NASA / NOAA Climate Data Is Fake Data

NOAA shows the Earth red hot in December, with record heat in central Africa.

NOAA Reported

The map above is fake. NOAA has almost no temperature data from Africa, and none from central Africa. They simply made up the record temperatures.

NOAA Thermometer Data

Satellites show that NOAA’s” record hot regions in Africa were actually close to normal.

RSS / MSU Data Images / Monthly

Gavin Schmidt at NASA claims the imaginary NOAA data has been replicated by many other institutions.

NOAA: Trump team may emphasize climate science uncertainty — Friday, February 3, 2017 — www.eenews.net

However, when Gavin is confronted about his obviously bogus temperature graphs, he defends by saying “it is not my data, I get it from NOAA.” In fact, all of the supposedly independent agencies get the lion’s share of their data from NOAA.

robertsnasags.pdf

NASA and NOAA are engaged in the biggest fraud in science history, and this needs to end now that criminals are no longer in control of our government. Under the Trump administration, government employees stand to make huge amounts of money by whistleblowing fraud. Contact Kent Clizbe for details.

Kent Clizbe
Fraud Detection Services
kent@kentclizbe.com
www.credibilityassurance.com
571 217 0714

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

441 Responses to NASA / NOAA Climate Data Is Fake Data

  1. Speeddog says:

    Hi Tony: Any idea how many whistle blowers are contacting Kent Clizbe?

    Speed

    • tonyheller says:

      Kent said that quite a few people have contacted him in response to my article.

        • S0 says:

          Mail Online picked it up too

          • karolewsd018 says:

            Similarities to Jim Jones and the Cult of Climate Change –

            1. Climate doomsayers believe they possess truths about the past, present and future and their truths cannot be disputed by anyone.

            2. Doomsayers refuse to debate their belief. They call their dogma “settled science” and attack any critics that dare to whisper in the dark.

            3. Just like a cult, doomsayers has a formal doctrine-setting body. The reports by the “ruling” body are thought to be the main source of authority and the texts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are quoted as unholy scripture.,

            4. Liberal doomsayers make you believe in their falsehoods. Bruce Jenner is now a woman. Rachel Dolezal is black. Elizabeth Warren is native American. The integrity of these people is just mind boggling. I remember when Obama told us, “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.” And he said it with a straight face! Well, guess what Obama? My health plan isn’t the one I used to pay $225/month for. I’m paying $500 for second rate coverage. My car insurance is still $25/month (from Insurance Panda) and my renters insurance is still $10/month, thank god. So don’t you dare be messing those up too, Obama! The left lives in la-la land.

            4. Staying with the Jonestown analogy, the climate change alarmists have created mythologies intentionally built on lies and half-truths. The fallacy can be ascribed as an appeal to everyday experiences, giving the listener some sense of truth-based teaching to mix with the soup of confusion.

            Just as Jones and his small leadership group built lies on a foundation of lies and misinformation, the “sky-is-falling-crowd” spreads hoaxes to support their form of theology.

          • Allen Clark says:

            this is plain rediculous

      • Erin says:

        Hey pal, actual NASA employee here. Not high ranking, not paid off, just letting you know that this whole analysis is…misguided. You realize the two differing graphs have different data sources, right? The “missing” Africa data is from the second dataset. It’s literally… written on the picture. Also, NASA at the very least has whistleblower protections for this exact thing. Anyone is encouraged to report flaws they see in data. We are non-partisan, just extracting data from satellites. Please don’t spread “news” for findings you clearly haven’t done your homework on yet.

        • tonyheller says:

          Utter nonsense. How do you get land data temperatures without land data?
          In case you missed it, one of NCDC’s two principal scientists just blew the whistle last week.

          • Tim says:

            You raise an important question, Tony. Fortunately, this is something the scientists who created the dataset took into account when they made it.

            The jist of it is that since scientists can’t stick a thermometer every single place on the planet, they rely on samples from inhabited areas, then do statistics on the data using models that are generated by actual observations based on the relatively stable geographic configuration of remote locations.

            Put another way, you don’t have to measure every part of the Sahara Desert to understand that there will be relatively little temperature variation across the whole thing, because it is very flat, and full of sand.

            Any significant local variations in surface temperature are detectable in real time using satellite photographs, since clouds form inside low pressure (colder) areas.

            A great deal of care is taken in deciding where and how to measure surface temperature and how gaps in the data alter the conclusions and their confidence intervals.

            It really is quite fascinating, and I invite you to learn more about these methods before dismissing them out of hand.

            https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/anomalies.php

            The relevant section is reproduced below:

            “Why use temperature anomalies (departure from average) and not absolute temperature measurements?

            Absolute estimates of global average surface temperature are difficult to compile for several reasons. Some regions have few temperature measurement stations (e.g., the Sahara Desert) and interpolation must be made over large, data-sparse regions. In mountainous areas, most observations come from the inhabited valleys, so the effect of elevation on a region’s average temperature must be considered as well. For example, a summer month over an area may be cooler than average, both at a mountain top and in a nearby valley, but the absolute temperatures will be quite different at the two locations. The use of anomalies in this case will show that temperatures for both locations were below average.

            Using reference values computed on smaller [more local] scales over the same time period establishes a baseline from which anomalies are calculated. This effectively normalizes the data so they can be compared and combined to more accurately represent temperature patterns with respect to what is normal for different places within a region.

            For these reasons, large-area summaries incorporate anomalies, not the temperature itself. Anomalies more accurately describe climate variability over larger areas than absolute temperatures do, and they give a frame of reference that allows more meaningful comparisons between locations and more accurate calculations of temperature trends.”

        • pmc47025 says:

          Hey Erin, if I understand this correctly…

          The NOAA Thermometer Data map contains colored blocks representing “GHCN-M bias corrected data”. “bias corrected” means it’s already been through a layer of fudge.

          The NOAA Reported Percentile map is based on GHCN-M, ERSST, ICOADS, and a computer statistical model (! see link below).

          The “record warmest” part of south central Africa appears to have no supporting GHCN-M data and isn’t adjacent to sea or ocean (ERSST, ICOADS) – it’s completely fabricated by a statistical model. The “record warmest” declaration is a result of comparing computer modeled projections to other computer modeled projections, no actual records!

          In the OP, your (?) satellite data are used to refute the NOAA percentile map.

          https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/anomalies.php

          • Damian says:

            Erin looks like the classic internet troll. pretend authority pushing a total lie. Seen too many of those.

        • Have you ever done the calculations of how much space seven .5 billion people take up on the earth using a 1 x 2 x 6′ space for every human on the earth it would take up less than .7 of 8 mi.³ I keep it mild could actually hold to 12,220,000,000 people that’s one cubic mile Nother thousand 900 not 20 not even to one cubic Mile

          And that’s from a high school graduate 954-554-1093

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      I’ve been imagining people sitting in their offices and worrying who may talk to the FBI first. They must be especially suspicious of the worker bees in the cubicles who have nothing to loose and much to win but I’m sure the guilty perpetrators are mainly watching each other. They have the most to gain from becoming whistleblowers and negotiating immunity or just a slap on the wrist.

    • Donald Kasper says:

      It is not fake. It is an artifact of the smoothing and fill-in algorithm. But it is so bad, perhaps it is not based on data at all, but is a model computation based on latitude and distance from the ocean under prevailing wind direction, nothing more. If it is a mix of real data and modeled output, we should be told.

      • Michael Walker says:

        You say it’s not fake. But that’s inconsequential. You can’t define something by saying what it’s not. Where there is no global climate data available, NOAA/NASA at a minimum chose to extrapolate climate data over vast geographic distances while claiming, or at least implying, their modeling algorithms were just as reliable as the real observed/on-site data collected. The real issue, with respect to the climate analytics put out by NOAA/NASA, is the characterization of the information. Is there transparency (which I will give you credit for pointing out) from our governmental science agencies and a truthful admission of what the data really represents? Discussion of this issue should be at the core of the climate debate.

        • Trent says:

          If scientists deal with governments to get their agenda done, some lobbyist WILL bribe one or many of the people in congress, and most certainly the president. There’s nothing more reassuring than, as president, say “I can say for certain that man made global warming is the biggest threat to the world today. The science is settled.” That actually makes me want to give in a science lesson. AGW jerkoffs like Shia Lebourf or whatever his name and Dicaprio chant with Obama, white man bad, make global warming, pay billions to ‘fix the problem’ we save you from yourselves, you know, the typical liberal drivel, and that is just how it is in the federal government. I hope Trump takes note and embarrasses every crooked congressman or woman in the federal government. I hope that’s what he means by drain the swamp.

          • dave says:

            DiCrapio … FTFY

          • AndyG55 says:

            I never noticed DiCraprio giving even a tiny fraction of his fortune from C-grade movies to the Green Cause.

            Spending on CO₂ producing good time, buying resorts 10cm above sea level, are more his contribution…..

          • Austin says:

            Well said. It’s amazing that so many people can’t admit that they were part of a long con by the left. They think there is no way the government and media would lie to us to make an easy buck. People steal. That’s why we invented locks. People commit crimes. Hence why we make laws. Denial is one hell of a drug.

      • Brian says:

        You don’t fit a model to fake made up manipulated data. You fit a model to real measured data (which should always be the measured value + uncertainty). A sufficient model can deal with bad measured data. In order to test your model you can withhold a subset of the data, sample the model at those data points and compared the model fit data to the measured data.

        All of the above concepts and many more are very basic and common sense ways that scientists actually work with real measured data.

        • d hanke says:

          brian, perfect response and an honor to read it

        • joe says:

          You’ve never heard of GIGO, obviously. If you use computers in any of your models, then GIGO exists. But these models that you speak so highly of do not use real-world data, but rather the worst-case scenarios. And then they are used to mislead, rather than inform as to a worst-case scenario possibility. I leave you with one question, if mankind was to disappear from the earth, right now, and all of his carbon emissions should immediately cease, how much would it affect total CO2 output on a yearly basis? Percentage-wise.

          • DeGasse Smelleur says:

            It really depends upon your meaning of “disappear”. If mankind were to be suddenly buried under earth, mankind would “disappear” and not at all unlike dinosaurs which have already “disappeared.” Definitely, this “disappearance” of mankind would create a new pool of hydrocarbons, now, wouldn’t it. And, by the way, how are you going to “miraculously” immediately cease the production of subsequent gas or “farts”, if you will, from occurring.

            And, if all of mankind is gone, who is going to measure the CO2 output on a yearly basis? Percentage-wise or OTHERWISE.

            However,

          • Bob Hoye says:

            GIGO is now WIWO.
            Warming In, Warming Out

        • Gail Combs says:

          Brian,
          You actually have to start with a reasonable model…

          GCM ModelE – Elephants Playing Mozart

          A Remarkably Tiny Global Circulation Model You Can Run

          (The hair pulling trying to figure out the darn model…)
          GCMs – Frost Feedback?

          Dr. Evans look at the models and finding math mistake
          link

          NOTE: I am ‘computer challenged’ so I can only sort of follow this stuff.

          • Gail Combs says:

            Newest addition:
            My, What Big Datasets You Have, Grandma NASA

            ….Big, but not really a problem-big. Under 1/2 TB for the whole thing. Yeah, takes a week or two to download the first time you do it, on a slow home link, but then the updates are not that big.

            So after I’ve got CDIAC resynced, I decide to run One Last Pass to make it all synced up to “now” as a final touch up run before I archive the 2017 starting status set…

            Well… A week or so later I’m still running. One wonders “Why?…”

            Seems they may have restarted processing and presenting a GIANT data set.….

            HMMMmmmm…

            Karl’s last warming paper?

            In preparation for auditing NASA data?

      • Colorado Wellington says:

        “It is an artifact of the smoothing and fill-in algorithm. But it is so bad, perhaps it is not based on data at all, … If it is a mix of real data and modeled output, we should be told.”

        Donald Kasper,

        You have, probably inadvertently, described the concept of the mainstream media news product. In most news items we can discern a smothering of actual facts, for example someone’s name, a place and a date, provided they didn’t get them wrong. The rest is an artifact of careful craftsmanship, framing, omissions and editing with the goal of making the modeled “progressive” future palatable and desirable.

        And it is not fake. It’s how they do it and it is very real. It would be nice if they told us but that would defeat the purpose, would it not?

        • Orionlyessa7of9 says:

          Writers are employed to repackage and sell the news as a form of info-tainment, intended to grab the highest ratings possible in that time slot… they give zero fucks about accuracy as they are convinced that no one could possibly want truth bullets fired at them over dinner… they want people to feel comfortable and trusting so advertisers give ’em more cash for ads… and generally, people like to see and hear only things that reaffirm their already held beliefs… hence the skew that screws the news… No ads, no need to skew – another example of ‘follow the money to find the asshole…

          • Mark Sornsin says:

            With respect to man-made climate change, NPR has to be the biggest offender of the use of the term “settled science.” Yet they have no advertising.

          • Colorado Wellington says:

            Yes, it’s all about progressing “progress”, and that settles it.

    • Oliver K. Manuel says:

      DOE, EPA, NAS, NASA, NSF, UN, UNAS (United National Academies of Sciences), etc. have lied to the public about the source of energy (E) stored as mass (m) in cores of

      1. Heavy elements like Uranium
      2. Some planets like Jupiter
      3. Ordinary stars like the Sun
      4. Galaxies like the Milky Way
      5. The now expanding Cosmos

      . . . since nations and national Academies of Sciences were united under the UN on 24 Oct 1945.

      Frightened leaders of nations knew Stalin took possession of the world’s total remaining inventory of atomic bombs when USSR troops captured Japan’s atomic bomb production plant at Konan, Korea in Aug 1945 ( during a worldwide news blackout of Asian news).

      They were compelled to accept Stalin’s convincing argument that the whole world would be BETTER RED THAN DEAD if they joined together to use Weizsacker’s flawed definition of “nuclear binding energy” to prevent anyone else from building another atomic bomb (just as it prevented Dr. Carl von Weizsacker from successfully building an atomic bomb for Hitler during WWII).

      That was the beginning of the modern one-world government that President Donald Trump is devoted to taking down.

    • Curmudgeon says:

      What about remote sensing??? We’ve been getting reliable IR readings from satellites for decades, so if that were the data source I would expect Scientist Clueless or NOAA to mention that.

    • Elbee says:

      In addition to all this lying, it is also a fact that Siberian temperature readings stopped with the collapse of the Soviet Union. I don’t know if these are now active but imagine what leaving out 80 to 100+ below from many monitoring points, and for many years, does to the global averages.

    • John says:

      Haha. This is awesome.

  2. AndyG55 says:

    Most of South America gets pink, with no data. !!

    And dark blue over Europe disappears.

    Light blue in Australia disappears

    And just to the NE of your “hot” area there is another “hot” area that came form a single light blue measurement.

    It really is a FARCE, isn’t it !!

  3. SxyxS says:

    This guys obviously never run out of red color.

    Snow in the sahara? Who cares-paint it read.

  4. Marc Webb says:

    Nasa caught in a lie! Say it ain’t so!

    • Grizz Mann says:

      Not a lie. It is alternative facts. Made possible by Grant money. They will give what ever is necessary to continue the Grants.

  5. CO2isLife says:

    This entire field of “science” is corrupt.

    The Climategate Emails expose scientific collusion, malpractice and highly unethical, deceitful, deceptive and unscientific practices.
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/01/17/climate-science-on-trial-the-forensic-files-exhibit-t-2/

  6. Bill says:

    The same people who will call you “science deniers” in one breath will turn around and then tell you that life begins at birth and that women can be born in men’s bodies and vice-versa.

    • Tom D Perkins says:

      ” that women can be born in men’s bodies and vice-versa ”

      And it is a %100 certainty that that sometimes happens, as an artifact of the genitals being set on their course of development in the first trimester, and the brain’s development occurring throughout pregnancy and a life after birth.

      • Jtom says:

        Ok, so what is the test to determine whether a person is born the wrong gender, or simply delusional? Perhaps I was born in the wrong body and really am Napoleon.

        Until a unique physiological difference between the brains of women and men is determined, then you can not distinguish this situation from any other delusional mental illness. However, if you can find such physical significant variation between genders, you will be opening up a Pandora’s box. Such a difference will be used by others to justify unequal representation of women and men in employment and pay. I would even expect some to use it to justify treating women as being subservient to men.

        There are some 100 trillion cells in an average person, each encoded with that person’s gender. You can not change that coding, regardless of what atrocities you perform on the body. If the brain believes differently, then it is clearly a mental defect. Perhaps the focus should be in altering the brain to agree with the body.

        • RAH says:

          I really don’t give a damn. They can do what they want as long as they don’t claim some special dispensation from others or society to accommodate the gender confusion or sexual preference.

          And BTW Napoleon was a tiny little feller. Never realized just how small he was until I had the opportunity to inspect one of his uniforms. Officially they claim he was 5’2″. Based on the uniform I saw I suspect the man was no more than 5′ tall in his bare feet. The uniform was one that he wore towards the end of his first empire when he was in his early 40s.

          • Thomas Gassett says:

            I really don’t give a damn. They can do what they want as long as they don’t claim some special dispensation from others or society to accommodate the gender confusion or sexual preference.>>>

            You mean like gender neutral bathrooms? The object of being a ‘special’ person is to get ‘special’ treatment. It’s a way to divide us so of course the Left loves it.

          • RAH says:

            Yep! But I also mean tax payers paying for sex change operations and stuff like that.

        • Steve says:

          I don’t have all the answers for you. But I do know people can be born with the genitals of both sexes – they’re called true hermaphrodites. And they have both XX and XY chromosomes throughout all of their many cells. And you’re right, even this coding cannot be changed. So before we judge, maybe we should give it a little thought that there might just be some circumstances out there that we just don’t fully understand yet. But we can take care in how we treat people, and how we talk about groups of people. I think that’s important.

  7. Bob says:

    what about satellite data? doesn’t that cover the planet?

    • Donald Kasper says:

      You would think that the ground data temp map would be averaged with the satellite data, and regions of no data would be filled with satellite data. You would also expect a differential map of the delta from land and satellite data to show the difference and what is applied where, but hey, I tool climatology in the 80’s, so what do I know about real science.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Yes it does and shows they are LYING. Tony uses it often.

    • Jim says:

      Satellite data shows either no change in the last twenty years or at most a slight decline in global temperatures. NASA refuses to use satellite data in their computations.

    • AndyG55 says:

      compare trends this century from fraudulent NOAA surface data, and satellite data.

      I hope that answers your question.

  8. Mike in SA says:

    This question is for the Change Fantasists, if know what causes climate change and you know how to reverse climate change, what is the metric by which you’ve succeeded? How will you know you have won?

    As for me, I would be worried if the climate wasn’t changing. And, I think the Sun and volcanoes contribute to climate change.

    • Emily T says:

      The global atmospheric peak of co2 will be behind us. We have to bring this forward as quickly as possible.

