Smoking Gun Of Fraud By NASA And Gavin Schmidt

Almost 60 years ago, President Eisenhower in his farewell speech warned that science and policy is in danger of being taken over by a small group of people in academia, funded by the Federal Government, and they would replace observation with computer models. That is exactly what has happened.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades. In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

Eisenhower’s farewell speech.

Less than one year ago, all of the official government temperature records showed a global warming pause after the year 2000. Michael Mann of Real Climate wrote an article in Nature documenting this, which ridiculed people who believed otherwise.

Nature Climate Change February 1, 2016

Now, the same people claim there never was a global warming pause or hiatus, and it was just a “red herring.” They claim that they are “science” and ridicule policy makers who question their fraud. They say Congress is harassing them by holding them to the things which they themselves said a few months earlier.

There was no pause « RealClimate

Actual science shows that they not only are they disregarding data, lying and committing fraud – but they are constantly altering their data to increase the magnitude of the fraud. Just since the election, Gavin has further bumped up recent temperatures. Satellite temperatures are far more accurate and clearly show the pause.

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

In fact, satellites show that the actual global warming pause is 25 years.

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

The people in charge of temperature records at NASA and NOAA do not represent science or the interests of the American people. They represent political interests which were voted out by the American people in November.  It is time for them to go too.

 

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

52 Responses to Smoking Gun Of Fraud By NASA And Gavin Schmidt

  1. gator69 says:

    Science is convincing because it builds on independent assessments, which either confirm or disagree with previous findings. A scientific consensus is established when many independent lines of evidence underpin the same conclusions.

    “Independent” assessments? Independent of whatexactly? Certainly not funding or ideology. And the only conclusion from their “many independent lines of evidence” is that the planet has warmed since the LIA, big deal.

    Time to pull the plug.

    • Eric Simpson says:

      Maybe they have a point about ‘science’ in general. But climatology as currently expressed is NOT science. It’s ideological advocacy. The leftist “scientists” are in effect political activists, doing everything they can not to discover any truth, but to advance their “cause.”

      And the supposed “consensus” is a consensus of ideology, not science.
      ~
      Question to Dr. Richard Lindzen:

      Is it possible for a young person today to get tenure in one of these institutions (universities) if they disagree with global warming alarmism?

      Dr. Richard Lindzen: … NOT OPENLY.

    • AndyOz says:

      The plug should definitely be pulled.

      In order to show that the majority of scientists disagree with this corruption, the new Washington administration could have a “truth & reconciliation” commission to challenge the Alarmist cult’s bulls#!t with the best remaining scientists like Tony, Judith Curry et al. The global cult will cry “witch-hunt” etc etc, but taking a forensic approach to illuminating the fraudulent adjustments, and resetting the climate data back to the unadulterated record, the cult will have nowhere to hide. The cult must be completely unmasked, and all connections, especially with financial groups be examined.

      Then corruption charges laid.

  2. Stephen Reiss says:

    Far more important than government influence on research is the fact that nearly all the data we obtain, especially related to the economy, is either provided by the government or by parties regulated and controlled by government.

  3. davidswuk says:

    So how many square U.S. miles did Trump beat Clinton by then?

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      That would be an interesting trivia but about as useful as measuring by how many popular votes Clinton beat Trump in California or discussing how many screams by crazed Hillary voters carefully staged for the rolling cameras are needed to overturn the election.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJG0Ibhcsng

    • Steve Case says:

      2016 is the first year Wisconsin had voter ID.
      Wisconsin had a low voter turnout in 2016.
      2016 was the first year Wisconsin went for
      a Republican since 1984. People that used
      to vote six or seven times in Wisconsin can
      only vote once now.

      In the nation, the states and districts are
      split roughly 50/50 between those with and
      without voter ID.

      There are 27 states and districts with no
      requirement for voter ID and Hillary Clinton
      won 57% of the popular vote in those.

      There are 29 states and districts that do
      require voter ID and Donald Trump won 54%
      of the popular vote in those.

      Democrats almost unanimously oppose Voter ID.

      Clinton won 51% of the popular vote.

