NASA says 97% of scientists agree that their temperature graphs are accurate, and NASA, NOAA, CRU and JMA all independently agree very precisely about global temperature going back to 1880.
Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Scientific Consensus
This is quite remarkable, considering that NASA doesn’t agree with their own data, having doubled 1880-2000 warming over the past 15 years.
NOAA doesn’t have much meaningful historical temperature data outside the US, so where are they getting their historical data from?
And their graphs look nothing like temperature graphs from the 1970s, which showed no net warming from 1870 to 1970.
14 Jul 1974, Page 1 – Lincoln Evening Journal
They have completely erased the 1940-1970 cooling.
Our top climate scientists at the time said global cooling was going to kill us all.
12 Jun 1974, Page 20 – at Newspapers.com
NASA and NOAA showed the world red hot in December, 2016 – with record hot temperatures across much of central Africa.
Global Climate Report – December 2016 | State of the Climate | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)
This is quite remarkable, given that they didn’t have any meaningful thermometer readings in the central Africa in December. “Gray areas represent missing data.”
The fact that they don’t have data didn’t stop them from drawing very detailed maps of their fake data.
Climate at a Glance | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)
During the 1950’s, NOAA stations in Central Africa reported every day. Now they report about one day per week.
Not surprisingly, temperatures have gone up, as data has disappeared. Same story in the US.
Here is the NOAA GHCN data for Central Africa from the first 12 days of December, 2016. -9999 represents missing data.
Satellites showed that December was slightly above average in December. NOAA and NASA are propagating fake data.
NASA brags about how four independent agencies come up with the same graphs, but when cornered about obviously fraudulent data, they say it isn’t actually their data and blame it on NOAA.
The global warming scam is based on fake data being managed by fake scientists doing fake science. It is the biggest science scam in history.
Incredible! Who provides the CO2 data in the new system?
As has been said before, an average global temperature is about as useful as an average global phone number.
“The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.” George Orwell
Yes, and destroying the monuments to that history is a good way to obliterate it quickly
Even the “…97% of scientist agree…” claim is fake science: since when is science a democracy? Some of the greatest thinkers and discoveries have gone against the majority body of thought. Non-scientific polling of a casual opinion from a cherry-picked group of respondents who have a pre-determined and predominant opinion, with no validation of their qualifications, does not constitute a scientific opinion.
Peer review is a method to determine fitness for publication — not validation or verification that theories or presented conclusions are correct, accepted, or even logical.
Keep up the good work, Tony. I’m a newb to your exposure of these frauds, but you are right on track.
I would believe that a great majority of even skeptical scientists would believe there has been a degree or so of warming since 1880. They would also agree that human activity is A contributing factor (although relatively slight among many others).
So in that sense, the 97% figure may not be that far off. But it is highly misleading the way alarmists present it.
Agree that it is a number, but it is funny how much that number varies depending on who is quoting it. They also can’t seem to agree on the statement their survey respondents answered — what ever it is that [85-98]% of some group actually has agreed to seems to change from quote to quote. No one I’ve ever heard references a specific survey or how it was conducted.
I think my point is that it is used as an irrefutable argument in public debate that doesn’t really settle or address any part of the issue. This is a pretty common way to lie without lying.
IMO, the statement “man has affected his environment” is a given, and an obvious and desireable artifact of human intelligence and civilization. In a poll, I would agree to that statement, but I wouldn’t extend that definition to include any scientific theory or conclusion that I hadn’t reviewed and validated in detail. If I haven’t verified it, or if I can’t do so competently, or I don’t understand the qualifications of someone who has verified it, then my opinion would be worthless. If one did verify some else’s scientific conclusion, a scientist with integrity would have to admit the possibility that it might still be wrong.
