the globalists who control the UN, leftist governments and progressive world media….Maybe Trump really will raise the issue and pull out of the Paris Accords. We all have to be ready to support him when he calls BS on the whole global warming con and the planetary global warming machine comes after him….

    • RAH says:

      Let the US do what it must do and let the rest of them do what they must do and let’s see where we end up. I suspect Trump will keep his word and the US is in for a period of relative prosperity. The EU is obviously already in decline. If they wake up before they become Islamic states then they will figure it out sooner or later. The people of Great Britain need to force their government to comply with their clearly expressed demand for exit from the EU. They are the beginning of the rot of that corrupt body which is the best example of what nations can expect in the transition to one world government.

  53. Pingback: NOAA September Temperature Fraud.. –

  54. Thomas Harris says:

    But this is why they changed the name to “Climate Change” from “Global Warming”, isn’t it??? Their models predicted warming. They got caught faking data and had to admit that temperatures actually cooled in recent years and their models were completely off. So now they just call it Climate Change and blame every hurricane and other extreme weather event on it… They have deeply embedded the myth of man-made carbon being the greatest threat to humanity – our children hear it from teachers at school, read it in the papers written by journalists with no scientific background, and hear it on the news constantly. They attack, malign and attempt to discredit anyone who does not go along with their farce. Unfortunately, many Americans have lost sight of the fact that their Climate models were WRONG and even when they update them, the new ones are wrong again! What the climate change alarmists have done is inexcusable and unfair and damaging to many innocent hard working Americans, particularly those in the MidWest where affordable coal power is so important. Now, if they only made their case about the value of clean air (which is important to many Americans) and the logarithmic increase in efficiency of solar energy (read Ray Kurzweil) which makes it inevitable that solar will become the lowest cost and most abundant form of energy in the next 20 years, then they would have a lot less opposition. They might not get the the same rapid decrease in Coal power and the same increase in renewable power, rooftop solar and ZEVs, but at least they wouldn’t be robbing innocent folks of their livelihoods by shutting down plants serbmved by coal power that provid(ed) high paying jobs in poorer rural areas… People hate liars and false science is sacrilege! But the worst part is how much funding has gone to these hack climatologists to design faulty models and make erroneous predictions and to pay economists and mathmeticians and politicians to design carbon trading regimes and international treaties for carbon reduction. Clean air is important and the future will inevitably have clean energy, but that does not make up for the lies and wasteful, damaging policies and regulations. They should be put in jail. After the innocent victims, the saddest part is probably that clean air gets lost in the shuffle with the extreme left lies… Those of us who do not buy their fiction are just disgusted, where we might otherwise be more supportive of relatively strong and costly incentives to support clean energy initiatives.

  55. harrit3 says:

    But this is why they changed the name to “Climate Change” from “Global Warming”, isn’t it??? Their models predicted warming. They got caught faking data and had to admit that temperatures actually cooled in recent years and their models were completely off. So now they just call it Climate Change and blame every hurricane and other extreme weather event on it… They have deeply embedded the myth of man-made carbon being the greatest threat to humanity – our children hear it from teachers at school, read it in the papers written by journalists with no scientific background, and hear it on the news constantly. They attack, malign and attempt to discredit anyone who does not go along with their farce. Unfortunately, many Americans have lost sight of the fact that their Climate models were WRONG and even when they update them, the new ones are wrong again! What the climate change alarmists have done is inexcusable and unfair and damaging to many innocent hard working Americans, particularly those in the MidWest where affordable coal power is so important. Now, if they only made their case about the value of clean air (which is important to many Americans) and the logarithmic increase in efficiency of solar energy (read Ray Kurzweil) which makes it inevitable that solar will become the lowest cost and most abundant form of energy in the next 20 years, then they would have a lot less opposition. They might not get the the same rapid decrease in Coal power and the same increase in renewable power, rooftop solar and ZEVs, but at least they wouldn’t be robbing innocent folks of their livelihoods by shutting down plants served by coal power that provid(ed) high paying jobs in poorer rural areas… People hate liars and false science is sacrilege! But the worst part is how much funding has gone to these hack climatologists to design faulty models and make erroneous predictions and to pay economists and mathmeticians and politicians to design carbon trading regimes and international treaties for carbon reduction. Clean air is important and the future will inevitably have clean energy, but that does not make up for the lies and wasteful, damaging policies and regulations. They should be put in jail. After the innocent victims, the saddest part is probably that clean air gets lost in the shuffle with the extreme left lies… Those of us who do not buy their fiction are just disgusted, where we might otherwise be more supportive of relatively strong and costly incentives to support clean energy initiatives.

