This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Republicans To Investigate NASA Over Climate Data Tampering
With record heat (and drought) in the west and record cold (wet and snow) in the east, the global warming game-playing continues every day but the climate-gate rhetoric has increased vociferously since we first noted three weeks ago, the data that has been so relied upon to 'prove' global warming's trend was in fact manipulated. What The Telegraph called "the most extraordinary scandal of our times" - that of the "seasonally-adjusted" seasonal raw global temperature data - is about to be investigated by Congress. As Daily Caller reports, California Republican Rep. Dana Rohrbacher exclaimed "expect there to be congressional hearings into NASA altering weather station data to falsely indicate warming & sea rise."
This began, as The Telegraph previously noted, with claims that the underlying data used to justify practically every study p[roving global warming has, in fact, been manipulated...
Although it has been emerging for seven years or more, one of the most extraordinary scandals of our time has never hit the headlines. Yet another little example of it lately caught my eye when, in the wake of those excited claims that 2014 was “the hottest year on record”, I saw the headline on a climate blog: “Massive tampering with temperatures in South America”. The evidence on Notalotofpeopleknowthat, uncovered by Paul Homewood, was indeed striking.
Puzzled by those “2014 hottest ever” claims, which were led by the most quoted of all the five official global temperature records – Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss) – Homewood examined a place in the world where Giss was showing temperatures to have risen faster than almost anywhere else: a large chunk of South America stretching from Brazil to Paraguay.
Noting that weather stations there were thin on the ground, he decided to focus on three rural stations covering a huge area of Paraguay. Giss showed it as having recorded, between 1950 and 2014, a particularly steep temperature rise of more than 1.5C: twice the accepted global increase for the whole of the 20th century.
But when Homewood was then able to check Giss’s figures against the original data from which they were derived, he found that they had been altered. Far from the new graph showing any rise, it showed temperatures in fact having declined over those 65 years by a full degree. When he did the same for the other two stations, he found the same. In each case, the original data showed not a rise but a decline.
Homewood had in fact uncovered yet another example of the thousands of pieces of evidence coming to light in recent years that show that something very odd has been going on with the temperature data relied on by the world's scientists. And in particular by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which has driven the greatest and most costly scare in history: the belief that the world is in the grip of an unprecedented warming.
How have we come to be told that global temperatures have suddenly taken a great leap upwards to their highest level in 1,000 years? In fact, it has been no greater than their upward leaps between 1860 and 1880, and 1910 and 1940, as part of that gradual natural warming since the world emerged from its centuries-long “Little Ice Age” around 200 years ago.
This belief has rested entirely on five official data records. Three of these are based on measurements taken on the Earth’s surface, versions of which are then compiled by Giss, by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and by the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit working with the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction, part of the UK Met Office. The other two records are derived from measurements made by satellites, and then compiled by Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) in California and the University of Alabama, Huntsville (UAH).
To fill in the huge gaps, those compiling the records have resorted to computerised “infilling” or “homogenising”, whereby the higher temperatures recorded by the remaining stations are projected out to vast surrounding areas (Giss allows single stations to give a reading covering 1.6 million square miles). This alone contributed to the sharp temperature rise shown in the years after 1990.
But still more worrying has been the evidence that even this data has then been subjected to continual “adjustments”, invariably in only one direction. Earlier temperatures are adjusted downwards, more recent temperatures upwards, thus giving the impression that they have risen much more sharply than was shown by the original data.
In reality, the implications of such distortions of the data go much further than just representing one of the most bizarre aberrations in the history of science. The fact that our politicians have fallen for all this scary chicanery has given Britain the most suicidally crazy energy policy (useless windmills and all) of any country in the world.
Science blogger Steven Goddard (a pseudonym) has been a major critic of NASA’s and NOAA’s temperature measurements...
Goddard points out that NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center makes the present look warmer by artificially cooling past temperatures to show a warming trend.
“NCDC pulls every trick in the book to turn the US cooling trend into warming. The raw data shows cooling since the 1920s,” Goddard told The Daily Caller News Foundation in an interview last month.
“NCDC does a hockey stick of adjustments to reverse the trend,” Goddard said. “This includes cooling the past for ‘time of observation bias’ infilling missing rural data with urban temperatures, and doing almost nothing to compensate for urban heat island effects.”
And it appears it was just too much for some politicians... As The Daily Caller's Michael Bastach explains...
Are government climate agencies tampering with climate data to show warming? Some Republicans think so. California Republican Rep. Dana Rohrabacher says to expect congressional hearings on climate data tampering.
@caerbannog666 expect there to be congressional hearings into NASA altering weather station data to falsely indicate warming? & sea rise
— Dana Rohrabacher (@DanaRohrabacher) February 20, 2015
Rohrabacher serves as the vice chairman of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, which has jurisdiction over NASA and other agencies that monitor the Earth’s climate.
Rohrabacher has long been critical of the theory of man-made global warming. Lately, the California Republican has criticizing NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for allegedly tampering with temperature data to create an artificial warming trend. Such data is then used to justify regulations aimed at curbing fossil fuel use and other industrial activities.
@grngamine journalist investigation shows records of various weather stations altered by AGW advocates to make it appear to be warming.
— Dana Rohrabacher (@DanaRohrabacher) February 19, 2015
@caerbannog666 U seem unaware of latest revelation of data manipulation. NASA reported higher temp than what was record at weather stations
— Dana Rohrabacher (@DanaRohrabacher) February 19, 2015
Rohrabacher isn’t the only one to call for hearings on the science behind global warming. Oklahoma Republican Sen. Jim Inhofe has also promised to hold hearings on global warming data.
“We’re going to have a committee hearing on the science,” said Inhofe, who chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. “People are going to hear the other side of the story.”
As The Telegraph's Christopher Booker concludes,
“This really does begin to look like one of the greatest scientific scandals of all time.”
* * *
- 31021 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -



Look up.
I don't know, with the all caps and bold font I might think you a spermatozoa of the Obamanation, but I'll assume its all tongue in some kind of cheek.
This is good. I only have to feel empathy for the 20% who are not in denial and actually get it. The rest of you?... die hard motherfuckers.
What you actually get is spoonfed.
