New Evidence of Warming Records Being Manipulated

Posted by Tina

Writing in The Telegraph Christopher Booker reports about evidence uncovered by Steven Goddard’s, “Real Science” blog:

Goddard shows how, in recent years, NOAA’s US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been “adjusting” its record by replacing real temperatures with data “fabricated” by computer models. The effect of this has been to downgrade earlier temperatures and to exaggerate those from recent decades, to give the impression that the Earth has been warming up much more than is justified by the actual data. In several posts headed “Data tampering at USHCN/GISS”, Goddard compares the currently published temperature graphs with those based only on temperatures measured at the time. These show that the US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record; whereas the latest graph, nearly half of it based on “fabricated” data, shows it to have been warming at a rate equivalent to more than 3 degrees centigrade per century.

Real Science post here.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

104 Responses to New Evidence of Warming Records Being Manipulated

  1. Chris says:

    Tina, please address your previous record of citing blatant misrepresentations of science in order to advance a political agenda. I am referring specifically to the Forbes articles you cited from James Taylor and Peter Ferrara. I am sure that by now you are aware of exactly how these two misrepresented the positions and findings of actual scientists and scientific organizations in order to cast doubt on the consensus that AGW is happening and poses a serious threat to our environment. If you are still not aware of how they did so, I’d be happy to remind you.

    Until you demonstrate that you understand the serious errors and scientific misrepresentations in your previous sources, it is unclear why you believe you should be trusted to report on any information related to scientific matters again, or why you believe you are even informed enough to form an opinion on such matters.

  2. Chris says:

    Steven Goddard is a birther:

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/08/06/kenyan-newspaper-said-obama-was-born-in-kenya-in-2004/

    Is this the kind of person you trust to report on serious matters in an accurate, apolitical manner, Tina?

  3. Peggy says:

    Huuuummmmm, lookie here.

    ICYMI: Former EPA Administrators Disagree with Obama Statement on Climate:

    June 18, 2014

    In 2012, President Obama made a public statement about global temperatures that has since been proved to be untrue (here and here):

    “We can’t attribute any particular weather event to climate change. What we do know is the temperature around the globe is increasing faster than was predicted even 10 years ago. We do know that the Arctic ice cap is melting faster than was predicted even five years ago. We do know that there have been extraordinarily — there have been an extraordinarily large number of severe weather events here in North America, but also around the globe.” (November 14, 2012 White House News Conference)

    During today’s Senate Environment & Public Works Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety hearing entitled, “Climate Change: The Need to Act Now,” Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), the Subcommittee’s top Republican, asked four former Administrators of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), to raise their hand if they agreed with President Obama’s statement. None of the four witnesses raised their hand, and all remained silent.

    Sen. Sessions: “So, I would ask each of our former [EPA] Administrators if any of you agree that is an accurate statement [from President Obama] on climate. So if you do, raise your hand. Thank you. The record will reflect no one raised their hands.”

    Democrat-Invited Witnesses Refuse To Endorse Obama Climate and Sen. Sessions question the former EPA Administrators.: (Must watch video)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsNY4uKXXL8

    http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=e57a0215-c56f-24a6-1c42-a91dba3f8780

  4. Tina says:

    Thanks Peggy, it’s becoming more evident every day…the warming scare is a hoax!

    A recent discovery in the antarctic region highlights the histrionics that flavor the man made global warming meme:

    It seems that we still don’t know everything there is to know about our earth-climate system. Take this for example. Scientists have just now discovered an active volcano under the Antarctic ice that “creates melt-water that lubricates the base of the ice sheet and increases the flow towards the sea”.

    Yet many claim the CO2 is the driver for any melting of the Antarctic ice sheet. I wonder how this will figure into that argument?

    I can answer that question in terms of how it figures in politically.

    The alarmists will swear that there is very little reason to believe that these natural forces could be the contributing. They will continue to insist that only the evil industrial age, created by greedy careless mankind, can explain the changes we observe.

    The problem with the man made theory is that it is inconsistent with historical records, dependent on manipulated scientific data, and has been perpetrated by despicable means through unsavory characters.

    The political purpose behind the warming hoax is fascistic control and manipulation of tax monies and industry.

    Those seeking to quell so-called “deniers” depend on several discredited scientists, manipulated United Nations “panel” reports, and the ridiculous carnival hawker, Al Gore, and yet they believe they hold the superior position.

    Science does not rely on consensus. That this bunch would attempt to sell a flawed theory based on consensus only highlights their collective disdain for true scientific discovery. Their scheme has given the scientific community a black eye, unnecessarily.

    It’s irresponsible and a mistake to make abrupt changes that harm the lives and livelihoods of our citizens based on such wild theories.

    Those of us who see the folly should speak up often and strongly!

  5. Peggy says:

    Hopefully Tina, more will wake up and realize they are being duped into paying for the elitist hawkers luxurious life-style.

    Obama’s Air Force One in one hour does more harm to the environment than the average person does in a life time. He’ll fly to the west coast for a round of golf and a fund raiser for the DNC after telling thousand of coal miner workers they’re out of a job. How that man sleeps at night is a mystery to me.

    Then there’s all the big bucks rolling in to Al Gore’s pocket so he can pay his $1,400 a month electric bills for just one of his many mansions. Oh and we can’t forget the $500 million he sold Current TV to a company dripping in fossil fuel money.

    Al Gore’s Hypocrisy: The Climate Crusader Profits from Fossil Fuels: (Note this article was written by a Gore supporter.)

    “Now, someone can correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t ever recall Gore saying that it was OK to take fossil fuel money in television as long as the network is a good network or is one that has won awards. He is engaging in the logical fallacy of special pleading, which is where someone applies a special exemption to their rules when those rules contradict their actions. For example:

    Al Gore: “You should never run a red light.”

    Me: “But you just ran a red light.”

    Al Gore: “Yes, but I was in a hurry.”

    I can apply the same special pleading to any oil company and justify consuming their oil since they make charitable contributions and invest in renewables.”

    http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Al-Gores-Hipocrisy-The-Climate-Crusader-Profits-from-Fossil-Fuels.html

    Air Force One Costs $179,750 Per Hour:

    Thursday’s official business/campaign trip to Florida will cost $674,000.
    Feb 23, 2012,

    http://investorplace.com/investorpolitics/air-force-one-costs-179750-per-hour/#.U6eCQOlOUqQ

    Military Pegs Hourly Air Force One Cost at $181G, as Obama Sets Travel Record:
    November 24, 2010

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/24/military-pegs-hourly-air-force-cost-g-obama-sets-travel-record/

    Note 2012 was the most recent post I could find. And somehow with the rising cost of gas the 2010 cost was higher. Hum, how could that be?

    Obama, Gore and the other elitists are just fine telling all of us peons we have to cut back our carbon footprint, lose our jobs, etc. so they can continue living high on the hog life we’re paying for.

    Anyone who doesn’t speak up is a sucker… a broke sucker to boot.

  6. Pie Guevara says:

    My, my, the wannabe man burner is tossing about slurs again. The desperation is palpable and, as usual, Chris does not know what he is talking about.

    That Steven Goodard once blogged about a Kenyan newspaper report has nothing to do with the fact NASA has manipulated data to achieve a result. Nor does it make him “a birther.” Models are not climate. Model manipulation of climate data is fraud.

    What your remarks do is make you look like the ass you are, but then, that comes naturally for the self professed potential man burner.

  7. Pie Guevara says:

    Re: #1 Chris: By the way, fool —

    1) Science is not done by consensus. Do a little research of that your own you lazy English major ignoramus.

    2) The “consensus” the brainless automaton Chris so loves to parrot is manufactured, just like NASA and Hadley CRU have manufactured data by manipulating it while and obscuring their methods, despite the consequent whitewash of this fraud. Research that study yourself, I am not going to hold your hand. Moreover THERE ARE OVER 20 CLIMATE MODELS CURRENTLY IN USE BY CAGW PROPONENTS. If there were a “consensus” only one model would be deployed and the others discarded as inaccurate. There are not 20 models purporting to explain gravity or relativity. Think about it, if you can think and don’t let others do your thinking for you.

    3) Climate science is far from “settled.” The only thing “settled” is an agreement on the basic theory of the greenhouse effect.

    4) As the data, the repeated failure of models to predict, and the fraudulent manipulation of data to make it fit the models show, climate is far more complex than greenhouse gas theory. There are natural mechanisms opposing forcing functions we do not understand and may not understand for decades to come.

  8. Tina says:

    Thank you Pie. I appreciate the support from someone with the background and authority to speak t the issue.

  9. Chris says:

    Tina,

    Please address your previous misrepresentations of climate science before accusing others of misrepresenting climate scientists.

    Pie: “THERE ARE OVER 20 CLIMATE MODELS CURRENTLY IN USE BY CAGW PROPONENTS. If there were a “consensus” only one model would be deployed and the others discarded as inaccurate.”

    Ridiculous. The fact that nearly all of these models show the exact same result is actually evidence against your position.

  10. Pie Guevara says:

    Chris, again, does not know what he is talking about. What can you expect from a liberal English major who thought that if he were to garner a modest command of the English language he could then bullshit his way through life. Intelligent and thoughtful people know better. So it goes.

    Case in point on “so called” peer review —

    U.S Scientist sees Ice Age Coming

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/24/understanding-peer-review-2/

  11. Pie Guevara says:

    By the way Chris, you could do well to improve your screed by reading William Strunk Jr’s “The Elements Of Style.” It is only 78 small paperback pages long. Even a liberal phony twerp awarded an English Major booby prize could get through that.

  12. Pie Guevara says:

    CERTO SCIO OCCISAM SAEPE SAPEREPLUS MUELTO SUEM

  13. Pie Guevara says:

    By the way, 20+ models showing similar wrong results only lends to the incredulity of CAGW proponents. Again, IF THERE WERE A CONSENSUS (and science is not done by consensus, you moron, educate yourself) there would not be 20+ competing models.

    You just do not get it and you never will, Chris. You are an ignoramus who thinks his defecation does not stink.

  14. Pie Guevara says:

    I have yet again encouraged Chris to think for himself and educate himself and again he refuses. I wonder, why should I bother? Tina, bless her, has far more stamina than I dealing with this twit.