  56. Robert Wagner says:

    There are a few issues that don’t pass the stink test:
    1) CO2’s increase is near linear, temperature is curvilinear. It is hard to explain how temperature can both increase and decrease with an increase in CO2.
    2) The entire impact on warming by CO2 is contained in the 13 to 18µ wavelength IR. That is CO2’s only contribution, it absorbs a very very narrow band of IR radiation. That IR band of radiation is consistent with a black body of temperature -80°C. It his hard to warm something trapping heat well below freezing.
    3) The oceans are warming, IR between 13 and 18&micro’ doesn’t penetrate or warm water. CO2 can’t warm the oceans. Visible light does that. Warming oceans means more visible radiation is reaching the surface of the oceans, and that means fewer clouds, not more CO2.

    • AndyG55 says:

      “Visible light does that”

      Also UV… how much, depends on frequency and intensity

    • CrazyHungarian says:

      I think that the divergence of atmospheric CO2 levels from atmospheric temperature levels shows a weak or lack of relationship between the two, especially considering that the narrow harmonic absorption bandwidth is in the wrong (useless) temperature range.

  57. Margaret says:

    Indoctrinated youth need exposure to articles like this. They’ve never learned anything other than we’re doomed by global warming unless we pay up.

  58. Tim says:

    I don’t believe many scientists you are all pay to prove one thing or the other! Just like the government you are all out to save your own job! In less you are inventing something cool I view you all as the dumb ass that says the sun will burn out in 5 million years.

  59. Jim Turner says:

    Every 33 years with 11 year variation the sun goes from warmer with more sunspots to less for cooler weather for 33 years. The 11 year variation has been know to falconers as at the peak of the warmer period the next year it started getting colder causing prey spcicies numbers to plumber causing raptors from the north goshawks and gyrfalcons to migrate south called invasion year. We are going into a cooler 33 year cycle at this time.

  60. Holly says:

    As a long time resident of Ruskin, Florida & hurricane watcher, I find this whole argument convoluted and sad. Neither side is willing to acknowledge the other. Copernicus would be crying right about now. Are their brave souls left at NOAA who refute the party line any longer?

    • CrazyHungarian says:

      The leaders at NOAA are Obama political appointees and will soon be gone. Look for another set of politically driven historical data changes coming out of NOAA after Jan 17.

  61. SantaFeSteve says:

    It is amazing that one can assemble so many CC Deniers in one place.

    El Nino releases heat to the atmosphere because the warm pool is more spread out. During La Nina the Pacific Ocean absorbs heat. If he situation was stable, there would be no change over the ENSO Cycle but there is change.

    It is not likely that the PDO or IPO changes anything as it is mostly a rearrangement of warm and cool water. The AMO is an overturning so for now it is cooling the Atlantic.

    Not sure why one needs to fabricate that Global Warming is not happening when it
    clearly is and most likely is more beneficial than harmful.

  62. jrnhkkdo says:

    This is a question addressed to any/all commenters herein. I am not a detailed climate change aficianado, so I would like some feedback from someone knowledgeable on the subject. All discussions on climate change invariably seem to focus on temperature measurements and their variations and causes vs. time. Why isn’t precipitation variations vs. locations and time also a factor in climate change? If it is, why is it never mentioned…or have I simply failed to read it somewhere?

  63. DylanJimenez says:

    All major “climate conferences” occur in the best vacation spots in the world during the peak tourist seasons. Paris, Geneva, Rome, Peru, Bangkok, Cancun, Copenhagen, and of course, Bonn Germany the jump spot for all exotic European destinations. 1st class vacations (discussions) all funded by tax payer dollars, big oil, and big alternative fuel corporations from China. We have millions of young people scared out of their minds because of the rain gods. They live with their parents because they can’t find work and pray to these “scientists” to save them.

