Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.
– Michael Crichton
NASA has a scientific consensus web page showing how closely different agencies’ temperature graphs line up. If all the graphs agree, they must be accurate! What other possible explanation could there be?
Unfortunately, the current NASA graph doesn’t even agree with their earlier graphs. Eighteen years ago, NASA showed 0.5C warming prior to the year 2000. Now they show twice as much warming prior to 2000.
NASA accomplished this by hiding pre-1880 temperatures, progressively cooling older years, and progressively warming more recent years. They added 0.5C to the pre-2000 trend via good old fashioned data tampering.
If we go back further to 1974, the National Center for Atmospheric Research showed almost 0.5C cooling from 1940 to 1970. NASA has complete erased this.
At the time, there was unanimous consensus among scientists that Earth was cooling.
The cooling was indisputable.
The US and Soviet Union were worried about “ominously thickening” Arctic ice, and a new ice age.
Glaciers were growing in Norway for the first time in 200 years.
Icelandic ports were blocked with ice for the first time in a century.
Forty two top American and European investigators wrote a letter to President Nixon warning of a new ice age.
There is also strong historical evidence Earth was very warm prior to the 1960s. From the 1920s through the 1950s, the Arctic was having a meltdown.
In twelve years, the Arctic went from meltdown “ominously thickening” ice.
Unadjusted NASA shows Iceland very warm around 1940, and then sharply cooling into the late 1970s..
But after adjustment, Iceland temperatures look very different. The 1940’s warmth and subsequent cooling has been erased.
Evidence is overwhelming that Earth cooled from 1940 into the 1970’s. How did NASA erase it?
Let’s take a closer look at that. Outside of the US, the Global Historical Climatology Network has very little historical daily temperature data. Thermometers record temperatures one day at a time – and without daily temperature data, any claims made about global temperatures are meaningless. There is no such thing as a monthly thermometer.
Forty years ago, climate scientists didn’t even attempt to claim they knew southern hemisphere temperatures, because there was so little data.
In 1989, NOAA’s top climate expert reported that most global warming occurred before 1919, and that earth cooled from 1921 to 1979. The scientific consensus has completely erased this inconvenient truth.
Not only is there very little land data available, but there is also very little ocean data too. Climategate E-mails showed that they are simply making much of the data up. Until about fifteen years ago, NASA and NOAA didn’t even attempt to include pre-1950 ocean data in their graphs.
And even now, much of the data is fabricated. Last month NOAA showed Saudi Arabia record hot, even though they had no thermometer readings there.
Much of the land surface is gray, meaning “missing data.”
The only large area on the planet with good long-term temperature data is the US, and NOAA massively tampers with the data to turn cooling into warming.
NOAA has accomplished this through a spectacular hockey stick of data tampering.
The adjustment being made correlates almost perfectly with atmospheric CO2. The ultimate example of junk science confirmation bias.
In 1989, NOAA reported that there was no trend in the US climate over the prior century.
In 1999, NASA’s James Hansen lamented that the US was not warming.
How can the absence of clear climate change in the United States be reconciled with continued reports of record global temperature?
So he simply changed his own data, to turn cooling into warming.
The frequency of hot afternoons has actually plummeted in the US over the past century.
Climate scientists took the best temperature data set in the world (the US temperature record) and corrupted it to match the generally worthless global temperature record. And sadly, one of the two satellite temperature data sets has become corrupted recently too. Three years ago, Carl Mears at Remote Sensing Systems was coming under tremendous pressure from the climate community to show some troposphere warming.
Note that after 1998, the observations are likely to be below the simulated values, indicating that the simulation as a whole are predicting too much warming.
I predicted in 2015 that he would give in to the pressure and alter his data.
Look for the satellite data to be adjusted to bring it into compliance with the fully fraudulent surface temperatures. The Guardian is now working to discredit UAH, so it seems likely that RSS will soon be making big changes – to match the needs of the climate mafia. Bookmark this post.
Dr. Roy Spencer also predicted this :
“I expect there will soon be a revised TLT product from RSS which shows enhanced warming, too.
Here’s what I’m predicting:
1) neither John Christy nor I will be asked to review the paper
2) it will quickly sail through peer review (our UAH V6 paper is still not in print nearly 1 year after submission)
3) it will have many authors, including climate model people and the usual model pundits (e.g. Santer), which will supposedly lend legitimacy to the new data adjustments.
Let’s see how many of my 3 predictions come true.
And that is exactly what happened. Mears altered his own data to make the models look slightly better. The large discrepancy became a small discrepancy.
there is a small discrepancy between the model predictions and the satellite observations
The image below overlays Mears’ old graph on his new one. It is clear what he did – he eliminated the blue error interval, and started using the high side of the interval as his temperature. Science by peer-pressure is not science.
In summary, the close agreement between the temperature sets is a result of collusion, group think, scientific corruption, thuggery and junk science. It has nothing to do with climate. There is no conceivable way that independent groups could have come up with the same graph.