  15. Chris says:

    Pie, why do you continue citing Steven Goddard as a source, despite the fact that he has no climate science credentials, and has been caught misrepresenting scientific research multiple times in the past?

    http://www.desmogblog.com/steven-goddard

    http://climatecrocks.com/2011/09/14/new-lows-sea-ice-and-steven-goddard-credibility/

  16. Tina says:

    Modeling, that’s where you know the result you’re looking for and then input at the computer to produce that result…it’s also commonly referred to as GIGO, yes?

  17. Chris says:

    Tina: “Modeling, that’s where you know the result you’re looking for and then input at the computer to produce that result…”

    No. You are scientifically illiterate, as proven by both the above statements and your repeated refusal to address your previous misrepresentations of scientific data.

  18. Chris says:

    By the way, Tina, do you agree with the Christian fundamentalist home-schooling website you cited a few weeks ago that all scientific evidence which contradicts the Bible must be immediately rejected? That would explain a lot about your position on this issue.

  19. Tina says:

    One of the things that makes Chris’s posts excoriating me so damned obnoxious is that I have never claimed to be a scientist or to know the absolute truth about climate change and I’m more than happy to post opposing opinions and data for discussion.

    Rather than simply posting what he believes to be true or factual Chris insists that I enter into his blog confessional and, after hanging my head to admit he is right, flagellate myself publicly as penance for something he perceives as an egregious error. That he refuses to let it go points to the fact that he might be doing it just so he can feel smugly superior. I won’t confess for several reasons not the least of which is that I don’t know that he, or the result he claims was misrepresented, is absolutely correct either. In my mind we are not here to decide the science. In my mind we are here to expose the fact that the science is not settled and that people disagree and have the right to voice that disagreement without being subjected to the Chris confessional.

    I’m interested in exposing the politics behind what I believe is a blatant abuse of scientific discovery to perpetrate a hoax. I wish to help stop what I believe to be the biggest power and wealth grab to ever be perpetrated on mankind in the history of mankind.

    The revelations that scientists manipulated findings and controlled and manipulated peer review, and the fact that grant money was awarded only to those whose studies supported the man made warming political narrative and agenda, is a million times more troubling to me than a journalist getting one part of his story wrong or a blogger like me not having a perfect record of the facts…especially when there are no perfect records of the facts.

    I am dumfounded that Chris chooses to make an issue of small errors while refusing to see the truly despicable liars and frauds within the man made global warming political cabal he chooses to support.

    In short Chris’s petty outrage is out of proportion and directed very poorly. So be it; that is his choice.

    My choice is to direct comments generally rather than personally in response to Chris when I find it necessary for clarity for those readers who might be new to Post Scripts.

  20. Tina says:

    It would appear Chris lacks a humor gene.

    I would like to be around when he is held to account for everything others that he has ever quoted or noticed think. Apparently people are all right or all wrong with this guy and they are only right when they agree with him.

    Anger…lots of anger…at what?

  21. Chris says:

    Tina: “I won’t confess for several reasons not the least of which is that I don’t know that he, or the result he claims was misrepresented, is absolutely correct either.”

    Tina, the fact that you still don’t “know” this proves how ill-equipped you are to have an intelligent discussion on this issue. The errors I pointed out to you were so simple even a child could understand them. James Taylor claimed that a study disproved the 97% consensus among climate scientists; the study could not possibly have done that, for the following obvious reasons:

    1) The study polled zero climate scientists. It was a study of the attitudes of a small group of geoscientists and engineers working for an oil company in Alberta, Canada.

    2) Even among this small group, which the researchers hypothesized would be less supportive of the AGW theory than climate scientists, the majority still believed that AGW was at least a slight problem. Taylor misreported the results to say that only 36% believed in man-made global warming, but that number actually represented the number of people who were most strongly concerned with global warming. The respondents were placed in five separate “frames” based on how strongly they felt about the issue. As a whole, about 70% of those polled believed some AGW was happening.

    I’ve explained this over and over again. I’ve linked to the actual study as well as the authors correcting Taylor’s lies in their own words.

    To claim that you’re just not interested enough to look into these claims is disingenuous. You were interested enough to link to that same Taylor piece no less than three separate times on this blog, two of them after I had already detailed his dishonesty. You presented Taylor’s article as if it was ground-breaking, as if it was a huge blow to the AGW crowd. But now that it turns out Taylor was lying, it’s just a “small error” that doesn’t really matter to the debate? You can’t have it both ways.

    As for the Peter Ferrara article, he partially quoted a Russian scientist to make him sound like he was arguing that solar activity might have a huge effect on climate change when he was really arguing the opposite. Then he named six different organizations and individuals that he claimed had “acknowledged a pause in global warming” over the past 15 years; looking into three of them, I found none of them had ever made such statements, and all of them said that global temperatures had continued to rise during that time period. I didn’t look into the other three.

    There’s no excuse for you to continue baselessly smearing the vast majority of climate scientists, accusing them of all types of fraud and misrepresentations, when you admit above that you don’t understand the very blatant misrepresentations and lies of your own sources.

    “I’m interested in exposing the politics behind what I believe is a blatant abuse of scientific discovery to perpetrate a hoax”

    But you admit yourself: you have no basis for that belief. You don’t understand basic scientific errors and misrepresentations when they’re pointed out to you, so what gives you the knowledge to make the claims you’re making right now? You simply don’t know what you’re talking about. You’re just parroting the talking points of politicians you like and respect.

    It makes sense that you want to talk about the politics rather than the science, because that’s all you know. But science isn’t determined by politicians. What you “believe” doesn’t matter. Climategate was revealed to be a big fat nothingburger by every independent investigation that was done. There was no scandal, there was no manipulation of data. I wish there was; it would mean we wouldn’t have to worry or do anything about global warming. But the world doesn’t run on wishes.

  22. Tina says:

    I could go back through years of comments made by Chris and find charges and information he put forth that is flawed and faulty. In fact I have pointed out a number of errors by simply posting relevant information available to anyone on the web. Chris’s proclamation that I am “ill-equipped” to “have an intelligent discussion” is just another attempt to invoke rule #12.

    Chris is no more “equipped” than anyone else here to discuss the issue, particularly from a political perspective, and yet pretends to be superior. To what possible end?

    Chris has been given every opportunity to express not only his opinions but whatever “expert” information he has gathered, including the ability to write front page articles…but that isn’t enough access to this rabid leftist who claims superiority by proclamation.

    I’m sorry Chris but you are going to have to do better. Mere proclamations of superiority don’t cut it in an arena pocked with liars and cheats.

    For the record. I have never claimed to try to determine science through the use of politics. The leftist warming radicals have and I will continue to offer evidence of their shenanigans whenever I find it.

    As to the 97% myth:

    Hockeystick Blogspot:

    One frequently cited source for the consensus is a 2004 opinion essay published in Science magazine by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian now at Harvard. She claimed to have examined abstracts of 928 articles published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and found that 75% supported the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years while none directly dissented.

    Ms. Oreskes’s definition of consensus covered “man-made” but left out “dangerous”—and scores of articles by prominent scientists such as Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Sherwood Idso and Patrick Michaels, who question the consensus, were excluded. The methodology is also flawed. A study published earlier this year in Nature noted that abstracts of academic papers often contain claims that aren’t substantiated in the papers.

    Another widely cited source for the consensus view is a 2009 article in “Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union” by Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, a student at the University of Illinois, and her master’s thesis adviser Peter Doran. It reported the results of a two-question online survey of selected scientists. Mr. Doran and Ms. Zimmerman claimed “97 percent of climate scientists agree” that global temperatures have risen and that humans are a significant contributing factor.

    The survey’s questions don’t reveal much of interest. Most scientists who are skeptical of catastrophic global warming nevertheless would answer “yes” to both questions. The survey was silent on whether the human impact is large enough to constitute a problem. Nor did it include solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists or astronomers, who are the scientists most likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change.

    The “97 percent” figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make.

    In 2010, William R. Love Anderegg, then a student at Stanford University, used Google Scholar to identify the views of the most prolific writers on climate change. His findings were published in Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences. Mr. Love Anderegg found that 97% to 98% of the 200 most prolific writers on climate change believe “anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for ‘most’ of the ‘unequivocal’ warming.” There was no mention of how dangerous this climate change might be; and, of course, 200 researchers out of the thousands who have contributed to the climate science debate is not evidence of consensus.

    In 2013, John Cook, an Australia-based blogger, and some of his friends reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011. Mr. Cook reported that 97% of those who stated a position explicitly or implicitly suggest that human activity is responsible for some warming. His findings were published in Environmental Research Letters.

    Mr. Cook’s work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August 2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found “only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse” the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming. Elsewhere, climate scientists including Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils- Axel Morner, whose research questions the alleged consensus, protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented their work.

    Rigorous international surveys conducted by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch —most recently published in Environmental Science & Policy in 2010—have found that most climate scientists disagree with the consensus on key issues such as the reliability of climate data and computer models. They do not believe that climate processes such as cloud formation and precipitation are sufficiently understood to predict future climate change.

    Surveys of meteorologists repeatedly find a majority oppose the alleged consensus. Only 39.5% of 1,854 American Meteorological Society members who responded to a survey in 2012 said man-made global warming is dangerous.

    Finally, the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—which claims to speak for more than 2,500 scientists—is probably the most frequently cited source for the consensus. Its latest report claims that “human interference with the climate system is occurring, and climate change poses risks for human and natural systems.” Yet relatively few have either written on or reviewed research having to do with the key question: How much of the temperature increase and other climate changes observed in the 20th century was caused by man-made greenhouse-gas emissions? The IPCC lists only 41 authors and editors of the relevant chapter of the Fifth Assessment Report addressing “anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing.”

    Of the various petitions on global warming circulated for signatures by scientists, the one by the Petition Project, a group of physicists and physical chemists based in La Jolla, Calif., has by far the most signatures—more than 31,000 (more than 9,000 with a Ph.D.). It was most recently published in 2009, and most signers were added or reaffirmed since 2007. The petition states that “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of . . . carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”

    We could go on, but the larger point is plain. There is no basis for the claim that 97% of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous problem.