Don't forget the Sea Level rise. My theory is that the Climate Scientists get advance knowledge of when the readings are going to be taken and they all jump in the ocean at the same time. Each year they recruit more sympathathizers...and presto! Global sea level change that backs up their temperature rise conspiracy.
Climate scientists are evil. Scientists are evil. Science is bad.
"Science" is just a technique for interpreting nature.
"Scientists" as a group become just another institution, corruptable and for reasons of ego and self-image, perhaps more susceptible to being hijacked by the agendas of others.
Drag a NSF grant on a string through a trailer park full of Scientists and you will be amazed.
So, once more, what group has a stranglehold on Academia?
The takeover is full-spectrum folks, it seems only the Russians and Chinese are successfully resisting...
The Legislative Branch is nearly irrelevant regarding oversight and budget control of the Executive Branch. Obama has proven it. Congress' budget is infinitesimal compared to the Presidency. The only means by which a bureaucracy is held responsible, is by cutting budgets, and cutting them within a inch of their institutional lives. Congress has abrogated its constitutional power and duty to the Presidency.
Anyone catch when Inhofe said "If I End Up Dead" re: GW.
Definite reference to his son's plane crash.
sleep with the dogs, you get fleas.
I'll be worm food in a few years. I don't give a fuck.
Wackoism - the temperature data come from many independent sources, and cannot be meaningfully fudged.
Congress, on the other hand is a nest of corrupt morons carrying water for the fossil fuel industry.
Quite right, the notion of cospiracy and corruption over AGW is as preposterous as the claims of conspiracy and corruption among big banks, the Fed and the government.
Silly season is starting early this time. This sounds like they be shoping for some chainyank issue to plan thier campains around. Just like pro life/pro choice errections? Some irrelavent BS that folks will eat up.
The part that cracks me up is. If they are right or wrong. It does not matter. Because,,, wait for it,,,,,
The government screws up everything it touches.
Including, of course, the internet.
The anti-science party investigates the scientists. Darrell should take Dana to lunch and "educate" him.
The gig is up. The anthropomric "Global Warning" / "Climate Change" scam is UN Agenda 21 / COT15 / Terra Forming deliberately caused by heating the earth's Inonosphere via SRM / ENMOD / Chem Trailing / HAARP / HAMP / ELF / HLF etc. to create a Malthusian Checks & Crisis's is same theory for The Shock Doctrine. Creating the crisis's gives Corporations the ability to invest puts / stays on copanies, insurance scams for huge payouts then contracts for the cleanup etc after the disaster. Same thing w/ the Wars & same protocols & Tactics. All a scam to build the CORPOCRACY financial structure etc. Food, Water Drought, starving out Farmers to sell their land etc. desalination plants, contracts, GMO drought resisitant seeds, Aluminum based soil GMO resistant seeds etc. We are that far down the dystopic hole believe it or not.
While I'm in agreement with your argument, it's traditional to provide supporting links.
I believe this is a third major wave
of this kind of scientific scandal?
For almost 8 years, I have been recording my efforts to try to form an opinion regarding Humans blamed for climate change ... Of course, I started thinking about that issue several decades ago. However, I have mostly felt like a dog twirling around chasing its own tail when I researched that topic, especially with regard to the sea level rising issue.
The most important feature in the background is that social pyramid systems are based on being able to back up lies with violence, while the majority of people adapt to that by becoming ignorant and afraid. The "ideals" of science are in serious conflict with the monetary systems based on enforced frauds, and the military systems based on backing up deceits with destruction. Given those background social facts, even after one endeavours to develop the most informed opinion possible on those topics, it makes no practical difference, since society continues to be controlled by Huge Lies, backed by Lots of Violence, in which context more radical truths, based on more rational evidence and logical arguments, make practically no difference to the established systems of organized crime, surrounded by controlled opposition.
I am with you. The fused corporate/government takeover of science is completed. All the research on so-called renewables is run and paid by big oil to prevent any real progress. Fraud in science is rampant everywhere on every side of official political debate. Ph.Ds are given to propagandists of private interest so their could assert authority for their incoherent utterances. Independent unbiased voices are silenced.
On propaganda about renewables:
https://sostratusworks.wordpress.com/2015/02/11/engineering-renewable-de...
On fraud in science:
https://contrarianopinion.wordpress.com/2015/01/07/triumph-of-con-scienc...
The problem has not, and has never been, with the generation of electricity via 'renewable' technologies. The problem is one of STORAGE. We can capture lots of wind and solar energy, but there's no where to store it cheaply and so that it can be used easily.
Gasoline, for all its problems, is highly energy dense and easy to convert into power. One could say that uranium is more energy dense, but it's problematic having a Mr. Fission in your car at present.
And bollocks to 'big oil' is suppressing it. The car makers would all prefer to go electric - it saves on so many parts when making a car, gets pollution controls off their backs, etc. Are you telling me that the oil industry is so big and so controlling that the global auto industry quakes before it? Nonsense.
They should better investigate NSA.
NASA has also hidden the facts that the Earth is flat, and that they've had Noah's Arc stored in a New Mexico hanger for years.
And Republicans in Congress (who believe dinosaurs are 3000 years old) are just the jackasses to expose this deceit and enlighten the world!
Evolution has not made it to the ranks of scientific Law as its still only a theory whereas Climate scientists are forcing AGW to be a postulated law even to the point of demanding trials and executions for those who dare challenge the environmentally ill. You should thank your Democratic Party Donkey that someone is challenging Al Gore's ilk.
There is no such thing as scientific law. There are only scientific theories backed by evidence. Evolution has plenty of evidence for various aspects of it.
This should be investigated but helloooo, NSA involved in the biggest spy operation on people in history. Perhaps that is of more concern.
It would be nice if climate change deniers could quote people with more authority than science bloggers. Here's a headline ZH missed:
Leading climate change denier was paid by energy companieshttp://www.theverge.com/2015/2/22/8085303/climate-change-denier-paid-wei...
How about Hedge Fund Billionaire Pays Democrats 100 Million To Vote Pro Climate Change
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBREA1J1IZ20140220?irpc=932
"Dr. Soon has found a warm welcome among politicians in Washington and state capitals who try to block climate action. United States SenatorJames M. Inhofe, an Oklahoma Republican who claims that climate change is a global scientific hoax, has repeatedly cited Dr. Soon’s work over the years.