    • Essar says:

      Currently the sun and volcanoes are cooling the planet and have been for 50+ years.

      By what metric would we “succeed”? If we keep global temperatures from rising more than 2°C by 2100 that would be a success.

  9. CO2isLife says:

    You can go point by point by point, and none of the claims by the Climate Alarmists hold up under scrutiny.

    Climate “Science” on Trial; The Smoking Gun Files
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/01/17/climate-science-on-trial-the-smoking-gun-files/

    BTW, this article highlights what a joke this “science” is.

    Climate “Science” on Trial; Confirmed Mythbusters Busted Practicing Science Sophistry
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/02/04/climate-science-on-trial-confirmed-mythbusters-busted-practicing-science-sophistry/

  10. VADM says:

    The LIES allowed by NASA Administrator Charles Bolden are a disgrace to his Annapolis Classmates and reflect on his lack of personal integrity.

    • Colonel Officer says:

      For years I’ve heard military meteorologists say that many of NOAA’s published studies were basically pseudoscience. Now we have proof. President Trump should replace the leadership of both NOAA and NASA.

      • dunce says:

        Not just the leadership, whole sale firings or maybe abolish the agency and start over.

        • Andrei Bilderburger says:

          History is very clear. The ONLY way that any bureaucracy EVER is reformed is its utter destruction. Minimum: fire everyone, put all the leaders in prison, close the agency, do not permit any other agency to hire the fired workers or duplicate the prior efforts.

        • Marooned says:

          Fire the entire National Weather Service? You think all forecasters working at WFOs have taken part in this charade? Most of them know it’s just a scam, unless the are liberals. Then they just ignore it. Forecasters that issue watches and warnings have no part of this data manipulation.

      • NASA primary goal was to make Arabs feel better about their historic contributions to science.
        Having them follow the Global Warming B.S. as a matter of “science” is a continued mis-information effort, just like the first one.

  11. moo says:

    I don’t understand this and have a few questions. How do you know that there are no thermometers in the places where NOAA says heat has increased? The smoking gun here seems to be that there are no thermometers in areas where scientists claim temps have risen. But nothing on this blog makes it clear to me why you believe that.

    • Brad says:

      The little squares on the “land only” map are representative of the actual data stations.

    • An Inquirer says:

      Thanks for the question, moo. Sometimes what NOAA does is mysterious and sometimes skeptics need to back model in order to figure out what NOAA or GISS are doing. However, NOAA does provide us with quite a bit of information. NOAA does tell us what thermometers they use. Just because they do not use a thermometer does not mean that one does not exist. Skeptics often are able to go get the readings of missing thermometers. An increasing percentage of the time, NOAA does not actually get numbers from a thermometer, but rather they guesstimate what those thermometers might have said based on thermometers tens of kilometers — sometimes hundreds of kilometers, try 1600 km — away. We often find that thermometers not read are in rural areas and thermometers used to estimate their readings are in UHI-contaminated areas.

    • richard verney says:

      I am also a little unclear as to precisely where the measurements are made, and hence which areas have no station data and are therefore entirely infill.

      I attach a map showing the siting of temperature stations. This map is a little unclear since it seeks to show how the number of stations has changed over the years. At one time I had a better chart/map.

      But as you can see from the map, although Africa is sparsely sampled, particularly Northern Africa, there are many stations in the more Southern parts of Africa. It appears to me that there are some stations near to where it is claimed that there is no station data. See:

      http://www.hashemifamily.com/Kevan/Climate/Stations.gif

      That said, I am concerned by the extent of infilling that appears to go on.

    • Ktm says:

      Look at the map provided.

      “Please note: gray areas represent missing data.”

      • RoHa says:

        I notice that there seem to be balmy tropical breezes among the palms on the eastern tip of Siberia. Wonderful what happens when there is no data.

  12. OldOllie says:

    Fire all the “climate scientists,” and hire more rocket scientists. Then maybe we wouldn’t have to beg the Russians for rides to and from the ISS.

  13. Fred Hermann says:

    more ammo?

    it’s a farce?

    fake news?

  14. Lukewarmist says:

    Where can I find an extensive methodological critique of all the satellite “data” routinely cited by climate scientists? Maybe we need the new administration to fund a vetting of these crooked methodologies…

  15. Orogeny says:

    I’m curious. You folks who think AGW theory is all a conspiracy. How could such a conspiracy be set up? How would it be possible to get scientists all over the world…totally disconnected from each other, working in widely separated laboratories, in very different disciplines…all on one page with the “falsified” data?

    Is there a central hub of the conspiracy that sends out orders to all the climate scientists around the globe? What has prevented even ONE scientist from coming forward with any evidence of this conspiracy? Do the ringleaders of this plot somehow know in advance which scientists will be open to participating in the conspiracy?

    Is there a central research center where huge amounts of data are fabricated in order to supply material for the thousands of research projects and the tens of thousands of papers and articles supporting AGW theory that have been published over the last few decades?

    Is there a world authority that can tell all of the major scientific organizations around the globe that they have to endorse AGW as fact? Remember, these organizations don’t get grant money. So, how are they all somehow convinced to participate in this campaign of lies? Hell, the Geologic Society of America’s membership probably consists mostly of people in the energy industry, and even they have come out with a statement clearly endorsing the idea that the planet is warming and humans are the main cause. Why would they do that?

    Have the millions of peripheral people…that scientists who review the papers, the editors and publishers of the papers, the science writers and other media people who write about the research, and, the smart people, the folks who read the papers and decide that they make sense…have ALL these people somehow been bought off or persuaded to join the conspiracy?

    What force has been used to cause government leaders around the world, many of whom are complete enemies, to agree to set aside their differences in this case in order to advance the conspiracy?

    Remember…the whole conspiracy falls apart unless each and every one of the things I’ve listed happens just as described…in absolutely perfect secrecy.

    Seriously, HOW ON EARTH WOULD SUCH A THING BE POSSIBLE??

    • David A says:

      Your assertions are all incorrect.

      • David A says:

        Your paragraph one. 36000 scientists signed the Oregon petion, with hundreds of skeptical papers referenced.

        The two most cited consensus papers are junk. The do not address the C in CAGW. They make statements that most skeptics agree with. They have been heavily criticised o, peer review.

        Each paragraph below that of your writing is deeply flawed, making your conclusion nonsense.

        • Orogeny says:

          Perhaps you could point out the per-reviewed work contradicting AGW theory that that rag-tag group of engineers, weather readers, and long retired-professor have published? Or even point out how many of those are actually doing any kind of research in the area of climate science?

          • GW says:

            Perhaps you should read the Climagate email in which Phil Jones, the head of the Hadley CRU, discussed “keeping the skeptical papers out of the peer reviewed journals even if it meant ‘redefining peer review itself!'”

            Do you EVEN KNOW what HadCRU is ??? Or who Phil Jones is ???

          • AndyG55 says:

            Yet another IGNORANT, INCOMPETENT wastrel who has just listened to the MSM propaganda pap, and the non-science of the IPCC.

          • David A says:

            Once again your propensity for false statements, ( your attempt to marginalize all the PHD scientist who reference thousands of peer review reports as well as their own) which destroys any possible validity to your comment.

            Try this. You only have about 200 hours minimum of research before any comment you make is even cogent.

            http://climatechangereconsidered.org/

        • Orogeny says:

          The “Oregon Petition” was a fraud.

          The petition and the documents included were all made to look like official papers from the prestigious National Academy of Science. They weren’t, and this attempt to mislead has been well-documented.

          The included research paper was also made to mimic the style of the National Academy’s prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy journal.

          With the signature of a former NAS president, and a research paper that appeared to be published in one of the most prestigious science journals in the world, many scientists were duped into signing a petition based on a false impression. In fact, the documents had been authored by Art Robinson, Sallie Baliunas, Willie Soon (both who receive funding from the oil industry) and Robinson’s son Zachary.

          The petition was so misleading that the National Academy issued a news release stating that: “The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science.”

          • AndyG55 says:

            NAS.. the leader are far-left operatives.

            You can bet they didn’t ask their members.

            They don’t represent science.. they represent politics.

            That’s how that got there.

          • Orogeny says:

            And, I suppose that is true of every major scientific organization on earth whose members do anything relating to climate science? They have all issued statement in support of AGW theory, you know.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Yes, it is.

          • AndyG55 says:

            The top of all these “science” groups are left-wing political animals.

            That’s how it is.

            Get over it.

          • AndyG55 says:

            I find it very strange that people are IGNORANT of these facts.

          • Orogeny says:

            Let me guess…you’re a disciple of the Trump cult, aren’t you? The paranoia, the alternative view of how the world works gives you away.

          • RAH says:

            I suspect that Kenji, a certified member of the Union of Concerned Scientists, has better qualifications than many who now call themselves, “Climate Scientists”

          • Colorado Wellington says:

            Orogeny, we are all concerned here. You simply must get in touch with Kenji. You have much in common.

          • t2 says:

            Are you a paid retard or do you do it for fun?

            Do your own research, lazy.

            Unless, of course, you are only here to deny the reality. How does one acquire what he wants from “science”? Three words:

            Funding, funding and..wait for it!……funding!

            Dipshat.

          • AndyG55 says:

            No. am not a disciple of any cult

            I am a scientist and engineering with 2 degrees and a PhD.

            I’m in nobody’s cult, unlike you.

            I go by what I see in the real data.

            Data that obviously is of no interest to you.

            Let’s see if you can produce one data that proves empirically CO₂ causes warming in a convective atmosphere.

            The basis of your “religious” belief !!!

            There is certainly no CO₂ signature in the satellite data, only the El Nino steps.

            Nothing in the real tide data.

            No CO₂ warming signature anywhere.

          • AndyG55 says:

            try again

            Let’s see if you can produce one PAPER that proves empirically that CO₂ causes warming in a convective atmosphere.

          • gator69 says:

            The “Oregon Petition” was a fraud.

            The petition and the documents included were all made to look like official papers from the prestigious National Academy of Science. They weren’t, and this attempt to mislead has been well-documented.

            The included research paper was also made to mimic the style of the National Academy’s prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy journal.

            With the signature of a former NAS president, and a research paper that appeared to be published in one of the most prestigious science journals in the world, many scientists were duped into signing a petition based on a false impression. In fact, the documents had been authored by Art Robinson, Sallie Baliunas, Willie Soon (both who receive funding from the oil industry) and Robinson’s son Zachary.

            The petition was so misleading that the National Academy issued a news release stating that: “The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science.”

            Translation: “WAAAAAAAA!!!”

            The Oregon Petition is exactly what it says it is, 36,000 documented scientists who say CAGW is bunk. Period.

            Dr Soon, et al, neever received funding from oil companies, they received their funding from the Smithsonian.

            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/23/greenpeace-enlists-justin-gillis-john-schwartz-of-the-ny-times-in-journalistic-terrorist-attack-on-willie-soon-miss-target-hit-smithsonian-instead/

          • David A says:

            You get your lies from what, Buzzfeed, DeSmog blog?
            The Oregon Petion was not fradulant in the least. The scientists that signed it are not revoking their signatures at all.

            In fact it list hundreds of peer review reports in support of the contention that CO2 is a beneficial gas, and the warming has been and will be net beneficial.

            Observations well support this. Currently every crop on the planet grows 15 to 20 percent more food, on the same amount of land and water due to the increase in CO2. There is ZERO increase in the rate of SL rise, droughts, hurricanes, floods tornadoes.

            The insane economically damaging policy of CAGW politicians, such as the Parris accord, will, according to IPCC calculations, have virtually ZERO affect on warming regardless.

            Peer Pressure, Noble Cause Corruption, Confirmation bias, and Goverment Billions in agenda driven science for the purpose of global government and personal power, all combine to easily explain what you try to marginalize by referencing your distorted view of some grand conspiracy.

          • Sunsettommy says:

            Orogeny, misleads with bullcrap since at NO TIME did the petition claims it was supported or endorsed by the NAS.

            Quoting your dishonest crap”

            “The included research paper was also made to mimic the style of the National Academy’s prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy journal.”

            There was NO evidence that it was endorsed or supported by the NAS. There was NO NAS heading to the paper either.Plus you are a freaking LIAR anyway since the paper was published in a NON NAS publication:

            Quoting the OREGON Petition website,

            “Why was the review article published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons?

            The authors chose to submit this article for peer-review and publication by the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons because that journal was willing to waive its copyright and permit extensive reproduction and distribution of the article by the Petition Project.”

            You go on with more lies:

            “With the signature of a former NAS president, and a research paper that appeared to be published in one of the most prestigious science journals in the world, many scientists were duped into signing a petition based on a false impression. In fact, the documents had been authored by Art Robinson, Sallie Baliunas, Willie Soon (both who receive funding from the oil industry) and Robinson’s son Zachary.”

            You claim many were “DUPED” into signing an easy to understand,read paper on a NAS free website using a NAS free science journal.

            I personally know some of the people who signed it,they made it clear they know what they were reading. You insult some of the most celebrated scientists of the 20th century such as Edward Teller and Freeman Dyson.

            You are scum!

            Not only that he lies about “oil” funding,which has been shown to be lies many times in many websites.

            Finally Orogeny, fails to understand WHY the NAS made that statement,quoting you:

            “The petition was so misleading that the National Academy issued a news release stating that: “The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science.”

            YOU like the NAS, attempt to insult the intelligence of the signers,who can read,see and think the obvious about the petition itself. The NAS was firmly in the AGW camp,which is why they tried to make smearing statements they have done.

            15 years ago,when I first investigated the claim that the Petition Project was using a page similar to the NAS page,I looked at it to see NO evidence that it came from the NAS, was NOT supported or endorsed either and didn’t have the NAS heading anywhere on it either.

            Here is what the Petition statement actually reads,at this link:

            Instructions for Signing Petition

            http://www.petitionproject.org/instructions_for_signing_petition.php

            Meanwhile the NAS was full of crap when the made this stupid statement:

            “The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science.”

            Really you mean the following people are not qualified to research and discuss weather and climate?

            From the Oregon Petition website:

            “Atmosphere, Earth, & Environment (3,805)

            1. Atmosphere (579)

            I) Atmospheric Science (112)
            II) Climatology (39)
            III) Meteorology (343)
            IV) Astronomy (59)
            V) Astrophysics (26)

            2. Earth (2,240)

            I) Earth Science (94)
            II) Geochemistry (63)
            III) Geology (1,684)
            IV) Geophysics (341)
            V) Geoscience (36)
            VI) Hydrology (22)

            3. Environment (986)

            I) Environmental Engineering (487)
            II) Environmental Science (253)
            III) Forestry (163)
            IV) Oceanography (83)

            Orogeny, you are scum of the earth.

          • Sunsettommy says:

            Here is the LINK to the Oregon Petition website readers, go there and look through it and see how big a liar Orogeny is:

            http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php

          • Sunsettommy says:

            Check out the Qualifications of Signers section of the website. Orogeny make it clear he NEVER read this section, as it exposes the Crap the NAS made when they said this:

            “The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science.”

            Qualifications of Signers

            ” Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields. The petition has been circulated only in the United States.

            The current list of petition signers includes 9,029 PhD; 7,157 MS; 2,586 MD and DVM; and 12,715 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.

            All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy.

            The Petition Project classifies petition signers on the basis of their formal academic training, as summarized below. Scientists often pursue specialized fields of endeavor that are different from their formal education, but their underlying training can be applied to any scientific field in which they become interested.

            Outlined below are the numbers of Petition Project signatories, subdivided by educational specialties. These have been combined, as indicated, into seven categories.”

            The link shows a lot more:

            http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php

            The NAS at the time were desperately trying to smear the Project with dishonest and even lying statements.

            Now you understand why I called Orogeny a scum.

    • Vic Cole says:

      One word answer: Money. There’s money in agreeing with conclusions put forward by governments, which in response to collusion provide research positions and funding.

    • stephen Hernon says:

      It is clear to people who value personal freedom that the” global warming” craze is now and forever about money for people who can’t earn a living with a real job.
      These individuals jump on the money train and independently bubble up one after the other to offer self-appointed “expert opinion”
      The inane question”HOW ON EARTH WOULD SUCH A THING BE POSSIBLE??” shows a complete ignorance about human nature. Companies, individuals , gangs, governments collude at all times so they can make a profit without destroying each other. They never have to meet to fix prices since that illegal. They collude to advance their agenda just like the gravy train academics who HAVE BEEN OUTED when they falsify and actually fabricate data that these other fools reference

    • Freethinker says:

      It’s called cold hard cash. Money, government grants. It’s amazing what it will align people to do to get it. Climate change consists of nothing more than Spring, Summer, Winter and Fall. Hell, when I was a kid in the early ’60s scientists were saying how we were going into an ice age. It never happened. Neither has global warming. And it won’t. It’s all used for money and controlling populations through taxing (money) for so-called “carbon footprints”. But people are like sheep (don’t believe me? Look at the fashion industry. Sheep.) Wake up and start thinking for yourself. The truth will set you free.

      • AndyG55 says:

        Real scientists that did talk up got ostrichised and then fired.

        (yes, I know the correct word)

      • Orionlyessa7of9 says:

        Actually, the earth has historically (over milliins of years) changed regularly ftom temperate (what we have now) to ice age and back againbin cycles… ours has been one of the longest temperate windows between ice ages in the earth’s history… seeing as ice ages are cyclical, it can reasonably be expected that what follows, is in fact another ice age… it is possible that this warming is only temporary and actually precursor of the process that follows… volcanic, seismic and tsunami events are dramatically on the rise… it could be said that pumping exhaust from cars, oil spills, methane farting humans and domestic food animals (both numbering in the billions), massive reduction of rain and other great forests (the lungs of the atmosphere along with the oceans, large scale extinction of various eco systems (which are in the way of progress), and nuclear blasts of the 20th century, ciuld possibly, just maybe, have some negative impact on the conditions of life here on earth… whether these things are causing the warming the earth is currently undergoing (which is only just starting to alter the seasons too – causing the drought that blew up syria for example ), is open to debate. If anyone could be certain that the current increase will continue at pace, absolutely certain – then basically, we are all fucked… but they can’t be certain because it has never before happened in recorded history…. meanwhile, scientists (who tend to extrapolate and freak out, only to be embarrassed later) have noticed it, freaked out, reported it, and now are undervpressure to find the source and nullify it… i guess it was considered most beneficial to link it to human activity, as that could pressure governments to legislate things that really would benefit the planet and potentially even save our skins… problem is, doing things the harmful way is so much cheaper than doing things the beneficisl way, and business men obviously dont need to be saddled with even more overheads – they get fucked enough already – so they gotvtogether their own studies, found the flaws in such studies and immediately cried foul… and who vould blame them? People start businesses to forge a better lifecfor themselves and their loved ones – and we are All sick of lefties preaching at us (they haven’t shut up or listened to anyone but themselves since 1959)… so here we stand… in this stupid mess because a bunch of scientists were pressured to say they were 100% sure, when they Should have said ‘maybe’… and yes, the pressure is from grant givers of many different kinds – truth is, ALOT of science is a MAYBE, and their failure to publicly admit that is what has made people stop trusting them… silly stupid pride filled and foolish – it cost them their most important asset – the trust of the masses….

