Government Climate Scientists Go Full Felon

The government climate scientists and other academics currently attempting to extort money out of President Trump, are no longer making any effort to maintain any level of plausibility to their lies.

This is their graph.


Here is the actual data. The exact opposite of what they show.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

45 Responses to Government Climate Scientists Go Full Felon

  1. Colorado Wellington says:

    They are furious. They were told the war was won and they wouldn’t have to do this any more.

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      Link warning: For strong stomachs only.

      • Steve Case says:

        Jeez! I had no idea that Ted Turner was far left. I mean I knew he was a nut case but to produce that? I didn’t last more than five minutes.

        I remember Anna where I worked in the ’90s. She walked out of Czechoslovakia in 1969. When the iron curtain fell she said in her heavy Chek accent, “I feel so sorry for those people, they gonna have to work now.” Her husband who also worked at the same place held a ceremony celebrating their 25 years in the. He said to me, “You have no idea how good you have it here.”

        • Colorado Wellington says:

          “… last more than five minutes …”

          That’s why the warning.

          He’s a leftist loon and a genocidal sociopath … but then I repeat myself.

        • Garyh845 says:

          Turner’s trip to North Korea (19 September 05):

          • McLovin' says:

            I know a huge number of left leaning (and voting) people who are anything but stupid, genocidal, or X (whatever negative epithet) . BUT, (as I feel in my case) their GOOD faith has been manipulated. Once people can see this, in a dispassionate state of mind, they feel abused and mad that they were compelled to buy into half-truths and even bold-faced lies about climate “science.” But, fear makes people irrational and if you want someone to remain impassioned and consequently foggy in their thinking such that they’ll never question their opinions, well, attack their opinions and call them names. Stoking their fears does well toward that goal also, as can easily be seen.

            When a critical mass of people begins to believe that the “other side” can’t be reasoned with; if a critical mass of people in our society (this includes everybody, right, left and center…doesn’t matter who) succumb to that delusion, we’re fecked. Flat our fecked. So, as I’ve said on this blog (and others) before, keep insults out of it and play it down the middle. Eventually, truth will win out. BS and those who live by it will be outed, even if it takes a while and no matter who’s spreading it.

            It would also help for those in the scientific community, who feel afraid of speaking out, if there was something of an honorable way out for them. Let’s face it, if any of us felt like we’d been pressured to “play along” for the sake of supporting our families, even if was against your instincts, intellect and conscience, but your career and livelihood depended on it, I believe that most people would line up with those in charge. Not because they’re evil, but because that have mouths to feed. And that’s no small responsibility.

            If you create only two side, ‘the other” being your enemy, then how do you not feel like your all in it together, even if you’d rather be somewhere else. (how many non-political German draftees from 1939-1945 felt that way?) There has to be some extension of amnesty, or political asylum for those who know better, but are painted into a corner.

          • Colorado Wellington says:


            Like you, I know many decent and knowledgable people who believe the man-made catastrophic global warming claims and support the political campaign against those they believe are responsible. I also know about the very diverse reasons and motivations of many of them but going through it would blow up the format of a single post.

            I’m aware of the problems freedom-loving people are facing when they strive to defeat the forces of totalitarianism. The denazification of Germany was a formidable problem, as was American post-war pacification of Japan, and your comparison has some validity. Given the difficult initial conditions in 1945, the free world was wildly successful in bringing those societies into the group of democratic nations. We were not so successful after the fall of the Soviet Bloc and there are reasons for it. The process was different from country to country but in many of them the perpetrators were not only not prosecuted but managed to retain or acquire power in the new societies.

            If we want to use historical analogies to the desired defeat of the totalitarian forces in the “free world”, the post-Soviet societies are a better example. In Germany and Japan we had to consider the state of their societies but we could dictate the conditions. In the post-Soviet countries we could not.

            So what do we do?

            You insist we should not say bad things about the supporters of the totalitarians because some of them are just good people going along. Your analogy suggests then we should not have been saying bad things about the Germans, Japanese or Russians when they fought against us, because some on their side were just going along. I don’t believe we would have won WWII or the Cold War had we followed you advice. In hindsight it seems like our victories were inevitable but that is simply not true.

            Your position is comparable to the Progressive American establishments’ reaction to Ronald Reagan.

            The primitive Neanderthal is saying bad things about the Soviets! He’s calling them liars and thieves!

            Do you think that Reagan calling them out encouraged or discouraged those good people just going along in the Soviet Bloc because they had mouths to feed? Are you saying we should have just played it down the middle and waited for the truth to win out?

            We didn’t start and we did not create “the sides” in this conflict. I remember very well how in the early years decent people were pleading to keep it dispassionate and simply discuss the facts. It didn’t work. The attackers declared that the “other side” can’t be reasoned with and has to be silenced. So now that we have defined sides let’s recap what they did and do:

            It was not my side that started the hostilities and the brutal attack on our liberties and way of life. It was not my side that started the insults, questioning the character, intelligence and motivation of the skeptics. It was the “other side” that very effectively used intimidation and fear against us. They smeared honest scientists and managed to get them defunded and sidelined. They were and are dragging their opponents through courts and bureaucratic nightmares. They use any lie or deception they find useful.

            I am just defending myself and the foundational principles of my country. I am a pragmatist and I do understand that in wars we don’t necessarily get great choices of allies, but we have to start by acknowledging that we are in the middle of a Civil Cold War which our side didn’t start.

            And you want me worry that some good people who are just going along with the “other side” because they have mouths to feed could feel a little uncomfortable?

