The EPA used to have this inconvenient document on their web site, showing about 0.2C cooling from 1940 to the 1960’s
Figure 2-1. Global temperature trend for past century based on J. Hansen 1981
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/downloads/Challenge_chapter2.pdf
At the time, scientists unanimously agreed that the world was cooling.
That cooling didn’t fit the global warming agenda, so NASA simply got rid of it. They now show warming after 1950.
I digitized the 1981 graph and calculated the alterations NASA has made to their own global temperature record since 1981. They progressively cooled the past to exaggerate warming, with most of the data tampering coming between 1940 and 1960 – in order to eliminate the post 1940 cooling trend.
When you are saving the planet, sometimes you just have to alter the data. Gaia demands it.
Reblogged this on vuurklip.
Yep, that’s fraud. Well spotted Steve
Figures don’t lie but liars figure!
The (‘governments’ of their time) ‘experts’ at this sort of thing: erasing the past
Some examples:
1) http://www.businessinsider.com/people-who-were-erased-from-history-2013-12
2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_images_in_the_Soviet_Union
3) http://www.tc.umn.edu/~hick0088/classes/csci_2101/false.html
All brought to you by the good folks who work diligently at their jobs in the Ministry of Trvth.
On the subject of revising the past, paraphrasing from wiki (to sum it up):
Historical revisionism (negationism)
Historical revisionism, the distortion of history… can be called negationism, is the illegitimate distortion of the historical record such that certain events appear in a more or less favorable light.
In attempting to revise the past, illegitimate historical revisionism appeals to the intellect (via techniques illegitimate to historical discourse) to advance a given interpretive historical view, typically involving war crimes or crimes against humanity. The techniques include presenting known forged documents as genuine; inventing ingenious, but implausible, reasons for distrusting genuine documents; attributing his or her own conclusions to books and sources reporting the opposite; manipulating statistical series to support the given point of view; and deliberately mis-translating texts (in languages other than the revisionist’s).
Practical examples of negationism (illegitimate historical revisionism) include Holocaust denial and some Soviet historiography. Contemporarily, hate groups practice negationism on the Internet. In literature, the effects of historical revisionism are usually described in science fiction novels such as Nineteen Eighty-Four (1984), by George Orwell. Moreover, some countries have criminalised the negationist revision of certain historical events, while other countries mandate negationist views.
– – – – – – – –
Bolding above mine.
.
“Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
– George Santayana
.
They’re damned by their silence.
It’s only a crime if the government says so.
Hansenized for your deception.
The cooling of the 1960’s and 1970’s was very real. The January “normal” high temperature in Washington, DC dropped nearly 2 degrees between 1960 and 1980.
There is a deep psychological defense mechanisms at work in the Inquisitional doomsday cult of climate alarm:
(A) The USA is only 2% of the planet, so heat waves here were just local noise in the past.
(B) The actual Dust Bowl era sandstorms were *also* anthropogenic, caused by land management short term greed.
…and little soundbites From On RealClimate.org High are Klimate Kult food.
To spinal tap those little fuckers requires ridicule to really be on our side, such that their defense mechanisms amount to self-destructive contradictions that go to the very heart of the matter of appearances.
http://youtu.be/rge17TciHfU
You need silver bullets to slaughter vampires.
Know (and Love) your enemy.
Give no comfort to mere half-friends.
Finally, an honest AGW proponent:
Part of a speech delivered by David Victor of the University of California, San Diego, at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography as part of a seminar series titled “Global Warming Denialism: What science has to say” (Special Seminar Series, Winter Quarter, 2014):
“First, we in the scientific community need to acknowledge that the science is softer than we like to portray. The science is not “in” on climate change because we are dealing with a complex system whose full properties are, with current methods, unknowable. The science is “in” on the first steps in the analysis—historical emissions, concentrations, and brute force radiative balance—but not for the steps that actually matter for policy. Those include impacts, ease of adaptation, mitigation of emissions and such—are surrounded by error and uncertainty. I can understand why a politician says the science is settled—as Barack Obama did…in the State of the Union Address, where he said the “debate is over”—because if your mission is to create a political momentum then it helps to brand the other side as a “Flat Earth Society” (as he did last June). But in the scientific community we can’t pretend that things are more certain than they are.”
Graph of global drought area for past 30 years:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/sdata20141-f51.jpg
The sky (isn’t) falling! The CA drought will be deluged to extinction when the pending el nino takes effect.