    • dsp444 says:

      Hi Orogeny,

      I don’t think conspiracy is the right word. More like “momentum”…and “too big to fail”. Once a few scientists realize that they could get paid and make a healthy living to do this research, it has slowly grown and snowballed. And you really have to follow the money trail. All the new journals that have popped up, the editors, and staffs working for the journals, all the journalists and science writers (and reviewers are the same group of people from whom the research comes from in the first place) — they aren’t on the periphery. These are all people who lose their jobs and livelihoods if “global warming” is not true. It is not easy to find a job as a science writer in some field where you have no expertise.

      And while in most cases data is not flat out fabricated, when researching a subject is your life, there is too much pressure for it to be true. Negative results are rarely published in any scientific discipline. You have to publish something, so you publish the best you can. Its an intense, competitive field…I don’t doubt the honesty of the actual researchers, but the system is setup to result in a lot of “momentum” in one direction.

      Governments are a different story…clearly the global warming story has been supported by the left-learning governments of the world because it fits their economic goal of global redistribution of wealth. There are multiple ways to address the carbon emissions. It just so happens that the left-learning parts of the EU and USA have piggy-backed onto the science to implement economic policy. And if the USA is willing to hand some of its wealth over to smaller nations (or China) because we feel bad about carbon emissions, who is going to say “No thanks” to that? You could also argue that if the global warming story is absolutely true, then a better way to handle it is to enforce strict law preventing emission of CO2 immediately – stop emitting or go to jail. But that’s not really the popular govt action because it doesn’t fit their ideology as well.

      Its just such a huge business now that there is no going back.

      You can pick any hot science field and its a similar story…no matter how good the intentions, the system is set up for propagation of the “story”. Just think about cancer for example…if somebody came up with the miracle pill today that killed all cancer cells (not going to happen)…but just consider…how many trillions of dollars and millions of jobs would disappear from the economy?

      • AndyG55 says:

        It would be interesting to find out just how much money has going into perpetuating the AGW farce, both over the table and UNDER the table.

        Those who have bent over for it have been richly rewarded.

        And we know from people like that Christiana Figueres witch, exactly what the agenda is all about.

        http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-03/un-official-admits-global-warming-agenda-really-about-destroying-capitalism

        So don’t be GULLIBLE and get sucked in, Oro, you will end up looking like even more of a fool.

        • AndyG55 says:

          typo…

          has going -> has gone

        • AndyG55 says:

          Figueres admitted that the Global Warming conspiracy set by the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, of which she is the executive secretary, has a goal not of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity, but to destroy capitalism. She said very casually:

          “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”

        • CO2isLife says:

          I just read that ZeroHedge Article. Almost that exact quote about destroying capitalism was used in the documentary The Changing Climate of Global Warming. Here is the video clip.
          https://youtu.be/QowL2BiGK7o?t=50m4s

        • James Cool says:

          Even if global climate change is truly occurring, how are you going to get 10 billion people to stop using or creating heat. I for one don’t want to live in an unheated teepee. This whole thing is a scam. The Earth has gone through many changes and humans have survived.

      • Robertv says:

        “redistribution of wealth ” ?

        So to who exactly got the wealth redistributed to ?

      • GW says:

        It’s not “Momentum” or “too big to fail.” It’s defined as “Noble Cause, Corruption “. They’re engaged in it because they “believe” they are saving the environment by achieving the ultimate CAGW goal, which is CO2 taxation, which will lead to lowered use, rationing at the worst, and subsidized “green energy.” And they are handsomely rewarded by governments via their “research grants” which will pay their salaries and “research-related expenses” for their entire careers.
        It’s very simple really !

        Meanwhile, the scientists’ enablers – the political elite and their political enablers – the billionaire campaign funders – get billions upon billions more from the bulk of the proceeds from the CO2 taxes collected.
        Again, it’s all really very, very simple.

        And the original concepts have their roots back in the 1960’s. It evolved into global warming in the 1980’s and came to fruition in 1993 when Al Gore, Clinton’s VP, saw to it that all government scientific research grants had to have not only a global warming component but had to demonstrate global warming was occurring and caused by increasing CO2 levels. Otherwise your funding was cutoff and you were ostracized.

        Dr.’s William Gray, the father of modern hurricane research, and Roy Spencer, co-developer of satellite temperature measurements, have testified so. Many others have too.

        To the “useful idiots” it’s about the environment

        To the money and power brokers, it’s about money and power.

        It’s really, very, very simple.

    • jack nelson says:

      $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

    • John C says:

      Easy, Orogeny. It is not an “organized conspiracy”, any more than student liberalism is an organized conspiracy. AGW is a function of liberalism, which is taught in our colleges and universities by inbred professors. Their students then become brainwashed and go on to be professors without ever experiencing life outside of academia. Inbred! True science studies evidence which results in a conclusion. Climatology begins with a conclusion and attempts to prove in any way possible. Collusion is not necessary.

      • GW says:

        But it IS collusion; if you bothered to read ANY of the climate emails you would KNOW that. The head scientists globally, were emailing each other about “how to hide the decline, alter historical temperature records, disparage skeptical scientists, and keep their papers OUT of peer reviewed journals – even if they have to redefine what peer review is!”

        Get up to date man.

        • GW says:

          Sorry : ClimateGATE emails.

          • jas wat says:

            Sure it ends up that way, leftists are inherently dishonest. It just doesn’t necessarily start that way, the indoctrination coming from the left is ridiculous, yet without a balancing force, these kids don’t know any better.

    • SxyxS says:

      The thing about corrupt scientists all around (the) western world
      is the same as with
      all the corrupt journalists all around the (guess what?Western) world
      promoting war after war,revolution after revolution while being 100% aware that all those war
      against
      Jugoslavia((horseshoe plan=reason to attack YU=never existed)
      Lybia-scorched earth/ghaddafi killing own people=never existed
      Iraq-incubator report=hoax
      Several sovereign goverments in south america being overthrown by dictators who were “educated” in the school of americas in the usa.

      Even when the USA got caught lying(yellow cake)
      the MSM didn’t gave a shit,and promoted the next lie
      that was invented 5 minutes later-the WMD lie.

      Then they tried to attack Syria with lies,though these lies had been exposed instantly by legendary journalist Seymour Hershs “Red Line,Rat Line” article.
      MSM refused to print Mr Hershs article,though this article would
      have been the biggest thing since watergate.

      Then there is the killing of 100.000+++ christians years after year after year.MSM refuse to talk about it.

      Then there is the MSM bashing christianity 24/7 and being hypercritical about religion,but as soon as they have to deal with islam(where pedophilia,headchopping,gender & religious apartheid is norm)which every dumb iliterate person will recognize as evil shit
      and all of the supersmart journalists call this crap religion of peace.

      Then they blamed Putin for attacking Georgia,while in fact it was Sakashwhilli who started the war.

      And thats how science work.
      The very same way.

      If you want to know what a bunch of ignorant human crap
      academics are,just look how they treated traditionel chinese medicine.
      Instead of honestly researching wether it works or not,or at least-why
      this medicine was so successfull in a thousands of years old civilisation,
      doctors called it crap–
      until some of these ignorant pricks got desperate when theygot very ill,no cure available ,few month to live and went to china as last hope to survive–and they survived and then learned their lesson, started researching and promoting chinese medicine.

      Or research what they(academics) did to semmelweiss-
      a revolutianary medicine who has proven times and times again by lowering birth/surgical mortality 90%+ with his hygienical system.
      Though he was right times and times again he was defamed,attacked and ruined,in the end they put him in an asylum and died
      (with broken fingers and arms and chest.)

      If you realise how people are( zero integrity,group think,money,honor,wanna feel good by saving the world)
      you”ll stop asking.

      btw-there was a russian deligation at a ipcc meeting telling a completely different story about global warming.
      They got choked by the ipcc.

      • t2 says:

        Frank Reich, too.

        He has almost been scrubbed entirely from memory.

        He was killing cancer and dissolving stones with soundwaves.

        But THAT would kybosh the billions spent on “cancer research”.

        Reich also confirmed the viral nature of certain cancers but was laughed off….until word of….”HPV”….got out.

    • Dan Barta says:

      Follow where the research money comes from. Scientists don’t work for free.

      • Anto says:

        Correct. It’s a function of the move in recent decades to grant-based funding models for science. The model mitigates against the null hypothesis.

        Consider: I obtain a grant to investigate whether X is a concern for mankind. In one example, I find that it’s not really a worry at all and any effect is likely to be small. So, where do I get my next grant?

        In another example, I find that X is potentially a major threat to mankind’s continued existence and I need a further, larger grant to develop a better computer model, using more expensive hardware and a larger team of researchers.

        It doesn’t require a “conspiracy” in the traditional sense of the word – merely a sufficient number of people who’s self-interest trumps their questionable personal ethics.

        Consider also: if I developed and sold a computer model which I said could predict, with a high degree of certainty, where the Dow Jones would be in 2, 5, 10, 50 years from now and started selling it to Joe Public, would you believe me? How long would it be before I was rooming with Billy the Basher in the Big House?

    • Craig says:

      Lol. “All” scientists don’t agree on global warming anyway. The 97 percent they have cited is from thier own hand picked group. There are just as many decent scientists who don’t agree that the earth is warming by man mad causes. Climate change is a whole other issue. Any idiot can see the climate is changing. The question is, can man do any thing about it and the answer is no.

    • Gail Combs says:

      HISTORY OF THE SCAM

      ******************************************************
      The goal is to come up with a UNIVERSAL fear/reason to institute World Government. Once you understand the reason everything else makes sense.
      ******************************************************

      Former World Trade Organization Director-General Pascal Lamy tells you point blank that the EU is the template for the desired World Government and it has been in the plans since the 1930s.

      All had lived through the chaos of the 1930s — when turning inwards led to economic depression, nationalism and war. All, including the defeated powers, agreed that the road to peace lay with building a new international order — and an approach to international relations that questioned the Westphalian, sacrosanct principle of sovereignty… (wwwDOT)theglobalist.com/pascal-lamy-whither-globalization/”

      Lamy is quite blunt in stating national sovereignty is passe.

      …more than half a century ago that the Frenchman Jean Monnet, one of the shapers of post-war Europe, said, “The sovereign nations of the past can no longer provide a framework for the resolution of our present problems. And the European Community itself is no more than a step towards the organizational forms of tomorrow’s world.” His assessment was as valid then as it is now….
      (wwwDOT)theglobalist.com/storyid.aspx?StoryId=8216

      Lamy indicates that an European Union like super state is the goal.

      This is what CAGW — Global warming is really all about. We have all seen the political message morph from Global Warming to Climate Change to Weather Weirding.
      As H.L. Mencken said:
      “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed — and hence clamorous to be led to safety — by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

      In other words create a crisis to order to implement Diocletian’s Problem-Reaction-Solution

      Mencken also warns “The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the urge to rule it.”

      The Club of Rome put this concept in another form:
      “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill….All these dangers are caused by human intervention….and thus the “real enemy, then, is humanity itself….
      humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is “a real one or….one invented for the purpose.”

      BREXIT THE MOVIE will give you the details on how the EU is actually Run. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTMxfAkxfQ0

      >>>>>>>

      Noel Brown is the former Director of the United Nations Environment Programme, North American Office. He was an organizer of the Stockholm Conference for the Environment in 1972 where Maurice Strong got the ball rolling. Maurice Strong like Noel Brown was a member of the Club of Rome. Strong is also a Rockefeller Foundation trustee and senior adviser to the World Bank. Both of whom have been involved in CAGW.

      …It is instructive to read Strong’s 1972 Stockholm speech and compare it with the issues of Earth Summit 1992. Strong warned urgently about global warming, the devastation of forests, the loss of biodiversity, polluted oceans, the population time bomb. Then as now, he invited to the conference the brand-new environmental NGOs [non-governmental organizations]: he gave them money to come; they were invited to raise hell at home. After Stockholm, environment issues became part of the administrative framework in Canada, the U.S., Britain, and Europe.
      (wwwDOT)afn.org/~govern/strong.html

      Interview with Tim Wirth who organized the 1988 Senate hearing at which James Hansen addressed global warming. Wirth led the U.S. negotiating team at the Kyoto Summit. He is now president of the United Nations Foundation. These are his words about how he scammed Congress:

      …Believe it or not, we called the Weather Bureau and found out what historically was the hottest day of the summer…

      …. Dukakis was trying to get an edge on various things and was looking for spokespeople, and two or three of us became sort of the flacks out on the stump for Dukakis, making the separation between what Democratic policy and Republican policy ought to be. So it played into the presidential campaign in the summer of ’88 as well….

      So a number of things came together…

      … What we did it was went in the night before and opened all the windows, I will admit, right? So that the air conditioning wasn�t working inside the room and so when the, when the hearing occurred there was not only bliss, which is television cameras in double figures, but it was really hot. …

      So Hansen’s giving this testimony, you’ve got these television cameras back there heating up the room, and the air conditioning in the room didn’t appear to work. So it was sort of a perfect collection of events that happened that day, with the wonderful Jim Hansen, who was wiping his brow at the witness table and giving this remarkable testimony. …
      (wwwDOT)pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/interviews/wirth.html

      This is the SAME Tim Wirth that said: “We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” from his Dossier

      USA UN Framework Convention on Climate Change — signed 12/06/92
      here’s their official definition:

      “Climate change” means a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.
      web(DOT)archive.org/web/20140913102734/http://unfccc.int/files/documentation/text/html/list_search.php?what=keywords&val=&valan=a&anf=84&id=10

      That’s from the official UN Framework Convention on Climate Change

      The IPCC mandate is similar:

      The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established by the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to assess the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of human induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for mitigation and adaptation.
      (wwwDOT)ipcc-wg2.gov/

      So it never was about understanding the climate. It was really about ‘options for mitigation and adaptation. ‘ and this is the change wanted by the Globalists like the UN, the World Bank, and the WTO.

      The IPCC’s ROLE

      The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.
      (wwwDOT)ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf

      So there it is again. ONLY “human-induced climate change” is of interest and that is why you see very little work done on natural climate change.

      Worse it is the custom and practice of the IPCC for all of its Reports to be amended to agree with the political summaries. The facts are as follows.

      The Summary for Policymakers (SPM) is agreed “line by line” by politicians and/or representatives of politicians, and it is then published. After that the so-called ‘scientific’ Reports are amended to agree with the SPM. This became IPCC custom and practice of the IPCC when prior to its Second Report the then IPCC Chairman, John Houghton, decreed,

      “We can rely on the Authors to ensure the Report agrees with the Summary.”

      This was done and has been the normal IPCC procedure since then.

      So, IPCC custom and practice dictate that the AR5 report will be edited to match the SPM. This custom and practice enabled the infamous ‘Chapter 8′ scandal so perhaps it should – at long last – be changed.

      Such adjustment of Reports to agree with the SPM is stated in Appendix A of the AR5. It says

      4.6 Reports Approved and Adopted by the Panel
      Reports approved and adopted by the Panel will be the Synthesis Report of the Assessment Reports and other Reports as decided by the Panel whereby Section 4.4 applies mutatis mutandis.

      This is completely in accord with the official purpose of the IPCC.

      The IPCC does NOT exist to summarize climate science and it does not.

      The IPCC is only permitted to say AGW is a significant problem because they are tasked to accept that there is a “risk of human-induced climate change” which requires “options for adaptation and mitigation” that can be selected as political polices and the IPCC is tasked to provide those “options”.

      This is clearly stated in the “Principles” which govern the work of the IPCC. These are stated at
      (wwwDOT)ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf

      ******************************************************
      HIDDEN AWAY, SO NO ONE SEES, THEY TELL THE TRUTH. They have no friggin idea of what the climate is going to do.
      ****************************************************

      The IPCC admits the models aren’t worth spit.

      …in climate research and modeling we should recognise that we are dealing with a complex non linear chaotic signature and therefore that long-term prediction of future climatic states is not possible

      The IPCC itself tells us why the models will never be predictive beyond a very short time span.

      The IPCC said in the Science Report in TAR:

      …Projections of future climate change are not like weather forecasts. It is not possible to make deterministic, definitive predictions of how climate will evolve over the next century and beyond as it is with short-term weather forecasts. It is not even possible to make projections of the frequency of occurrence of all possible outcomes in the way that it might be possible with a calibrated probabilistic medium-range weather forecast. Projections of climate change are uncertain, firstly because they are primarily dependent on scenarios of future anthropogenic and natural forcings that are uncertain, secondly because of incomplete understanding and imprecise models of the climate system and finally because of the existence of internal climate variability. The term climate projection tacitly implies these uncertainties and dependencies…

      IPCC 2001 section 4.2.2.2 page 774

      Note the word PROJECTION. The IPCC switch from ‘prediction’ to ‘projection’ because they KNEW they can not predict climate. Therefore ‘95% certain’ especially in light of the failure of the model ensemble is a real laugh.
      ………………

      The IPCC itself, has seen the light ,thrown up its hands, and given up on calculating a meaningful climate sensitivity to CO2 – the AR5 SPM says ( hidden away in a footnote)

      No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies

    • Pete Demosthenes says:

      Lying dumb asses like you make it possible.

    • Jim Croft says:

      Fat al gore started filling NOAA with kooks after Clinton was elected. What amazes me is that anybody could believe this crap.after all NOAA can only predict the weather a few data in advance. Besides I live in Denver and the weather is never consistent yr to yr. l’ve scene snow on Sept 9 to warmth until on Nov 8 2014 that day it was 70 degrees at ~ 10:00 am and 0 degrees at midnight on the same day. I am a Gardner.

    • An Inquirer says:

      There is no fraud and conspiracy in — or even reasonable objections — to AGW. Where the objections emerge is in CAGW. Even in CAGW, I hesitate to use fraud and conspiracy. Yes, there has been conspiracy to prevent publication of skeptical papers, and, yes, much of the deception in the National Climate Assessment borders on fraud. However, probably even more in play are other phenomena such as confirmation bias, group think, tribalism, guilt, and political activism. Many scientific organization have not put their Global Warming position to vote, and they certainly have not allowed participation of skeptics in the discussion on the wording. While I do believe that the vote on almost all scientific organizations would be YES for AGW, I do not know what it would be if the choice was between AGW and CAGW. Certainly, skeptics have not been allowed to participate in the wording of the policy statements.

      This discussion could — and probably should — go on far longer than feasible in one post. I will try to come back to see if you wish to continue the discussion.

