Climate Science : Lost In Space

If temperature graphs showed cooling, climate scientists would be creating stupid theories to explain global cooling instead of stupid theories to explain global warming – and there are lots of reasons to be incredulous about temperature graphs.

Satellite temperatures from the University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH) show about 0.5C warming since 1979.

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

Satellite temperatures from Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) show about 0.8C warming during that period.

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

RSS used to show about 0.5C warming, but under pressure from the climate mafia, Carl Mears recently increased his recent temperatures by 0.3C.

 

Climate Mafia At Work | The Deplorable Climate Science Blog

Both satellite data sets graphs are misleading, because they start in 1979, right at the coldest year of the past century for much of the world.

Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis

In 1990, NASA reported that the atmosphere did not warm during the 1980’s.

01 Apr 1990 – EARTHWEEK: A DIARY OF THE PLANET – Trove

The 1995 IPCC report showed no troposphere warming from 1958 to 1995, measured by satellites and weather balloons.  All of the claimed warming has magically appeared since then.

Wayback Machine

And surface temperatures are magically altered to cool the past and create warming.

2001      2015

The most common technique is to simply make the warm 1930’s and 1940’s disappear.

Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis

Almost all climate science research depends on the accuracy of these graphs, which is one reason why climate science is lost in space.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

42 Responses to Climate Science : Lost In Space

  1. Frank Bellini says:

    One can only hope the Trump and truthful appointees have caught on.

  2. An overlooked factor in economics is the tendency of people to believe what they are paid to believe. Climate charlatans to a man started out as touts for totalitarian socialism, then got grants as Cassandras. The Soviet version of collectivist religion was fascinated by climate nightmares. This propaganda video storyboard predicting the year 2017, assembled when JFK debated Nixon, foreshadows later developments: https://youtu.be/rsc4Y5AXEo0
    The Surrender or Else Nuclear Winter hoax was a logical spinoff as temperatures briefly trended downward, and so it goes…

    • Gator says:

      The Soviet version of collectivist religion…

      AKA atheism.

      • Colorado Wellington says:

        ”The Soviet version of collectivist religion…

        AKA atheism.”

        You just don’t understand, Gator. The Soviet implementation of militant atheism is not the same as today’s highly refined intellectual version.

        Besides, the Soviets were in a hurry. Yes, some unfortunate mistakes were made while they were eradicating Christianity, the opium of the masses, but what are a few measly million deluded peasants when progress is at stake?

      • Hivemind says:

        “AKA atheism”

        Actually, the Soviet religion was communism. That’s why they couldn’t tolerate any other religions.

    • Griff says:

      Of course on the climate skeptic side we have people paid up front to deliver whatever conclusions the people paying want… Willie Soon, for example, or so we are informed…

      • Gator says:

        Sr Soon was paid by the Smithsonian. Are you saying the Smithsonian is a denier organization?

      • Gator says:

        Genocidal alarmists are paid to produce climate porn, and nothing else. Why is it you do not see the funding issue here?

      • Colorado Wellington says:

        “Willie Soon, for example, or so we are informed…”

        Ms Griff, thank you for supplying Exhibit A on the functioning of the alarmist mind: Misinformed zealots proclaiming proudly “… or so we are informed”.

      • kyle_fouro says:

        You mean the Smithsonian was paid and Soon got a commission of that?

      • Greg says:

        Pathetic libelous fool. Don’t insult your betters. Your libelous insult has been debunked numerous times.

  3. Griff says:

    If it isn’t warming and/or is cooling, and if in the 1970s scientists really did think it was cooling, why on earth, if they are only in it to scam research funds, did they not stick with the obvious and exploit the coming cooling catastrophe for funds?

    The answer is of course they are not scam merchants and it really is warming.

    • Gator says:

      Easy, CO2 is much more taxable than a coming ice age, and everything humans do produces CO2. In other words, genocidal alarmists get to dictate every aspect of human life.

      How can you not see the obvious? Does your hatred of poor brown people blind you completely?