In a Senate debate last month, Mr. Inhofe pointed to a poster with photos of scientists questioning the climate-change consensus, including Dr. Soon. “These are scientists that cannot be challenged,” the senator said. A spokeswoman for the senator said Friday that he was traveling and could not be reached for comment."
New York Times 21FEB15
"missed" spooz? ok, let's go with that ; )
LULZ
Republicans are going to 'investigate' and end the climate change fraud? I think not.
Republicans have the same interest in power as democrats. What they will aim for is to discredit democrat climate alarmists and replace them with republican climate alarmists. Just like they aren't going to repeal Obamacare, just alter it to serve republican cronies and republicans.
The benefit is that these disputes can often damage both teams and delay their power grabs.
535 cretins + ICiC - what could ever go wrong
What's hilarious is that while we all sit here freezing our asses off (regardless of where you are in the US), with a cloud of cesium circling the globe and the Chinese dumping benzene into rivers we are talking about fucking Carbon.
Carbon - The Mark of the Beast!
6 protons
6 neutrons
6 electrons
So since I'm a carbon based life form on a carbon based planet does that make me the spawn of Satan living on a hell planet? Shit, you may not be that far off the mark.
The beast, was Emperor Nero.
Science is widely defrauded by government policy propaganda and destructive TBTF corporate interests that fund it. That's absolute truth and applying to global climatic change. But that will never be investigated unless there is true regime change in the US.
But those illiterate, unintelligent design morons from congress investigating science is simply ridiculous.
Overall look at con-men in science I found in:
https://contrarianopinion.wordpress.com/2015/01/07/triumph-of-con-science/
They are hiding weather warfare / manipulation in false climate data. some of us know this. Since they are fools they have 'lost control' of the weather. Hence the weird weather.
The 2015 battles have begun between the pro-gigadeath and anti-gigadeath camps.
Harvard climate scientist gets outed for taking over $1million in "bribes" from the fossil fuel industry to promote their interests
Head of the IPCC has sexual harrassment claims brought against him few days before a big meeting in Nairobi
Now this fake "scandal"
Dan Rohrbacher ???? Who does he think he's kidding ;-)
Rohrbacher voted for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 that started the Iraq War.[1]
Mr. Rohrbacher had a history of involvement in Afghanistan dating back to the Cold War, when he openly supported the groups that would later coalesce into the Taliban regime for their active opposition to the Soviet Union, including fighters under the command of Osama bin Laden.
In late 1988, Rohrabacher went to Afghanistan:
In the November/December 1996 issue of Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, Rohrbacher was reported as saying that the Taliban were not terrorists or revolutionaries, that they would develop a disciplined society that would leave no room for terrorists, and that the Taliban posed no threat to the United States.[2]
However, in a September 11, 1998, editorial in the The Washington Post, Rohrbacher strongly rebuked the Taliban for their obstinacy in providing refuge to Osama bin Laden, mass killings of Shi'ites and ethnic Uzbeks, Turks, and Tajiks, and restrictions on the rights of Afghan women and children:
During the summer of 2001, Rohrbacher made a trip to Qatar that was paid for by the Islamic Institute and the Government of Qatar, according to Rohrabacher's financial disclosure forms. While in Qatar, Rohrbacher, Grover Norquist, and Khaled Saffuri met with Taliban Foreign Minister Mullah Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil. Wakil reportedly asked for help in increasing the amount of foreign aid sent by the United States to Afghanistan, apparently in exchange for U.S. oil company UNOCAL being allowed to construct of an oil pipeline through Afghanistan. If Rohrbacher was conducting diplomacy, he was in violation of the Logan Act, which prohibits citizens from doing so if not in an official capacity. Rohrbacher told wire service reporters who were present in Doha, Qatar at the time that he had discussed a "peace plan" with the Taliban. But Norquist, a close associate of Rohrabacher, said that the meeting happened accidentally and that it included Rohrabacher yelling at them about blowing up the Buddhist statues" in Afganistan.[3]
The Taliban later announced in Kabul that it had rejected what it considered were unreasonable demands by the U.S. side. Rohrbacher's staff would not answer questions about the Taliban talks.[4] After his diplomatic overtures were apparently rejected, Mr. Rohrbacher became one of the most fervent public opponents of the Taliban.
After the September 11, 2001 attacks, Mr.Rohrbacher claimed that the attacks were due to incompetence on the part of the Clinton administration. [5]
On November 4, 2005, The Los Angeles Times reported that Rohrbacher "used his influence to open doors in Washington for a Hollywood producer pitching a television show after the producer paid him a $23,000 option on a screenplay." [6] The producer, Joseph Medawar, has since been indicted on fraud charges by the FBI and has plead not guilty. The question is whether the producer paid him the money for the screenplay or if the money was for the introductions to congressional and federal officials conducted by Rohrbacher. Rohrbacher claims that the introductions were done in good faith and were nothing that was not done regularly for legitimate causes, and that the introductions have only become an issue because of Joseph Medawar's misdeeds.
Rohrbacher is also connected to indicted former lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who has been charged with fraud in connection with his purchase of the SunCruz Casinos. Rohrbacher was listed as a financial reference for Abramoff. "I don't remember it, but I would certainly have been happy to give him a good recommendation," Rohrbacher said. "He's a very honest man."[7]
Rohrbacher is a "college friend" of Abramoff, and has been "his most steadfast defender on Capitol Hill." [8]
According to an article in The Weekly Standard, "...Rohrbacher was brought in to help muster support from inside the White House" for the 1985 Jamba Democratic International, a summit of right-wing insurgent groups at the headquarters of UNITA in the Angolan bush. It was co-organized by Abramoff and Jack Wheeler.[9] According to the UK Observer newspaper, the event was "...attended by a who's who of the extreme Right: members of the Oliver North group, Laotian guerrillas, Nicaraguan Contras, Afghan mujahideen and South African security police." [10]
During the proceeding, the assembled fighters listened to "...(Lewis) Lehrman read a letter Rohrbacher had drafted on Reagan's behalf, expressing solidarity with those struggling against the Soviet empire." [11]
Rohrbacher was an influencial activist in the radical anarcho-capitalist movement, starting from about 1969,[12] though he drifted towards the mainstream along with Charles Koch, the billionaire who helped fund his political campaigns.