    • jas wat says:

      How is it possible that millions of Americans think it’s ok to steal from one person and give to another? How is it possible that millions of Americans think Trump said “all mexicans are rapists”? A lying media, catering to those with a leftist(emotional) view of the world, and a monetary incentive to push this false narrative, allowing “scientists”, deep in debt from their student loans, to have a purpose for being. That’s how.

    • JDHuffman says:

      Orogeny asks: “How would it be possible to get scientists all over the world…totally disconnected from each other, working in widely separated laboratories, in very different disciplines…all on one page with the “falsified” data?”

      Answer: $$$$$$

      Try dangling about 20 BILLION dollars, per year, in front of “climate scientists” unable to get a real job.

      • spawn44 says:

        Don’t forget the internet. It’s not like they have to communicate with carrier pigeons. It’s also no surprise that most are political leftists with many practicing noble science. They use the excuse it’s for our own good for them to propagandize a natural warming or cooling trend.

    • Kris Johanson says:

      With respect to your post, “How could this possibly be a conspiracy?”:

      Your definition of Conspiracy is way too narrow. See my above post on the legal definition/requirements for “Conspiracy”.

      You don’t need to show a giant, central hub sending out orders. All you need is an agreement to commit an unlawful act, and evidence that initial steps were made. You don’t even need fruition of the crime itself. It’s called an “inchoate” crime.

      Concerning evidence: JUST READ WHAT THE PERPETRATORS THEMSELVES WRITE to one another. Just read their communication. They’re busted. The curtain has been pulled back. This website specializes in showing examples of it.

    • Tom D Perkins says:

      Seriously, how did it take so long for Milliken’s Oil Drop error to be recognized?

      When you admit why, you’ll have your answer–for those not actively engaged in deliberate fraud.

    • Expialodocous says:

      If science funded by oil companies is corrupt because they stand to make money by debunking climate change then science funded by environmental groupsis corrupt because they make money by scaring people about climate change.

    • Andrei Bilderburger says:

      “How could such a conspiracy be set up?”

      The same way it is in chemistry, physics, materials science, medicine. A few senior scientists are influential peer reviewers for grants and publications. You say what they want to hear, you get good reviews, you get tenure, keep your job, etc. You say things they don’t want to hear you don’t get to publish it, don’t get grants, don’t keep your job.

      It’s no different than any star chamber proceeding throughout history. It’s not only possible but going on in most areas of government funded science today.

    • callmeBob says:

      How?
      Its really quite simple,
      $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
      That is all.

    • Woody says:

      Orogeny, it is a conspiracy of indolence by many who wish to simply put food on the table. Have you ever worked for the federal government? The overwhelming majority of employees including scientists are quite happy to go along to get along. There is a culture of mediocrity you will not find in the private sector. This culture is also susceptible to the rise of intellectual bullies as leaders. The joke we used to have was our leaders were never in doubt, seldom correct.

      Imagine yourself a bright, shiny young atmospheric physicist working for NOAA and you ask Phil Jones for his archived raw data so you can reproduce his results, try a new and improved in-filling algorithm and actually calculate real principle components, only to find he will not provide said data because he’s afraid you will “find problems with it”. You have become persona non grata. There is your conspiracy.

      The politicization of science and scientific bodies is something Eisenhower warned us of in his farewell speech to the nation in 1961, the same speech where he warned us of the growing “military industrial complex “. He was correct on both counts.

    • No Not Again says:

      You cut-and-paste lying bs as well as anybody. Virtually all these a priori assertions are either outright lies or gross distortions. If this is representative of the “logic” the AGW disciples regard as convincing, is it any wonder that the public has largely discarded this latest round of pseudo-scientific alarmism?

  16. Rud Istvan says:

    The endangerment finding is robust only in the narrow legal sense that the CAA mandated process was followed. It is not robust in a factual sense in several ways, reliance on NOAA being only one. Reliance on several provably biased or just ‘wrong’ IPCC AR4 inputs is another. So revision is one attack route, butbitnwould then be subject to litigation.
    Mass. v. EPA can be overturned by revising the CAA definition of a pollutant. Perhaps after the 2018 election as many more Dem senators than republicans are up for reelection. It is possiblemto wait, as CPP is staid pending constitutionality review and it won’t pass muster.

  17. Dick Tuck says:

    The democrat flunkies will politicize the contents of your recycle bin given half a chance.

  18. 202Paint says:

    Thanks for leading the fight. Did you happen to read the article posted in ZeroHedge titled: U.N. Official Admits Global Warming Agenda Is Really About Destroying Capitalism.

    Could provide the ‘why’ behind the fraud.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-03/un-official-admits-global-warming-agenda-really-about-destroying-capitalism

    • AndyG55 says:

      Like these riots stopping conservatives speaking in the US..

      Fingerprints of Soros all over them.

      Soros and the UN have their agenda…

      … an unelected one world bureaucratic dictatorship.

      • GW says:

        Yep.
        I can’t say what I want to about that guy. I’d get censored at the least. Investigated at the worst. I met him briefly at a party once years ago. He came across as charming; he was witty and engaging. I guess you have to be, in order to be the worlds biggest, most evil crook, AND get away with it.

    • Andrei Bilderburger says:

      They’d be fine with capitalism – as long as it is crony capitalism and they’re the cronies.

  19. jeff6times7 says:

    Is NOAA in the business of (a) truth or (b) being in business? Hmm. I’ll bet I can get a government grant to study this for about 20 years.

  20. Waldo Strum says:

    Meteorological “Science”?? — Bah Humbug

  21. saduslover says:

    Two points:

    1.) A corollary to “follow the money” applies here, One must only ask…who benefits from keeping the “global warming” threat real and alive? Answer: the academia who obtain grants to “study” the phenomenon and the governments, that gain power by controlling and regulating the energy and pollution industries.
    2.) The falsification and manipulation of temperature data is well, well documented. The biggest tragedy to me is that it makes an honest, open, intelligent and fact-based discussion of this topic virtually impossible. There are several separate but equally important questions that should be addressed: 1) Is the earth experiencing temperature and weather variations that are outside of the normal variations it has experienced in the (distant) past? Global weather conditions have, and will continue to exhibit significant variation. 2.) If the answer to 1. is “yes”, are these variations due to man’s activities? 3.) If the answer to 2. is “yes”, can we control and reduce the activities and are the approaches being discussed the only and best ones? 4.) If there is a problem, and if reducing and cleaning up the use of fossil fuels is the best or only option…how on earth is it reasonable or possible to allow 3rd world countries to operate with little or no regulations while imposing costly regulations on developed countries WITHOUT putting the developed countries at a serious economic disadvantage?

  22. John says:

    Let’s not jump to conclusions it’s rather simple to explain actually.
    The RGB (color) cartridge in the printer is low on yellow and blue. Mine prints almost everything red/pink when this happens.
    ;)
    (Good article!)

  23. Mass says:

    I know you want to be mad, but you have to work harder.

    Like so look for the stations?

    • David A says:

      Because stations exist does not mean they are used. Often less then to percent of the stations are used.

    • t2 says:

      And you can cross-verify this thru an independent agency?

      No?

      Then you are a credulous buffoon.

      Don’t believe everything you hear or read.

      You likely still “believe” that you live on a massive spinning ball hurtling thru emptiness; if you believe that over your own eyes you have bigger issues than the weather.

      Don’t do the bureaucrats’ work for free- at least get salaried for being a boob.

      • Steven Fraser says:

        Look at the published land surface map, and compare with the combined land/sea. If there are no data for the land in an area for the period, how can there be ‘record’ temps in the land/sea? Its a logical disconnect.

    • RAH says:

      Now which of those stations do you claim were used to generate the NOAA Land and Ocean percentage temperature map Mass?

    • An Inquirer says:

      Mass, I am not sure what point you were making in your post, but perhaps the following would be helpful to you:

      Sometimes what NOAA does is mysterious and sometimes skeptics need to back model in order to figure out what NOAA or GISS are doing. However, NOAA does provide us with quite a bit of information. NOAA does tell us what thermometers they use. Just because they do not use a thermometer does not mean that one does not exist. Skeptics often are able to go get the readings of missing thermometers. Furthermore, An increasing percentage of the time, NOAA does not actually get numbers from a thermometer, but rather they guesstimate what those thermometers might have said based on thermometers tens of kilometers — sometimes hundreds of kilometers, try 1600 km — away. We often find that thermometers not read are in rural areas and thermometers used to estimate their readings are in UHI-contaminated areas.

    • Kris Johanson says:

      Okay, I see a map of Africa with 30-40 weather stations….

      Why aren’t they being used? No one ever answers the question! Why aren’t they used?? It was pointed out on another post that 42 percent of global stations DO NOT IN FACT EXIST.

      If this is the single-most important national security issue, why don’t we blanket the globe with these things, so we can put the issue to rest?

      Why are there always gaping holes in the basic data-gathering apparatus? I’ve never heard an answer…and it doesn’t make sense!

      • Brad says:

        They did, it is called a satellite. But the data from the satellite is hard to manipulate because they where launch in the 70s when scientist knew what they where doing.

      • AndyG55 says:

        I did find some data from Central Africa once,

        Unfortunately it was late at night and I forgot to write down where exactly from.. all I have is a graph :-(

        Maybe one day I’ll bother going searching again.

        You can see why they would avoid this data.

        Absolutely ZERO warming trend.

        note , obviously some missing data around 1990

      • AndyG55 says:

        Not only that, but we have seen from the USA surface station, that they are in a deplorable state.

        Even in the USA a large percentage where severely UHI affected.

        One wonders what the ones they use from the rest of the world are like !!!

        Some out of the way stations may possibly be reasonably good, but you can bet a lot are at expanding airports, in growing urban areas, and very often badly maintained.

        It did put a challenge to any AGW fanatic. Show pictures of all the stations contributing to the temps in the yellow dots below.

        Not even Mosh or Nick took up the challenge. ;-)

    • Brad says:

      I did it and got a different answer. You forgot to click the air temperature box. Also, the noaa site inst very mobile friendly.

  24. Jim Hunt says:

    I don’t suppose you’ve ever considered looking at the satellite data have you Tony?

  25. Jerry Boggs says:

    As the layperson of laypersons, I’ve often wondered about what I call the “fireplace brick effect” on warming.

    See my explanation in:

    “Does the ‘fireplace-brick effect’ contribute to global warming?” http://relevantmatters.wordpress.com/2009/04/18/does-the-fireplace-brick-effect-contribute-to-global-warming/

  26. Bob Grise says:

    I was just looking at our local climate records for St. Cloud, MN. The top ten most 90 degree days in one year. The record is 36 and it happened in 1936. Out of the top ten, only one occurred in the past 79 years!!!!! That was 1988. If that says anything, it would be that our climate has become less extreme.

    • An Inquirer says:

      I think that there is widespread recognition that record of upward temperature trends are driven by higher night-time temperatures and higher winter temperatures.

      I must qualify my statement — “there is widespread recognition among objective, thinking analysts that . . . . ” There are politically driven folks — such as the authors of the NCA — who maintain that summer highs are increasing.

      • Andrei Bilderburger says:

        Aside from your statement is false, if it were true we should go light all the coal seams we can find on fire! That would be wonderfully good for civilization! Warmer winters, warmer nights, summer temperatures stay the same. What a nice place to live!

        Climate criminals never want to talk about actual facts. E. g. the Roman Empire flourished when the word was almost a degree (F) warmer, and fell when it cooled. The Romans were fed by the breadbasket of Rome, the verdant wheat fields that grew where the Sahara desert is now.

        Global warming would actually be good. No sane person can study history and not realize this.

  27. hammerstamp says:

    So much swamp to drain, so little help.

    • Robertv says:

      There is more than 100 years of swamp to drain.

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

      The blood that enabled the cancer to grow.

      • GW says:

        “The Creature From Jekyll Island”

      • Gail Combs says:

        Well said Robert.

        Note how the World Bank is closely intertwined with CAGW.

        1. Robert Watson was IPCC chair while employed by the World Bank.

        2. The leaked ‘Danish Text’ left ‘the UN Copenhagen climate talks in disarray’ — “The draft hands effective control of climate change finance to the World Bank; would abandon the Kyoto protocol – the only legally binding treaty that the world has on emissions reductions; and would make any money to help poor countries adapt to climate change dependent on them taking a range of actions.” — UK Guardian

        The World Bank is not held in very high regarded by those they ‘Helped’ in the past. They all know about the strings the World Bank attaches to any money they hand out. link

        3. World Bank Carbon Finance Report for 2007

        The carbon economy is the fastest growing industry globally with US$84 billion of carbon trading conducted in 2007, doubling to $116 billion in 2008, and expected to reach over $200 billion by 2012 and over $2,000 billion by 2020

        This is a fraud not an ‘industry.’ It produces nothing but poverty. It does not produce a single penny of wealth. Instead it acts as a short circuit across the advancement and wealth of an entire civilization by diverting time, money, resources and brain power in to useless activities.

        4. “The Network of Global Corporate Control” is run mainly by banks
        http://www.stwr.org/multinational-corporations/the-network-of-global-corporate-control.html

        The Top 50 Control Holders
        (wwwDOT)truth-out.org/news/item/4217:the-network-of-global-corporate-control#14862586375181&action=collapse_widget&id=0&data=

  28. TroyGale says:

    NOAA and NASA temperature data, slipshod and biased, but hey the most expensive data you can get.

  29. daveinga says:

    for my $$, climate science isn’t yet ready for prime time. too many people wanting a free ride on our dime. its common throughout the sciences. my 7 years at ksc & ccafs in the 90’s showed me the soft underbelly that the leeches have attached themselves to in our gov. (uncle sugar). the climate alarmists want our $$. imho, their main problem (science wise) is that there are just too many unknowns about our climate to be predicting the future. I found the following quote and cut/pasted it a while back, and it pretty much explains what all these bogus claims are about.

    from IBD: “If they were honest, the climate alarmists would admit that they are not working feverishly to hold down global temperatures — they would acknowledge that they are instead consumed with the goal of holding down capitalism and establishing a global welfare state.

    Have doubts? Then listen to the words of former United Nations climate official Ottmar Edenhofer:

    “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole,” said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.

    So what is the goal of environmental policy?

    “We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy,” said Edenhofer.

    For those who want to believe that maybe Edenhofer just misspoke and doesn’t really mean that, consider that a little more than five years ago he also said that “the next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.”

    Mad as they are, Edenhofer’s comments are nevertheless consistent with other alarmists who have spilled the movement’s dirty secret. Last year, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, made a similar statement.

    “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said in anticipation of last year’s Paris climate summit.

    “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”

    The plan is to allow Third World countries to emit as much carbon dioxide as they wish — because, as Edenhofer said, “in order to get rich one has to burn coal, oil or gas” — while at the same time restricting emissions in advanced nations. This will, of course, choke economic growth in developed nations, but they deserve that fate as they “have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community,” he said. The fanaticism runs so deep that one professor has even suggested that we need to plunge ourselves into a depression to fight global warming.”

  30. Daniel Zielinski says:

    Thanks for all your efforts on this, Mr. Heller.

  31. Castille says:

    The comments here deserve a riot or two – blasphemy. Even the League of Women Voters has signed on and runs Global Climate Change workshops. Not only is the weather warmer – ice is melting and we are all going to drown from sea level rise. Damn – this is settled science and we all know it.

    So we should all accept model temps instead of the real ones because the real ones are just anomalies to the model’s facts.

    Government grants and extortion of industry is de rigeur in the “scientific” community. Such wonderful men and women of science. Pure, honest and devoted.

    • Gail Combs says:

      The Pure, honest and devoted scientists get fired A LOT!

      • Andrei Bilderburger says:

        Yes. Recall cases like Dr. Margot O’Toole. The only person in her research group to do the right thing. Consequence? Long term unemployment.

        The guy who did the wrong thing? Consequence? Nobel prize, high academic position.

        The actual criminal who did the dirty work? Only outed after 8 years because of intense pressure which caused an FBI investigation. Ordinarily she would have gotten away with it. Most of the time (based on personal knowledge) people in that sort of situation do get away with research fraud.

  32. RobertM says:

    Perhaps it is just me, but it seems that science is in big trouble when a “scientist” says that data can withstand a LEGAL assault.

  33. Bart says:

    Congrats on getting linked by Drudge

  34. heartdude says:

    I live in California. The “experts” didn’t predict the torrential rains we’ve had this winter. Totally missed it. They can’t accurately predict whether next year will be wet or dry. Why do they think they know how much the temperature will increase, or the sea will rise 50 or 100 years from now?

    • Francisco Machado says:

      The Obama administration recently fired a scientist in AGW research who published an heretical opinion. They probably didn’t write him a letter of recommendation, either. Throwing mutineers overboard motivates the remainder of the crew to fall in line. If government had a real interest in research, they wouldn’t be funding only one narrow approach. That represents a predetermined result seeking scientific confirmation – like the many mathematicians creating formulas for the movement of the planets that would accommodate a heliocentric universe.

    • Andrei Bilderburger says:

      It’s a lot easier to pretend when your BS isn’t mooted by mother nature until after you retire. Hence make all predictions for 5o years from now.

  35. Jimmy Haigh says:

    When the scam started in the late 80’s there were but a handful of ‘climate scientists’. Then the money started rolling in and the scam snowballed with it.

  36. Neal Ramsey says:

    Everyone in upper and middle management from every gov agency needs fired and replaced. The left have been methodical in eradicating opposition and so the gov is awash with leftist willing to do anything to turn country communist.

  37. Joe Allen says:

    How do you define SCIENCE … ????

    SCIENCE should be our LEAST CONTROVERSIAL body of knowledge, because SCIENCE tests each Hypothesis against reality via the SCIENTIFIC METHOD (designed, repeatable experiments). 

    Here’s the CLASSICAL DEFINITION of SCIENCE:

    SCIENCE is a body of knowledge that has been established by means of, and only by means of, the SCIENTIFIC METHOD (ie, designed, repeatable experiments).

    Unfortunately, today we have many dishonest SCIENTISTS who are using a fraudulent definition of SCIENCE that replaces the Scientific Method with a CONSENSUS. Here’s their fraudulent definition of SCIENCE:

    SCIENCE is a body of knowledge that has been established by means of a CONSENSUS (ie: politics, egotism, greed, etc).

    For example, these dishonest Scientists tell us that (1) Man-Caused Global Warming and (2) the Normalcy of Homosexuality and (3) Darwinian Macro-Evolution, have been established as SCIENCE by means of a “CONSENSUS among experts.”

    • Andrei Bilderburger says:

      Problem is you can’t get grants to replicate experiments, so fraud is rampant. Nobody checks up on each other. Thus there is no more science in the USA since there is government money involved.

      Science = reproducible observation. This does mean the experiments have to be repeated by others for it to be scientific.