    • Anon says:

      /Or so we are informed?/

      How about doing your own research. See for yourself:

      The Big Bad Forces of Censorship and Intimidation in Climate Science. Willie Soon, PhD – Harvard & Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYAy871w9t8

      Gavin Schmidt on the other hand is for sure being paid to produce whatever the government wants:

      How Government Twists Climate Statistics
      Former Energy (Obama) Department Undersecretary Steven Koonin on how bureaucrats spin scientific data.

      https://www.wsj.com/video/opinion-journal-how-government-twists-climate-statistics/80027CBC-2C36-4930-AB0B-9C3344B6E199.html

    • kyle_fouro says:

      The logic doesn’t make sense. Regardless, there was once a time when climatologists were at least somewhat honest

      • Colorado Wellington says:

        Honesty, eh?

        Ms Griff and her fellow Progressives are amused by your bourgeois concept of morality.

        Let me set you straight about morality, science and the scientific method:

        The Marxist-Leninist-Maoist Class Interest Theory of Ethics

        By Scott Harrison

        ”…show the people that there is neither a community of morals, nor of conscience, nor of opinion ever possible between different classes with opposed interests…” — Georg Eccarius (1852)
        [From a newspaper article that Marx assisted Eccarius in writing.]

        This is a book on ethics or ―moral philosophy. It is an attempt to expound, and to some limited extent to further develop, the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist theory of ethics along the lines begun in the writings of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Mao.

        None of the great leaders of the proletariat ever wrote a treatise on ethics and their writings avoid moralistic language. It is reported that “the moment anyone started to talk to Marx about morality, he would roar with laughter”. At times these leaders even seem to suggest that the whole subject of morality is a bourgeois hoax. Nevertheless throughout their writings and lifework the most fervent and consistent moral stand is evident in their total devotion to the working class and the oppressed people of the world. And there is to be found in their writings all the essential points of the most profound theory of ethics.

        My goal is not just to state the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist theory of ethics (which I will usually abbreviate as ―MLM ethics), but to show why it is correct. I view MLM ethics as a scientific theory, which must be established by scientific methods. Unlike many writers on philosophical subjects, however, I make no pretense that I am starting off unbiased. It should not be thought that using scientific methods precludes one from having an initial point of view; keeping an open mind does not require starting with an empty head.

        Scott Harrison, 2008, draft as of 6/9/08

        http://www.massline.org/Philosophy/ScottH/MLM-Ethics-Ch1-2.pdf

      • Anon says:

        You can find out what happened to that “time” in the Lindzen paper below:

        Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions?

        Richard S. Lindzen: Program in Atmospheres, Oceans and Climate MIT.

        The above factors are all amplified by the need for government funding. When an issue becomes a vital part of a political agenda, as is the case with climate, then the politically desired position becomes a goal rather than a consequence of scientific research. This paper will deal with the origin of the cultural changes and with specific examples of the operation and interaction of these factors. In particular, we will show how
        political bodies act to control scientific institutions, how scientists adjust both data and even theory to accommodate
        politically correct positions, and how opposition to these positions is disposed of.

        http://blog.friendsofscience.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Lindzen12-March-ClimateScienceNOTansweringQ.pdf

    • Anon says:

      Griff,

      That is a very good question. The problem with global cooling is that you can’t assign culpability to the developing nations for which they need to pay “reparations” to the less developed world.

      Example:

      Q: The new thing about your proposal for a Global Deal is the stress on the importance of development policy for climate policy. Until now, many think of aid when they hear development policies.

      A: That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all.

      Q: De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.

      A: First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/18/ipcc-official-%E2%80%9Cclimate-policy-is-redistributing-the-worlds-wealth%E2%80%9D/

      In 1988, former Canadian Minister of the Environment, told editors and reporters of the Calgary Herald: “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

      https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/02/05/in-their-own-words-climate-alarmists-debunk-their-science/

      Griff. I am a PhD scientist and just 18 months ago I used to teach these courses at University, specifically Ocean & Acidification and the some AGW theory. After what Wikileaks revealed about the 2016 election I felt it a duty to look at the climate skeptics arguments ( I assumed they were all tinfoil hat wearers or being paid by the FF industry) as I was actually teaching this stuff.