    Watts Up With That:

    We’ve all been subjected to the incessant “97% of scientists agree …global warming…blah blah” meme, which is nothing more than another statistical fabrication by John Cook and his collection of “anything for the cause” zealots. As has been previously pointed out on WUWT, when you look at the methodology used to reach that number, the veracity of the result falls apart, badly. You see, it turns out that Cook simply employed his band of “Skeptical Science” (SkS) eco-zealots to rate papers, rather than letting all authors of the papers rate their own work (Note: many authors weren’t even contacted and their papers wrongly rated, see here). The result was that the “97% consensus” was a survey of the SkS raters beliefs and interpretations, rather than a survey of the authors opinions of their own science abstracts. Essentially it was pal-review by an activist group with a strong bias towards a particular outcome as demonstrated by the name “the consensus project”.

    In short, it was a lie of omission enabled by a “pea and thimble” switch Steve McIntyre so often points out about climate science.

    Most people who read the headlines touted by the unquestioning press had no idea that this was a collection of Skeptical Science raters opinions rather than the authors assessment of their own work. Readers of news stories had no idea they’d been lied to by John Cook et al². (Follow link to read results of survey)

    American Free Press:

    The recently released report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is comprised of an international group of scientists sponsored by the United Nations (UN), is extremely alarmist in nature, despite the fact that numerous top climate scientists have admitted that many of their “global warming” predictions were wrong or seriously exaggerated.

    The 36-page summary report, issued to governments and world leaders last week, contends:

    Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate extremes. It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.

    The full 2,216-page report entitled “Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis,” “was accepted but not approved in detail,” whatever that means.

    The summary report goes say that “warming of the climate system is unequivocal” and that many of the changes “are unprecedented over decades to millennia.” The report also emphasizes that “human influence on the climate system is clear,” noting that “man-made climate change is almost certain,” according to a report by CNN. …

    Many scientists are extremely skeptical of the IPCC, its findings, and the very nature of the organization. Dr. Eric Karlstrom, Emeritus Professor of Geography at California State University – Stanislaus, argues that the IPCC has a political agenda promoted by international elites.

    “The idea of a carbon footprint is pathetic and ludicrous propaganda, since CO2 is beneficial for life,” Dr. Karlstrom explained to AFP in an informal email exchange.

    Dr. Karlstrom, who also manages a website, went on to explain the “global warming” hysteria, and it’s ultimate agenda:

    “Global warming is phony science that was concocted to justify implementation of an international political agenda. The idea of using ‘man-caused global warming’ as a ‘surrogate for war’ and as a way to ‘destroy excess wealth’ originated in American and UN-related think tanks such as the Club of Rome back in the 60′s and 70′s. This pseudo-science is the centerpiece of a phony environmental movement by which the UN hopes to redistribute wealth in the world (toward the super-rich and away from the people) to de-industrialize the industrialized countries (via the UN Kyoto Protocol-type carbon taxes, cap and trade schemes, etc.), and radically reduce the human population.”

    “The IPCC is essentially operating with pre-determined conclusions, namely that human activity and carbon emissions cause ‘global warming’ and other environmental and climate problems, even though there is little objective scientific evidence to demonstrate ‘global warming’ is in fact a real phenomenon,” Dr. Karlstrom says. Climate scientists working with the IPCC and other international bodies have been known to not only spin scientific data to fit their pre-determined conclusions, but also to outright fabricate “evidence” to support their idea of “man-made climate change.”

    “Bottom line, they don’t want to share resources with the unwashed masses,” Dr. Karlstrom concludes.

    Global Climate Scam:

    n an unprecedented move Wednesday, the Norwegian Nobel Committee rescinded the Peace Prize it awarded in 2007 to former US vice president Al Gore and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, amid overwhelming evidence that global warming is an elaborate hoax cooked up by Mr. Gore.

    A press release from the committee quotes a chagrined Rajendra Pachauri, the UN climate panel’s chair, who claims that he was the victim of a “cunning deception spanning decades”:

    “I am deeply ashamed for having unwittingly perpetuated such a massive fraud on the governments of the world,” said Mr. Pachauri.

    “It turns out that all that data from satellites and radiosondes, surface temperature readings, borehole analysis, measurements of rising sea levels, melting glaciers and permafrost, phenological data, and proxy reconstructions of paleoclimatic conditions were all fabricated out of thin air by my former friend, Al Gore. Now that I think about it, I suppose that we should have instituted some sort of peer-review process before publishing such alarming conclusions. Once again, I’m very sorry.”

    After revoking the 2007 prize from Gore and the IPCC, the Nobel committee retroactively awarded it to the more than 31,000 people who signed the Oregon Petition – an appeal challenging the notion that there exists a scientific consensus regarding global warming – “for their efforts to pursue pure, objective science that is free from the influence of any special interest group.” (Source: Christian Science Monitor)

    Knowing the politics is pretty important when the governments of the world have been convinced to take steps that destroy jobs and impose oppressive and expensive regulations and taxes on the people. Knowing the politics is pretty important when it is demonstrated that power hungry, greedy people have been lying to the world to enrich themselves while they destroy economies.

    I don’t pretend to have all the answers. I am willing to put alternative information that people should be made aware of on this blog. If some have a problem with that then I suggest they are just willing dupes in the scheme…willingly blind to the evidence of hoax and stubbornly so.

    I’m done.

  23. Chris says:

    Tina, your last link is a very obvious piece of satire that was posted on April Fool’s Day. Al Gore has never had his Nobel Prize rescinded. Even if the tone of the piece hadn’t tipped you off, you easily could have figured this out by clicking the link to the Christian Science Monitor or reading the first couple comments.

    The fact that you were fooled by this, and put it forward as actual evidence for your position, proves everything I’ve said over the past few years about your gullibility, lack of critical thinking skills, and poor research. You don’t know a hoax when you see one; what qualifies you to accuse scientists of a global warming hoax?

  24. Pie Guevara says:

    Tina, I have to disagree. Chris is an ENGLISH MAJOR (a booby prize if there ever was one).

    As such, he is a super-hero in tights and you Tina … well you are just so much trash.

    Welcome to Chris’ world. It is wrapped way to tight. It thinks it knows everything. It is an ass. An intellectually lazy and intellectually bankrupt ass.

  25. Chris says:

    Tina: “I could go back through years of comments made by Chris and find charges and information he put forth that is flawed and faulty.”

    OK, then do it. I’ll either admit to being wrong, or explain exactly how I’m right, depending on whether or not your evidence is convincing. What I won’t do is completely refuse to engage, and act as if I have no way of knowing whether or not your claims are correct. That is the route of a proud idiot, and it’s the route you’ve taken every time I’ve brought up your misrepresentations of science.

  26. Pie Guevara says:

    There is one thing you have to admire about Chris, he takes his marching orders to heart. As tiresome as it is, when he cannot argue a point, he always resorts to personal attack and at least a half dozen other fallacies.

    Like Wile E. Coyote, Chris is a super-genius.

  27. Pie Guevara says:

    Re #15 Chris : Pie, why do you continue citing Steven Goddard as a source, despite the fact that he has no climate science credentials, and has been caught misrepresenting scientific research multiple times in the past?

    Because Goddard has been correct and the claim he misrepresents scientific research is bullshit.

  28. Pie Guevara says:

    Please note that the articles Chris cites are little more than spittle flecked ad hominem attacks.

  29. Chris says:

    Pie: “By the way, 20+ models showing similar wrong results only lends to the incredulity of CAGW proponents. Again, IF THERE WERE A CONSENSUS (and science is not done by consensus, you moron, educate yourself) there would not be 20+ competing models.”

    I’m sorry, this scientifically illiterate garbage may fool your cohorts here, but it doesn’t fool me. You are actually saying that there is only One True Methodology that could possibly be used to get accurate results in a scientific study, which is ridiculous. Again, the fact that so many competing models are getting the same results is very strong evidence that those results are valid.

    Some of the models may be more or less valid than others, but you’d have to actually show what the flaws in methodology are in order to cast doubt on the conclusions. But instead you’re using the time-honored right-wing strategy of confusing the masses with Big! Scary! Numbers! because that’s what works here on Post Scripts. “20 models? Those crazy scientists!” It’s an appeal to populist ignorance.

    And that’s not even getting into your tired, repeated notion that “science is not done by consensus.” No one is arguing that science is settled by consensus; the consensus comes after the fact, not before. Scientists don’t vote on what they believe; rather, a consensus emerges once scientists have put in the work and reached similar conclusions. The consensus exists because scientists have, with few exceptions, stopped arguing about the existence and primary causes of global warming, and have now moved on to the specifics. That a small minority of scientists dispute the findings of the majority is not reason enough for half the country to believe that there is a strong scientific debate over whether AGW is even happening.

  30. Pie Guevara says:

    Please also note that whatever Goddard’s background may be, it does not change the facts. CAGW “science” has manipulated the data to achieve a result that agrees with their flawed models on multiple occasions. They have purposefully obscured their methods and manipulations of that data. They have gone as far as to admit the raw data that they have massaged to get a result is no longer available and has been lost.

    It is a black eye that science may never recover from.

  31. Pie Guevara says:

    Consensus Chris may find this illuminating, but probably not. It appears on the evil “denier” Anthony Watts blog, which just so happens to be the most viewed climate website in the world. —

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/24/the-disagreement-of-what-defines-consensus-by-cook-et-al-is-revealed-in-raters-remarks-and-it-sure-isnt-97/

  32. Pie Guevara says:

    Last but not least, evidently Chris thinks that a screed which consists mostly of juvenile ad hominem attacks is good science. I beg to differ, but then I am not an ENGLISH MAJOR.

  33. Chris says:

    As Reason.com points out, even Anthony Watts acknowledges that Steven Goddard is lying about this “new evidence of warming records being manipulated:

    “…while it is true that NOAA does a tremendous amount of adjustment to the surface temperature record, the word “fabrication” implies that numbers are being plucked out of thin air in a nefarious way when it isn’t exactly the case.

    “Goddard” is wrong is his assertions of fabrication, but the fact is that NCDC isn’t paying attention to small details, and the entire process from B91’s to CONUS creates an inflated warming signal. We published a preliminary paper two years ago on this which you can read here:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/press-release-2/

    About half the warming in the USA is due to adjustments. We’ received a lot of criticism for that paper, and we’ve spent two years reworking it and dealing with those criticisms. Our results are unchanged and will be published soon…

    …I took Goddard to task over this as well in a private email, saying he was very wrong and needed to do better. I also pointed out to him that his initial claim was wronger than wrong, as he was claiming that 40% of USCHN STATIONS were missing.