  64. Pingback: BizzyBlog

  65. Hal Lucinagin says:

    This article gets my PANTS warm!

  66. J.J.Kitts says:

    More fake temperature data out of NOAA to support the agenda. Gee, ask me if I’m surprised. What happens when the sky doesn’t fall? How long do we have to wait before the “true believers” admit that their “science” was all wrong? Will a new American President who hasn’t bought into the hype help? Or will those who have invested everything in this massive political fraud double down and stomp their feet even louder? It’s going to get very interesting.

  67. Red Feather says:

    Gentleman please dispense with the science. Climate change has nothing to do with science and everything to do with globalism. Climate change transcends borders so any multinational accord applies to all of us whether we like it or not. The wealthy elites are pushing the globalist agenda not only with climate change, but also with borderless countries (unfettered “immigration”), economic unions (EU), carte blanche “citizenship” (“immigration” reform), no religion, genderless society (unisex bathrooms, transgender, trans-sexual, homosexual, bisexual, etc.), and government benefits to one and all regardless of whether you are a citizen or not. Every one of the items on their agenda strips us of our identities (male/female, Catholic/protestant, Yankee/Mexican, etc.) so we can be easily controlled. What good is living in a “democracy” when all that it stands for has been marginalized and your leaders are taking orders from the IMF, UN, WEF, Bildersberg group, etc. rather than you.

    The climate change agenda is to first convince everyone that it is real, then tax anyone and everyone for any and all forms of fossil fuel consumption. This pretty much includes just about all energy usage. The tax dollars received will finance the previously mentioned organizations run by the globalist elitists so they can enforce their agenda, control all of us, and get fabulously rich.

  68. GC says:

    There is a time to hire and a time to fire.

    Time to clean house of all those overpaid useless NOAA quislings.

    • StarvinMarvin says:

      Same with NASA. I don’t even know what they’re supposed to be doing any more, but lately it seems too much coming out of there is more political than science.

  69. The Keith_J says:

    All models are wrong. Some are useful. How about an analog of the atmosphere using heat and mass transfer? Like say a gas loaded Perkins Tube? This is a type of heat pipe. Gas loading alters conductivity in non linear modes…
    Analog computers were solving complex partial diff eqs long before digital computers had the power to numerically crunch such equations in other than geologic time scales…

  70. Patrick49 says:

    NASA/NOAA provided adjusted but incorrect temperature data from 2000 to 2006 and after Mr.McIntyre pointed out the errors made the corrections without any notice in 2007.
    Also in 2007 NASA/GISS, after providing incorrect temperature data for six years showed the following:
    Only 3 of the top 10 warmest years had occurred in the past 10 years (1998, 1999, 2006)
    * Out of the top 10 warmest years half occurred before 1940
    * The years 2000, 2002, 2003 and 2004 were cooler than the year 1900
    * 1996, just two years before what Al Gore called the hottest year in the history of the planet, was actually cooler than average.
    * 1921 was the third warmest year in recorded history (behind 1934 and 1998).
    Today none of the 1920-30s are in the top ten
    And then there is the evidence of tampering with temperature data.

    Another Hansen adjustment, this time the whole country of Iceland was secretly warmed up.
    Icelandic officials rejected the “adjusted” warmer temperatures out of hand.

    The guys and girls at NASA are still at it as they reverted to using the unscientific , primitive temperature measurements taken from ship’s cooling water intakes which are not controlled data points as it depends on the loading of the vessel in order to obtain a warming ocean result when the multi-millions of dollars satellites and Argo monitors failed to do so.

  71. Pingback: UN frantic 'climate' push… | High Priority News

  72. Al D says:

    Google “earth cooling rapidly” and you’ll be surprised to see one article in particular on the Huffington Post site about the COOLING trend that has been establishing itself as predicted by the Vostok ice core data that goes back over 400,000 years. For all we know, we may be contributing, however insignificantly, to global cooling.