      This article was what sent me off on what I thought would be a cursory one or two day review of the skeptic’s literature:

      https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/10/wikileaks-john-podesta-silenced-climate-change-dissent/

      Well, it turns out that what I thought would be a 2 day review turned into months. And what I found made me ill. So, not a chance will I continue to indoctrinate the next generation of kids in any of this – it is plain unethical.

      • Disillusioned says:

        +100

        And that’s just the mob style tactics on the political end of this scam – silence your critics. And I too became ill when I first became disillusioned – on the scientific side of this scam.

        For the next three years, I kept testing it, hoping my disillusionment would be reversed by some scientific paper with proof – that elusive proof I had assumed for so long really existed – and that I would find the skeptics (which I was inadvertently becoming) were indeed wrong. The more I searched, the more I became disillusioned. I never did get the toothpaste back into the tube.

        Disillusionment can be a difficult journey, but it is better than the alternative.

        • Anon says:

          My experience was similar to yours Disillusioned… I just thought after Wikileaks the skeptic’s side needed so due diligence on my part. However, I could not find scientific explanations and still cannot… if they are provided I will change my mind again.

          The one thing that did help me through, was that I was well aware that: “it is often easier to learn a new thing, than to have to unlearn something you thought you already knew”. I had experienced that a few times in my career and life, so I was somewhat prepared for it.

          • Disillusioned says:

            Anon said: “it is often easier to learn a new thing, than to have to unlearn something you thought you already knew.”

            Bingo. It took me a long time to ‘unlearn’ and let go of The Great Myth. I am now impervious to the fanatical believers who refuse to acknowledge the overwhelming amount of dissenting data that crush the CO2-centric AGW myth – who then have the ignorant audacity to call me a “denier.” But, it wasn’t always that way.

            In the beginning, I accepted the 24/7 MSM propaganda cycle that kept me a believer, and I feared the label of “denier” if I questioned what was presented as fact.

            But I kept questioning the seeming non sequitur holes I was finding (quietly at first). Now I am like an ex-smoker. I got over the fear of being labeled a “denier” when I realized it is the true believers who are the consummate deniers of reality.

            My friends – those who stuck around – don’t dare bring up “climate change” in my presence, for fear of being hit between the eyes with a barrage of disillusioning facts. They now avoid the topic like the plague. A couple have quietly told me they’re now skeptics (but they still live in fear of being labeled “denier,” so they just avoid the topic). That is slow progress against the Borg propaganda machine.

            Thanks for sharing your experience, Anon.

      • Jason Calley says:

        My experience was similar, but started about 10 years ago. I had assumed that the CAGW ideas had strong evidence. Since there seemed to be so little argument about them I never bothered to look at the actual data or dig too deep into things. Then I had two friends who started to become increasingly upset at Global Warming. One of them could not sleep at night because he was so worried about the destruction of the biosphere. “Wow! Maybe this is really more imminent and serious than I thought!” So I started reading the CAGW sites and immediately encountered the psuedo-science of cultists. Reasonable questions received responses that basically boiled down to “you are either a heretic or too ignorant to understand!” At that point I started reading the skeptical sites. What a relief! Real data! Real discussions! Real history! Real analysis! In short, “Real science!”

        My two CAGW believing friends? They still believe… they still expect the destruction of the biosphere any day now. But it is a subject we do not discuss anymore.

      • Kent Clizbe says:

        Anon,

        Thanks for sharing.

        Your testimony and insights are very valuable.

        There is an important website, Retraction Watch, that should be on the side of climate realists.

        On every single issue besides “climate research,” this non-profit watchdog group nails fake and fraudulent researchers.

        On “climate research,” however, they support the climate clique.

        They’ve just posted on the retraction of a skeptical paper, claiming that it was published due to faulty peer review.

        https://retractionwatch.com/2018/04/23/flawed-climate-science-paper-exposed-potential-weaknesses-in-peer-review-process/

        “How did a deeply flawed paper, which contradicts mainstream science on climate change, pass peer review?