Neither can the author of this article agree what was asked of respondents. The 1st sentence says scientists agreed that a certain chart “is correct”. Not true. And to your previous comment about there being no validation of qualifications of respondents, also not true. There has been at least one study which showed the opinions of scientists on the AGW question correspond to their level of expertise and the closeness of their particular field to those that are directly related to climate. I agree though that it doesn’t really matter the number because it doesn’t help the argument that much either way. De-Nye-ers are equally guilty by over use of the “science is not a consensus” argument, which counters nothing and is a distraction, as is ranting about the deficiencies of Al Gore.
I hope you won’t find it impolite if I point out that the only mention of Al Gore in this thread is yours. Nobody brought up his fantastic planet-saving contribution, let alone ranted about it in the comments above.
And since you agree that science is not consensus, how do you suggest those of us who also think so should argue against it? I never bring I up until somebody—typically while losing or never engaging in a factual argument—defaults to the consensus fallacy.
Can I then say that scientific arguments are not decided by consensus?
I wouldn’t want to be guilty of distraction and over use, let alone equally guilty. Over the decades my wife had already identified in me a whole slate of scandalous shortcomings. I reckon I’d cope with it if necessary but I would rather not get on your bad side.
Errata: I never bring it up …
There has been at least one study which showed the opinions of scientists on the AGW question correspond to their level of expertise and the closeness of their particular field to those that are directly related to climate.
I’ve seen studies that show that nearly 99.9% of Baptists believe that Jesus saves.
I reckon 97% of the readers of this blog can agree that the Arctic Mission website shows a moving image of a sailboat cutting through rotting Arctic ice like it was butter though the actual expedition is still in ice-free Bering Strait.
In the 70s till the communist collapse, “all scientists not in the pay of corporations” agreed that nuclear power plants were on the brink of killing everyone and mutating their offspring into baboons. Today the looters claim that 97% of unnamed “climate” scientists nobody but a political state would dream of hiring. But the Petition Project’s 3100+ science graduates alone stopped the Kyoto and Paris robberies. Assuming they are the 3%, degreed looters would have to number 5x the combined memberships of the APS and American Chemical Society to add up to 97%. But assuming 97% are the 18 Cassandras at IPCC plus Schmidt and one other fraud, the 3% would equal 0.19 scientist. The argument from intimidation is wearing thin.
On the illustration that flashes between land and ocean temperature and land-only temperature, look at Australia. The land-only map, which I assume is based on thermometer data, shows temperatures both below and above average, but the land and ocean map shows Australia entirely at or above average.
Good comments Mr. de-Nye-er
Epic post. Thanks Tony.
Actually this post could serve as a rough outline for a potentially best-selling book devoted to the point that the 1930s were likely hotter (globally) than today.
Be devoted to that topic, as that single point will destroy the global warming thesis, and thus people (conservatives) will want to spread the word about it so it will likely be a best-seller.
You can go off on tangents from the main point that the 1930s were hotter, such as talking about the ideological basis and lack of credibility and dishonesty of the warmists, just as long as these tangents bolster or add legitimacy to the main argument (the 1930s were likely hotter). A book with a wider focus, though, may not be able to garner the sales of one with that singular focus.
It’s just an idea.
The US has cooled from the 1930s, notwithstanding that CO2 is a well mixed gas at high altitude (eg., +/- ~10 ppm).
Nobody has yet been able to explain to me why the (contiguous) US should be an outlier.
What is it about the geography and topography of the US that makes it an outlier?
After all it has coasts, mountains, valleys, rivers, lakes, desserts, forests, it encompasses many different climatic zones, it is not unduly influenced by just one weather pattern or some particular oceanic current, so why should it be an outlier to the Northern Hemisphere in general?
Obviously, the Southern Hemisphere may be different (after all it has a lot more ocean), but we have no good historical data on the Southern hemisphere and Phil Jones in the Climategate emails went as far as saying that SH temperature is largely made up.
They worry about the effect of TOBS, but not about the effect of station drop outs, or the fact that stations rarely record data such that they need to make up ‘data’ by infilling.
What a crazy world some of these ‘scientists’ inhabit.