    Predictably, he swept that under the rug, and then proceeded to tell me in email that I don’t know what I’m talking about. Fortunately I saved screen caps from his original post and the edit he made afterwards.

    See:

    Before: http://wattsupwiththat.files.w…..before.png

    After: http://wattsupwiththat.files.w….._after.png

    Note the change in wording in the highlighted last sentence.

    In case you didn’t know, “Steve Goddard” is a made up name. Supposedly at Heartland ICCC9 he’s going to “out” himself and start using his real name. That should be interesting to watch, I won’t be anywhere near that moment of his.

    This, combined with his inability to openly admit to and correct mistakes, is why I booted him from WUWT some years ago, after he refused to admit that his claim about CO2 freezing on the surface of Antarctica couldn’t be possible due to partial pressure of CO2.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/200…..a-at-113f/

    And then when we had an experiment done, he still wouldn’t admit to it.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/200…..-possible/

    And when I pointed out his recent stubborness over the USHCN issues was just like that…he posts this:

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress…..reeze-co2/

    He’s hopelessly stubborn, worse than Mann at being able to admit mistakes IMHO.”

    http://reason.com/blog/2014/06/23/did-nasanoaa-dramatically-alter-us-tempe

  34. Peggy says:

    Here’s another lying liberal hypocrite.

    Greenpeace Executive Commutes 250 Miles To Work Via Plane:

    “Despite campaigning against air travel, a senior Greenpeace executive commutes 250 miles by air to work. He is accountable for 7.4 metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions.

    These flights are funded by Greenpeace. Although according to their website, “Air traffic is top of the league of climate-killers.”

    Greenpeace executive Paul Hausting makes the commute between Luxembourg and Amsterdam. He has been making this commute round trip twice a month since 2012.

    According to Greenpeace, “In terms of damage to the climate, flying is 10 times worse than taking the train.” They also go on to demand, “an end to all domestic short haul flights, a cap on long haul flights.”

    While these flights seem to be accepted by higher ups, Greenpeace supporters are up in arms against it. One supporter told The Telegraph, “So disappointed. Hardly had 2 pennies to rub together but have supported GP [Greenpeace] for 35+ years. Cancelling dd [direct debit] for while.”

    While the supporters save up to donate to the charity, the organization recklessly throws money around. The flights cost 250 euros each round trip, but these are the least of the organization’s financial worries.

    http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/24/greenpeace-executive-commutes-250-miles-to-work-via-plane/#ixzz35bO6zWmK

  35. Pie Guevara says:

    Now this is mildly interesting, Chris now pretends to argue against science by consensus by arguing science by consensus. Even when that supposed consensus is manufactured. A pretty neat trick.

    The only people here trying to “scare” the masses are Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming hysterics with their dire warnings, not little ol’ me. (Well, I’ll give it a shot … BOO!) As usual, when Chris cannot argue a point rationally he launches into a venomous personal attack. This oft repeated pattern of his is getting a bit tedious. Typical liberal. So it goes …

    While Chris continues to foam at the mouth I suggest that others read some of Judith Curry’s thoughts on current climate models. Please note that I have never said climate models cannot be useful in helping us to try and understand climate. I have only questioned the incorrect notion (which Chris so emotionally and vehemently espouses) that the science is settled and that a manufactured “consensus” proves it so. None of Chris’ silly, vitriolic, and animated exhortations changes the fact NASA climate, under James Hansen, and “scientists” at Hadley CRU manipulated temperature data, obscured their methods, obstructed any outside examination of their methods, and have massaged the raw data in order to achieve a concurrence with their various computer models. Then when challenged they responded by refusing to release said data and also claimed the raw data (which NASA and Hadley CRU share) had been lost. (Sound familiar?) I assert this is not how good science is done. Science we pay for.

    Here are the Judith Curry links on climate models, I think that anyone with even just a mild interest in climate will find them interesting reading. Well, except for Chris of course, as they do not fit into his idiotic, spittle flecked narrative.

    http://judithcurry.com/2014/06/20/can-we-trust-climate-models/

    http://judithcurry.com/2010/10/03/what-can-we-learn-from-climate-models/

  36. Pie Guevara says:

    By the way, I accept and acknowledge Anthony Watts’ criticism of Steven Goddard. Thank you for the link Chris. It was a controversy I had completely missed. I have not followed “Steven Goddard” though I was aware the name is likely manufactured (from where I cannot recall).

    This, of course, brings into question his latest claims, but does not negate them.

    My neglect here does not in any way change what has already occurred in climate science nor does it change the manufactured consensus you cling to.

    I do find it somewhat interesting that you cite Anthony Watts, an honest and sincere fellow whom you have attacked, insulted, and misrepresented with your usual noxious personal attacks.

  37. Pie Guevara says:

    By the way, I am not saying there is “One True Methodology”. Please be so kind as to not put your words in my mouth. What I am saying is the competing models purporting to predict climate demonstrates that a consensus has not been actually achieved. There are no competing models describing gravity or relativity, where a true consensus has been reached. But even that consensus could easily be dismantled given a single, valid, new theory or discovery subjected to empirical test. It was decades after Einstein proposed the theory of relativity that it was empirically proven by satellite experiments.

    Even so, science is still not done by consensus. It is done by how accurate and useful it is in describing nature. In this the competing climate models have a very long way to go, imho. They are already quite similar to each other (which can also be a trap) and eventually one will emerge as the most successful and complete.

    Chris, you may chalk up a big score (if you so wish) on Steven Goddard. Further reading about “him” has revealed that he is a loose cannon at best and a liar at worst. Whether or not his latest claim has any truth to it remains to be seen, but it seems likely it is bogus.

  38. Tina says:

    Chris: “OK, then do it”

    Playing hall monitor is boring. No thanks.

    A mirror to your arrogant attitude does no good. My error.

  39. Chris says:

    Pie: “None of Chris’ silly, vitriolic, and animated exhortations changes the fact NASA climate, under James Hansen, and “scientists” at Hadley CRU manipulated temperature data, obscured their methods, obstructed any outside examination of their methods, and have massaged the raw data in order to achieve a concurrence with their various computer models. Then when challenged they responded by refusing to release said data and also claimed the raw data (which NASA and Hadley CRU share) had been lost.”

    But…none of that actually happened, as proven by numerous independent organizations. They were exonerated, Pie. Your information is out of date.

  40. Pie Guevara says:

    Here is a link to the Anthony Watts email interview piece on Reason.com —

    http://reason.com/blog/2014/06/23/did-nasanoaa-dramatically-alter-us-tempe

    According to Anthony where Goddard is wrong is on intent. The data recently presented is likely the result of bungled manipulation, not a nefarious attempt to hide the decline.

    So, take your pick! The data presented is inaccurate because of bureaucratic bungling or nefarious intent. While the truth is important to me, I don’t see how much difference it makes. The data manipulation still results in a false warming signal.

  41. Tina says:

    Chris (jumpig up and down with glee) smugly informs: “your last link is a very obvious piece of satire that was posted on April Fool’s Day.”

    I’m sorry to hear that. This man that you, by association, so adamantly support and defend is quite deserving of the dishonor.

    Chris continues his disdainful rant just in case anyone has missed the fine points and concludes: “…what qualifies you to accuse scientists of a global warming hoax?”

    The fact that I can read and understand what those who are qualified to question have reported. the fact that it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to get when I’m being scammed. The fact that a High Court in Britain found ELEVEN INACCURACIES in Al Gores movie:

    …the Court found that the film was misleading in 11 respects and that the Guidance Notes drafted by the Education Secretary’s advisors served only to exacerbate the political propaganda in the film.

    In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that 1.) The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument. 2.) If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination. 3.) Eleven inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.

    I once posted the opinion of a world renowned, award winning, highly credentialed physicist and Chris insisted the man didn’t know what he was talking about. In fact he insists that all of the 1300 scientist signers who disagree than there is a consensus are wrong.

    It would seem that Chris holds to the typically progressive (liberal) opinion that anyone who disagrees with his position is wrong…period.

    I leave science to the scientists (not the English majors) but I do pay attention to the politics and reiterate my position:

    Knowing the politics is pretty important when the governments of the world have been convinced to take steps that destroy jobs and impose oppressive and expensive regulations and taxes on the people. Knowing the politics is pretty important when it is demonstrated that power hungry, greedy people have been lying to the world to enrich themselves while they destroy economies.

    And by the way Anthony did not use the word “lie” when correcting the record:

    “…while it is true that “NOAA does a tremendous amount of adjustment to the surface temperature record, the word “fabrication” implies that numbers are being plucked out of thin air in a nefarious way when it isn’t exactly the case.”

    Anthony DID say that it was TRUE that “”NOAA does a tremendous amount of adjustment to the surface temperature record…”

    And then went on to say that by using the word “fabrication” Goddard “implied” something that wasn’t “exactly the case”

    You tell me which is a bigger deception…a term that might have not described what went on with pin point accuracy OR tremendously making adjustments to surface temperature records?

    And I’m not qualified?

  42. Pie Guevara says:

    Re #39 Chris : They were exonerated, Pie. Your information is out of date.

    No Chris, my information is not out of date. I am fully aware that the frauds being perpetrated were whitewashed by peers who had a vested interest in seeing them “exonerated”. Reputations above and beyond Hadley CRU were at stake and the wagons were circled.

    Now, of course, you can believe whatever you wish to believe, but what NASA and Hadley CRU did NASA and Hadley CRU did. There is no reason to expect that they will change their behavior.

    James Delingpole on the data ‘fabrication’ —

    http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/06/23/Global-warming-Fabricated-by-NASA-and-NOAA

  43. Pie Guevara says:

    Tina,

    Despite the specious attacks from the ass on your and my character and whether or not NASA climate has intentionally (as Goddard claims) or inadvertently changed the temperature record to obscure the data THE FACT REMAINS: By manipulation of the data they have wiped out the significant and startling heat waves of the 1930s and have created a false warming signal where before there was none.

    Of course, this is to the cheers of the CAGW warmists and CAGW propagandist lick-spittles like the ass.

    Manipulation of raw data is done in statistical analysis and modeling to smooth out anomalies and noise. This latest nonsense from NASA climate goes far above and beyond mere smoothing. It changes the temperature record and wipes a considerable and significant portion of it out.