      Trump won 34 of the 50 states and districts
      and 57% of the electoral votes.

      The rules count electoral votes. The rules
      do not count square miles, counties or the
      popular vote. The campaigns were run with
      the rules in mind. Trump won in accordance
      with the rules.

      • cdquarles says:

        True, but the county maps are interesting in how little they’ve changed since 1980. Counties are important electorally, given that Congressional Districts are created from counties, in whole or in part.

  4. CheshireRed says:

    Temperatures have barely moved in a quarter of a century in exactly the place AGW theory posits they should have, during which time mankind has emitted vast and increasing quantities of CO2. Meanwhile all of humanities previous cumulative CO2 emissions have also effectively counted for nought. So much for the impact of delayed warming ‘locked in the system’ that we were told to expect. Yet again actual measured observations have falsified the theory. What a pile of junk this is.

    Trump needs to remove ALL the senior staff at official data-collection agencies which show excessive warming. His defence is simple; if new staff confirm similar figures then that’s AGW theory consolidated by the scientific principles of independent verification, reproducibility and replication. Maybe start by putting Roy Spencer and John Christy in charge of NASA/GISS. That’d be interesting. :-)

    • Gail Combs says:

      Actually it is very very simple. Move the turkeys to a Turkey Farm then rule the Turkey farm redundant and eliminate.

      Trump is in charge of the Administrative bureaucracy and he is well versed in how to fire people.

      • Steve Case says:

        Tump is rich and famous, so he isn’t in it for the money or glory.

        Trump built an empire – he knows how to get things done.

        Trump is … well versed in how to fire people.

        BINGO!

        • Gail Combs says:

          What is even more amazing is some of Trump’s cabinet picks are ALSO working for us at $1.00 a year!

          WOW!

          • Jason Calley says:

            I did not know that about his cabinet. Good for them!

            Just a bit of a digression, but one having to do with people (and companies) accepting only a nominal salary. General Smedley Butler came to the conclusion 80 years ago that if the US wanted to stay out of frivolous wars, then we would have to take the profit out of wars. He recommended that in wartime we should draft corporations just like we draft people. Hey, “corporations are people”, right? So, war is declared? Then General Motors and Westinghouse get drafted just like John Smith, and while the corporations are in the service, they get a net profit just the same as the pay for a soldier. Draft the CEOs too…

            I have to admit, I find the idea appealing.

          • cdquarles says:

            Jason, in a way, that was done in WWII; still, I have a problem with that idea. Beyond the articles of incorporation being filed, I say the government should butt out of the business of business, force or fraud excepted and even here; the laws should be few, clear, and impartially enforced.

  5. Gail Combs says:

    TH has some interesting info as usual Nigel Farage and UK Prime Minister Theresa May Discuss President Trump…
    “…The next interview is with Prime Minister Theresa May and BBC. If you think U.S. media are good at gaslighting and propaganda distribution to create false narratives, the BBC does it one better with the flair of their elitist pinkies high in the air….” Snicker.

    This comment caught my eye.

    Sa_Bi says:
    January 22, 2017 at 6:47 pm

    Theresa May should fire her finance minister (‘chancellor’) who bashed Trump and America in Davos.

    The chairman of the UK defense committee also blasted Trump because of his stamements on NATO.

    The BBC should be privatized as part of the Anglo-American trade agreement. A media company funded with a license fee? No thanks.

    The really nasty development of the day were Angela Merkel’s advances to Trump. She is now trying to win Trump’s support for her election campaign, NATO, and possibly even for an EU army (will get the US into a war with Russia), using her vice chancellor for a good cop bad cop game. I wasn’t pleased reading that she wants to meet Trump in the next weeks – while she is deluded, she wouldn’t be where she is now without her ability to manipulate and fool people.

    I hope Trump side steps that Black Widow’s trap.

  6. It is incredibly silly to let the same groups take responsibility for both predictions and measurements. That would never happen in my business.

    That is why we use independent laboratories that are accredited in accordance with
    ISO/IEC 17025 General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories

    In Europe, even small industries emitting tiny amount of CO2 are required to use accredited laboratories for calibration and independent third party companies for verification of reported CO2 figures under the EU Monitoring and reporting regulations.
    (See extract below).