He worked for awhile in the early 1970s as an editorial writer for The Register (today called The Orange County Register) newspaper] in Santa Ana, California, then a conservative newspaper with a libertarian bent.[13]
In the late 1960s and early 70s, Rohrbacher was influenced by the anarcho-capitalist ideas of Robert LeFevre, who had moved his Freedom School to Santa Ana, California, renaming it Rampart College. [14] Rohrbacher would appear at various meetings and conferences, including the "Left-Right Festival of Mind Liberation" in 1969. [15]Rohrbacher would often play the four-string banjo and sing his original libertarian-themed songs, including "Individual Man": "I don't own nobody. Nobody does own me. I'm just an individual man, just want to be free..."
Prior to his election to Congress in 1988, Rohrbacher served as Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan. For seven years he was one of the President's senior speechwriters. During his tenure at the White House, Rohrbacher played a leading role in the formulation of the Reagan Doctrine. He also helped formulate President Reagan's Economic Bill of Rights, a package of economic reforms that the President introduced in a speech before the Jefferson Memorial.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Dana_Rohrabacher
He chairs the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia and emerging threats. He is known for his long-time friendship with Russia's Vladimir Putin and his support for Russian positions in European affairs.[2]
Rohrabacher supported the right of Crimea to secede from Ukraine and join Russia in 2014. On March 6, 2014, he was one of 23 members of the House of Representatives to vote against a $1 billion loan guarantee to support the new government of Ukraine.[69] In the March 11, 2014, House of Representatives vote (402 voting yes; 7 opposed) to condemn Russia for violating Ukraine's sovereignty, Rohrabacher voted "present." Commenting on the issue, he stated, "Starting with our own American Revolution, groups of people have declared themselves, rightfully, to be under a different government or a government of their choosing. People forget that’s what our Declaration of Independence is all about." He also said, "The sanctions are an abomination of hypocrisy. This is ridiculous: What we were doing with the violence and military action we took to secure the Kosovars’ right to self-determination was far more destructive and had far more loss of life than what Putin’s done trying to ensure the people of Crimea are not cut off from what they would choose as their destiny with Russia."[70]
Rohrbacher doubts that global warming is caused by humans. During a congressional hearing on climate change on February 8, 2007, Rohrbacher mused that previous warming cycles may have been caused by carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere by "dinosaur flatulence."[65] He stated, "In fact, it is assumed at best to be unproven and at worst a liberal claptrap, trendy, but soon to go out of style in our new Congress."
Wiki
Your NYT claim is a just another smearing lie amongst many from that piece of fishpaper.
for once, it's true.
you want other sources?
Dr. Willie Wei-Hock Soon (who is most commonly referred to as Willie Soon) is a global warming denier. He is a physicist at the Solar, Stellar, and Planetary Sciences Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and, since 1992[1], has been an astronomer at the Mount Wilson Observatory,[2], where climate denier and Marshall Institute co-founder Robert Jastrow was Director[3] from 1992-2003.[4]
"U.S. oil and coal companies, including ExxonMobil, the American Petroleum Institute, Koch Industries, and the world’s largest coal-burning utility, Southern Company, have contributed more than $1 million over the past decade to his research. According to Greenpeace, every grant Dr. Soon has received since 2002 has been from oil or coal interests."[5]
A biographical note from 2000 stated that he was "a contributing editor to World Climate Report and member of the American Astrophysical Society, American Geophysical Union, and International Astronomical Union."[6] Two years later, another biographical note stated that he was a former contributing editor to World Climate Report but added that he was then an "Adjunct Professor of the Faculty of Science and Environmental Studies of the University of Putra, Malaysia." It also stated that "for years, he has researched the topic of the orbital theory of climate change, the Milankovic theory for glacial and interglacial changes."[7]
A biographical note formerly on the website of DCI Group-run Tech Central Station, where Soon was listed as "Science Director" between approximately September 2003[8] and May 2007, listed his "areas of Expertise" as "Global warming", "Mercury", "Solar Variability" and the "Arctic".[9] His bio note on TCS stated that "Dr. Willie Soon's views expressed are not necessarily those of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics."[9]
In November 2014, Willie Soon’s biographical note stated he was "a solar physicist and climate scientist based in Cambridge, Mass.” [10]
Soon has long been associated with various U.S. and Canadian think tanks disputing human-induced global warming. Many of the papers he has published on the topic have been co-authored withSallie L. Baliunas and sometimes with her and other co-authors.
Between December 1998[11] and September 2001[12] he was listed as a "Scientific Adviser" to the Greening Earth Society, a group that was funded and controlled by the Western Fuels Association(WFA), an association of coal-burning utility companies. WFA founded the group in 1997, according to an archived version of its website, "as a vehicle for advocacy on climate change, the environmental impact of CO2, and fossil fuel use."[13] While Soon remains listed on the websites of various think tanks noted for disputing global warming -- such as the Fraser Institute in Canada and the George C. Marshall Institute in the U.S. -- Soon has not written for them for a long time. (For example, the last paper by Soon published on the website of the Fraser Institute dates back to January 2003[14] and for the Marshall Institute the last published paper was in May 2003[15]) (Baliunas was one of the other "scientific advisers").