          • Colorado Wellington says:

            Edit: And you want me to worry …

          • Gail Combs says:

            There are two types McLovin’ most are of the second type.

            1. The cold blooded manipulators in it for the power and wealth.

            2. The Useful Innocents (or as some call them the Useful idiots.)

            See: The ‘Innocents’ Clubs’
            “Willi Münzenberg, inter alia German, French, Communist, …. became the propaganda chief of the Comintern using the cover name: “International Aid Committee for the Victims of Fascism.”

            ….How did it come about that much of the British intelligensia, for decades, was persuaded of the moral superiority of Communism, and of its inevitability as the future political system of the world? One man, virtually unknown and unnoticed, can claim the dubious distinction of being the prime mover. — Willi Münzenberg…”

        • cdquarles says:

          How is that possible? /rhetorical

          Those of us nearby called him Red Ted, despite his pouring money into the Atlanta Braves sufficiently enough that they became winners for about 20 years. The man married Hanoi Jane, after all; and his CNN was called by us the Communist News Network back in the 80s, before Clinton came along.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Ted Turner, founder of CNN and the UN Foundation bluntly put it during an interview with Audubon magazine.
      “A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.” – Source: The book You Don’t Say, by Fred Gielow, 1999, page 189.

      So yes a genocidal sociopath.

  2. Nickola Temple says:

    You left out a source for the first graph, so that we can look at the ugly context.

  3. -B- says:

    What does the ratio of daily record highs to daily record lows mean other than ‘this is a way of looking at the data that makes the impression we want’?

    This number does not tell me anything about climate. It doesn’t even tell me anything about weather.

    • CheshireRed says:

      That’s the whole point of why they use that stuff. It’s the climate equivalent of an optical illusion, that has no relevance or value to the question of CO2 or increasing temps. It’s designed to mislead, is deliberate, mendacious and disgraceful.
      Don’t expect an apology.

    • Richard M says:

      The purpose is to hide the warmth of the 1930s. It turns out there were also some cold winters during the 1930s where records were set. So, using a ratio masks the extremely warm summers.

      Whenever you see them avoid using actual temperature data you know the purpose is to misinform.

  4. John F. Hultquist says:

    A post about temperature by Luboš Motl [March 30, 2012] explains much about how to view notions of increasing or decreasing “means” when global temperature is the subject.
    He does get a bit math-technical, although one need not worry about that to understand this: “… of similar parasites all over the world are not important and these bastards are dishonest fraudulent crooks …

    Interestingly, the sub-issue of the 2012 post is “the gender gap in mathematics ” and his post for today (Aug. 9th) is about the memo of James Damore, from infamous Google fame. Today’s title is: Women are neurotic: research
    This one does not get technical.

    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ something to watch for
    Washington and Oregon remain hot and dry, with smoke from B.C.
    A slight change in pattern will rid the region of smoke beginning Sunday but may also bring a pulse of lightning. Rain first would be good.

  5. Rud Istvan says:

    Source of fake graph? I want to run something to ground.

  6. Norilsk says:

    Speaking of lows, summer is over in the high Arctic with Alert at -1 C and the DMI graph at the freezing line.

  7. richard says:

    Prairie grass, a drought resistant grass, grew across the US until ploughed up in the 19th century . I find it amazing that there aren’t more droughts.

  8. Brian D says:

    I’ve looked at some of the high max records here in MN, and did some analyses of them. These long period records with these active stations don’t seem to jive with ratio graph either.

  9. McLovin' says:

    I’ve asked this before, but: Can’t these graphs of your be put on huge billboards in major cities, busy Interstates, in Malls, etc?

  10. Brian D says:


    • Brian D says:

      Here are the years that have 10 or more records for each of the stations listed above. Ties included.
      1931 – 15
      1934 – 12
      1936 – 11
      1939 – 12
      1947 – 11
      2012 – 16
      1894 – 10
      1931 – 12
      2012 – 12
      1931 – 22
      1933 – 12
      1934 – 15
      1936 – 10
      1939 – 15
      1944 – 10
      1987 – 12
      1988 – 11
      2000 – 10
      Leech Lake Dam
      1931 – 13
      1936 – 12
      1939 – 11
      1976 – 11
      1987 – 11
      2012 – 12

      The government ratios don’t apply here in MN high max temps, and as Tony has shown, any where else for that matter.

  11. Brad says:

    Does their “record highs” include record high lows, aka, urban heat island effect? If so, it clearly fails to show any correlation between CO2 levels and temperature. It is all just data presentation manipulation.

  12. Griff says:

    The 2 graphs are not showing the same thing.

    • Stewart Pid says:

      No shit Sherlock!

    • Paul Homewood says:

      There are fewer cold records these days, which means the ratio of hot to cold increases. As has been pointed out, there were some extraordinarily cold periods in the past, not least the winter of 1936

      But this does not mean that the number of hot records is increasing, quite the contrary as the second graph shows.

      In short, the climate is getting milder and less extreme!

      • RAH says:

        They apparently used ratio with an intent to deceive. It was the only way they could get the hockey stick look they desired.

  13. rw says:

    One thing they’re great at is knowing how to lay it on. 673 pages! I’m impressed!

    But then it’s only another prong of the expanding glacier of bullshit that threatens to cover the entire world.

  14. FakeQuestion says:

    The supposed “fake” graph was pulled from a peer reviewed paper published with findings and references.. Whereas the “real” one was pulled from.. where?? What references?? Peer reviewed?

    Show your work.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.