    While the data used to support this mess is nowhere near meeting the same standards.

    —–

    Article 34 Use of laboratories

    1. The operator shall ensure that laboratories used to carry out analyses for the determination of calculation factors are accredited in accordance with EN ISO/IEC 17025, for the relevant analytical methods.
    2. Laboratories not accredited in accordance with EN ISO/IEC 17025 may only be used for the determination of calculation factors where the operator can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the competent authority that access to laboratories referred to in paragraph 1 is technically not feasible or would incur unreasonable costs and that the non-accredited laboratory meets requirements equivalent to EN ISO/IEC 17025.
    3. The competent authority shall deem a laboratory to meet the requirements equivalent to EN ISO/IEC 17025 within the meaning of paragraph 2 where the operator provides, to the extent feasible, in the form of and to a similar level of detail required for procedures pursuant to Article 12(2), evidence in accordance with the second and the third subparagraph of this paragraph.
    With respect to quality management, the operator shall produce an accredited certification of the laboratory in conformity with EN ISO/IEC 9001, or other certified quality management systems that cover the laboratory. In the absence of such certified quality management systems, the operator shall provide other appropriate evidence that the laboratory is capable of managing its personnel, procedures, documents and tasks in a reliable manner.
    With respect to technical competence, the operator shall provide evidence that the laboratory is competent and able to generate technically valid results using the relevant analytical procedures. Such evidence shall cover at least the following elements:
    (a) management of the personnel’s competence for the specific tasks assigned;
    (b) suitability of accommodation and environmental conditions;
    (c) selection of analytical methods and relevant standards;
    (d) where applicable, management of sampling and sample preparation, including control of sample integrity;
    (e) where applicable, development and validation of new analytical methods or application of methods not covered by international or national standards;
    (f) uncertainty estimation;
    (g) management of equipment, including procedures for calibration, adjustment, maintenance and repair of equipment, and record keeping thereof;
    (h) management and control of data, documents and software;
    (i) management of calibration items and reference materials;
    (j) quality assurance for calibration and test results, including regular participation in proficiency testing schemes, applying analytical methods to certified reference materials, or inter-comparison with an accredited laboratory;
    (k) management of outsourced processes;
    (l) management of assignments, customer complaints, and ensuring timely corrective action.
    —-

  7. Robertv says:

    International researchers develop ‘vaccine’ against ‘fake news’

    https://www.rt.com/news/374799-study-fake-news-vaccine/

    In the end, results showed that the most popular falsehood was that there is no scientific consensus on climate change being caused by man, or that the CO2 we release will directly lead to it. This was exemplified by the Global Warming Petition Project, which claims to have conducted a test to find that “over 31,000 American scientists” support the view that there is no singular consensus.

    Another, correct statement was also used: that “97 percent of scientists agree on manmade climate change.” The decision to use this was inspired by van der Linden’s previous work, which proved that scientific consensus has a bigger chance of influencing people.
    The 2,000 participants were then secretly tested on their attitudes on the online Amazon Mechanical Turk platform. They were gauged for changes in opinion over time – but some people were shown only one statement, while others were shown the opposing view.

    It was found that viewing the correct opinion on consensus led to a 20-percent increase in agreement. Those only shown the incorrect view (by way of a screenshot from the erroneous website poll) changed their views negatively by a total of nine percentage points. However, most surprisingly, the group shown the two views in succession was found to be exactly on the fence, figure-wise. Thus, the incorrect view evened things out.

    Van der Linden finds it “uncomfortable to think that misinformation is so potent in our society. A lot of people’s attitudes toward climate change aren’t very firm. They are aware there is a debate going on, but aren’t necessarily sure what to believe. Conflicting messages can leave them feeling back at square one,” he added.

    After these results were in, two of the groups were used to hand-pick individuals who would then be given a dose of inoculation by way of two strong statements in support of the correct conclusion: one – that there are “some politically-motivated groups [using] misleading tactics to try and convince the public that there is a lot of disagreement among scientists”; and two – that most of the people who signed the quasi-scientific Oregon petition were none other than celebrities, or people with no science background whatsoever.

