More Stunning Fraud In The National Climate Assessment

The National Climate Assessment shows a sea level hockey stick, starting at the beginning of the 20th century.

Sea Level Rise – Climate Science Special Report

The 1990 IPCC Report said the exact opposite.

there is no convincing evidence of an acceleration in global sea level rise during the 20th century.  For longer periods, however, there is weak evidence for an acceleration over the last 2-3 centuries.

1990 IPCC Report

Climate scientists simply making stuff up, just like they always do.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to More Stunning Fraud In The National Climate Assessment

  1. Gator says:

    there is no convincing evidence of an acceleration in global sea level rise during the 20th century.

    That was during the twentieth century. This is a new century, and of course there is now new data. I would think that by now this should be obvious to everyone.

    • Denis Rushworth says:

      On the question of sea level rise, there is also lots of old data along with the new. Among the oldest and newest data comes from a tide gauge at The Battery in New York City. It dates back to about 1850. If one cares to look at the data, readily available from NOAA or, it will be revealed that the long term sea level rise rate has been very constant for at least 170 years. In recent years, a GPS elevation gauge at this site has shown that about half of the measured sea level rise is due to land subsidence. There are many other long term gauges which show the same.

      All you need to do is look at actual data and you might root out the truth.

      • Gator says:

        But data is fungible, which previous generations knew. And that is why scientists of yesteryear were so wildly careless in collecting data, knowing all along that smarter experts would come along later and correct it.

        • Jason Calley says:

          Hey Gator! “But data is fungible”

          Exactly! If you need 6 mm per year of sea level rise for your theory, there’s no need to let some minor detail like data stand in your way. You just measure 1.5 mm per year, do it four times and add the measurements together. Voila! 6 mm per year! Gosh, who knew new science was so easy?!

        • Ed Reid says:

          Data simply are. They might be carelessly collected, but they are data.

          Data are “adjusted”, but they are then no longer “data”, but rather estimates of what the data might have been had they been collected timely from properly selected, sited, calibrated, installed and maintained sensors.

          Estimates are “fudgible”, even multiply “fudgible”, as NASA and NOAA continue to demonstrate, even in this new century.

        • PatrickM says:

          Data is not and never will be fungible. You can’t exchange a measured set of data with an invented data set just to “prove” your own theory. This is called data fraud and is anathema to all honest scientists. Homogenization = Data fraud.

      • John F. Hultquist says:

        land subsidence

        They need to stop importing steel, glass, and concrete to NYC.
        NYC is too heavy.

  2. Gator says:

    NYC is too heavy

    It’s the tax burden.

  3. Tom says:

    Data is “fungible”? Am I the only one that knows that the definition of the word “fungible” is “replaced with the same thing”? Taking one series of temperature records and replacing them with another set that have different values is NOT “fungible”.

    • Alan Falk says:

      … and replacing data with “the same thing,” i.e., more of the Same Data… is meaningless.
      For the benefit of Gator: Coins are “fungible”… think pennies! Dollar bills are ‘fungible.’

      • Gator says:

        For the benefit of Alan, that was a joke! LOL

        For the record…

        You cannot change data, but you can destroy it. Data is the information collected, any adjustments to that data destroys it, and replaces it with artifacts of analysis. There is no such thing as “adjusted data”.

        My old Webster’s Dictionary from 1916 defines data as simply “Factual material”.
        What grantologists generally call “data” are artifacts of analysis. For those who are unaware of what “artifacts” are, let me help you.

        ˈärdəfakt/Submit noun
        plural noun: artifacts
        1. an object made by a human being

        Data is collected, not manufactured.

    • Ed Reid says:

      …it’s “fudgible”.

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.