    Never mentioned: The so-called greenhouse gasses and water vapor either absorb or reflect the sun’s rays back into space, preventing them from reaching and heating the ground.

  73. Jason T. Ledford says:

    I’m simply waiting for people to realize basic 7th grade science in regards to how photosynthesis works. Perhaps the “kool-aid” drinkers should wonder if there is not enough carbon floating around.

  74. David says:

    Funny, it says New Zealand as having record hot temperatures in September, strange because i live there and it’s actually been way colder than normal and way more rain than normal by a lot. And that’s remembering that northern hemisphere has opposite seasons to southern hemisphere so September is start of spring so it should be warmer even though it hasn’t been

  75. Richard Maddock says:

    I earn $100 per hour working from home.

    Or I could if I just understood all of the reputed science that says the earth is warming.
    But I am willing to give in to the left leaning scientists and agree the earth is warming.
    I give up. I will swallow the liberal lies.

    Just tell me how you are going to fix it. I never see any solution that doesn’t crush
    the world as we know it.

  76. Nathan says:

    I like the term “Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism” but propose that it be shortened to “Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Alarmism”, or CACA (an apt, if somewhat unrefined, acronym).

  77. kent beuchert says:

    NOAA land temp systems have been shown to be upwardly biased due mainly to urbanization and poor placement locations (i.e. next to a bar-g-que pit, next to a buildings HVAC exhaust outlet, next to a factory that wasn’t there before, a temp recording station whose white roof has become darkened, etc The analysis by Watts et al and his team has demonstrated the extent of the upward bias of NOAA temp collection data. For cexample, sites in non-urban areas show nowhere near the warming that sites located in urban areas show. NOAA land/sea data is mostly junk and should be discarded. Those data collection sites were never built to be able to show the small amounts of warming that has occurrred and they are not maintained or located where they should have been. Often they are next to a asphalt road – for convenience, not for accuracy.

  78. Pingback: GOOGLE may face policy setbacks under Trump… | High Priority News

  79. James Anderson says:

    I nominate Tony Heller as
    NOAA Chief Scientist

  80. Pingback: More NOAA Temp Fraud… | High Priority News

  81. a p garcia says:

    I think Sarah Palin should be appointed by Trump to be head of NOAA & EPA!

  82. JR says:

    Wow, I’m no scientist but really enjoy the information here. I read Dixie Lee Rays book years ago because my instincts told me I smelled a rat (global warming). One thing is for certain, there is NO general consensus on “global warming”.

  83. CrazyHungarian says:

    “When the facts do not support the theory, change the facts.” – Albert Einstein

  84. Dave Samson says:

    caught yet again liberals???keep up the charade

  85. Pingback: Climate Genius Of The Day | The Deplorable Climate Science Blog

  86. Dan says:

    Though I could be corrected, I find no comments related to the pro climate changers agenda related to “Funding”. If your inside the group that believes in this Global Climate Science, their is an agenda, highly correlated to their paychecks, funding and grants, e.g. agenda’s being pushed by the string pullers to sell their vast basket of ware 5 times removed of course of the scripted blathering talking heads and funders of the pseudoscience. It should be easily digested that arms will flail if a world wide collective feels their funding will stop (hundreds of billions here folks) if this false data and fake data crunching can in fact be stopped. History is full of events were is was or could not be. The string pullers have to much power at their beckoning to fool the laymen, and eager ignorant’s sitting at their tables willing to appear impressed and educated. Natural events that occure over earth’s lifecycles have been hijacked to be appear as though they are now suddenly happening all at once. So as to not sound as an idiot, yes, I know we have contributed to some minor contributions in gases, solid particulates in the water and air, Ad nauseam. You say, but look at China. I say look at their gross negligence in what they allow to be done. “Repeat all over the world, allowed by U.S. corporations operating under umbrellas and then keeping their proffits offshore so they can’t be taxed by the U.S. Governmnet. Well I’m frothing and the bit now…..