        “That is what three editorial board members tried to figure out after the journal, Global and Planetary Change, faced heavy criticism for publishing the controversial paper last year. The board members published their findings earlier this month in a commentary.”

        I’m corresponding with the site’s owner, a medical doctor, attempting to inject some realism.

        It would be great if you, or other of Tony’s readers here, could comment on that post.

        Thanks.

        Kent

    • Andy DC says:

      Anyone that has any familiarity with weather records knows that this 1979 starting date for alarmist’s charts is an obvious cherry pick and a blatant attempt to deceive.

      There was a significant decline in temperatures that started around 1940 that reached a bottom right at 1979, which was the coldest year since the Little Ice Age. Temperatures rebounded some from the extreme low point in 1979, basically back to pre-1960 levels. If these charts were started in 1940 or even 1960, they would show no statistically significant warming.

      Temperatures are currently well within the range of natural variability, so the only way that alarmists can make their case for world communism and destroying the Constitution is to monkey with the data and then send out useful idiots like Griff to prey on weak minds and spread unjustified hysteria.

      • Brad says:

        There is full of nonsense peopel at the benelux here. The hot april is in the advantage of the GW scam that keeps alive here.

      • Disillusioned says:

        “Anyone that has any familiarity with weather records knows that this 1979 starting date for alarmist’s charts is an obvious cherry pick and a blatant attempt to deceive.”

        Yes. Thank you for continuously pointing that out.

        • Brad says:

          Actually measurements started at 1901 in de bilt but on that forum they say the GW is happening faster than expected and soon we will get 2 months of 35°C. Help we are melting away! Really that forum makes me sick cause they are living in a bubble.

          • Robertv says:

            It is the Eu that is changing faster than expected in a dictatorship. But more and more people wake up to the disaster it is. I just hope people wake up quickly before we become a part of Africa.

    • MrGrimNasty says:

      Griff, as you full well know, the answer is political activism, power and money.

      In the 70s science was a pretty honest job, there wasn’t vast pots of money on either side of the debate. You were paid for doing science – not drawing fanciful prejudiced conclusions. It was simpler times. Motives were broadly honest, not political, or self-serving aggrandizement and enrichment.

      Despite your ridiculous insinuations of cash for skepticism, the $trillion industry is actually all behind CAGW crowd.

      Even if a few dissenting voices do receive some slight cash support, it is a drop in the ocean compared to the CAGW industry. And as skeptics are starved of funding and ostracized, how else are they supposed to fight for truth?

      The fact that skeptics are so massively outgunned and still make the CAGW crowd look like shysters…….. that should tell you something about truth and science.

  4. Brad says:

    At a forum for the benelux countries they keep on saying we are burning up and every year getting hotter and hotter. If you cant read sorry its dutch, go to an translate page to read the nonsense.Vóór april 2007 was april 1993 de warmste met 11,1. Op dat moment de enige boven de 11 graden. Toen kwam 2007 met 13,1 een ‘1x in de honderd jaar’ gebeurtenis. We zijn nu 11 jaar verder en vier(!) van de 11 aprilmaanden zijn warmer dan 12 graden geworden. Bizar…

    2007 – 13,1

    2009 – 12,2

    2011 – 13,1

    2014 – 12,1

    2018 – 12,2 (geschat)

    • Robertv says:

      I’d start to worry if temperature went down.

      • Brad says:

        It is the way they are presenting it that makes me sick. They also said why there is more volume of ice on the northern hemisphere. It is because the ice is piling up and that is why there is lesser sea ice, proves that GW is getting faster. Man they are totally braindead…

        • Robertv says:

          It is because the ice IS piling up . If there was no wind piling up the ice it wouldn’t grow thick. The ice itself by isolating the sea from the air prevents it from growing thicker. You need wind to break it open so new ice can form.

  5. ScottM says:

    “RSS used to show about 0.5C warming, but under pressure from the climate mafia, Carl Mears recently increased his recent temperatures by 0.3C.”

    Citation, please?

Leave a Reply to Greg Cancel reply

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