In 2003, Soon testified on the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works where he claimed that the climate of the 20th century was not extreme. “I am here today to testify that the climate of the 20th century is neither unusual nor the most extreme. Around 1,000 years ago, the temperature over many parts of the world was warm. A widespread cooling then set in for several centuries, followed by a recovery to 20th century warming,” Soon said.[16]
In 2013, Soon claimed that there was no evidence that the Earth was changing in a dangerous way. “There is no experimental data that exists that supports the view that the Earth’s climate is changing in any dangerous way,” Soon said.[17]
In September 2014, Soon co-authored an opinion piece in the Washington Times with Christopher Monckton that criticized the work of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and claimed “most of the fundamental problems in our still immature understanding of climate have remained unresolved for decades.” [18]
In November 2014, Soon accused the IPCC of “scare mongering” in response to 2014 United Nations Climate Change Synthesis Report [19], which confirmed the fact that “emissions of greenhouse gases and other anthropogenic drivers have been the dominant cause of observed warming since the mid-20th century.” “When will IPCC admit that their scare mongering is simply not working anymore? Our wonderful planet is not IPCC’s private casino parlor,” Soon said. [20]
In January 2015, Soon and three other global warming deniers published an article in Science Bulletin claiming that the UN panel tracking global warming used a flawed methodology to estimate global temperature change.[21] Soon and the three other climate-change deniers declared no conflicts of interests at the end of the paper.[21] Following the published article, the Climate Investigations Center filed a complaint[22] to the Science Bulletin editorial staff, expressing concern that Dr. Soon did not disclose his funding sources after claiming he had no conflict of interest. The complaint cited a Green Peace report[3] that revealed Soon accepted more than $1.3 million from companies, think tanks, and organizations that have either publicly criticized human-xcaused climate change or have a financial interest in fossil fuels.[3]
Soon received his Ph.D. in 1991 in aerospace engineering from the University of Southern California (USC). Both his undergraduate and Masters of Science degrees are also from USC.[23]
Soon received in 2004 the Petr Beckmann Award from Doctors for Disaster Preparedness (DDP) for "outstanding contributions to the defense of scientific truth".[24][25]DDP is closely associated withOregon Institute of Science and Medicine. Sallie L. Baliunas received the same award in 1997 and other global warming skeptics have been recipients in subsequent years.)
In 2014, Willie Soon was given an award at the Heartland Institute's Ninth International Conference on Climate Change for “speaking truth to power, whistleblowing, and the defense of science.” [26]
Willie Soon has received more than $1.3 million in funding from Big Oil and coal industry sponsors over the past decade, according to a Greenpeace report[3] based on FOIA requests. Since 2002, every grant Dr. Soon received originated with fossil fuel interests, he has has received at least $230,000 from Koch Family Foundations .[3]
In early 2009, Soon's current biographical note stated that he was a "chief science adviser for the Science and Public Policy Institute" (SPPI).[27] Prior to Bob Ferguson founding SPPI in mid 2007, Soon worked with him from mid-2003 at the Center for Science and Public Policy, a project of Frontiers of Freedom (FOF)[28] funded, at least in part, by Exxon.[29]
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Willie_Soon
OK, I admit it. I paid Soon $1 billion to write his reports. Now refute his work instead of claiming his data and conclusions are wrong because you think he is a big meanie? After failing to do that will you list all the government grant money your dipshit data falsifying global warming hallucinators get for writing their complete bullshit reports?
Geez, a massive screed. Too bad it's all argumentum ad hominem, which most first year philosophy students know is a logical fallacy.
If you're going to accuse someone of bias because he's funded by Big Oil, why can't we accuse someone of bias who's funded by Big Government? If Big Oil has a vested interest in denying AGW (so they can sell more oil), doesn't Big Government have an even more vested interest in promoting it, since it expands their ability to tax and control, which is all government leeches dream of?
So, either your argument is fallacious, which it is on the surface, but even if one admits it's possible that a scientist would be corrupted by private money, how can you then claim scientists can't be corrupted by government money?
Heads you lose, tails we win.
Well, regardless of what is or isn't causing "climate change" lets hope it is global warming because the fossil record is quite clear that when it is on the warm end of the scale life is abundant and when we head into a dryas or an iceage.... we be screwed.
Lets hope the group of Russian scientist that claim that we are headed into a sun induced dryas currently are corrupted with an agenda but by looks of the record lows outside I'd put my money on them before Al Gore.
“This really does begin to look like one of the greatest scientific scandals of all time.”
Ho, wait, NASA was also involved in moonlandings, remember? You know, sending people through the inpenetrable Van Allen Radiation Belt which surrounds the earth. Ever wondered why neither Chinese nor Russians have been on the moon? Because you can't go there.
If true, THAT would be the greatest scientific con in history.
See btw a NASA scientist admit in a 2014 video that the Van Allen Belt is inpenetrable: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlXG0REiVzE
Cue the clown music. Here they come.
This totally isn't science.
You do not manipulate your data. You may throw out some obvious outliers and reduce your level of certainty (sorry we don't know, bad data) but you do not change the original data points and then use the result to extrapolate. WTF?
This is science: http://www.skepticalscience.com/fiddling-with-global-warming-conspiracy-...
Would you really trust a Republican politician over scientific issues?
Bollocks it is.
You don't change the data. If you have systematic evidence that instruments have problems (and you need some good evidence, not just results telling you something you don't want to hear), eliminate it and drop the data set. Otherwise you simply have to put up with the added noise in the data and explain that the data isn't good enough for whatever confidence levels you want to use.
You do not manipulate the data set to match changes elsewhere and you certainly don't extrapolate from the manipulated data set. You say "we don't know" instead, because that is the truth.
This is not OK, it is not science.
No, that is NOT science, that is simply amateur appeals to snobbery and emotion.
There is a reason back in the Dark Ages, that researches and degree candidates were required to keep lab books and use PEN to write in them, and maintain them for actual peer review long after cranking out a paper on the IBM Selectric.
Unless the data warehouses contain BOTH the original and modified data, and the there are clear disclaimers and querying instructions provided for both data sets provided - then it is NOT science, and EVERY paper written based on that data need to be pulled pending a review and potential rewrite, or outright withdrawal.
This BULLSHIT tars everyone with an advanced degree in a wide variety of fields.
I don't trust ANY politician, but the self-regulatory mechanisms are NOT working, because because there are too many vested interests with something to lose by actually doing their job. So let them have their political circus, the infinite/impotent monkey/congressman theorem implies that at if this goes on long enough... someone might actually do their job.
Further to your point: When people who were skeptical approached Michael Mann (the AGW blowhard, not the film director) for his method and code used to 'adjust' the data, he basically told them to 'f off'. Yep, that's how I think a scientist who's wholly committed to peer review and not at all concerned with his personal reputation, celebrity, and money, should act.
No mister nebbish this is science...
6CO2 + 6H2O = C6H12O6 + 6O2
Plant biology 101 - photosynthisis...