    It sure seems to me that NASA, having once admitted that the temperature record showed a slight decline or was nearly flat has intentionally and fraudulently reasserted itself as the leader in CAGW hysteria, but I defer to Anthony Watts on that.

  44. Pie Guevara says:

    Speaking of bald faced liars and whitewash, there are no better experts at lies, misrepresentations, and distortions than members of Obama’s White House. That expertise extends to CAGW propaganda.

    Required reading that will help open your eyes to the brutal reality of CAGW fraud as perpetrated by Chris and his ilk —

    John Holdren: Abuse of Office, Power, and Science for a Political Agenda

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/24/john-holdren-abuse-of-office-power-and-science-for-a-political-agenda/

  45. Chris says:

    “In response to Nurse’s question as to whether [Delingpole] had read any peer-reviewed papers, he maintained that as a journalist “it is not my job” to read peer reviewed papers, but be “an interpreter of interpretations”. He took offence at Nurse’s analogy that his position was like a medical patient refusing to accept a clear consensus of opinion of expert doctors, and preferring the diagnosis of a quack.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Delingpole

  46. Peggy says:

    One can’t make this stuff up. Another example of a progressive getting rich from an industry he’s now trying to destroy putting millions out of work.

    Guess How Billionaire Global Warming Activist And DNC Supporter Tom Steyer Made His Massive Fortune?:

    “He made most of his fortune off of foreign coal investments, the very energy source he now seeks to take down.

    Did you catch that? He got rich by investing in “non-eco-friendly” energy sources, and now he’s spending that money to support policies that would cripple those industries.

    To his credit, Steyer fully acknowledges his past and the source of his wealth, even citing it as the reason for pumping so much into environmentalism now; he’s seen the “error of his ways,” so to speak, and is doing what he can to, in his eyes, make up for it.

    But according to CNN, Steyer has not done a full 180 degree turn and still profits from investments in “dirty” energy sources, though his adviser says he intends to give them up:

    Though Steyer divested from some of what he calls the dirtier fuels – coal and tar sands – his portfolio is, as of today, still not free of these investments. He has continued to make money off these unclean energies, while decrying them, and working to defeat politicians he sees as insufficiently committed to the cause.

    The bottom line is that Harry Reid can whine about the Koch brothers all he wants, but the Democratic party is not short on its own share of insanely rich supporters. On top of that, one of Democrats’ top backers got rich off of the very industries that they decry.

    Imagine the field day Reid would have with that if the situation were reversed…”

    http://www.ijreview.com/2014/06/149757-guess-billionaire-global-warming-activist-dnc-supporter-tom-steyer-made-massive-fortune/

  47. Peggy says:

    One more thing. If presidents are ultimately responsible for everything that happens during their term, then Obama’s constant statements that he didn’t know or learned about it in the media when we did doesn’t hold water.

    The latest Fox poll shows 60% don’t believe Obama learned about the IRS targeting and VA scandals in the news.

    At least those who voted for the Iraq war believed Bush was right during his term. It will be interesting to see what Obama’s legacy will be.

  48. Pie Guevara says:

    Re #45 Chris : I am aware of Delingpole’s admissions. He also admits he is no scientist. In that he is similar to you, except that he is an excellent and accomplished writer where you are merely a slur slinging nobody ass.

    No points there for you, turd pile, except in your imagination.

  49. Tina says:

    Pie at #42 regarding Delingpole link:

    The evidence of their tinkering can clearly be seen at Real Science, where blogger Steven Goddard has posted a series of graphs which show “climate change” before and after the adjustments.

    When the raw data is used, there is little if any evidence of global warming and some evidence of global cooling. However, once the data has been adjusted – ie fabricated by computer models – 20th century ‘global warming’ suddenly looks much more dramatic.

    It struck me while reading that the result is what was fabricated…and it was fabricated by adjusting the data…GIGO, Yes?

    A lie perpetrated by tinkering with the data? To what possible end or purpose? If the actual data is available what is the need for computer models, particularly models driven by “adjusted data”? The evidence points to a political, rather than a scientific, purpose.

  50. Tina says:

    Peggy Al Gores initial wealth came in part from oil as well. He was preparing to make billions on carbon credit trading before global warming politics began to blow up in his face.

    if these zealots actually believed their own hype they would be behaving much differently on a personal level. Do you remember the earth day Google map shot that showed Al Gore’s home ablaze with light in a region, indeed a nation, of dark due to his neighbors/fellow citizens celebrating by turning off their lights?

    Liberals…they are such phonies!

  51. Pie Guevara says:

    Re #50 Tina: Well, at least garbage out. See #43. In statistical analysis there are legitimate reasons for massaging raw data, and those methods in legitimate science are not obfuscated as NASA climate has done in the past. This most recent lunacy passing as “statistical analysis” from NASA climate is absolutely ridiculous.

    I do believe they are working against their own purposes (which is blatant CAGW propaganda) and are contributing to climate hysteria burnout in us unwashed masses, the very people they are trying to manipulate besides politicians. Excepting brown-nosing brown shirts like Chris who fancies himself in the vanguard of CAGW propagandists.

    James Hansen should be fired and his pension revoked.

    I hope you and others have taken the time to carefully read …

    John Holdren: Abuse of Office, Power, and Science for a Political Agenda

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/24/john-holdren-abuse-of-office-power-and-science-for-a-political-agenda/

    … I mentioned in #44. It is very revealing. CAGW proponents sought to destroy the Medieval Warm period and the scientists and the valid, good science that reveals it. Now NASA climate under the CAGW activist destroys the significant heat waves of the 1930’s and renders a false warming signal where none existed before.

    CAGW propagandists are busy destroying what little credibility they have left. More power to them.

  52. Chris says:

    Tina: “I’m sorry to hear that. This man that you, by association, so adamantly support and defend is quite deserving of the dishonor.”

    Please show me where I have ever supported or defended Al Gore. He is persona non grata to me when it comes to the climate debate. He is not a scientist, and his opinion is worth nothing. The fact that you and others here want to make Al Gore the crux of every debate about climate change shows the weakness of your position.

    “The fact that I can read and understand what those who are qualified to question have reported.”

    You clearly cannot read and understand this, since you still show no indication of understanding the many obvious ways your sources have misrepresented scientific data. Alternately, you understand perfectly well, you’re just being willfully obtuse.

    “the fact that it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to get when I’m being scammed.”

    You were gleefully scammed by James Taylor, Peter Ferrara, and now, an obvious piece of satire that wasn’t even intended to scam anyone, because I doubt the authors really thought anyone could be that dumb. So no, once again, you do not know when you are being scammed. It is so easy to scam you that people don’t even really have to try–as long as they’re saying what you want to hear, you’ll accept it, no matter how ridiculous it sounds to rational people.

    “The fact that a High Court in Britain found ELEVEN INACCURACIES in Al Gores movie:”

    No one gives a shit about Al Gore’s movie.

  53. Chris says:

    Politifact weighs in on the “NASA Fudged Data” claims and ranks them “Pants on Fire:”

    “We asked Fox News for their source and while they didn’t respond, a number of conservative news outlets have made much in recent days of a blog post from a man who writes under the pseudonym Steven Goddard. Goddard charged that until 2000, NASA reported that in the United States, 1934 was hotter than 1998 and that the country has been cooling since then.

    “Right after the year 2000, NASA and NOAA dramatically altered U.S. climate history, making the past much colder and the present much warmer,” Goddard wrote.

    He provided this animated chart to prove his point (the chart marked “a” is the old version):

    Climate science experts say not so fast

    Doocy exaggerated the findings in this blog post when he applied it to global warming. The post itself only talks about U.S. land temperatures and what happens in the United States is separate from global shifts.

    As far as what the blog actually claimed, while it accurately copied the changes in the government charts, experts in U.S. temperature measurement say it ignores why the charts shifted. There were major changes in how the country gathered temperature information over the decades.

    Zeke Hausfather is a data scientist with Berkeley Earth, a research group that has expressed doubts about some of the reports on climate change coming from Washington and international bodies. Hausfather took Goddard to task when Goddard made a similar claim about numbers fudging earlier this month. The missing piece in Goddard’s analysis, Hausfather said, was he ignored that the network of weather stations that feed data to the government today is not the one that existed 80 years ago.

    “He is simply averaging absolute temperatures,” Hausfather wrote. “Absolute temperatures work fine if and only if the composition of the station network remains unchanged over time.”

    Weather stations that once were in a valley might now be on a hill top and vice versa. But the shift could be greater than simple elevation. Stations were moved from one part of a state to another. The number of stations within a given area shifted. All these differences, Hausfather and other experts said, will alter the typical temperatures gathered by government meteorologists.

    Gavin Schmidt, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said the raw data used in the blog post suffered from an equally troubling flaw. The temperatures were not measured at the same time of day.

    “Over time, the U.S. network went from recording max/min temperatures at different points of the day, to doing it at midnight,” Schmidt said.

    In fact, volunteers staffed many of the stations. Before 1940, most followed Weather Service guidelines and recorded the temperature at sundown. Through the second half of the century, there was a gradual shift to recording morning temperatures. This change produced the appearance of a cooling trend when none existed.

    Comparing apples to apples

    Better instruments and more consistent methods have allowed scientists to collect more reliable data. But for climate studies, long-term trends are key and the challenge has been how to make the best use of the older readings.

    In the mid 1980s, the government settled on a list of about 1,200 stations across the country to track temperature trends. Around 1990, climatologists began delivering computer programs to factor in the artificial changes that systematically pushed the readings one way or the other. Over time, they accounted for the impacts of equipment, location, the time of day of measurements and urbanization (more asphalt leads to higher surface temperatures).

    There is no question that running the raw data through these programs changes the graphs of average temperatures. However, multiple researchers from a variety of institutions have fed into this process and come up with their own computer models. Results from different teams largely match up.

    John Nielsen-Gammon is a researcher at Texas A&M University and is the Texas state climatologist. Nielsen-Gammon finds nothing nefarious in the government analysis of temperature trends.

    “It is reasonable to expect the adjusted data record to change over time as the technology for identifying and removing artificial changes improves,” Nielsen-Gammon said. “If there are any biases, they are caused by the quality of the underlying data, not by any biases intentionally introduced into the adjustment process.”

    All of the experts we reached or whose work we read rejected Goddard’s conclusions.