    This tactic was found to work like a charm: for, even after being presented with the incorrect poll, the inoculation evened things back out, and turned the respondents back against climate change deniers. The ‘inoculation’ was found to raise the percentage of those agreeing with the scientifically-sound view by 6.5 percentage points.

    1984

  8. Sunsettommy says:

    The pause might go back to at least 1958?

    This was from Allan M.R, MacRae’s comment at WUWT.

    http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/thread-2549-post-12591.html#pid12591

    • Rud Istvan says:

      Don’t read much into that. He hasn’t shown his homework, and probably cannot. It warmed from ~1975-2000. How much is hard to say because of data fiddles. Why is harder to say because of attribution. What we can say is that both RSS and UAH say it hasn’t warmed this century except for a now rapidly cooling 2015-16 El Nino blip. That peoves two things. Natural variation still exists, and CO2 is not THE warming control knob as climate models would have it.

      • AndyG55 says:

        Rud, The 2015/16 El Nino cannot be counted as warming

        It has already decayed to BELOW the 1997-2015.5 ZERO trend

      • Sunsettommy says:

        Agree with your main point,but Allan was factoring his analysis on Volcano and El-Nino events,to show that there was little to no warming much further back in time.

        The IPCC from day one has pushed at least a .20C per decade warming trend (.30C was the middle range),which is waaaay too high. Satellite data shows just a .12C per decade.

        Surface temperature data are not valid for the AGW conjecture anyway, since most if not all of the CO2 and positive feedback loop warming effects, was to be in the atmosphere arena.

        The AGW conjecture is a long dead waste of time,since Satellite data show NO discernible effect for increasing CO2,since it is well below the many times repeated minimum per decade warming rate,by the IPCC and the few warmist rogue scientists.

        No “hotspot”,no unusual warming rate,no clear Southern Hemisphere warming trend.

        Personally I find it amazing that a hyper trace gas,that barely increased after 135 years,can magically overturn the Natural climate into chaos. That is basically what these morons are advocating,while they ignore the past 500 million years of much higher CO2 levels,that never caused a run away warming rate.

  9. Advocatus Diaboli says:

    My warmist relatives would respond to Tony’s post along the following lines: “OK, so Michael Mann had one view of the pause at the outset and then was persuaded otherwise by new evidence, so what’s the problem?”

    This is the sort of argument that us layman skeptics have to deal with, out in the general population. From time to time I’ll chime in with “devil’s advocate” questions like this, hoping that it’ll help to hone the arguments for non-experts such as myself to take back to other non-experts whose only sources of information are the likes of ABC and CNN. (Ugh, yeah, I know… )

    So, what would be the elevator-pitch reply to the line of argument I gave above? Remember, at the dinner table I’m not going to get the chance to launch on an extended presentation.

  10. AndyG55 says:

    Just for fun, for the Arctic worriers. ;-)

    Current extent in NSIDC, Day 21 2016 is ABOVE the extent on day 21, 2006.

  11. GW says:

    Tony, you’re preaching to the choir here. And as an Engineer, I am solely results oriented. That said, Are you getting any traction outside the blog ? Do the Trump people KNOW what’s going on ? I mean REALLY, EXPLICITLY understand the truth of the data manipulation/destruction and true purpose for its existence ??? Can we expect something (anything) to be done about it in the coming weeks ?

    As you and everyone here knows, any efforts to address the fraud and its perpetrators will be regarded as “an attack against ‘science'” and marketed as such, globally, by the Fake News Media. Therefore, whatever attempt to end the lies must be accompanied by a public explanation/presentation in order to educate the masses and garner popular support (not just from the faithful {us}). Otherwise most of the world will simply regard the message/policy change as “Trump, right wing fascism, coercion & lies,” which is precisely what must be avoided at all costs if the truth is to triumph and the fraud to be exposed for what it truly is.