      • Steven Fraser says:

        Perhaps theymshould, and pay ambonus if the subsequent researchers can disprove the conclusions of a previous paper… cause it’s retraction.

  38. michmike says:

    The personal behavior of 1% of the U. S. population results in their CO2 footprint being 50 TIMES that of the average of the other 99%. This surprises no one. But what people don’t realize is this means this small group is responsible for more than 33% of ALL U. S. CO2 emissions and were this small group to only emit 25 TIMES the average of everyone else, OVERALL U. S. CO2 emissions would immediately (not over decades) decline 17%. Can ANY of you AGW folks please explain why all the plans being implemented and proposed will allow this small group to continue their behavior unabated while financially hammering the lower income and middle classes, just for being alive. PLEASE hurry for you believe this to be an emergency (because they same people have told you so) and YOU could change the trajectory of the discussion with this SIMPLE explanation. Should we all wait here?

    • Francisco Machado says:

      This small group must be permitted to continue their behavior unabated because they are the ones supporting AGW, like Al Gore, who fly private jets to exotic locations for conferences on how to increase the cost of power, reduce its use and move taxpayer money to companies (in which they hold financial interest) that wouldn’t even rationally be suggested in a competitive world. Just an example of the hypocrisy: We still have, with proposals for its increase, RFS – ethanol additive – which contains an oxidizer that wreaks havoc on fuel systems, is less efficient, more polluting and less stable than gasoline.

  39. Robertv says:

    OT For all those who want to feel at home when visiting Barcelona,

    http://obamabcn.com/

  40. canes58 says:

    the head of nasas climate dept and noaa are ardent priests of the religion that this pseudo science has become. we are back to the flat earth society age! where to claim otherwise was to be burned at the stake!

  41. suibne says:

    THOSE 33 MILLION VIEWERS THAT TUNED IN TO WATCH WHO TRUMP PICKED FOR THE SUPREME COURT WILL BE OUT ON THE STREETS TO WIPE THEM CLEAN OF THE FKN SNOT NOSED LEFTIST TRAITORS…..GUARANFKNTEED. DEMOCRATS: THEY NAME IS TREASON. AMERICA: leftist socialist traitors are still trying to steal your election and will do anything to succeed. They are trying to convince others to break the law, insult our constitution, and disrespect the process and the actions of the President you elected to implement your wishes. THEY ARE FOMENTING CIVIL UNREST AND USING VIOLENCE AND THREATS OF VIOLENCE. ….THEY MUST BE STOPPED NOW. DEMAND THEY BE ARRESTED AND PROSECUTED BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE……THEY ARE TREACHEROUS IN THE EXTREME ….and when Americans find out the extent of the treachery the Democrat criminals in congress they will punish them in a way they will be able to bear. I am a plain warner …..YOU NEED TO BE READY.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Need Jeff Sessions and others in place first. Need to gather data/facts and THEN go after the heads of the snake pit.

      Sedition laws are plentiful so be patient.

  42. CO2isLife says:

    This entire field is corrupt, and this isn’t the only example of data tampering.
    Climate “Science” on Trial; Data Chiropractioners “Adjust” Data
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/01/29/climate-science-on-trial-data-chiropractioners-manipulate-data/

    To make matter worse, the cost of fighting this Quixotic war on climate change is measured in the multiples of world GDP.
    Just How Much Does 1 Degree C Cost?
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/01/25/just-how-much-does-1-degree-c-cost/

  43. Jim Hunt says:

    I still haven’t got a life, but I have had another bright idea! Can you implement this one too Tony?

    “TLT brightness temperature” isn’t quite the same thing as “land surface temperature” is it? Is there any way you can fix that for me?

  44. Bruno says:

    As a novice to this discussion, I would like to know what is the earth’s normal or ideal temperature?
    If earth temperatures are warming, are we moving toward the ideal or away from it?
    Did the melting of the great ice sheets 50 or more millennia ago start because of the appearance of Cro Magnon? Which was the cause and which the effect?
    Why did the Viking explorers name that ice covered island NorthEast of Canada Greenland?
    Was the Little Ice Age real? Was it before the Industrial Revolution?
    Would the world be better off or worse off if all the land in Canada and Siberia became agricultural land?
    If population is the cause of global warming why do we not demand that China and India sterilize their women?
    Just asking.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Here you go. Take your pick of “normal’ temperature for earth.
      (This is why those with knowledge of geology don’t fall for the CAGW scam.)

    • Francisco Machado says:

      For most of its history, the earth has been somewhat warmer than the present temperature and we do appear to be, on the grand scale, on the temperature upturn since the last major ice age. On that long scale, the descent into ice ages and the recovery is fairly steep and ice ages are relatively short compared to periods at a higher temperature. On these time scales, “normal” is a meaningless term and while “ideal” is very subjective, warmer seems to have favored life more than colder – which just might not be “our” life.

    • AndyG55 says:

      Even the last 10,00 years is probably something like this, especially in the northern hemisphere

      As you can see, we are actually aa cooler party of this interglacial, below the Medieval Warm Period, and significantly below the Roman Warm period and the first 3/4 of the Holocene.

      There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING unprecedented or untoward about the current climate.

      • AndyG55 says:

        ps.. The drop down from the Minoan period even has a geological name “NEOGLACIATION”. Look it up in google

        That is the period when Antarctic and Arctic ice caps, glaciers, etc started to extend

        There are many papers showing that summers in the Arctic were often SEA ICE FREE in the first 3/4 of the Holocene, so don’t listen to the Arctic sea ice con-men. They are DENYING climate history.

    • gator69 says:

      As a novice to this discussion, I would like to know what is the earth’s normal or ideal temperature?

      There is no such thing as “normal” in climate or weather.

  45. a p garcia says:

    Sounds like both agencies deserve a cut in their budget!

  46. John Dunlap says:

    I noticed that the two maps are for slightly different data sets. One is land only, the other is land and ocean temps. I also noted the differences in land temperatures between the two maps. This helps explain the discrepancy, from their FAQ (bottom link on the left hand menu, data and maps page):

    “7. Why use temperature anomalies (departure from average) and not absolute temperature measurements?
Absolute estimates of global average surface temperature are difficult to compile for several reasons. Some regions have few temperature measurement stations (e.g., the Sahara Desert) and interpolation must be made over large, data-sparse regions. In mountainous areas, most observations come from the inhabited valleys, so the effect of elevation on a region’s average temperature must be considered as well. For example, a summer month over an area may be cooler than average, both at a mountain top and in a nearby valley, but the absolute temperatures will be quite different at the two locations. The use of anomalies in this case will show that temperatures for both locations were below average.
Using reference values computed on smaller [more local] scales over the same time period establishes a baseline from which anomalies are calculated. This effectively normalizes the data so they can be compared and combined to more accurately represent temperature patterns with respect to what is normal for different places within a region.
For these reasons, large-area summaries incorporate anomalies, not the temperature itself. Anomalies more accurately describe climate variability over larger areas than absolute temperatures do, and they give a frame of reference that allows more meaningful comparisons between locations and more accurate calculations of temperature trends.
”

    Not to put too fine a point on it, they are guessing, and then averaging out the guesses.

  47. Windsong says:

    Meanwhile today, we learn the Karl, et al, 2015, “pausebuster” paper is just plain busted. Rushed, never archived, and in a high-stakes version of “the dog ate my homework,” the computer with all the paper’s data crashed, as in died.
    https://judithcurry.com

  48. Joe says:

    The whole concept measuring global temperature with mercury thermometers to fractions of a degree is ridiculous. They are covering less then 2% of the surface with their measurements. Watch a local news report sometime and notice how each county has several degree variance in temperature

    I don’t even buy the satellite stuff, but it’s certainly better than this.

    The only real measure of the trend in global temperature with any accuracy are the tidal gauges.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Accuracy of the tidal gauges also sucks due to land subsidence due to fill, draining of swamp… For example New Orleans is sinking because water logged soil has been drained.
      http://www.guttertogulf.com/Why-is-New-Orleans-sinking

      And then there is glacial rebound.

      A NASA model of current surface elevation change due to post-glacial rebound and the reloading of sea basins with water. Canada, Northern Europe, and Antarctica are all currently rebounding at a rate of a few millimetres per year. More water in the oceans as a result of ice sheet melting is slowly depressing sea basins. Satellites are used to observe differences over time. http://basementgeographer.com/glacial-isostatic-adjustment/

      https://i0.wp.com/basementgeographer.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/PGR_Paulson07_big.jpg

      PEER-REVIEWED PAPERS PROVING SEA LEVEL IS NOT RISING

      Notice the area where Roman sea ports are inland is tectonically stable according to NASA.
      List of Roman Sea Ports found inland
      (Has great pictures and maps.)

      Mid to late Holocene sea-level reconstruction of Southeast Vietnam using beachrock and beach-ridge deposits

      ….backshore deposits along the tectonically stable south-eastern Vietnamese coast document Holocene sea level changes…..reconstructed for the last 8000 years….The rates of sea-level rise decreased sharply after the rapid early Holocene rise and stabilized at a rate of 4.5 mm/year between 8.0 and 6.9 ka. Southeast Vietnam beachrocks reveal that the mid-Holocene sea-level highstand slightly above + 1.4 m was reached between 6.7 and 5.0 ka, with a peak value close to + 1.5 m around 6.0 ka….
      (wwwDOT)sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818113001859

      Translation the sea level was up to 1.5 meters higher than today in a tectonically stable area ~5000 years ago to 2000 years ago. Tectonically stable area refers to areas devoid of deformation such as all processes which modify the external form of the crust. For example unidirectional vertical movements, plate tectonics and also the rise and fall of the solid earth surface, especially in coastal areas.

      Sea-level highstand recorded in Holocene shoreline deposits on Oahu, Hawaii

      Unconsolidated carbonate sands and cobbles on Kapapa Island, windward Oahu, are 1.4-2.8 (+ or – 0.25) m above present mean sea level (msl)…we interpret the deposit to be a fossil beach or shoreline representing a highstand of relative sea level during middle to late Holocene time. Calibrated radiocarbon dates of coral and mollusc samples, and a consideration of the effect of wave energy setup, indicate that paleo-msl was at least 1.6 (+ or – 0.45) m above present msl prior to 3889-3665 cal. yr B.P, possibly as early as 5532-5294 cal. yr B.P., and lasted until at least 2239-1940 cal. yr B.P
      jsedres(DOT)geoscienceworld.org/content/66/3/632.abstract

      This study shows a sea level highstand ~1.6 meter above the present level from ~5500 years ago to 2000 years ago.

      Late Quaternary highstand deposits of the southern Arabian Gulf: a record of sea-level and climate change

      Abstract
      …..It has therefore been necessary to infer the ages of these sediments by a comparison of their stratigraphy and elevation with deposits known from other parts of the world. We regard this approach as valid because the southern Gulf coastline lacks evidence for significant widespread neotectonic uplift,…….
      …..Widespread evidence exists for a Holocene sea level higher than at present in the southern Arabian Gulf, indicating that it peaked at 1–2 m above present level, c. 5.5 ka bp……. sp(DOT)lyellcollection.org/content/195/1/371.refs

      This study shows a sea level highstand ~1 to 2 meters above the present level about ~5500 years ago.

      Sea Level Changes Past Records and Future Expectations

      For the last 40-50 years strong observational facts indicate virtually stable sea level conditions. The Earth’s rate of rotation records an [average] acceleration from 1972 to 2012, contradicting all claims of a rapid global sea level rise, and instead suggests stable, to slightly falling, sea levels.
      multi-science(DOT)metapress.com/content/q7j3kk0128292225/

    • AndyG55 says:

      Sydney is probably one of the most stable sites available…

      it is showing about 0.65mm/year

      although a geo survey did show a sinkage of about 0.2mm/year in a five year period , wished I’d book-marked it :-(

      So maybe 0.45mm/year. SCARY hey.

      All I know is that the sea doesn’t seem to have risen at all in the 50 or so years I have lived on the NSW coast, although I doubt anyone would notice 32mm over 50 years when the tides move up and down by over 1.5m

      http://tides.willyweather.com.au/nsw/hunter/newcastle.html

      • scott allen says:

        Andy try this one at kronstadt has been operational since 1770’s shows less than a 1 mm rise since then and no rapid rise in the 20th century.
        http://www.psmsl.org/data/longrecords/ReportsFGI_2000_1.pdf

        and remember all those Pacific Islands that are getting flooded due to rising sea level. not so much as they show not much sea level rise in the last 30 years.

        http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO70059/IDO70059SLI.shtml

        but maybe the Australian Bureau of Meteorology is a secret Trump support group.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Sydney STABLE???

        The Australian plate is the fastest continental plate on the planet, moving northwards and slightly to the east by about 2.7 inches (7cm) each year.
        http://www.treehugger.com/gadgets/australia-getting-new-longitude-and-latitude-keep-accurate.html

        Australia experiencing that sinking feeling

        …”Australia is generally a stable continent with plate boundaries at its distant edges, however it has an unusual sea level history compared with the rest of the world,” says Earthbyte Group Coordinator Professor Dietmar Müller.

        “That research also revealed that as the Australian continent drifted north from Antarctica during the past 50 million years, it subsided by up to 300 metres and tilted to the north.”…

        “Sea floor spreading on the South East Indian Ridge moved the Australian continent rapidly away from Antarctica and towards the subduction zones of South East Asia where oceanic plates, or slabs, sink back into the mantle.”

        These subduction zones are known as ‘slab graveyards’.

        “As the northern edge of Australia rode over the slab burial grounds, the relatively dense, dark rocks making up oceanic plates were pulled into the subduction zone, while the lighter quartz-based continental rocks floated over the top.

        “This caused the northern edge of Australia to tilt 200 metres and for shallow seas to form as the coast gradually flooded.”

        But the model didn’t explain why the entire continent subsided by at least a further 100 metres….

        Given the speed at which Australia is still travelling north, I would expect it is still subsiding on the southern side.

        Sydney is also sitting on a river delta.

  49. Windsong says:

    Lol. I wasn’t fast enough. Tony, o/t, but enough snow to be a nuisance is forecast for Puget Sound area Mon. and Tue. Please be sure to add extra ground travel time if even two snowflakes manage to land intact on a roadway. Will make it down to Oly if I can.
    Don

  50. Dan says:

    So the color spectrum is now a tool for goober warming?

  51. Joe says:

    Total scam; recently the U.N. chief climate wizard admitted this is all about changing the world’s “economic model,” an admission that mirrors other admissions from other climate shamans about global wealth redistribution. That anyone, other than those who are paid climate worshipers, still believes this bollix is beyond belief.

    • Mack Richburg says:

      I agree with you totally. I have had my head wrapped with duct tape for years to keep it from exploding over the lunacy.

  52. Bill says:

    So fucking what? If you’re a climate scientist, you know the strengths and weaknesses of each data set. From what I understand, this one uses statistical methods to fill in the gaps in data. Anyone using this data in their research would know that. It’s not a fucking conspiracy. Good job though on misleading your ignoramus audience.

    • gator69 says:

      From: Tom Wigley
      To: Phil Jones
      Subject: 1940s
      Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
      Cc: Ben Santer

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

      https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/21/removing-the-1940s-blip-2/

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      I see your faith is strong but how will you weather the schism in the Church of Climate, Bill?

    • Woody says:

      A wise man once said in a song, “If you believe in things you don’t understand, you suffer.” Your simple belief in “climate scientists”, whoever they may be, means nothing. Which data set and version do you have the most confidence in and why? Can you explain the smoothing algorithm NOAA uses and whether or not it is appropriate for the amount of in-filling required? What is your opinion on Michael Mann’s use of principle components? Do you find it odd that every revision to NOAA data sets cools the past and warms the present?

    • Ornley Gumfudgen says:

      Since it’s obvious that you don’t know much about anything Bill I wonder how you can put so much faith into something you just don’t understand. Never had an ‘educated’ person lie to you? How would you know one way or other that he lied? Oh right, he has that piece of paper that says he knows what he’s talking about. Say, didn’t the scarecrow looking for a brain in the Wizard of Oz get his paper that told the world that he knew what he was talking about? When it comes to misleading an ignoramus audience this article certainly sucked you in now didn’t it. But so fucking what? Right? Lets not worry about the billions of humans on this planet that these lies negatively impact. It’s OK the liars get their money either way so fucking what?

  53. Richard Brown says:

    In my 52 years of life I thought I had seen it all. Then Obama got elected. Jungles are Rainforests (George of the Rainforest, that really sucks), sex is gender which vexes me, global warming has given way to climate change, what happened to the ozone hole (not the one in Gore’s head), the GW alarmists all have private planes and big SUVs, and the best one, Al Gore’s net worth is 2000 was $700,000 and 2.9 million which includes his mansion. Al Gore is now worth $174 MILLION as of 2015. You are an idiot if you think global climate warming change is in the least bit happening. It is called the WEATHER. And the last I looked, the Sahara desert and Death Valley are still desert climates. Where’s the change?

    • Robertv says:

      ‘global redistribution of wealth’

    • Ornley Gumfudgen says:

      I can’t tell you much about the other things but I can tell you about the ozone hole. It’s still there doing what it has always done even since we stopped using CFCs. No change at all and still a slave to the Earth’s magnetism and Solar energy. But shush, they don’t want you to think of the global economy that suffered as a result of feeble attempts to close it. And rest assured, the Polar Bear population above the article circle is safe, as long as we can keep the game hunters and preservationists away from them. Polar Bears are endangered, or so they tell us. So lets go out and kill one to dissect him to see how they are all doing. As you can probably tell I have had my fill of junk science and those who practice it.

  54. Howard feinski says:

    I for one am in favor of globaal warming. Can it, pack it up, and send it pronto to upstate New York!

    • Gail Combs says:

      I gave up and MOVED from upstate New York. First to the Boston area and then North Carolina. I LIKE not shoveling snow.

  55. Johnmann says:

    An excellent photo album used to exist online of NOAA-NASA thermometers that had been placed in “scientific” locations around the USA, to measure global warming. Hundreds of these photos showed thermometer units which had been mounted in heat-compromised locations… such as on concrete slabs in direct sunlight, or in office compounds only a few feet from electric generators or window air-conditioning units… which raised individual thermometer readings 5-10 degrees F. The overall effect was an increase in temperature, nationwide. The scam of falsifying global warming data was clearly evident. Time to bring such evidence back online, and shed light on the extent of the global warming lie, and its fabricators who have posed as scientists these many decades.

    • AndyG55 says:

      There is a set-up called USCRN operating since 2005.

      It’s is state of the art, evenly space, unaffected by UHI etc etc

      It shows basically ZERO warming apart from the 2010 El Nino transient and a broad based transient from the latest El Nino, which is tilting the linear trend up slightly (which is why you shouldn’t put linear trends across transients)

      It matches the satellite data over the USA rather well, but is a bit more responsive to peaks and troughs in the temperature..