Carbon Dioxide is plant food.
Some Zerohedger wrote this a while back....Global worming.it's pretty straightforward. It has to do with saltwater density. Melting ice decreases the salinity of ocean water which decreases the density of ocean currents. This in turn shuts down the gulf stream which causes the next ice age. Science is pretty solid on this one. Plenty of YT videos 5 min or less on the subject if you want to check them out………..
Yes, that is a very simple explanation. This article is going to bring out all the useful idiots yelling that because it's cold in winter and hot in the summer, climate change is not real. The melting of the polar ice caps must be a hoax just like the moon landings. While the fools in congress are investigating NASA on the bullshit about climate data, maybe they can finally get to the bottom of whether Armstrong set foot on the moon or an L.A. sound studio.
So, for the sake of entertainment, let's assume the polar ice caps are melting. All evidence points to the fact that they have been melting for thousands of years since the last ice age. Since the melting began thousands of years before man began burning carbon in any appreciable amounts how exactly did we cause the "climate change?"
No, there is no assumption needed. The caps are melting. I'll instead assume, for entertainment, that the poisons man spews into the atmosphere are climate change neutral. Do you think we should still be pumping that shit up?
Al Gore should sleep better at this news, as his new 20 squillion dollar manse on the water's edge in California might not slip into the ocean after all.
After one Kubrick movie too many, the public became disenchanted with NASA's "space program". Hitching their wagon to the star of global warning (no, you don't get to call it climate change) championed by living fossil (fuel plutocrat) David Rockefeller and his Club of Rome hacks, NASA doubled down on fraud. Federal Tort Claims Act, anyone? Give these fuckers the hook, already...
You can figure this fraud out, yet you cannot figure out that these lying scum have been wasting billions on hookers and blow for decades, while showing you cartoons made in a Hollywood basement. Go figure.
http://www.nasamoonhoax.com/
<--- Blogger
<--- Scientific knowledge
How about investigating the real financial fraud? And jailing some corrupt banksters?
A corporation paid scientist is not a scientist.
A government paid scientist is not a scientist.
Okay, okay... with enough time and effort, one might find a few honest scientists employed by corporation or government, but they are outliers. But they will eventually be weeded out, like any other honest individual.
My favorite is the pop-up on the NOAA site that asks what they could do to make it better? Umm how about quit fucking lying about climate data for a start. Jeez. Carbon tax is just a way to charge everyone whatever the fuck you want whenever the fuck you want, nothing new there.
More fucking distraction by the mother fucking ass clowns running Vichy DC
This ain't a distraction, Bonzo.
This is the heart of their scam and the biggest larceny ever attempted: a tax on the fourth most abundant element in the cosmos.
If they can tax carbon, why not tax hydrogen, helium, and oxygen.
When they finally get to taxing dark matter and dark energy, it's over.
I cannot believe the commenters' gross ignorance of the science of climate change. You believe the confirmed liars' (Inhofe and Rohrabacher) lies about the lies of the science liars (Monckton, Soon, Legates, et al) with no examination of the peer reviewed science. That is the gold standard of the science discussion. If you don't like the science, find legitimate research that disproves the overwhelming science demonstrating anthropogenic climate change. Sheesh
Your denial of truth is breath taking.
Hi Dougie,
Please give us one - just ONE - prediction made by the AGW hysterians that has actually come to pass. Just one. We'll wait.
Climate scientists don't make predictions like what the high temperature will be in Nome Alaska on Jan 9, 2016. They make models with varying assumptions and give a range of possible outcomes over time:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/1_SAR_2012.jpg
This one got it about right. See here for a longer discussion of how these things are done.
http://skepticalscience.com/lessons-from-past-climate-predictions-ipcc-s...
Hi again Dougie,
I see you have time to reply to other posts with more unsubstantiated opinion, but your reply to my post - asking you for ONE fact, just one - is still not to be found.
Why don't you at least admit that you still believe in AGW despite the fact that not one of their predictions have come true? You'd still be a moron, but at least you'd be an honest moron.
You can't read the post above your last?
I cannot believe that you think that changing the data is science. Sheesh.
"I cannot believe the commenters' gross ignorance of the science of climate change"
Climate change is not a science. Change is what the climate does- it evolves over time.
Manipulated data is not science. Never has been and never will be.
Republicans are truly setting themselves up as the beehive of cluelessness.
Do all these people think they can discover more about temperature records in 5 mins than the thousands of really bright minds that have been at this with the benefit of technology for decades. Of course they're all in the plot together, becoming billionaires...
All these accusations are old hat.
How well can you you predict known temperatures of areas for which you drop the data from you set (over thousands of days)?
Your post is a Tour-de-Force of lies and stupidity.
Global = ALL OVER THE ENTIRE WORLD, EVERYWHERE
Warming = RISING temps
IF temps are RISING EVERYWHERE, HOW is even possible to have RECORD COLD anywhere?
let me guess, you are too stupid to know what Global or Warming mean?
You morons are definitely too stupid to know that climate and weather are synonyms....maybe you are too stupid to know what a synonym is?
LOL ,two cowards junk me because they are so stupid that they just figured out that THE WEATHER CHANGES..
Climate, weather, global and warming are BIG WORDS for democrats....Google their definitions and stop being a ridiculous liar.
Your post is a tour-de-force in scientific ignorance. Global temperature rise does not mean temperatures go up everywhere, it means that on average global temperatures are going up.
I live in the northeast where this winter temperatures are below average. However, on the west coast up into Alaska and the arctic, temperatures are way above average. The high that usually sits over the arctic is sitting on us. I am not amused.
Fukushima is producing hot air mass with unpredictable effect on Northern Climate. Why not this?
But I don't know anything about weather. Hot air is north of Japan and sitting above Alaska... other side of the world New England gets high pressure system of Cold.
Hm.
Dear, there is ample evidence that human influence on the climate is negligable if not bogus. There are 2 main drivers of our climate : the sun ( surprise ! ) and the cosmic radiation intensity. Those 2 drivers explain the temperature variations seen in the ( distant to recent ) past and present. The IPCC "religion" has been created by interested parties ( climatologists in search of big money ) and found believers in the political world - the latter being infested by lawyers and other non-scientific individuals belonging to "green doomsday parties". Global warming is a scam : read the book by Nigel Calder : "The manic sun", ISBN 90 73035 71 6, published in 1997, Pilkington Press, London
Er..