  87. itsy_bitsy says:

    Those who push “global warming” of are one of two types. Those who know it’s a complete fraud upfront with no ands, ifs or buts, and those who are so stupid and liberal that they will accept anything they are told by certain groups, primarily political groups! Any scientist types push it because they want to be published and they have learned that to do so they must follow the phony narrative. Climate Change is nothing more than a political class who use it for the power it gives them, and the money they can make by manipulating masses of people through taxes, etc..

  88. Joseph Campbell says:

    NOAA and the EPA have zero credibility!

  89. roger ales says:

    The NC GA forest are burning, with no end to the drought in sight

  90. roger ales says:

    Go Dino’s

  91. ThankfulTexan says:

    Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climatechange Alarmism = CACA

  92. tk says:

    Just another part of the swamp that needs to be drained.

  93. Leonard says:

    …and don’t forget cow farts!

  94. RWoodson Boys says:

    Nobody has ever been able to answer this question, “If man is causing Global warming by emitting CO2, if the temp gods determine that it’s getting to cold, should man emit MORE CO2 in order to warm it back up?”

  95. J.P. Travis says:

    I don’t care what mathematical/statistical excuse you come up with for interpolating/adjusting/estimating/concocting/inventing temperature data, you should never allow that excuse to report a temperature result outside the known minimum or maximum for a given area. That’s just sloppy lying. These government bureaucrats aren’t even trying anymore.

  96. Pingback: So called 97 percent concensus - Page 3 - Shooting Sports Forum

  97. Sam J. says:

    I would think that a better measurement would be a large area in the Ocean as water would more readily spread out temperature variations. Another might be the Ice volumne on the North and South pole.

    What I wonder is who exactly gets paid if we tax for greenhouse gasses? Who loses? Developed economies?

  98. Joseph Mack says:

    In the 70’s I was an FAA air traffic controller working in the Flight Service branch. Those are the employees who give pilot weather briefings, help with and file flight plans, do weather observations in many cases, and give help to the pilot in many different areas to include helping lost pilots find their positions, etc.

    At first I could expect 75% accuracy with weather forecasts out to 24 hours. Then, in the late 70’s the WW II weather forecasters started retiring, and many of the weather observation and forecasting facilities started closing, or were replaced with automated weather observation stations.

    By the 78-80 time period, forecasting accuracy had plummeted to the point that I could not expect even 50% accuracy with the 12 hour forecast. I was extremely fearful that the NWS had lost its’ ability to accurately forecast the weather. I loved my job with the FAA, but when another opportunity came along this lack of reliability in forecasts especially, was one of the driving factors in my change of employment.

    Today, I simply cannot believe the temperature data that the NWS and other organizations publish. Much of it is ‘interpolated,’ not actually produced by a real thermometer. Many more observation stations in the northern parts of the U.S., Canada, Russia, and the European nations have been lost than in the warmer climates. The traditional place for measuring ‘official’ temperatures is at the local airport. In many cases, the instrument shelter that houses the high/low and current temperature thermometers, along with humidity sensors, etc., is not moved to a proper location as the airport expands. This causes warmer average temperatures to be recorded due to large buildings, concrete and asphalt ramp construction and so on which maintain heat late into the night near the weather instrument shelter.

    Climate change caused by human intervention has become a religion, and needs to be brought back into the SCIENCES where it belongs!

  99. Pingback: Dr Susan Rempel Show - November 18, 2016 - Bingo for Patriots

  100. Ben Dover says:

    The only possible and reasonable conclusion is that those record high temps are caused by Americans driving SUVs and eating too many cows.

  101. Anthony Turley says:

    It is encouraging to see bailcon’s seemingly honest queries and that others appropriately responded to “William Stanley.”

  102. Ohn Lee Mee says:

    CO2 trails the warming not the other way around. The only way the “man made” models work is when you throw out all the cycles; throw out summer, winter, the 10-yr cycle, the 100-yr cycle and even the day vs night cycle. Russia won’t get on board because they won’t reject the cycles. The elites are laughing – wake up

  103. Cathardok says:

    Just another wave of make-believe, conjecturing, conjuring, assuming with a frosting layer of BS on top. Perfect science couldn’t get any better.