    • Gail Combs says:

      The photos were at
      http://www.surfacestations.org/

      Others at WUWT.

      I think Anthony removed them because others like BEST were stealing his work. He now has a paper published and the photos maybe there.

      They maybe here
      http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwdi~ASOSPhotos

    • Ornley Gumfudgen says:

      When we went to the moon and I was given the task to analyze the photos I mentioned that I felt some of them were fake. The fiducial marks etched into the lens of the camera should appear on film as if they are on top of the photographed subject as they are between the subject and the film. But on many of the photos the fiducial marks appeared behind the subject. How can this be? So those photos were removed with the question’s about them unanswered.
      Then there was the lighting on the surface of the moon. Little to know shadow would mean that the sun was overhead with the Earth not visible because you would be looking at the night side of the Earth. But there in the photographs were no shadows from the subject and the limb of the Earth was fully illuminated. Now how can that be? So those photos were sequestered away from public view. Then there were photos that showed shadows in different directions. Now can that be with the sun as the source of the light? So, those photos were removed from public view. I am also wondering that since high altitude commercial flight on an SST was subject to maximum exposure to radiation levels which meant that flight crews could only work a specific number of those flights before being permanently removed from those flights as the radiation exposure was considered to be cumulative. But our astronauts were exposed to such high levels of radiation for weeks, and in the case of the ISS, protected by no more of a shield that was the skin of the spacecraft thinner than a dime and made from aluminum. Someone is not exactly telling us the full story are they? Could it be because much of what they tell us is fabricated for the effect of garnering more money? Sorry but my highly technical mind has questions that no one seems to have valid answers for except to sequester the information away so that no one else can ask the questions. Sort of reminds me of the discovery of the Heidelberg man and the non-existent brontosaurus. It’s also akin to the claim by scientists where the science has been settled that it takes thousands of years for ole Terrible Hurburst to decay into crude oil yet two Washington State post graduates are making their fortunes by producing crude oil from algae in a couple of hours in their factory in Oregon. So, what’s up with that little inconvenient lie Al Gore?

  56. CarzyHungarian says:

    NOAA is the source of the biggest data fraud since Milli Vanilli.

  57. Joe says:

    The FRAUD perpetrated under Obama alone is massive.

    However this started 25 years ago.

  58. Snailmailtrucker says:

    NASA is a Complete Fraud !

  59. Anonymous says:

    The “space” program lied like a billion times. And there are no satellites. The Earth is “Flat” . Don’t believe ? Look up “Astrolabe” , and, attempt to explain why the star constilations have NEVER changed. Yet, they taught us all we are on a ball spinning three ways in “space”.

  60. Advocatus Diaboli says:

    Just to make sure this noob understands…

    In the world maps above, the map labeled “NOAA Thermometer Data” is what the measuring devices (thermometers) actually recorded, whereas the map labeled “NOAA Reported” is what NOAA broadcasts to the public?

    Could we say that the former is what the actual data says, and the latter is what NOAA says the data says? Something else?

    Thanks, I’m trying to hone my arguments.

  61. Mister Anon says:

    @whoever wrote this article:
    Your political agenda is obvious, and so is your lack of understanding of science.
    Those temperature data are not measured, but they are also not made up. How whether works is very well known, and this knowledge has led to very accurate interpolation algorithms. Interpolation is the process of fillng in missing data, based on known data, and knowledge of how the system being measured works. How weather works is VERY well known. Furthermore, there are many places in world where temperature data is known. As a result, the missing temperature data can easily be calculated. It is NOT simply made up by a bunch of people sitting around and telling lies. These are the results of very complicated math formulas that are obviously well beyond your ability to understand.

    • TimboA says:

      This isn’t Al is it?

    • gator69 says:

      How weather works is VERY well known.

      Yes, that is why all the alarmist models fail, and why we cannot get accurate weather forecasts more than 3 days out.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8GwT7ZotCg

    • Kelvin says:

      You just said they could be “easily calculated” then “very complicated math formulas” Furthermore, therefore, Science man speak with forked tongue

    • RAH says:

      Mister Anon

      Please show us the long range forecasts that predicted the “permanent drought” ending heavy snows and rains that California had. You can’t because they didn’t! So what are you basing your claims that “how whether works is very well known”?

      You really don’t have to show those forecasts because I have them for you from NOAA .
      http://unofficialnetworks.com/2016/07/2017-winter-weather-forecast-long-range-prediction-from-noaa

      As you can see NOAA didn’t even come close to predicting the extent or magnitude of the weather that has busted the California drought. Just as they didn’t come close to predicting the weather that busted the drought in Texas previously.

    • D. Gregory says:

      It seems to me that interpolation is only a valid method when the total parameters of the macro set are known and therefore, by inference, we can fill in the blanks in some situations.

      For example, code breaking can work this way. Let’s say we know that the opposition has transmitted a list of three generals who might be chosen to lead the next battle. If we know all 50 enemy generals and we decode a few letters, then by pattern matching and inference, we can construct viable guesses with such precision that the name “G_n_ral Fr_d Jon_s” becomes obvious. In fact, ordinary people do this same task on Wheel of Fortune all day long.

      However, if we do not have any temperature measuring stations in a given location, then that is akin to trying solve for “General Fred Jones” using an alphabet with no letter “e” in it.

      In other words, you can’t rationally interpolate into a new set from an old set which completely lacks all aspects of the elements your new set needs to be valid.

      Only after you actually have a significant number of accurate temperature readings from all grid-wide locations over a long period of time, can you then *occasionally* paint a picture without reading the local number in all the locations.

      Systems inevitably diverge sand weather is a highly variable, shifting global system. Thus, the system of measurement you use must closely match what is actually happening locally, not what you speculative impute into your guess as to what might or should be happening.

      In other words, weather (and temperature) is measured with statistics and forecasted with probability. You however, seem to be advocated that we build our forecasting models on pseudo-statistics which were generated with probability models.

      And frankly, if you can see the flaw in your reasoning, then you should be a public pension actuary for the state of Illinois. Because they, like you, don’t seem to know how to handle the most basic math principle of all: GIGO.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Mister Anon says:

      “@whoever wrote this article:
      Your political agenda is obvious, and so is your lack of understanding of science.”

      Showing his ignorance….

      Nothing like starting off with an Ad Hom LIE aimed at a guy with a degree in science AND a degree in Engineering…

      Someone who is a lifelong environmentalist who rides a bike, almost never uses heat or cooling. Who testified at his first Congressional subcommittee hearing at age 15 in support of a wilderness area – very close to one President Obama recently set aside. AND who worked to get the Clean Air Act passed.

      Tony is WHAT you can not hope to be. A true scientist and environmentalist.

      Go crawl back under your bridge.

    • Ornley Gumfudgen says:

      For certain you don’t understand them.
      So lets dissect your BS here.
      While our weather, not whether, is something we can see we still don’t know all that much about it. If we did we’d be able to predict weather more than two to three days out, which they still can’t do.
      If you don’t measure the temperature how do you know what the temperature is? Still trying to get my mind around that one. So let’s talk about your “very accurate interpolation algorithms.” Accurate? Well as far as how their program, your algorithm, performs, it’s accurate in that if you use the same data over and over again you will get the same results. But that is not the accuracy we are talking about here, we are talking about the accuracy of what they are telling us will happen to the future and offering a reason why they think it will happen. In the technical world, it’s called dry labbing your data. You call it interpolation, which is actually a way of manufacturing date but does not tell you that data is correct or not. It all depends on who wrote the program and the number of data points entered into it to give the results. And when you know how to manufacture those numbers you can easily have your program, your algorithm, give you the results that you desire. You say the missing temperature data can be easily be calculated but is the results of very complicated math formulas that are beyond the understanding of others. Easy but impossible to understand. Do you see the oxymoron in your statement? And you expect people to look at your comment with any amount of credibility? No sir, it’s your personal agenda an politics that’s showing here. What you, NOAA and NASA have forgotten is how to employ the scientific principal necessary to generate facts and not suppositions.

  62. Robert Terry says:

    Who cares if it is record hot? The real question is do we contribute to the weather? Not at all. If we had only one job as humanity with all our efforts we could not change the temperature. Since 1850 mankind has put 100 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere. Nature puts in 200 billion tons every year. One third of one percent.

  63. tonym says:

    I’m suspicious of any “scientific” claims about climate prediction and about anticipated outcomes. How does one model a chaotic gyre — like that of our atmosphere?? Simply making a conflated analogy between a certain parameter, say CO2, and the global temperature absent other considerations is faulty at best…and disingenuous at worst.

    The climate “scientists” are pure and simple trying to predict the future. These erstwhile Nostradamuses would better spend their time cogitating lottery winning schemes or breaking the houses in Vegas as they would “modeling” our atmosphere. I honestly see this in the same league as a Ponzi scheme or some other scheme to defraud suckers. Because absent real time mitigating circumstances (changes in solar output, major volcanic eruptions, etc.) the climate “predictions” are about as accurate as those from a phone-in psychic.

    When you add to all this the gross manipulation of current and historic temperature (as shown in this article) for whatever purpose, any claims of accuracy or predictions of trends become suspicious, fraudulent and nefarious in nature.

  64. fLAATEARTHER says:

    NASA has been lying and faking things for 50 years including the Apollo moon landings, Mars Rover, Space Station, Satellites and space travel. It’s not much of a stretch to believe they also fake climate data.

  65. fLATEARTHER says:

    NASA lies about everything.

    • Ornley Gumfudgen says:

      Not everything. Some of the stuff they have done is right on target. But you are right, they do lie and tell some pretty good whoppers. Now NOAA? I can’t remember reading anything where they have not lied. I know several of their employees and they avoid me because I always ask the difficult question to expose their lies. Saw one on the grocery store the other day. When he saw me he turned and booked for the door. All I could do was laugh.

  66. Sam Kahn says:

    there’s so much more red than blue, are you sure it’s not the map of who voted for trump?

  67. Sam Kahn says:

    Always keep your bowler on in times of stress; watch out for diabolical climate data!

  68. Allan Crawfoed says:

    Global Warming is Globalism not science.

  69. Flippy Hambone says:

    Fake science…

    The Democrats killed science and reason.

    • Ornley Gumfudgen says:

      Always remember, theories are not facts and facts based on theories presented as fact are not facts either. They are still theories. Which explains why no one can predict weather much more than a couple of days out. But these bozos will tell you what it’s going to be like 5, 10, 100 years in the future if we don’t do what they tell us to do. Right, and I am supposed to believe them?

  70. Jack Frazier says:

    Climate change is real. Global warming is a ‘subset’. See NOASA’s phony, discredited reports.

  71. Jack Frazier says:

    I’m a reader of science and believe in the sun, volcanoes (tectonic plates, etc. ), surface & undersea.

  72. John Smith says:

    you do understand that noaa weather satellites can read surface temps from space. they dont need a local thermometer.

    • tonyheller says:

      What utter nonsense.

    • AndyG55 says:

      really John.. you have shown that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

      NOAA doesn’t use the satellites for the surface data, the use surface station which in reality cover a small fraction of the surface , even though they pretend a single thermometer can cover some 25o km² or whatever.

      They then smear that surface data everywhere with a red pen, fabricating and adjusting large amounts of the data in a pretence to get a surface temperature that trend upwards.

      The satellite are used by RSS and UAH.. so lets compare shall we…

      Here are trends this century for GISS (fabricated from sparse surface data see the map, grey means NO DATA) and RSS and UAH the two satellite data sets.

      • Ornley Gumfudgen says:

        Good response but way to technical for most people. Having worked on satellites and ground equipment for decades I totally agree with you. For one, satellite sensors still today do not have the repeatability nor the precision for them to make the statements they issue to the public. For that matter neither do the earth bound measurement stations that do not get the maintenance they need and have other local climate factors that make their readings inaccurate and unusable. The station in Redding CA is an excellent one. When it was installed in the middle 50’s it was literally out in the middle of no where. Today, and it has not moved, it sits behind the tarmac where the jet aircraft warm up their engines before take off and is subject directly to the jet exhaust. But they still use it to predict weather. There are many others that have this problem but few people ever question it. Incidentally, it’s not fun to work on that station when you are in the way of a jet’s exhaust. Noisy and hot. Then there is the faulty wind data collected but they factor that out too.

    • Ornley Gumfudgen says:

      Do you understand how incorrect your statement is? FYI, I worked on and calibrated those satellite sensors and they are incapable of doing the things that NOAA has claimed they can do. So, where is your technical background that enables you to make your comment? Oh, right, you read it all in some paper didn’t you? Try actually working with the hardware instead of looking at their manufactured data.

  73. Kelvin says:

    Mauna Loa is the largerst active volcano on earth, and they constanly quote high co2 readings from the climate station there. Volcanoes are huge sources of co2. Probably the worst place to take readings and they know it.

    • R. Shearer says:

      Care is taken in the siting and procedures to account for background.

      https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/about/co2_measurements.html

      • Gail Combs says:

        Which gives them plenty of excuses to toss data that does not fit their preconceived notions.

        At the Mauna Loa Observatory the measurements were taken with a new infra-red (IR) absorbing instrumental method, never validated versus the accurate wet chemical techniques. Critique has also been directed to the analytical methodology and sampling error problems (Jaworowski et al., 1992 a; and Segalstad, 1996, for further references), and the fact that the results of the measurements were “edited” (Bacastow et al., 1985); large portions of raw data were rejected, leaving just a small fraction of the raw data subjected to averaging techniques (Pales & Keeling, 1965).
        The acknowledgement in the paper by Pales & Keeling (1965) describes how the Mauna Loa CO2 monitoring program started: “The Scripps program to monitor CO2 in the atmosphere and oceans was conceived and initiated by Dr. Roger Revelle who was director of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography while the present work was in progress. Revelle foresaw the geochemical implications of the rise in atmospheric CO2 resulting from fossil fuel combustion, and he sought means to ensure that this ‘large scale geophysical experiment’, as he termed it, would be adequately documented as it occurred. During all stages of the present work Revelle was mentor, consultant, antagonist. He shared with us his broad knowledge of earth science and appreciation for the oceans and atmosphere as they really exist, and he inspired us to keep in sight the objectives which he had originally persuaded us to accept.” Is this the description of true, unbiased research?
        http://www.co2web.info/ESEF3VO2.pdf

        From my own experience in that time frame I can tell you the “new” infra-red (IR) absorbing instrumental method SUCKED ROCKS big time. We gave up on it because we could not get it to reproduce results.

        But that’s OK the ClimAstrologists had a solution. They draw the curve first and toss the results that do not fit.

        4. In keeping with the requirement that CO2 in background air should be steady, we apply a general “outlier rejection” step, in which we fit a curve to the preliminary daily means for each day calculated from the hours surviving step 1 and 2, and not including times with upslope winds. All hourly averages that are further than two standard deviations, calculated for every day, away from the fitted curve (“outliers”) are rejected. This step is iterated until no more rejections occur.
        (wwwDOT)esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/about/co2_measurements.html

        “Statement of Prof. Zbigniew Jaworowski
        Chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection
        Warsaw, Poland

        “….The problem with Siple data (and with other shallow cores) is that the CO2 concentration found in pre-industrial ice from a depth of 68 meters (i.e. above the depth of clathrate formation) was “too high”. This ice was deposited in 1890 AD, and the CO2 concentration was 328 ppmv, not about 290 ppmv, as needed by man-made warming hypothesis…….”

        >>>>>>>>>>>

        HMMMmmmm 328ppm CO2 for the year 1890.
        I cross checked that against the detailed scientific examination of historic CO2 measurements by Ernst Beck and it is within his margin of error. (wwwDOT)biomind.de/realCO2/

        I then went to Beck’s site: http://www.biokurs.de/eike/daten/leiden26607/leiden9e.htm

        1883 – 266 sample with an average of 335 ppm
        What is really really interesting is Barrow 1947-1948 data at 420 ppm! (average of 330 samples) It is noted that the Keeling samples (1972 to 2004) are transported from Barrow Alaska to California before they are analysed. (wwwDOT)biokurs.de/eike/daten/leiden26607/leiden6e.htm

        ………….
        Although the climastrologists have re-written science to say plants could live in an atmosphere of only 180 ppm to match their revised ice core data, link earlier work, now gone from the internet, had a lower limit of 200 – 220 ppm
        (Note they ‘prove’ this by taking mature plants and placing them at 180 ppm for a short time. They do not look at the whole plant life cycle including producing seed and seed sprouting.)

        A more realistic lower limit can be deduced from this field study of wheat (C3).

        “The CO2 concentration at 2 m above the crop was found to be fairly constant during the daylight hours on single days or from day-to-day throughout the growing season ranging from about 310 to 320 p.p.m. Nocturnal values were more variable and were between 10 and 200 p.p.m. higher than the daytime values.” (wwwDOT)sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0002157173900034

        The extreme lower limit of 200 ppm can also be found in green house studies:

        CO2 depletion
        Plant photosynthetic activity can reduce the CO2 within the plant canopy to between 200 and 250 ppm… I observed a 50 ppm drop in within a tomato plant canopy just a few minutes after direct sunlight at dawn entered a green house (Harper et al 1979) … photosynthesis can be halted when CO2 concentration aproaches 200 ppm… (Morgan 2003) Carbon dioxide is heavier than air and does not easily mix into the greenhouse atmosphere by diffusion… Source

        Most people never bother to look at the CO2 lies so they get away with them.

        This BTW is the CORRECT way to display data.
        Historical CO2 measurements Compiled by Ernest Beck.

      • Kelvin says:

        It’s “unambiguous”. I was right! – From that noaa site- “However, that air is sometimes contaminated by CO2 emmisions from the crater of Mauna Loa.” And the climate hypers scream we need to be alarmed by the Mauna Loa readings- http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/pages/maunaloa.php

  74. RAH says:

    And so the stonewall begins to crack. But to cause it to crumble people must be prosecuted and go to jail. Then, and only then, will the rats really start talking to try and save their own skins. And if that happens we all know that the trail will lead right up the food chain to the oval office.

  75. Gregg Gotlieb says:

    The earth is a grain of sand hurtling through the fabric of space. There is no normal climate on earth. Its always changing due to the sun, volcanoes, gravity of the poles changing, forest fires, rising methane from the oceans and space activity just to name a few. This is all a hoax to get money to keep these programs going.

  76. Al says:

    Here is a true story about the people NOAA hires. I worked with a PhD from MIT that NOAA hired. In our carpool one Monday he announced how he saved big money at the local hardware store buying gallon cans of paint to paint his house. One of the other carpoolers was at that same hardware store on the same weekend buying paint to paint his house. He ask the PhD to check his savings, because the paint in the 5 gallon buckets was 30% less. On Tuesday the PhD reported that he screwed up big time. This was not the only time we all had a good laugh on the PhD. I have many more of these stories where his great mind never got used.