    Mark C. Serreze, professor of geography at the University of Colorado-Boulder, said no fabrication has taken place.

    “Goddard’s results stem from an erroneous analysis of the data,” Serreze said.

    Anthony Watts, a popular skeptic of most climate change data, posted his objection to Goddard’s claim.

    “I took Goddard to task over this as well in a private email, saying he was very wrong and needed to do better,” Watts wrote.

    Our ruling

    Doocy with Fox News said NASA scientists fudged the numbers to overstate the extent of global warming. This exaggerated the thrust in the underlying blog post. It accused government scientists of altering the U.S. temperature record, not the record for the entire earth.

    As for what the blog said, we found that experts across the spectrum found fundamental flaws in its analytic methods. By relying on raw data, it ignored that the number and location of weather stations and the methods of measuring temperatures across the United States have changed greatly over the past 80 years.

    The experts we reached or whose work we read generally agree that the corrections for flawed data produce valid results. The bare bones approach used in the blog post provides no solution to the issues of weaknesses in the raw data.

    We rate the claim Pants on Fire.”

    http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jun/25/steve-doocy/foxs-doocy-nasa-fudged-data-make-case-global-warmi/

  54. Pie Guevara says:

    Re Chris: “Blah, blah, blah, blah”

    Look at the data presented earlier by NASA climate, look at it now. Fudging or inadvertent bureaucratic error? Take your pick. It does not matter. That you rely on “Politicfact” only reinforces the how CAGW has left the realm of science and has made global warming political.

    “He is simply averaging absolute temperatures …” Oh really? Interesting that such averaging with such dramatic results that bury the temperture record of the 1930’s appears now. Previous statistical analysis was flawed or bogus? Hmmmm…

    This is what it is really all about —

    Obama attacks Republicans for appeasing climate deniers

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/26/obama-attacks-republicans-for-appeasing-climate-deniers

  55. Pie Guevara says:

    Please note that “Politifact” leaves out the rest of Anthony Watts’ statements on this manipulation of the data which renders a false warming signal.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jm3zV1pCTQ8

  56. Pie Guevara says:

    By the way Chris, Al Gore has been and remains an official spokesman for CAGW. Denial is not just a river …

  57. Tina says:

    One of the obvious tells in most articles about the legitimacy of man made global warming science is that the scientists that support and promote the AGW theory are referred to as “experts” and scientists that disagree, regardless their reputation, credentials or status are negatively referred to as deniers.

    As I wrote, Chris, you support Al Gore “by association” since you both push the same man caused global warming theory as a foregone conclusion…settled science…and since you both believe consensus is good enough…and since you both continue to label those who disagree in order to close the argument.

    The most truthful statement I’ve ever read on the subject is that we have barely scratched the surface in our understanding of the causes of changes in our climate or, climate change, a term that is somewhat dubious since climate changes naturally.

    Decades have passed in which warming scientists and politicians have presented their findings as absolute proof that human industry, oil in particular, are the cause of “dangerous” climate swings. They have gone so far as to propagandize in schools and frighten our children with wild stories of oceans swamping the land, a future of wild heat and no food, and animals that are starved because their habitats are destroyed. They have press for legislation that creates extreme or unfair taxation, regulation, and restriction of human endeavor. They have pushed for funding of alternatives that have not been proven to have the potential to become viable alternatives and have not been tested for unintentional outcomes or consequences that could be as negative or worse than what we are using now. They have stifled natural improvement in favor of forced compliance citing trumped up crisis as justification.

    From my perspective it is ludicrous to be more outraged by a few amateur journalists who are merely attempting to call attention to distortions and outright political scams, and who may not always get their facts exactly right but have good intentions than by those who perpetuate and foster settled science or consensus.

    Pants on fire? How about we aim that sucker at all of the many claims over the decades that have proven to be nothing but scare mongering to push a political agenda that just happens to empower and enrich an elite few!

    I prefer my scientists to have the honesty, dedication, and integrity of men and women in the past who produces incredible results and discoveries without the political noise, divisiveness, and oppression. But that’s just me.

  58. Pie Guevara says:

    Bottom Line: While I accept that the analysis from “Steven Goddard” is flawed, I do not accept that the NASA climate analysis is not. Especially in light of the Hadley CRU/NASA debacle, the attempt to discredit and destroy the Medieval Warm period by Mann et. al., the politicization of science by James Hansen and the rest of the CAGW community, and the bogus claims of “consensus”.

    The house of cards has fallen except for the goose stepping faithful who treat CAGW more like a religion than a science.

  59. Tina says:

    At#52 Pie Thanks for the link. I was aware of some of it but not all of it. Wow…

    Hey, off to catch a few Zzzzz as I finish watching The Man from Colorado with Willaim Holden and Glenn Ford.

    Night all.

  60. Pie Guevara says:

    Anthony Watts goes into the details of why “Steven Goddard” is wrong —

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/25/on-denying-hockey-sticks-ushcn-data-and-all-that-part-1/

  61. Pie Guevara says:

    This deserves a re-post as it explains why the 97% “consensus” (Cook et.al.) is a crock. CAGW fanatics and proselytizers may ignore. I wouldn’t expect you to open your eyes. Chris’ attitude reminds me of Firesign Theater’s work. I believe it was on the album “Don’t Crush That Dwarf, Hand Me The Pliers”, but my memory is faulty and those recordings I once had are long gone, stolen.

    “I’m Pastor Flash from the Presumptuous Assumption of the Blinding Light. Oh blinding light, oh light that blinds, I cannot see, lookout for me.”

    Now for the link you should read regarding the 97% fraud —

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/24/the-disagreement-of-what-defines-consensus-by-cook-et-al-is-revealed-in-raters-remarks-and-it-sure-isnt-97/

  62. Pie Guevara says:

    Here are more articles compiled on WUWT on the 97% consensus fraud and the non-issue of “scientific” consensus that so many CAGW propagandists like Chris cling to. Read them at your leisure, they are quite revealing. Always remember, good science is not done by consensus, it is done by adhering to The Method.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=97%25+consensus

  63. Chris says:

    Pie: “Look at the data presented earlier by NASA climate, look at it now. Fudging or inadvertent bureaucratic error? Take your pick. It does not matter.”

    Pie, the reasons for the adjustments to the temperature record are laid out very clearly in the Politifact article I cited. If NASA were attempting to “fudge” numbers, why would they provide the previous data? All of their records are readily available and their reasoning for the adjustments is clearly explained. If you disagree with these explanations, you could explain why. But don’t pretend that they haven’t explained their side.

    Tina: “I prefer my scientists to have the honesty, dedication, and integrity of men and women in the past who produces incredible results and discoveries without the political noise, divisiveness, and oppression. But that’s just me.”

    The problem, again, is that you have no criteria upon which to base your opinion on whether or not a scientist is honest. You don’t read scientific studies, you read dishonest hit pieces by oil-funded Heartland Institute non-scientists, and you buy them hook, line and sinker.

    Consensus in science only happens once a plethora of evidence has been established. Therefore it is perfectly relevant to point out that the vast majority of scientists accept the man-made global warming theory. Unless one thinks that the vast majority of scientists is in on some massive conspiracy–an extraordinary claim which does not hold up to scrutiny–than the consensus is good enough reason for non-scientists to accept the theory.

    Students have a right to learn about accepted science. Every major scientific body in the world accepts the theory of man-made global warming. And you’re angry because students are learning about it in schools? I for one believe our children should be prepared to handle this problem, since it will affect their generation most, not yours. They should be armed with the most up-to-date scientific knowledge. But then, I’m talking to someone who isn’t even sure students should be learning about evolution, so I’m wasting my breath. You don’t accept science that has been settled for over a century, of course you’d be on the wrong side now.

  64. Pie Guevara says:

    Re Chris’ latest screed:

    Uh, no, I am not angry, please stop characterizing me with your specious and annoying bullshit. Yes I did read the reasons for the adjustments, you ass, I still think they are faulty.

    You attack me because I disagree with you. You attack me because the consensus you subscribe to is baloney.

    I have forgotten more about science than you will ever know, English major. Your pronouncements about me and “accepted science” are baloney. You do a disservice to your students, if you actually have any. If you really do, you are yet another reason California K-12 education fails so miserably.

    Students deserve better than the propaganda you spew. Cook et al. will not even release their 97% data! Obfuscation is NOT good science, it is snake oil. This is not science, it is bullshit, just like you are bullshit Chris. This is not anger, it is a simple statement of fact.

  65. Pie Guevara says:

    By the way, asshole, (and I say that without anger, just fact) I do read the scientific papers. I studiously read them. You can take that specious charge and stick where the sun does not shine. Sheesh, what a jerk! The gall this Chris ass has telling me who and what I am. Just when I thought Chris could not possibly be more of a presumptive and specious asshole, he outdoes himself … AGAIN!

    I cite Anthony Watts because his site is an excellent compendium of climate news and is an excellent source in explaining climate science in accessible terms to the layman. Watts also goes into the technical details regularly and deeply. Evidently technical details are above Chris’ pay scale if, in fact, some school district is stupid enough to employ him. It is very difficult to dive into the details of climate science without a background in statistical analysys, which you clearly do not have, dear boy. The devil lies in the details. Details that seem arcane to the layman because climate science is so dependent up statistical modeling. There is a reason for the old, oft quoted cliché. “There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.”

    I’ll bet dollars to doughnut Chris did not read my links to Judith Curry on climate models. Why should a propagandist dildo bother to educate himself? I’ll bet he hasn’t bothered to educate himself about Cook’s specious 97% crap.

    What have you accomplished lately, Chris, besides your usual fallacious prolific turd tossing? Well, you did draw attention to “Steven Goddards” flawed analysis. I guess that is worth something.

  66. Pie Guevara says:

    Add to what else the magnificent Chris conveniently ignores is the specious and disgusting Mann led attack on the good science and good scientists who described the Medieval Warm Period. No doubt, if this jerk actually is employed as a teacher, his students have never even heard of it and will never hear of it.

    Nor will they ever hear of John Holdren: Abuse of Office, Power, and Science for a Political Agenda I linked to above.

  67. Pie Guevara says:

    Lastly with regard to Chris’ latest tripe and fallacious personal attacks, sometimes you just have to laugh. This fellow truly is a consummate ass.