  104. Rick Smith says:

    Lying is lying, whether you do it for politics, or funding, or any other reason whatsoever.
    America has HAD IT with LIARS, whether they be Hillary Clinton, or the left-wing media, or NASA, or NOAA. Start DEFUNDING LIARS, and maybe the TRUTH will come back into vogue.

  105. Ben Brackett says:

    Temperature increases are contributed by: More roads/highways being constructed, solution= make blacktop white,= reflect sun/reduce heat. Require auto manufacturers to paint and upholster all vehicles a lighter color reflecting light/heat. Require roofs to be a lighter color, reflecting the suns rays and thereby reduce absorbed heat. Common sense has not been used thereby making some (Al Gore) rich at the expense of others. I am sure you can think of other ways to contribute to a cooler/ice age earth. Less power produced= less expense for the consumer better the economy. Think: Geothermal is almost impossible to regulate there fore It’s all about control, control, control…. Follow the money…

  106. Pingback: Political Discussions - Page 4689 - Saltwater Fishing Discussion Board Including Inshore Fishing, Offshore Fishing, Saltwater Fly Fishing and Kayak Fishing

  107. Dor-Al says:

    I blame the first Superman movie for making a generation of worry worts.
    These people think they are like Jor-al trying to convince world leaders of impeding doom. IT WAS JUST A MOVIE get over yourselves!

  108. Richard Yanco says:

    What happened to the land temperature recordings in the old Soviet Union when the revolution sent the country into chaos? I believe that the area covered at that time was at least 9 time zones. It also included Siberia and many other sparsely populated areas.
    Russia soon became a 3rd world economy and I would not be surprised to find out that their weather observations which would have included temperature recordings were either not recorded or subject to significant errors or completely missing data. This may have happened for a period of 10 years or more.

  109. DouG says:

    What’s NOAA’s stance on the issue of Anthropogenic Sun Spot Activity Change?

  110. Maureen says:

    Canada’s National Post had a really good headline going there for a while – anything to support our new Liberal government overlords in their quest for a carbon tax and spending billions on the climate warming fraud.

  111. Bill says:

    We all know this type of Fraud is for a good cause. /sar
    How else would the liberal leftists control the lives of individuals and tell businesses what they could and could not do without this Fraudulent “science” leading to legislation allowing the liberal leftists the necessary Power?
    Remember, these liberal leftists have always had something just around the corner, which was going to devastate the planet unless they had power over businesses and over your life. Just some of these include: over population, nuclear annihilation, acid rain, hole in the ozone, global cooling, global warming,

  112. Walter Bowen says:

    Perhaps the most overlooked factor in all of this discussion (and by the alarmists in particular) is the effect of solar flare activity on our global temps, atmospheric conditions, ocean temps, etc. I do not hold myself out as an expert in the meteorological sciences by any stretch of the imagination, but it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand that the single LARGEST influence on all of the variables that go into our global temperature fluctuations is the one thing that keeps us alive temperature-wise: the SUN. It doesn’t take much time or effort to check out the data we have from the past several hundred years (or however far back we have valid data) on solar flare activity (or lack thereof) and see that no matter what we as humans do, the sun will have the greatest influence by far (like 99.999%) on the global climate. And yet somehow all of the modeling that the alarmists have been doing over the past several decades fails to take solar activity into account??? Saying (or believing) that we as humans could have any noticeable impact on global climate is somewhat akin to saying that someone putting one drop of water into the Atlantic could be measured by someone in the Pacific off Japan. Just not scientifically possible, and a total waste of time, energy, and $$ to even attempt. We are called to be good stewards of what we’ve been given so yes, we should conserve where possible, not be wasteful, etc. — but to flat-out steal money & resources from the ‘rich’ countries of the world, causing loss of jobs, loss of quality of life (and even loss of life if you want to go that far) to ‘help’ developing countries hit some totally random target of CO2 reductions is just immoral on its face. We need to have more of this transparency NOW, before the alarmists succeed in fining/jailing those who refuse to believe this cr@p.

  113. Stephen Shea says:

    The word “Impertinent” can pertain to ‘things,’ such as “an impertinent question.” Also, in the formal sense, it means “irrelevant.” Look it up, Hiram Floss and RelimnJ.