    • Ornley Gumfudgen says:

      As a retired engineer in the high tech fields of space technologies coupled with weather related technologies I had my fill of the PhDs that though they were God’s gift to humanity. You would think that one they went past their Bachelor’s degree they would be pretty smart people. But with their education came a gross loss of common sense. As a result many of these people couldn’t pour urine out of a boot without help.
      I like to work on cars. One day the PhD I was unfortunate to be assigned to came into my office and asked me to look at his new pickup. He couldn’t get it started. So, wanting to help I went out to the truck, hopped behind the wheel and started it right up on the first attempt.
      He was flabbergasted so after I got out of the truck, he got in and couldn’t start it. He was furious. Asked me what I did to get the truck started. I calmly replied, “I pushed in the clutch idiot.” By that time about 20 people had shown up to watch the fun and all of them started in with fits of laughter. For a couple of weeks I pestered him with “How’s your truck running today.” He then went to my boss and asked for another engineer to work with which I was more than happy to leave. That engineer lasted for two days and said, “I can’t work with that smug idiot any longer. Move me somewhere else or fire me but I am not going to work with him any longer. After a couple of other engineers had the same problem they finally got rid of the PhD and that made everyone happy.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Brother, does that sound familiar.

        I worked in a contract lab filled with PhDs. It was in the Boston MA area which made it even worse. I didn’t last a year before I went back to working as a lab manager in a factory. I rather deal with union stewards than a PhD any day of the week!

  77. WayneJ says:

    What causes Global Warming/Climate Change/Name De Jour/ ……. although I admit I am no scientist, I am quite sure I know what causes the above…… Hot Air.

  78. D. Gregory says:

    So then, here’s what NOAA did to create a forged starting point:

    1. They presumed that the world is rising in temperature.
    2. They gathered temperature statistics from a limited number of locations.
    3. They backfilled the holes in their data set with **BOGUS** numbers along a scale which preserves the presumption of #1.

    Sounds like super good science: Let’s extrapolate a smoothed presumption across highly variable grid of potential input points. And while we are at it, we’ll ignore the very real fact that weather patterns are significantly irregular – and that those patterns massively affect local temperatures.

    In other words, even though it’s a fundamental fact of the earth that there are regular and frequent massive changes in local patterns of weather and temperature; we are going to ignore that basic fact and instead, simply invent numbers to fill in the holes of our collection grid – regardless of what actually is true on the ground in those locations.

  79. Jtom says:

    This seems basic to me. They are infilling areas of no data based on data from surrounding areas massaged with an adjustment that the area is warmer or colder based on historical records or geographical consideration (change in elevation, flora, bodies of water, etc.).

    They just need to tell us why/how these areas were adjusted. Just don’t hold your breath for an answer.

    This is why science is not performed in secrecy.

    • RAH says:

      Oh there is real science performed in secrecy but it is usually performance based and associated with engineering of a high degree. Examples would be the many advanced aircraft and missile designs that have been developed in secret programs.

      That being said there is no viable reason that virtually everything having to so with climate and weather produced by NOAA, NWS, AND publically funded projects at universities should not be available for review by any tax payer. We paid for it, it’s ours, not theirs.

  80. Mark Hammett says:

    Reasons why Global Warming is Hogwash

    1. CO2 is heavier than the main components of air. Look at the Elemental chart. The lightest is hydrogen, then helium etc. Carbon dioxide is a compound and has much more weight. It therefore sinks in the atmosphere and does not float up to the stratosphere.

    2. But we hear the term about “Green House Gases”. Yes it is true, CO2 is used as a Green House Gas atmosphere enhancement. Plants must have CO2 to survive. Long ago and to this day CO2 is pumped into green houses to help plants grow larger and faster for our consumption of their byproduct, fruits and vegetables. Look it up on the internet.

    3. Because of that fact, you do not find trees growing at high altitudes. Trees need CO2 to survive. Known as the Tree-line, it is the same all over the world 8000 feet or so. It is not because of the cold weather at those levels because up in the artic you still have tundra grass and fungus that grow under the snow fields.

    4. The atmosphere is made up of 78% Nitrogen, 19.1% Oxygen and .9% Argon. The remaining percentage is made of Water Vapor, CO2, CO, Methane, and other hydrocarbons. CO2 represents .06% of the atmosphere, roughly 6 parts per million. Take 1 million marbles, paint 6 of them red for CO2 and lay them out. It would be hard to even find the 6 CO2 marbles. There is not enough to make a difference. And plants are taking all they can get because they have to have CO2 to survive and convert it back to oxygen for us to survive.

    5. If you heat up that block of Atmosphere of 1 million marbles, the nitrogen oxygen and argon molecules will absorb more heat than the CO2 marbles. Nitrogen is used as an atmosphere in metallurgical heat treat furnaces in industries all over the world to keep out any damaging oxygen molecules.

    6. So what if you take CO2 molecules and only have them in a 1’x1’x’1’ cube, what would the temperature be? The higher concentration would actually decrease in temperature until you have 100% in the cube. The temperature would be -109F. We call it Dry Ice and it is used to freeze foods.

    7. Why are they pushing to tax CO2 emissions? It is a global method to raise taxes for other ruling parties to use funds and control people and business. CO2 is a byproduct of all engines. That goes for ships, trains, cars, power plants, you name it. Control what can be allowed and what tax must be paid and you can control people and industries. Al Gore developed tax credits yet he doesn’t cut back his CO2 footprint one bit and he doesn’t pay his tax credits to himself. But he wants you too.

    8. CO2 is so heavy that it sinks to the earth and is absorbed in our ground. CO2 is actually found deep in the earth and is pumped up and piped to other oil wells to add pressure to get the Natural gas to the surface.

    9. Some international companies actually are getting paid to capture and sequester the CO2 emissions from plants and other sources. They pump CO2 into salt domes and old natural gas wells all across America.

    10. CO2 comes from the earth and the central core. Under the earth’s mantle lies molten lava constantly spinning keeping the earth in rotation. Occasionally, Volcanoes go over a hot spot or a thin spot in the mantle and we get a volcano. It spews ash and CO2 into the atmosphere. Both come back down to earth through rain, hail and just their plain weight. The CO2 is an off-gas emission of the earth’s internal combustion.

    11. There are caves in Mexico that have giant crystals growing inside. CO2 is a major component for that to happen. Men cannot go down there without having oxygen respirators to breathe.

    12. Scientists at the universities will claim to believe in the Global Warming so that they get grants to study side bar issues with the environment. Plan a trip to Antarctica to see the penguins and how they are coping.

    13. Some old official sites of temperature readings were in fact out at Airports where there is masses of concrete, which does reflect and retain heat. Temperatures have been falling and rising with and without man’s industrialization. It ties closely in with the Sun’s storm pattern which we are still determining.

    So now you know. Accept the fact that the masses can be fooled if they don’t do their own homework.

  81. Steve B. says:

    Here is an interesting article about a respected scientist in the climate field and what she had to do to escape the government/education climate coalition.

    http://reason.com/blog/2017/01/04/georgia-tech-climatologist-judith-curry

  82. doug says:

    Main-stream media and our socialist bureaucracy are now awarded the grand fake news prize. The national inquirer is now more trusted than any other news source.

    Vile, disgusting, repulsive liberal fascists! Freaks! Traitors to truth, traitors to journalism, traitors to ALL americans.

  83. Russell Johnson says:

    Great to see so many of us realize that climate change as defined by those pushing it is corrupt. It’ more a mixture of a Fascist State Religion and organized crime. A product of globalist thought funded by willing governments and supported by a fraudulent “science” establishment. Nations of free, prosperous people are an impediment to globalists because they are not easily controlled. So, thru taxation and regulation to fight “climate change” individuals and corporations are punished economically.
    AGW and CAGW are invented problems to justify more regulations and economic measures– read taxes. Huge sums of money pour into “climate science” where little or no scientific methods are ever employed. Politicians begin to support the issue; the “save the earth” syndrome kicks in.
    Scientific arguments opposing the climate change religion aren’t effective because science has been largely corrupted. The funding must be cut off immediately, regulations and laws must be rolled back—stop feeding the monster!! That’s a start.

  84. anonymitty says:

    One of the posts critical of climate science asked for “one paper” demonstrating CO2 warming in a convective atmosphere.

    Convection is pretty nearly irrelevant.

    The plain fact is that the earth is considerably warmer than the moon. This, though the moon is far less reflective than the earth. How can this be? Both receive the same sunlight! Oh, you say, it’s the atmosphere. But why does the atmosphere make a difference? It is not as if heat is carried away to space by convection or conduction. The earth itself, atmosphere included, is perfectly insulated against heat loss due to either of those.

    Aha! Radiative cooling is how the earth, and the moon, return to space the energy got from sunlight. And so what? Because if the atmosphere were transparent in the IR, the temperature at the surface would govern the radiative energy loss and the moon and the earth would have the same average temperature.

    So now it’s a question of physics. What is it, in the atmosphere, that tends to interfere with transmission of IR energy from the ground to space? And the answer is twofold: water vapor, and CO2. And when we run the numbers, we find that water vapor is something like 3/4 of the cause, and CO2, the other 1/4. Now if you increase CO2 by 40%, on the face of things you’d expect an increased overall effect. Again, the numbers have been run. The executive summary is that extra CO2 figures to make things warmer.

    And now let’s go to the earth and look. Glaciers are generally in retreat. Arctic sea ice is hitting new record lows at a regular clip. The previously fabulous Northwest Passage is now open for navigation from time to time. All over the world, where temperature records are kept, new record highs are being logged more often than new record lows.
    All this is something new. 80 years ago, new record highs and new record lows were about equally common. Some glaciers were advancing, some retreating; no particular pattern evident there. No Northwest Passage, and people were able to hike by sled to the North Pole, no boats needed dry shoes all the way. Nowadays, that would be an impossible stunt. So kvetching about conkvetchion is beside the point.

    • RAH says:

      None of it is new! All of it has happened before due to natural variation.

      • Ornley Gumfudgen says:

        If he can’t baffle you with the BS he will baffle you with HIS brilliance. This is the standard tact of the Intellectually, progressive, enlightened and superior liberal mind. At least that’s how they think of themselves in relation to the rest of humanity..

    • Robertv says:

      But what’s wrong with a warmer Earth ? The biggest problem is plant life has a deficit of CO2.

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      Oh no! Not only do observation and data not support the underlying global warming hypothesis the models are built on, now Anon Y. Mitty destroyed the entire theoretical foundation in a single post! When is the pounding going to stop? The climate experts have kids in expensive schools, mortgages to pay and exotic places to visit. They need the government money. Have mercy, people!

      • Colorado Wellington says: February 5, 2017 at 4:21 pm

        Oh no! Not only do observation and data not support the underlying global warming hypothesis the models are built on, now Anon Y. Mitty” says ‘So kvetching about conkvetchion is beside the point.’

        Anon has a point!
        The underlying global warming hypothesis the models support has always been based on the mistaken Idea that IR-EMR exit flux originates at Earth’s surface. The S-B equation now can be used to show that the minimum radiometric temperature of whatever is ‘radiating’ must be at least 255 K, but the surface has a higher thermometric temperature. The atmosphere is measured to have temperatures bracketing that minimum, thus demonstrating that exit flux originates somewhere in the atmosphere. Never from the surface. Can we all go back to sleep and put this scam behind us?

        • Colorado Wellington says:

          “Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.”

          —Anon Y. Mitty

          • It is the on and on kvetching about atmospheric CO2 levels that encourages the inherent human trait of scamming others for fame or profit! There is absolutely no ‘science’ whatsoever in any of the CAGW SCAM!
            —Anon Y. Mitty :-)

    • RAH says:

      Tell us oh wise one, what exactly is the right amount of Co2 since you characterize what we have now as “extra”.

    • scott allen says:

      anonymitty you really need to study history just a little better, in 1903 the famous arctic explorer Roland Amundsen made 3 crossing in the northwest passage in a wooden hulled ship. About the only way to go thru the passage now is if ships are accompanied by ice breakers.

      80 years ago it was the 1930’s also known as the “Dirty Thirties” which lead to the Dust Bowl, during that time most of the high temperature records were set and most of those have NEVER been broken since.

      as far as glaciers retreating
      http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-28885119

    • Gail Combs says:

      It IS convection STUPID!

      Paraphrasing Dr. Brown, physist @ Duke University:
      “When CO2 near the earth’s surface absorbs back radiation, the lifetime of the excited state caused by the absorption of the photon is much longer than the mean free time between molecular collisions between the CO_2 molecule and other molecules in the surrounding gas. That means that the radiative energy absorbed by the molecule is almost never resonantly re-emitted, it is transferred to the surrounding gas, warming not just the CO_2 but the oxygen, nitrogen, water vapor, argon as well as the other CO_2 molecules around.”

      In other words near the surface back radiation, aka a ‘resonantly re-emitted’ photon is a RARE EVENT.

      Dr Happer in his lecture for physics grad students at NCU agreed and further stated that the time to radiate is about ten times slower than the time to the next collision in the troposphere.

      That means the IR energy from the earth is absorbed by CO2 and PASSED to other molecules via collision. Then VIA CONVECTION (hot air rises) the energy is transported up.

      Dr Happer in his lecture also answered my question about where CO2 energy is radiated instead of being passed to other molecules via collision.

      Experimental data shows barely any radiation at 11 KM and that radiating is in the stratosphere ~ 47 KM above the surface.

      The take away from his UNC lecture (9/2014) was the CO2 ‘modeling’ is a mish-mash of theoretical equations and experimentally derived data. Where the Climate alarmists missed the boat is in using equations for ‘line broadening’ aka the ‘wings’ where the additional CO2 absorption ( at 400 ppm) is supposedly taking place. These equations produce results that do not match up to the experimental data. The lines are not as broad as theory would have it. This means you take the exponential curve Tony showed at his old website CO2 Greenhouse Effect Is Very Small and squash it even flatter at 400 ppm and above. This means the CO2 sensitivity is much smaller than calculated by the IPCC.

      Dr Happer’s information is illustrated by the image below the Warmists use to say ozone is a greenhouse gas. The Figure is from Uherek, 2006. They even say it “show how carbon dioxide is cooling the stratosphere.” The black dotted line is the tropopause and you can see water is dumping energy just under the tropopause (the pink splotches surrounded by dark blue) while CO2 is dumping energy from just above the tropopause and up (the big yellow streak on the left) just as Dr. Happer and Dr Brown stated. Ozone is the smaller yellow streak on the right.

      The legend with the illustration:

      Figure 2.15: Stratospheric cooling rates: The picture shows how water, carbon dioxide and ozone contribute to longwave cooling in the stratosphere. Colors from blue through red, yellow and to green show increasing cooling, grey areas show warming of the stratosphere. The tropopause is shown as dotted line (the troposphere below and the stratosphere above). For CO2 it is obvious that there is no cooling in the troposphere, but a strong cooling effect in the stratosphere. Ozone, on the other hand, cools the upper stratosphere but warms the lower stratosphere. (ibid)

      What is NOT mentions is that is where CO2 is active and NOT in the troposphere at least not below 11 KM where it barely starts radiating.

      http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/images/stratospheric_cooling.jpg

    • AndyG55 says:

      “Convection is pretty nearly irrelevant. ”

      Ok jackass, try this little experiment

      Light a candle.

      Move your finger and thumb slowly to as close as you can to the SIDES of the wick.

      Now try to put your finger the same distance ABOVE the wick..

      I DARE YOU !

    • AndyG55 says:

      Mainly CONVECTIVE COOLING in the lower atmosphere,

      Radiative from the upper atmosphere

      There is NO DOUBT AT ALL that convection and conduction CONTROL the lower atmosphere by the atmospheric pressure/density gradient.

    • AndyG55 says:

      “One of the posts critical of climate science asked for “one paper” demonstrating CO2 warming in a convective atmosphere. ‘

      Well.. where is it ?????

      Or are you going to run and hide, and evade as well.

    • AndyG55 says:

      “Convection is pretty nearly irrelevant. ”

      As soon as I saw that, I KNEW that the rest of your post would be meaningless, low-end, scientifically illiterate, propaganda BS !!

    • Dave Burton says:

      anonymitty wrote, “Convection is pretty nearly irrelevant.”

      Please ask a meteorologist about that. (But not while he’s sipping a beverage, that would be unkind.)

      AndyG55 replied, “Mainly CONVECTIVE COOLING in the lower atmosphere”

      Gail Combs replied, “It IS convection STUPID!”

      Yes. Convection, and the water cycle (evaporative cooling), are the two most important ways in which heat is removed from the surface of the Earth.

      The water cycle is a classic phase-change refrigeration cycle, like the Freon refrigeration cycle in your refrigerator: Water evaporates at the surface, absorbing “Heat Of Evaporation” (evaporative heat loss). Because the molecular weight of water vapor molecules is just 18 (compared to 28 for N2), moist air is lighter than dry air (contrary to intuition). So the moist air rises to mid-troposphere, where the water condenses into clouds, releasing the heat it had absorbed at the surface.

      (Note: Evaporative cooling is expected to increase with higher temperature, because warmer water evaporates faster, accelerating water cycle cooling: a negative/stabilizing feedback.)

      Gail continued, “Paraphrasing Dr. Brown, physist @ Duke University: ‘…’ In other words near the surface back radiation, aka a ‘resonantly re-emitted’ photon is a RARE EVENT.”

      It is true that when CO2 molecules absorb IR photons, they almost always give up the energy to other air molecules by collisional transfer. But fact that photon re-emissions are rare does not mean that photon emissions and back-radiation are rare.

      Although CO2 molecules are constantly giving up energy by collision with other air molecules, they are also constantly absorbing energy from other air molecules. That continual process of collisional energy transfer between air molecules keeps the constituent gases in the atmosphere in thermal equilibrium. So the amount of IR emitted by CO2 in the air is determined by just two factors: 1. the temperature of the air, and 2. the partial pressure of the CO2.

      Gail continued, “Dr Happer in his lecture for physics grad students at NCU agreed and further stated that the time to radiate is about ten times slower than the time to the next collision in the troposphere.”

      Not just ten times slower, but more than 100 million times slower!

      The mean time for a CO2 molecule with its bending mode excited is about one second. Compare that to (at 1 atm pressure and comfortable temperature) the mean time to a collisional transfer of only a few nanoseconds.

      Here’s Prof. Happer’s lecture:
      http://www.sealevel.info/Happer_UNC_2014-09-08/

      Here’s a follow-up email conversation that I had with him about this:
      http://www.sealevel.info/Happer_UNC_2014-09-08/Another_question.html
      .

      anonymitty also wrote, “”

      RAH replied, “None of it is new! All of it has happened before…”

      Yep. Here’s an example, from when CO2 was under 310 ppmv, and CH4 was under 1.1 ppmv:
      http://web.archive.org/web/20110714024338/http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/upload/2006/10/nyt-1933.pdf

  85. Paul says:

    When putting people or hardware into Space, NASA relies heavily on modeling data for designs. Models often fill in gaps between verified test data, but NASA insists that contracted companies validate the extrapolated data through proven correlations. If related data sets are known to exist NASA requires comparison and rationalization. They don’t accept contradictions from test data sets when life or capital is at stake. If we are to believe global warming is as dire as they claim, why don’t they vet their data to their own standards? Maybe their model has some validity, but it really puts a kink in their plan to rush to judgement if they are held to real scientific standards.