Why did the AGW 'establishment' agree to destroy the century old Czech records on temperature, then? Shurely not because they contradicted CRUT's findings/
Any engineer worth his salt knows that if your theory DOESN'T MAKE PREDICTIONS WHICH ARE MET there is something wrong with your theory. According to Al Gore, the Artic Ice Cap should be gone by now; in fact, it's larger than ever. According to some wannabe soft-porn author who is also one of India's 'top' climate scientists, the Himalayan glaciers have disappeared (he later admitted making his data up). According to all the AGW hysteria, there should be more hurricanes and typhoons than ever before, when in fact, we've had the most benign period of extreme storms for nearly a decade.
None of your 'refutations' - all curiously unsupported by a single link - matter. What matters is this: the AGW hysterians has yet to make one - ONE - single prediction which has come true. When they do, please get back to us. Until then, kindly STFU.
FrankDrakman, you say "...the Artic Ice Cap should be gone by now; in fact, it's larger than ever". Please provide a link.
"Do all these people think they can discover more about temperature records in 5 mins than the thousands of really bright minds that have been at this with the benefit of technology for decades."
How long does it take to look up actual data in the internet age?
No scientist predicted the pause in advance. No scientist talked of polar vortexes in advance of the one last year. Now we are supposed to expect them more often. Since when? Since the progressively warmer and less snowy meme was broken by unexpected polar vortexes.
"Using only the raw data shows the same warming trend, with only abou 1% trend difference"
Does it now? "Far from the new graph showing any rise, it showed temperatures in fact having declined over those 65 years by a full degree."
Declned over 65 years, does not mean warming trend.
LOL, Didn't OBAMA's USGS just 'prove' fracking causes earthquakes? I read that somewhere.
Seriously, what kind of idiot believes anything that spurts out of the Obowelmovement lie-hole?
http://www.usgs.gov/faq/categories/9833/3428
To produce natural gas from shale formations, it is necessary to increase the interconnectedness of the pore space (permeability) of the shale so that the gas can flow through the rock mass and be extracted through production wells. This is usually done by hydraulic fracturing ("fracking"). Fracking causes small earthquakes, but they are almost always too small to be a safety concern. In addition to natural gas, fracking fluids and formation waters are returned to the surface. These wastewaters are frequently disposed of by injection into deep wells.The injection of wastewater into the subsurface can cause earthquakes that are large enough to be felt and may cause damage.
Of course this is science, so you probably wouldn't be interested.
Please read this from Lubos Motl. Lubos is a Czech physicist who has been a vocal critic of the Global Warming agenda for decades: http://motls.blogspot.com/2015/02/if-done-right-temperature-adjustments....
Adjustments are a good thing and the instinctive criticism of all adjustments as a matter of principle is simply not right. I agree with Mosher: these "principled" critics of all adjustments are surely throwing the baby out with the bath water. And by the way, I do agree with the description of those who get crazy whenever somebody mentions the word "adjustment" as anti-science nut jobs, and yes, I do think that a large number of such people exists among the WUWT regular readers (but probably among most laymen in the world, too, and maybe they are a majority among the TRF readers as well, sorry).
Lubos is referencing this article by Steven Mosher https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/02/09/guest-post-skeptic...
But one essential argument appears at the very end of Mosher's text: Whether or not you apply one of the specified major adjustments or two or none of them doesn't visibly affect the resulting graph at all. It changes nothing about the qualitative picture. So not only is the "principled" criticism of all adjustments conceptually misguided: Even if this criticism were justifiable, the conclusion that "the result of an analysis that used some adjustments is compromised" would still be incorrect because many adjustments simply don't matter for many questions!
The lying Global Warmers have gained no credibility by changing their name. They are still weather parasites with nothing real to offer to anyone.
As if congress has some kind of keen insight and knowledge of global weather patterns. Sort of the same as Obama being the smartest guy in any room.
What's going to happen is the same as the congressional Libya investigation.
"Yes, in fact there is global warming, it's a fact. Congress said it, I believe it, that settles it."
Now we can get onto the increased confisc...er taxes to combat this. Oh and you'll have to give up your cars, move to urban centers....wish there was some kind of plan for this...maybe the UN has something.
Is there a point to these hearings? Lerner lied, nothing. H.Clinton lied, nothing. These are props for the dog and pony show stating the gov is hard at work. This will result in nothing since the presidence was set with "it matters what the meaning of 'is' is" - Dirty Bill Clinton.
Yeah, Dana Rohrbacher and Goddard... where are you Watts? The justice league of climatology, none of them climatologists though... Just in time for Paris talks! Yeah, distract distract distract. Because chemtrails are real but 300 years of gassing the atmosphere with stuff that was stored on the ground for millions of years in a geological nano-second is an elitist-globalist-statist-undergroundreptilian conspiracy to tax and control...
So, dozens of commenters never bother to question whether the Telegraph article had any substance.
I'll summarize: the article cherry-picked stations with large upward adjustments after the hardware was changed or moved, and ignored those with large downward adjustments.
I moved my weather station, and changed hardware over the years, and surprise!, the data changed.
Who'd think? Evidently not reactionary posters.
K, muppet
Actually I did. The Telegraph article was all about the so-called study by Monckton, Soon, Legates, et al that Inhofe and Rohrbaker are so excited about, and that I criticized above. It's all a work of fiction to impress the congenital deniers and know nothing's that seem to inhabit this blog. I'll move along now that I have the necessary data to judge the lack of credibility of Zerohedge.