  68. Pie Guevara says:

    Re #61 Myself : Before I was so rudely interrupted by the presumptuous, slur mongering English major ass I posted …

    “Anthony Watts goes into the details of why “Steven Goddard” is wrong –

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/25/on-denying-hockey-sticks-ushcn-data-and-all-that-part-1/

    I encourage all to read these details which also explain how statistical temperature modeling is done using data infilling (what Goddard calls fabrication) and spatial interpolation techniques to render a national temperature average.

    Besides attacking my character The Magnificent Ass previously chose to speciously attack Anthony Watts character with his fallacious Heartland slurs. This is modus operandi for The Magnificent Ass. When he cannot argue the science he launches ad hominem personal attacks and falls back on the specious 97% fraud from Cook et. al. in a fallacious appeal to authority.

    Like Dewey with his idiotic labeling of the tea party as being minions of the Koch brothers, The Magnificent Ass has slurred Anthony Watts as minion of big oil for receiving a modest grant via Heartland (not from Heartland, via Heartland). As soon as he got that grant, he announced it in full disclosure. But hey, what can you expect from a couple of nitwit, foaming at the mouth Soros whores who take their talking points from The Daily Kos? Well you can expect what they have already posted in this forum.

    As Richard Tol has written, who is working to reconstruct and replicate Cook’s specious, anti-science 97% study for which Cook refuses to release the data on so it cannot be confirmed or dismissed by independent researchers —

    “Consensus is irrelevant in science. There are plenty of examples in history where everyone agreed and everyone was wrong.”

    Mr. Watts now continues with part 2. It too is a worthy and revealing read. Ignore the noise from The Magnificent Ass, it is just that, noise. —

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/26/on-denying-hockey-sticks-ushcn-data-and-all-that-part-2/

  69. Chris says:

    Pie: “Uh, no, I am not angry, please stop characterizing me with your specious and annoying bullshit. Yes I did read the reasons for the adjustments, you ass, I still think they are faulty.”

    “By the way, asshole, (and I say that without anger, just fact) I do read the scientific papers. I studiously read them. You can take that specious charge and stick where the sun does not shine. Sheesh, what a jerk! The gall this Chris ass has telling me who and what I am. Just when I thought Chris could not possibly be more of a presumptive and specious asshole, he outdoes himself … AGAIN!”

    Pie, please slow down and read carefully. I never said you were angry, and I never accused you of not reading scientific papers. That portion of my comments was very clearly addressed to Tina.

    But now that you mention it, it is hard to take seriously your claim that you are not angry when you rush to your usual swearing and uncivil insults when you perceive (wrongly) that you have been attacked.

    “You attack me because I disagree with you.”

    I have not attacked you personally once in this entire thread. You have not only called me names, you have baselessly insulted my education and profession.

    I understand you like to pretend that others behave just as boorishly as you in order to let yourself off the hook for being so uncivil. But that just isn’t the case. Your language and attitude here is completely unparalleled.

  70. Pie Guevara says:

    Re: “I have not attacked you personally once in this entire thread.”

    Oh I get it, your attacks on Tina are not personal attacks (and myself by extension) and your slur slinging about Anthony Watts in another thread are not personal attacks. And pigs fly.

    Read some of the literature I have posted, Chris instead of being such an impervious ass. Therein lies the rub. Perhaps you care to explain your refusal to not take the time to educate yourself on the details of statistical analysis and climate modeling by NASA. It explains why I have no faith in the NASA climate modeling. In particular Dr. Judith Curry on climate modeling in general and Anthony Watts on the technical details.

    The short answer is this, NASA et. al. statictical moddeling for US surface temperatures are attempting adjust for badly placed stations, moved stations, stations placed in urban heat islands, and missing station data by interpolation along with infilling and spatial interpolation techniques (“gridding”). As many as 80% of the surface stations US have bad placement anomalies in the data they produce. NASA pretends to adjust for this by manipulating the raw data, which must be done to one degree or another to even begin to be able to render an historical temperature analysis, in order to smooth out the bad and missing data.

    I have little to no faith in the climate models of NASA because it is unreasonable to assume that their heavy manipulation of so much bad data accurately reflects reality in US temperatures, historically and now. And while it may not be their intent to produce a manufactured result, it sure looks like it from time to time — in the following context —

    For decades NASA, a public funded entity, obscured and obfuscated their raw temperature data and the methods they used to manipulate it. They even went as far to claim the raw data had been lost or destroyed. It took Steve McIntyre to reverse engineer NASA statistical modeling to reveal flaws. This is NOT how science is done. You do not obfuscate and obscure data and methods, you put everything on the table so that it can be analyzed independently and replicated and tested. Recently that has changed a bit and raw data and methods are being revealed. But NASA climate has a bad reputation of obfuscation and their attitude, “trust us, were professionals” does not cut it in valid scientific practice.

    Anthony Watts (and others) have offered up a potentially viable solution for the significant — if not overwhelming — bad surface station data problem, but you are going to have to force yourself to go and read the links I posted to learn what that is.

    By the way Chris, you go ahead and cling to that bogus anti-science study from Cook et al about the 97% “consensus”. He still has not released his data and never will because it would be found out that his research is garbage.

  71. Pie Guevara says:

    Re: “I understand you like to pretend that others behave just as boorishly as you in order to let yourself off the hook for being so uncivil. But that just isn’t the case. Your language and attitude here is completely unparalleled.”

    There you go again! If you stop being an ass, I will stop calling you an ass, dear boy. Clean your own house and I will be happy to stop calling a spade a spade you oblivious hypocrite.

  72. Chris says:

    Pie, thanks for explaining your problems with the NASA data.

    I have read both Judith Curry and Anthony Watts semi-regularly for years now. I do not find their arguments terribly convincing. Curry is much better since she is a genuine climate scientist, but I find she employs a lot of double talk–some days she says that the science can’t be settled either way, others she talks as if she knows for a fact that man-made global warming isn’t a big problem. She seems to want to have it both ways in order to appear moderate and rationally skeptical.

    I do not agree that pointing out Tina’s lack of scientific knowledge qualifies as a “personal attack.” I believe it is relevant to calling her many claims of fraud against climate scientists (whom she never names specifically) into question.

    I will have to look into your claim that Cook et al have not released their data. Theirs is not the only study claiming to find a 97% consensus. I have read both the arguments and counter-arguments against each of these studies, and I admit I am somewhat puzzled by them. That said, even if the 97% number is invalid, it is still clear to me that the majority of climate scientists accept AGW and believe it is a serious problem. For example, every major scientific organization in the world accepts this theory. That couldn’t happen unless there was a consensus.

  73. Pie Guevara says:

    That figures, you insult Dr. Judith Curry who knows more about climate science, the pulse of climate science from her many close peers in research, constantly surveys climate science research, and knows more about science and climate than you ever will.

    Double talk, indeed. There goes the Magnificent English Major again. I shake my head.

    I expect the extreme left-wing Soros toad to insult Anthony Watts despite his in-depth knowledge of climate science, statistical analysis, and climate modeling, but I really did not expect him to insult Dr. Judith Curry.

    Silly me.

    Evidently Chris puts more trust in the politically motivated CAGW warmist activist James Hansen and the ridiculous and despicable Michael Mann who sought (and likely still seeks) to destroy the reputations of good scientists in his attempt to destroy the well accepted Medieval Warm Period. I have to wonder if Mann also has set his sights on eliminating the mini-ice age to make his hockey stick graph actually seem reasonable. A PhD in climate science is not required to understand and analyze that research, but it does help fend off specious charges from English majors with chips on their shoulders. Chris, you produce a lot of hot air but I bet you could not even begin to understand the basic kinetic theory of gasses.

    There is no doubt in my mind that a majority of climate scientists think that human activity plays a role. But that is an opinion, not an established fact. There is no study that establishes the 97% canard, only bogus stuidies that claim to.

    When you see human activity playing a role in localized weather patterns it is not unreasonable to project we may well play a role in global climate. But the notion that global warming is being driven by human activity pushing it toward a “tipping point” of thermal runaway is at best flawed. “The pause” and the complex natural mechanisms opposing supposed thermal forcing functions are not well understood at all. The latest, unproved and so far unprovable dodge from CAGW hysterics is that heat is being subducted into the extremely cold, briny deep ocean currents. If so, it has been suggested that heat will not reappear for 800 years. But that does not matter, we do not have the technology to measure such and it may be decades before such technology, once developed, could be deployed.

  74. Pie Guevara says:

    Re #53 Chris “No one gives a s- — about Al Gore’s movie.”

    Oh, really? In 2006 “An Inconvenient Truth”, was released featuring Al Gore’s campaign to make the issue of global warming a recognized problem worldwide was released. In 2007 it received an oscar for in the Best Documentary, Features category.

    In 2007 the Nobel Prize committee awarded Al Gore (along with co-winner the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) the Nobel Peace Prize for “informing the world of the dangers posed by climate change.”

    I dare say some folks “gave a s—” even though that “giving of a s—” comes from Hollywood nitwits and a corrupt, laughable, politically motivated Nobel Peace Prize committee which has become a bad joke over the past couple of decades.

  75. Pie Guevara says:

    The respected Dr. Judith Curry (whom the slur mongering Equus africanus asinus accuses of “double talking”) on Steve Goddard’s analysis —

    Skeptical of skeptics: is Steve Goddard right?

    http://judithcurry.com/2014/06/28/skeptical-of-skeptics-is-steve-goddard-right/

  76. Pie Guevara says:

    Who is Steven Goodard? (2)

    If you read the above then you also read Tony Heller’s concluding statement —

    “I am more than happy to debate anyone who feels up to the challenge, including the President of The United States. Science works through research and debate – not censorship, propaganda, faith, or intimidation.”

    Take note, slur monger barbarians like the magnificent Equus africanus asinus.

  77. Pie Guevara says:

    This is a must read for anyone interested in Climate Science.

    USHCN Data Tampering

    Massive Temperature Adjustments At Luling, Texas

    http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/06/26/massive-temperature-adjustments-at-luling-texas/


    Yet, according to the USHCN dataset, all ten months from March to December are “Estimated”. Why, when there is full data available?

    But it gets worse. The table below compares the actual station data with what USHCN describe as “the bias-adjusted temperature”. The results are shocking.