  114. Snowman says:

    I teach research methods to graduate students. There are three criteria for inferring causation:

    1. Correlation: YES – CO2 is correlated to a 400,000 year temperature record from ice cores.

    2. Temporal Antecedence: NO – If CO2 causes Temperature to rise, then CO2 must occur first. The latest science says CO2 lags Tempeature by 200 years.
    The CO2 lag is suggestive of the heated soda pop theory.

    3. All other plausible theories and independent variables must be convincinly dismissed: NO – This is very hard to do without controlled experimentation, which is impossible in this case. Inferring causation from uncontrolled observational data must pass a high bar — sun iridescence, earth orbit procession, earth magnetic field variation, undersea and atmospheric volcanoes, ocean temperature oscillations…etc. etc. Additionally, without experimental control, there is no assurance that there are not hidden variable related to temperature.

    Given criterion 2., those saying the science is settled does not understand the scientific method; given current facts/data, any scientist claiming AGW is settled science is either ignorant or fraudulent. There is no motive for ignorance, but there is for fraud – careerism and grant money/publications.

  115. Lark says:

    It appears that the sun being a variable star has been taken into consideration. I was wondering if dust clouds (the kind drifting around in space) have been taken into consideration. As dust density increases solar radiation arriving here (Earth, that is) would be correspondingly attenuated. I believe that our solar system (not to exclude visitors from the planet Manhattan that may be reading this, by the use of ‘our’) is supposed to be in an unusual area of the galaxy at the moment, where there isn’t much dust. But even if we were in a dust cloud, and let’s say that the dust is evenly distributed across the entire solar system, how would we know, since all the measurements in every direction would say the same thing? If I’m explaining things right.
    Whether Earthican life can affect the climate is in the fossil record. The older reader may recall that a very, very, very long time ago there was very little oxygen in the atmosphere (a reducing atmosphere). Of course this was before my time so I’m just repeating what I’ve been told. Anyway, tiny organisms formed colonies called stromatolites (I’m skipping over a lot here), that enjoyed the delicious hydrogen sulfide, carbon monoxide, methane and other tasty treats that made up their atmosphere. What they excreted was oxygen. If I remember correctly, pretty much the entire Earth was covered with stromatolites, all churning out oxygen. And, over about 2 1/2 billion years, the atmosphere was altered with enough oxygen to support the more active lifestyle of other sophisticated, cosmopolitan organisms. However, oxygen is a miserable greenhouse gas, and all that extra oxygen dropped the atmospheric temperature sufficient to cause an ice age (the Huronian). This lasted awhile (about 300 MY). Of course, Al Gore was still a gleam in the milkman’s eye then, and wasn’t around to complain, write coffee table books, or get paid for appearances, as stromatolites on principal have no political inclinations and do not make campaign contributions. Eventually our friendly neighborhood volcanoes belched enough junk into the atmosphere – plus there may have been other factors no one told me about – to reignite atmospheric warming, making things cozier for the next cycle of life to begin (although we probably wouldn’t have found it particularly comfortable). So, yes, life can affect the climate. Disclaimer: these alleged facts can be disputed as no one admits to being around then to witness them, although a Hollywood ‘celebrity’ may even now be channeling a past life as an amoeba, and could tell you all about it…if you understand Amoeban, of course.
    I took several photos of the Sun (using filters of course, and not using flash) and Moon, printed them up and gave them to my daughter to take to class and distribute them. The teacher got a set too. At the end of the year she returned her Sun photo (an 8 x 10 glossy), with the comment that she appreciated the Moon picture, but didn’t understand why I sent her a picture of an egg yolk too. True story.
    I was talking to an astronomer at the RATAN-600 radio telescope in the Caucasus some years ago. He said he’d made a significant discovery: that his observations showed that the entire universe was pulsing at 60 Hz. I wondered if the pulses were all in synchrony. Amazingly, they were! Who knew? I mentioned that I’d have thought the pulses would be at 50 Hz, actually, but no, it was 60 Hz. I guess it depends where your equipment comes from.
    Before I get clobbered for being off-topic, my point is that sometimes people in authority speak with authority on topics they aren’t authorities on. No revelation, of course, but there you go. Which includes me.
    If you want to thank a stromatolite for your existence, I think there’s a small stromatolite retirement community on the west coast of Australia, right on the beach. They enjoy visitors.