    Oh, and “ME”, do I STILL sound like ‘Drewslie’ or who ever, to you ??? Don’t EVER Presume to know who I am, or what I think/believe based on your incorrect interpreation (and inability to interpret) of what I wrote in the other thread.
    Turd

    • Frank K. says:

      “That said, Are you getting any traction outside the blog ? Do the Trump people KNOW what’s going on ?”

      Tony’s blog gets linked to by the DrudgeReport all the time. So the answer to your questions are “yes” and “yes”.

  12. GW says:

    Tony, can you address this Mike Mann tweet as per displayed on Anthony’s site ? https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/01/20/friday-funny-bonus-reality-hits-home-for-dr-mann/

  13. Eric Simpson says:

    It’s only NASA’s fraud that stands in the way of the likely reality: worldwide the 1930s were likely hotter than today.

    Look at the graphic below.

    In 1980 NASA’s data showed the 1980 Northern Hemisphere to be much cooler then 1935. The NH makes up 64% of the world’s land, and with spotty station coverage in the SH I take that 1980 NH data as representative of the world’s overall temperature.

    Fraudulent data manipulations eliminated the mid-century cooling blip, but in reality the blip remains. Plus, even the 1980 data must have been afflicted by the Urban Heat effect, as urbanization was going full-throttle throughout the 50s, 60s and 70s. So in reality the cooling since 1935 in the 1980 data should be even greater than the graph portrays. And looking at the satellite data that went online about 1980 I don’t see how the mild warming from 1980 makes up for the dramatic cooling from 1935.
    ~
    A btw, Mike Van Biezen at the DailyWire today pointed out what I and Tom Nelson had mentioned:

    The all-time high temperature record for the world was set in 1913, while the all-time cold temperature record was set in 1983. By continent, all but one set their all-time high temperature record more recently than their all-time cold temperature records.

    In the United States, which has more weather stations than any other location in the world, more cold temperature records by state were set more recently than hot temperature records. When the temperature records for each state were considered for each month of the year, a total of 600 data points (50 states x 12 months), again cold temperature records were set in far greater numbers more recently and hot temperature records were set longer ago. This is directly contradictory to what would be expected if global warming were real.

  14. David Banks says:

    The county looks so like the Verizon coverage map. Can we get some coverage for NYC, LA, SF, and Miami?

  15. Gail Combs says:

    President Trump is Smokin’….

    Promise Fulfilled: President Trump Signs Executive Order Withdrawing From TPP…

    President Trump signed an executive order on Monday announcing his plan to withdraw the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal.

    The order fulfills Trump’s campaign promise to abandon the Pacific Rim trade pact early in his administration…..
    The president also signed two other executive actions: one that places a hiring freeze on non-military federal workers and another that cuts off federal funding for foreign organizations that provide abortions…

    The president also repeated a campaign promise to cut regulations “by 75 percent, maybe more.”

    “We’re gonna get ’em working again, right?” says Pres Trump, hosting photo op with union leaders in the Oval Office…

    And that was the first day….

  16. Gail Combs says:

    During the campaign it was CNN anf the New York Times that Trump really called out for lying.

    It was a CNN Reporter Acosta that was reprimanded by Spicer and Pres. Elect Trump.

    CNN then issued a subtle threat to President Trump.
    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/01/cnns-zucker-on-covering-trump-past-present-and-future.html

    This is the response by President Trump and Spicer.

    Press Secretary Sean Spicer Delivery First White House Full Press Briefing (Video)…

    ….For decades the White House has deferred to newswires and major TV networks, all of whom are represented in the first row of the White House briefing room, for the first several questions at the daily briefing. However, press secretary Sean Spicer called on very different group of reporters.

    He first called on the New York Post. Then, the Christian Broadcasting Network. That was followed by Univision and Fox Business. Spicer then took a question from Urban Radio Network, and then finally the Associated Press, which up until now has usually gotten the first question.

    Epic arrogant media ‘splodeys begin immediately as NBC’S Kelly O’Donnell said [tweeted] Spicer was skipping over major news outlets that cover the White House all day, every day….

    Looks like war folks. Any bets who wins?

    I’m betting on the Lion we put in the White House and not the Media Hyenas.

Leave a Reply

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

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