Chart lovers should read some of the NOAA data . the charts not their conclusions.. in fact worldwide there has been a fall in sea levels in most places.. the Solomon Islands have seen a rise but likely has nothing to do with rise in sea levels but rather increase in ice pack .. also the evil Co2 .. in Iceland they have a use for it... They are turning Co2 into rock . am not sure its just another quick fix scam to make money .. or something that works... The CarbFix project differs from this conventional approach by using water along with carbon dioxide, and by injecting them into volcanic rocks. The technique is designed to exploit the ability of CO2 to react with the rocks and turn into solid minerals................maybe yes . maybe no. In Canada .... Boundary Dam and the other projects operate Carbon dioxide gas, highly compressed acts like a liquid, is injected into a formation, usually sandstone and often an old oil or gas field. Impermeable rock layers above the storage zone should, in theory, keep the CO2 trapped indefinitely, but because the gas remains buoyant, there is a risk that it will move upward through cracks and eventually bubble back into the atmosphere.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/10/science/burying-a-mountain-of-co2.html...
Property is taxed, income is taxed, wealth is taxed, transportation is taxed, power is taxed, communications is taxed, water is taxed, food is taxed and now they want carbon taxed.
The ultimate tax accomplishment is placing meter on your nose, taxing the very air you breath. They have not proposed that yet, but just try not to exhale carbon.
"if you try to sit he'll tax your seat..."
Now, this is something I do know something about. The two sources I turn to for data and education are, in order:
1) http://www.suspicious0bservers.org Ben Davidson puts out a free 4-6 minute daily summary on You Tube, all backed up by sources. He's been doing excellent work and is very reliable. Bottom line from his perspective: there is climate change, only an idiot doesn't see it. However, he talks a lot about weather extremes with a big interest in how this is affected by an apparent solar shut down - of sun spots. Lots of material he has on a daily basis and I find it utterly fascinating.
2) http://wattsupwiththat.com Excellent site for all things climate and weather patterns.
Has there been data tampering? Yes, a lot of it. Eventually the reality wil become clear.
Anthropengic global warming is a monumental hoax. There is NO proven correlation between CO2 levels and average world temperatures. In fact, the two quantities often move in opposite directions for millions of years over geologic time, that is, from 4,600,000 years ago the present.
Today's CO2 level of 360 parts per million by volume is dwarfed by the approximate 7,000 ppmv CO2 level about 500,000,000 years ago with average global temperature of about 23 degrees Celsius.
Don't believe me. A good place to start your research is at:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/04/dr-vincent-gray-on-historical-carb...
I know the following will make most peoples eyes glaze over. But, science today is deeply corrupted by big money from big government.
The science behind the Global Warming debate is deeply flawed. Predicting doom based on:
• less than 100 years of temperature data of questionable quality with nearly constant terraforming nearby;
• over-sampling a small part and under-sampling most of the world's surface;
• even less sampling of the oceans surface temperatures;
• for all practical purposes no sampling of the multiplicity of deep ocean currents temperature, salinity, velocity, etc.;
• adherence to the Big Bang Theory, falsified by the works of Halton Arp and others more than forty years ago, that the Universe one day just decided to spring into being from nothing;
• refusal among Main Stream Astronomers and Cosmologists to accept the Plasma Universe Theory that states that the vast majority of the mass-energy (>99.9%) of the infinite Universe exists in the form of plasma, ionized matter in space, conducting vast amounts of electrical current in the form of twisted, double layers of oppositely charged ions, known as Birkeland currents, that are long range attractive but very short range repulsive;
• the Plasma Universe's Birkeland currents are vast physically and their ions carry electrical currents beyond human comprehension. Galaxies tend to develop like knots on a string along these currents;
• the Fusion-Powered Sun Theory is another outdated theory that doesn't agree with observations and measurements from many sources. In particular, the theory that the sun is a constant, invariable star does not agree with observations;
• NASA's Ulysses mission that flew three polar orbits around the sun, until it was turned off in 2008, showed that the solar wind had weakened by 20% over those three orbits. It also showed no solar wind emissions from the Sun's Northern and Southern pole regions, as one would expect if the Sun was receiving electrical currents through the intergalactic medium.
• interestingly the Earth also receives vast electrical currents at the Northern and Southern pole regions and can be seen as the aurora borealis.
• since measurements began about 1904 Earth's 'North' (by historical accident actually it's the South Pole) pole has been steadily migrating towards the Earth's spin axis. That means the source of electricity that deflects Earth's natural North Pole from its spin axis is weakening. Saturn's spin axis is aligned with the plane of the ecliptic, the plane that the planets orbit around the sun, and it's magnetic field is similarly aligned. But Earth's spin axis is offset from the plane of the ecliptic by 23 degrees.
Any climate model that doesn't take the above factors into account will be a worse predictor of the future than the meteorologists three-day weather forecast.
hahaha.... IS THAT THE SAME PENN STATE THAT INVESTIGATED THE FOOTBALL COACH and found NO WRONG DOING...... yeah that penn state....hahahaha
JUST KEEP THE FUCKING STOLEN TAXPAYER MONEY FLOWING BITCH.......
people are carbon, this climate change malarkey is simply a war on people.
Punch the true believers in their duodenums.
I'm a Mathematics Major(and have been on the Data/Fin Mgmt/Analysis side of the House). I'm all for the transparancy of Data as well as for Methodologies for Peer and Public Review - AND - I'm all for taking measures to remove all substances produced from our Civilization that are directly harmful to Humans, Fauna/Flora we consume, and systems that sustain the aforementioned. (I.E., makes no sense to poison ourselves)
That being said, I don't like the looks of these...
1) The Temp Trend vs 20thCE Mean
Exhibit A1... https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-chan...
Stats do keep up with intro of Petrol, with a "constant band" from 1940-1970s (WWII, Reconstruction), then taking off from the 1980s (Post War (and Oil Shock) Industrial Boom onwards.
2) CO2 Concentrations (PPM) Trends vs Pre-Industrial Age Levels, with the Treehuggers warning about how we need to stay below 350PPM.
IIRC, we're "supposedly" hit 400PPM, still in an uptrend - AND - the Annual Rate of Increase itself is on the "Increase" - we're growing in Leaps in Bounds.
Exhibit B1... https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/2013-state-c...
and B2... http://350.org/about/science/
Lastly - the alleged increased release of Methane from Methane Hydrate and other sources - Trend Data and Analyses are is not widespread. I don't think there are a good number of Researchers on the Case yet.
Hopefully, we'll be able to find someone who doesn't have any hidden agenda give us some raw data we can consolidate; and may the data manipulators forever be damned and banned from any form of employment worthy of Public Trust.