  116. Pingback: NOAA September Temperature Fraud

  117. Roger Howard says:

    Malenkovich cycles must be considered, yet I see no discussion of them

  118. Adrian Vance says:

    There are no “greenhouse gases.” The facts are very simple:

    CO2 is a “trace gas” in air and is insignificant by definition. It would have to be increased by a factor of 2500 to be considered “significant” or “notable.” To give it the great power claimed is a crime against physical science.

    CO2 absorbs 1/7th as much IR, heat energy, from sunlight per molecule as water vapor which has 188 times as many molecules capturing 1200 times as much heat producing 99.9% of all “global warming.” CO2 does only 0.1% of it. Pushing panic about any effect CO2 could have is clearly a fraud.

    There is no “greenhouse effect” in an atmosphere. A greenhouse has a solid, clear cover trapping heat. The atmosphere does not trap heat as gas molecules cannot form surfaces to work as greenhouses that admit and reflect energy depending on sun angle. Gases do not form surfaces as their molecules are not in contact.

    The Medieval Warming from 800 AD to 1300 AD Micheal Mann erased for his “hockey stick” was several Fahrenheit degrees warmer than anything “global warmers” fear. It was 500 years of world peace and abundance, longest ever.

    Vostock Ice Core data analysis show CO2 rises followed temperature by 800 years 19 times in 450,000 years. Therefore temperature change is cause and CO2 change is effect. This alone refutes the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis.

    Methane is called “a greenhouse gas 20 to 500 times more potent than CO2,” by Heidi Cullen and Jim Hansen, but it is not per the energy absorption chart at the American Meteorological Society. It has an absorption profile very similar to nitrogen which is classified “transparent” to IR, heat waves and is only present to 18 ppm. “Vegans” blame methane in cow flatulence for global warming in their war against meat consumption.

    Carbon combustion generates 80% of our energy. Control and taxing of carbon would give the elected ruling class more power and money than anything since the Magna Carta of 1215 AD.

    Most scientists and science educators work for tax supported institutions. They are eager to help government raise more money for them and they love being seen as “saving the planet.”

    Read the whole story in “Vapor Tiger” at, Kindle $2.99 including a free Kindle reading program for your computer. We have an inexpensive demo-experiment that proves CO2 increases have no effect on IR heat giant until 10,000 ppm and they cool the atmosphere by driving water vapor out!

    Google “Two Minute Conservative” for more.

  119. Pingback: Deplorable Science | Indyfromaz's Blog: The Thoughts of An Independent Arizonan

  120. IronSounds says:

    Hello… I am so enlightened to have clicked my way here… I have had the opportunity to get Jobs that have raised my understanding of the Physical nature of Nature (materials), Thermal measurements (calibration), Graphs (correlations), Theories (testing), analysis (conclusions).
    My interest in these things never stops growing as I get older, and thus have learned to ask “show me your Test setup and your procedure…”
    I have took the time to read each and every comment here… and feel I have learned much about a important molecule (gas) in our lives… CO2. Thank you

  121. Pingback: The Progressive / Socialist Left Throws Down The Gauntlet - Bookworm Room

  122. Pingback: GLEANINGS FROM THE PASSING SCENE … (Politically Uncorrected) | jcurtisblog

  123. Pingback: EXPOSED!  NOAA September Climate Temperature Fraud  > Hunt4TheTruth

  124. Pingback: Outright Fraud: NOAA Shows Record Warming Where There are NO Temperature Stations Across the Planet (Video)

  125. Pingback: Greenland Gaining ice at a record rate - Principia Scientific International

  126. Pingback: NOAA September Temperature Fraud – Craig Peterson

  127. Pingback: Appoggiatura and Logorrhea No. 686 – Appoggiatura and Logorrhea

  128. Pingback: Climate Madness 9 | wryheat

Leave a Reply

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