    • Gail Combs says:

      They know darn well they can not model a chaotic system more than a few days out. They even admit it.

      …in climate research and modeling we should recognise that we are dealing with a complex non linear chaotic signature and therefore that long-term prediction of future climatic states is not possible
      IPCC 2001 section 4.2.2.2 page 774

      The IPCC itself, has seen the light ,thrown up its hands, and given up on calculating a meaningful climate sensitivity to CO2 – the AR5 SPM says ( hidden away in a footnote)

      “No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies”

  86. Sidney Boudreaux says:

    We should pass a tax on those who believe in global warming. You would be surprised how fast global warming goes away.
    You are fighting an attempt to tax you more to correct something that could not be corrected if it were real.

  87. krusatyr says:

    Eureka Climatoris: Fake gratification accompanied by panting and moaning, serves as basis for orgasmic warming delusions, expressed apres-epiphany in colorful graphs.

  88. Sean says:

    Oh could someone please tell me… the (alleged) 98% of climate scientists who all agree that “human caused climate change is real”…
    Do they all use data from NOAA?
    And when will “heads roll” at NOAA? (figuratively) (fired without benefits will suffice)

    • Gail Combs says:

      Oh could someone please tell me… the (alleged) 98% of climate scientists who all agree that “human caused climate change is real”…

      They are the ones who make their living via the SCAM of course. Please realize ClimAstrology is a brand new ‘field of science’

      An oopsie in the Doran/Zimmerman 97% consensus claim OR how to tell a BIG FAT LIE.

      Margaret Zimmerman asked two questions of 10,257 Earth Scientists at academic and government institutions. 3146 of them responded.
      That survey was the original basis for the famous “97% consensus” claim.

      For the calculation of the degree of consensus among experts in the Doran/Zimmerman article, all but 79 of the respondents were excluded.….

      ….only 77 answers were reported to the second question. Two of their 79 top climate specialists had answered “remained relatively constant” to the first question, and those two were not asked the second question, and were not included in the calculation of the supposed 97.4% agreement.

      That means only 75 of 79 [or] (94.9%)….

      SO they asked 10,257 Earth Scientists
      got 3,146 answers
      but didn’t get the statistics they wanted so tossed out 3,067
      and only used the 79 scientists who were in on the scam.
      Or as the authors put it
      “those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change’ realizing of course that papers do NOT get published if they refute the consensus.

  89. krusatyr says:

    Mix
    one part (Ancient Climate Extortion from eons of village shakedown shamans)
    +
    one part (Government Indoctrination in Public Schools and Bureaucracies)
    +
    Ten parts (Colorful Graphs that lure morons)
    =
    Modern Climate Cult.

  90. Tom S says:

    If Trump is serious about ending the hysterical farce of “anthropogenic” global warming, then he will cut all funding to NASA and the U.N., and bureaucratically prevent all grant funding for research on the subject. Game, set, match.

  91. Florida Jim says:

    Global cooling, then global warming, then Climate chance, then Gore’s 35 lies that went worldwide in schools as if it were true, then back to global warming it is all lies to fund pseudo scientists and Democratic politicians worldwide. it is a plague on the world this was the original Fake news and many didn’t realize it. Ignorant fools trying to help God in His world as Democrats deny God and are godless infidels only seeking power over everyone beginning in education. It is sad so many have been led astray.
    Search for John Coleman, the Weather Channel founder and a lifetime Scientist as he debunks this nonsense.:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lk8SSqc7ekM

  92. Nifty says:

    They know the Trump watchdogs are coming for them so they have only two choices:

    * Fess up
    * Convince everyone they have been incompetent the whole time

    Most of these folks cannot imagine a job in the private sector. In fact, I work with these people and they would never admit it but while they act superior to the average person they suffer from severe insecurity from living lives that do nothing to benefit society.

    • Ornley Gumfudgen says:

      Seems you know them as well as I do. You are correct, they will never admit that they have made an error and yes, they do act superior to everyone else they encounter. I worked on their equipment for decades and know precisely how they massage the data to get the results they desire. These are the government workers Trump can get rid of. They are parasites on the butt of humanity. I hold all of them accountable. The bad one’s because the did it and the good ones who keep their mouths shut so they will continue to have jobs. Either way, they area all bad people and we can do well without them. Let them get real jobs or starve, just like the rest of us who are not sucking on the government teat.

  93. Jerry says:

    Climate chance is a variation of the Aztec “sun won’t rise ” scam used by the ruling /religious class of the Aztecs to enrich themselves. First they got everyone to accept the fact that the sun would not rise unless it received human sacrifices. Since the Aztec citizens didn ‘t want to die themselves or have their valuable slaves die, they were told by the ruling class to attack the closest native settlements and to bring back captives for the sacrifice, and to, by the way, bring back the captured gold, silver, other valuables to be given to the ruling class. So the ruling class, enabled by the priest, foisted this scam on the citizens to enrich themselves.

    Now we are told that unless we pay $$ in the way of increased taxes, increased energy cost, and a lower standard of living, the climate will destroy us.

    Does this not sound familiar. Who gets the $$ –the ruling class.

  94. Rod says:

    since “data” is a plural word, you should have said that the data “are” – not data is. Datum is the singular.

    • Ornley Gumfudgen says:

      Your argument has been settled. Data can be plural or singular. Tine to pack your word police arguments in your bag so you can go bother someone else with your intellectually superior brilliance that is none to superior. When you have something valid to contribute to the conversation please come back. Otherwise we just don’t need you.

      • #rekt says:

        da•ta /ˈdeɪtə, ˈdætə/ n.

        [plural;
        used with a plural verb] a pl. of datum.
        Pronouns individual facts, statistics, or items of information:[plural; used with a plural verb]Do your data support your conclusions?
        Pronouns[noncount;
        used with a singular verb] a body or collection of facts;
        information: The data is inconclusive.

  95. SamKahn says:

    First they came for the global cooling deniers , and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a GCD
    Then they came for the global heat deniers, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a GHD

    Then they came for the Climate change deniers, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a CCD.

    Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

  96. R W Israel says:

    It’s starting to look like agencies of the Federal Government are violating the Establishment Clause by promoting a religion, AGW.

  97. Mann Fell'd says:

    Who is Kent Clizbe? His website does not inspire much confidence–under “About”, there’s nothing, just some laughable stock pictures–a map, and two guys shaking hands –and an odd heading with no explanation “Holistic Contextual Credibility Assurance”. Honestly, it looks and reads like something that Will Ferrel and John C Reilly came up with at the end of Stepbrothers…

    I’m all for what he’s trying to do, but his online presence is worse than amateur, it’s embarrassing.

  98. Vox Veritas says:

    Lack data?

    No problem.

    It’s settled science, you know.

    • Ventura Capitalist says:

      See, the climate crackpots are counting on history repeating itself… They can tell from the climate models and ice cores that the progressive dinosaurs took away everyone else’s SUVs, then they paid a few $trillion of other people’s money to the third world despot dinosaurs. That’s what made the earth cool down.
      Why not try it again?

  99. joe812 says:

    if you’re surprised you haven’t been paying much attention

  100. flatearther says:

    This is about as fake as NASA’s photos of Earth from space.

  101. Tony says:

    Are they still repeating the “97% of scientists” myth and threatening to arrest “climate deniers”?

  102. I live in Nicaragua. We have not had record high temperatures in December. We have had cloudy skies and record rain for December.

  103. Ike Kiefer says:

    By definition, a record can only be a record if it is a recorded measurement. A record is the extreme member of a set of recorded data. Temperature anomolies are not recorded data, but recorded interpretations. They do not even qualify as metadata because they are not deterministically reproducible from the raw data, but are dependent upon imaginary “data” that has been corrected, extrapolated, interpolated, infilled, or is otherwise removed from actual measurement of actual phenomena.

    Climate “scientists” have strayed long and far from the very critical distinction between data (raw measurements of actual phenomena) and human interpretation, (corrections, interpolations, extrapolations, analysis, theories, models, etc.). An Olympic sprinter cannot set a record in the 200m based upon an extrapolation of his/her 100m time. A 4 x 100m relay cannot be run by 1 real person who hands off the baton to 3 imaginary teammates. Olympic timekeepers do not adjust elapsed times to compensate for altitude or winds or temperature. Records may have an asterisk if there is something extraordinary about the circumstances of measurement, but the measurement itself stands.

    When we look at U.S. surface temperature anomalies as currently presented by federal agencies and authorities we find that the the raw data has been adjusted with a systematic bias to cool the past and warm the present by a magnitude greater than the resulting warming trend — i.e., the corrections reverse the trend of the raw data. If the raw data is of such poor quality that such large corrections are justified, then the error bars on all the graph points would form a noise band large enough to completely swallow the warming trend line. All of science and reason screams out against the validity of a conclusion which requires such violence to the raw data, and even so cannot then produce a signal greater than the error tolerance. It remains only for the sane and honest among us to wonder if this miscarriage of science has been perpetrated through gross malfeasance or deliberate fraud. Something is rotten in NOAA and NASA and the whole climate modeling and alarmism cohort. Self-interested criminal conspiracy constitutes racketeering. When agents of the government racketeer against the citizens, it is the gravest form of betrayal and treachery.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Nicely put.

      How can you get reports to the hundredth of a degree from a UNIQUE datum with the majority of surface stations (over 70% in the USA) are Class 4 (CRN4) with an error >= 2C or Class 5 (CRN5) with an error >= 5C.
      You can not use the statistics of large numbers to increase your precision especially with the measurements of temperature are BAD estimates of the property heat content.

      The simple fact is that the average of two temperatures is completely void of meaning. ClimAstrology is dedicated to the notion that you can average just one, intensive, variable, that being temperature, and do thermodynamics WITHOUT paying any attention to the other properties in a thermodynamic system like, water content, specific heat, mass, mass flow…

  104. Ornley Gumfudgen says:

    Oh wow. Something as an engineer who has worked on their equipment and has seen them adjusting/correcting their data and has been saying they are not being honest for decades. If they don’t have the data they make it up. If the data doesn’t fit their model, they ‘correct’ it. It’s one of the biggest scams/lies that have been perpetrated on the world population. Much bigger than “If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor.” Oh how I wish that Trump would contact me and let me inform him how they do it. I spent a lifetime working on the technology necessary to monitor our earth’s atmosphere and climate and it pains me to see how they have misused it to spread a lie for power and money. I can show him exactly how it was done and is still being done. How? Because I have seen it being done. But no one wants to believe it. Just label me a denier. I am also a deplorable so a deplorable denier seems to fit.

  105. Bill says:

    NOAA may be getting their data from their esteemed colleagues, the demoRAT-Communist party operative and colossal fraud algore or comrade grand mufti hussein obama. These two circus clowns seem to “know” much about the subject.
    .
    No offense to circus clowns.

  106. legal eagle says:

    Since it’s inception using Nazi scientists in the 50’s NASA has yet to produce anything real IE: not a CGI composite or complete fake.

  107. Osama Obama says:

    After telling so many lies about so many subjects, the authorities, including the professional scientists, no longer have credibility with the public. This is as it should be, because the public should never have trusted those authorities in the first place. Establishmentarian authorities, governments, corporations, and institutions should always be suspected of fraud.

  108. let them eat YELLOW SNOW says:

    some of my friends believe in this ‘glow ball warming’ horse shit, but maybe once they shovel a few tons of fucking snow this year, they’ll get a goddamned clue.

    I know that freezing one’s ass off in the snow is good for those ‘glow ball warmists’ ;)

  109. Trumpy the Toupée says:

    I don’t understand the data! Lets misinterpret it to fit our own agenda.

    – Some blogger

  110. Gail Combs says: February 5, 2017 at 11:12 pm

    “It IS convection STUPID!”

    Gail! it is not convection, nor is it absorbing\emitting ‘photons’ Max Plank never accepted ‘quantum’ but did give up on any other explanation! I am glad that I were not he! A. Einstein never accepted ‘quantum’ nor ‘photons’ throughout his lifetime! Good for him! Requiescat in pace! Tis all BS!
    Gail, the electromagnetic power is of a different universe than our observation of mass, momentum, and\or energy! All electrical engineers desperately try to understand the physical connection between ‘mass’ and electromagnetic power(force) occasionally accelerating some mass somewhere\when! Many many I think I got it! We need Gail to pronounce, “that is BS like everything else so far”!!

    “Paraphrasing Dr. Brown, physist @ Duke University:
    “When CO2 near the earth’s surface absorbs back radiation, the lifetime of the excited state caused by the absorption of the photon is much longer than the mean free time between molecular collisions between the CO_2 molecule and other molecules in the surrounding gas. That means that the radiative energy absorbed by the molecule is almost never resonantly re-emitted, it is transferred to the surrounding gas, warming not just the CO_2 but the oxygen, nitrogen, water vapor, argon as well as the other CO_2 molecules around.” ”

    What total nonsense from some arrogant academic that has not ever read Maxwell’s 22 equations!!

  111. Oscar Blackburn says:

    Why is this showing temperature brightness? That’s not representative of actual temperatures… It’s how much microwave radiation something gives off. Sure, this data can be used in part to calculate sea surface temperatures, but that doesn’t relate to your point. The area you’re looking at is land. Besides, the map isn’t even displaying SST, it’s just showing brightness – used for detecting water vapour and clouds, not actual temperatures.
    This is incredibly convincing, but wrong as hell.

  112. Brad V says:

    NO temperature data for central or east Africa? NOT true. Did you even try a simple search for GHCN weather reporting stations? You mean, maybe THESE?!?!?!
    https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/datatools/findstation

    You are peddling lies.

  113. Stefan Nagiel says:

    You would only know how to collect Data if you were the Creator of this Earth and I am sure that Creator would not call it Data….We humans did not create this Earth so have no idea how the Earth is made up and what it is made up of, so if there is no Creator we are all Doomed for Man will destroy us all. This is common sense and Logical yet I find it hard to find such Values these days….Maths/Science is Man made and so is everything else please think on this….

  114. d. justice says:

    I just basically skimmed the info but noticed that you seemed concentrated on pointing out the “lack of data for Africa”. I’m not too sure about that because we have plenty of technology to do such measurements, so why leave Africa out? Well that’s beside the point. You totally ignore that our earth is more than 2/3 water, so take another look at the pictures. They show that water temperatures are higher than normal, so that is going to be HIGHLY significant on climate change, don’t you think?

    Have you even been to the NASA website? They have real-time satellite pictures, charts, graphs, etc. There is no “report”, published by someone who opponents take pride in tearing apart. There is no reason, and it’s highly improbable that NASA could even change all the data they have accumulated throughout the years.

    I don’t see many credible sources or data to back up your statement. In fact, I don’t even know what YOUR credentials are. That leaves you open to the same type of attack that you bestow on those you disagree with.

    Take a deep breath and enjoy your seafood. Remember Fukishima and The Deepwater Horizon? Those are only 2 examples out of thousands.

  115. d. justice says:

    I don’t eat seafood anymore.

    • RAH says:

      Good! leaves more for the rest of us. Wish you would so the same with oil and all its distillates. Then you wouldn’t have a computer to broadcast your vapid posts.

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      D. Justice,

      This is worrisome. Correlation is not causation but could poor nutrition be the underlying cause of your symptoms?

      7 Brain Foods for Kids

      4. Fish

      Fish is a good source of vitamin D and omega-3s, which protect the brain from declining mental skills and memory loss. Salmon, tuna, and sardines are all rich in omega-3s.
      “The more omega-3s we can get to the brain, the better it will function and the better kids will be able to focus,” says Bonnie Taub-Dix, RD, author of Read It Before You Eat It.

      http://www.webmd.com/add-adhd/childhood-adhd/features/brain-foods-kids#2

  116. John Mitchell says:

    yes, the data has been altered. oooh. aahhh. We have not data from certain regions of the world. Oh, no. you found the root of all conspiracy. OOOORRR ….. it’s a phenomenon called INTERPOLATION which has been done on every single graph you have ever looked at. Yes, every single one. What is your scientific background? In fact, by your logic the entire US is made up of missing data points. I can’t believe I have to explain this to you, but it’s as if you have a thermometer at the back of your yard and on your deck. The deck reads 79 and the back of the yard reads 82. You’re in the lawn chair in between, how hot it is? it’s a conspiracy. It’s a cover up. You’re predicting somewhere you don’t have a measurement. According to your logic, the only way you could have any temperature data from the US would be to evacuate all the people and cover the US with thermomenters. Even then you could claim that there were errors in between each thermometer!

    • tonyheller says:

      Where do these morons come from?

    • sunsettommy says:

      What John, meant to say is that he has no counterpoint to make, just make an ass of himself in public instead.

    • AndyG55 says:

      Well John, that was a load of incoherent nonsense.

      Try again when you sober up and can put some rational thoughts together.

    • AndyG55 says:

      roflmao.. what a baseless load of anti-science and ignorance .

      Tell us Johnny-child, …

      …how did you manage to pack that all into one meaningless, incoherent rant ?

    • gator69 says:

      … it’s a phenomenon called INTERPOLATION…

      Yes, John, it only feels like intercourse. Don’t bother looking behind you.

    • AndyG55 says:

      “The deck reads 79 and the back of the yard reads 82. You’re in the lawn chair in between, how hot it is?”

      I know my back porch is well sheltered from the sun, and there is a nice shade tree down the back.

      The middle is bare concrete.. so .. what temperature is it?

      Come on, interpolate your tiny little mind out , bozo. !!

  117. Dick says:

    You guys really need meds and find a girl for sex. Climate change is real you crazy heads.

    • tonyheller says:

      Where do these flaming morons come from?

    • gator69 says:

      Only a complete idiot would think that anyone would ever deny climate change. But then complete idiots have no idea what climate change really is, how often it happens, and certainly nothing about the actual science. So it’s not really their fault, it’s just genetics.

    • AndyG55 says:

      Dick…… head, is that your name ?.

      Looks like yet another low-IQ 15 year old, just left a low end junior school.

      Majored in needle sticking and dong smoking.

      So easy to spot these brainless trolls.

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      “Climate change is real!”

      That’s a fantastic pickup line, Dick! A girl for sex, yeah!

  118. Andy DC says:

    Would you please check out the hundred of chart and videos on this site, based on actual irrefutable US Government produced temperature data, before you pop off again? You might actually learn something.

Leave a Reply

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