    In other words, the adjustments have added an astonishing 1.35C to the annual temperature for 2013. Note also that I have included the same figures for 1934, which show that the adjustment has reduced temperatures that year by 0.91C. So, the net effect of the adjustments between 1934 and 2013 has been to add 2.26C of warming.

    Tony Heller may have made some technical errors in his recent analysis, but there is substance to what he is on about. There is simply no excuse for this sort of data tampering. None whatsoever.

    From The Look Back Machine —

    ClimateGate Star Michael Mann Courts Legal Disaster

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/09/18/climategate-star-michael-mann-courts-legal-disaster/

    “In the wake of ClimateGate e-mail revelations, two universities that have employed Mann have been called to task for insulating him from accusations of wrongdoing. Penn State has been broadly accused of botching an internal inquiry, and Mann is fighting a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking to compel the U. of Virginia, his employer during the period in question, to release requested documents. The FOIA was filed by Christopher Horner, Director for Litigation with the American Tradition Institute’s Environmental Law Center.

  78. Tina says:

    Pie thank you!

    It was especially heartening for a non-scientist, interested mostly in the political aspect of this issue, to read the following:

    …the main point is that this group is rapidly self-correcting – the self-correcting function in the skeptical technical blogosphere seems to be more effective (and certainly faster) than for establishment climate science.

    There’s another issue here and that is one of communication. Why was Goddard’s original post unconvincing to this group, whereas Homewood’s post seems to be convincing? Apart from ‘crying wolf’ issue, Goddard focused on the message that the real warming was much less than portrayed by the NOAA data set (caught the attention of the mainstream media), whereas Homewood more carefully documented the actual problem with the data set.

    I’ve been in email communications with Watts through much of Friday, and he’s been pursuing the issue along with Zeke and help from Neilsen-Gammon to NCDC directly, who is reportedly taking it seriously. Not only does Watts plan to issue a statement on how he missed Goddard’s original issue, he says that additional problems have been discovered and that NOAA/NCDC will be issuing some sort of statement, possibly also a correction, next week. (Watts has approved me making this statement).

    This incident is another one that challenges traditional notions of expertise. From a recent speech by President Obama:

    “I mean, I’m not a scientist either, but I’ve got this guy, John Holdren, he’s a scientist,” Obama added to laughter. “I’ve got a bunch of scientists at NASA and I’ve got a bunch of scientists at EPA.”

    Who all rely on the data prepared by his bunch of scientists at NOAA.

    Apparently it is okay for people with real power and authority to accept the opinions of scientists who perpetuate the AGW settled science scam, even though they are not very good at self correction but it’s not okay for those who question to accept the questions of observers, scientists or no, who refuse to blindly accept the settled science meme.

  79. Tina says:

    Oh…The English major will no doubt complain that I will not admit errors.

    In truth I resist completely the coercive bullying nature of people like Chris who have been given full expression to “correct” on Post Scripts and instead of simply posting what he knows to be correct chooses to badger me and others who happen to disagree with his position.

  80. Pie Guevara says:

    Re #81 Tina : By the way, Tina, I am not a credentialed scientist although I spent a significant part of my life in university chemistry labs, physics labs and then in some of the most cutting edge physics research labs on this planet when a Field Systems Engineer responsible for building, maintaining, and calibrating computer based diagnostic and data gathering systems).

    One does not need an advanced degree to understand , follw, and critique climate science, but a healthy background in statistical analysis and modeling is a definite plus.

    Most of this stuff can be explained in layman’s terms and while the arcane mathematical details are very important, (the devil is in the details) some of it is easily explained and obvious. For example, replacing valid, existing raw data with computer generated mojo FOR NO REASONABLE REASON as noted above.

    Nevertheless, I will never forget my probability and statistics professor who announced that age old adage on the first day of class, “There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.” The point was, of course, to learn valid statistical methodology because invalid and faulty analysis is abundant.

    The English Major bully is just that, a stupid bully with a chip on his shoulder and a dimwitted agenda in his pocket.

    It will be interesting to see what develops next. I am back to consuming climate science like others consume a box of chocolates. You knever know what you are going to get next.

  81. Dewey says:

    ATTENTION TINA!

    here ya go….. here is a $10K prize to prove your case!

    Physicist Promises $10K to Anyone Who Disproves Man-Made Global Warming

    http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/18076/

    How about it? Show us

  82. Pie Guevara says:

    Re #84 Dewey : ROTHFLMAO. A “physicist” demanding skeptics prove a negative! This is a classic example of argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument from ignorance) — if something can’t be disproven, it is therefore proven.

    Some physicist. Dewey, you really are an ignorant jackass and so is that “physicist” whose link I didn’t even bother to follow.

    A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. — Albert Einstein

    A very little knowledge is an amusing thing — Pie Guevara

  83. Pie Guevara says:

    Re #82 Tina : Precisely. Screw that ***.

  84. Dewey says:

    Some physicist. Dewey, you really are an ignorant jackass and so is that “physicist” whose link I didn’t even bother to follow. –

    name calling Pie I say look in the mirror. LOL

    Hate is not christian

    There is what you would call an easy Ten grand… Bottom Line the facts are there and it is a chance to put your money where your mouth is… oh yea that’s right because there is a real problem!

    I suppose there is no methane under the ocean either right?

    Record high methane emissions are being recorded in the Arctic. Now what scripture in the Bible explains this better than actual science?

    Stop the name calling. Try having a conversation. Try realizing the billionaire funded propaganda is not truth.

    Also how about helping us do something about all the taxpayer money that is used to clean up after the so called cleanup of oil spills.

    The earth is a gift. We depend on it. it is not indestructible. Even our oceans are garbage pits.

    How many thousands of gallons of nuclear waste has been continuously flowing into our Ocean since Fuku?

    Take pride in the fact we have a beautiful state. Protect our resources.

    It is illegal to catch rain water in many places. They are trying to charge solar users a flat fee to keep their profits.

    When all else fails just call people names?

    Blueberry PIE all over the place!

  85. Pie Guervara says:

    Antarctic sea ice hits second all-time record in a week

    Basically, what happens is that in the Arctic you can warm that surface water up and it doesn’t get transported away. It stays there, and it helps melt more ice, but in the Antarctic, the water gets carried away.

    I thanked Serreze for his response but told him that I still didn’t know what heated the water at high latitudes. Was it, simply, global warming?

    “Exactly!” he said.

    “How many degrees is the water heated, before it is transported toward the equator?” I asked.

    “I don’t have data on that,” Serreze said.

    http://talkingabouttheweather.wordpress.com/2014/07/01/antarctic-sea-ice-hits-second-all-time-record-in-a-week/

  86. Pie Guervara says:

    Re #87 Dewey: “Stop the name calling. Try having a conversation.”

    You might want to try that yourself, jackass.

  87. Pie Guevara says:

    Satellite data (RSS) shows no global warming for 17 years 10 months

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/03/rss-shows-no-global-warming-for-17-years-10-months/

  88. David Walton says:

    Did Federal Climate Scientists Fudge Temperature Data to Make It Warmer?

    http://reason.com/archives/2014/07/03/did-federal-climate-scientists-fudge-tem

  89. Tina says:

    Pie I have to ask, do you now prefer to be called David Walton cause if you do I will probably make it DW…I’m kinda fond of Pie anyway.

    Also, I just noticed we are fast approaching 100 comments on this thread…PS has never reached that pinnacle before…care to share more?

  90. Tina says:

    This up from WUWT today:

    Professor Fritz Vahrenholt was CEO of RWE Innogy, the major German windpower supplier, he had pioneered Germany’s significant advances in renewable energy, especially in the development of wind power.

    Previously Professor Vahrenholt had fully accepted the IPCC as the foundation of his understanding of mankind’s effect on climate change. However, with his scientific background as chemist, he re-examined IPCC reports in detail. He found many errors, inconsistencies and unsupported assertions. Accordingly he has now entirely revised his position.

    …Professor Varhenholt is now convinced that it is nature and in particular the behaviour of the sun that is responsible for our continually changing climate, and as he said as the final point of his Royal society lecture:

    “This change can only develop first with a revolution of our minds.”

    “It’s not mankind creating climate. It’s the sun: stupid.”

    Professor Varhenholt and his colleague Sebastian Luening have now published a best seller in Germany “Die Kalte Sonne”, the book now released in English as

    “The Neglected Sun: Why the Sun Precludes Climate Catastrophe”

  91. Fascist Penguin says:

    Re #93 Tina : Address me anyway you like. I am dearly attached to my Pie Guevara nom de internet. It was conceived as a joke and a nod to National Lampoon … and I like it. I prefer to be addressed as Pie because it is such a fun nickname.

    And I so dearly love a good hot slice of all American apple pie smothered in French vanilla. Makes for a great Sunday breakfast.

  92. Fascist Penguin says:

    Er, I mean smothered in French vanilla ice cream, not crack cocaine as “The Presidential President” jokes about. 😀

  93. Tina says:

    Last post of the night, shamelessly made to move this thread to 100 comments (or more)!

    Night all Zzzzzzzzzzz

  94. Pie Guevara says:

    Michael E. Mann, not satisfied with eliminating the mini ice age and the medieval warm period from his infamous and much scorned hockey stick graph, campaigned to destroy the reputations of fellow scientists to make his nonsense seem reasonable.

  95. Tina says:

    Did you hear about the BBC banning all skeptic voices from theor airwaves?

    Gotta love those progressive/liberals…they’re so open and honest!

  96. Tina says:

    American Thinker article looks and unpacks new survey that sets out to prove deniers are fringe to be mocked. The following grabbed my attention because of what has happened right here:

    this “study” is part of a propaganda campaign, brought to you by organizations that are dedicated in their very charters to persuading Americans to submit to the AGW political agenda, i.e., to hyper-regulation of everyone’s movements, living conditions, and choices. This study is meant to serve as leaflets dropped on enemy territory declaring that further resistance is futile. More precisely, it is analogous to telling a POW in solitary confinement that his comrades have already signed the confession and are now eating a delicious feast, preparing to fly home to their families.

    And that really is the American conservative today: progressivism’s prisoner of war, trapped in an authoritarian world he did not choose, and continually prodded to surrender his mind and confess. From the point of view of the established ruling class, this man is an enigma, absurdly holding out in defense of a principle that his captors can only vaguely comprehend. A man whose unbowed existence in their midst is becoming an embarrassment, a poke in the revolution’s eye that history’s leading progressives would never have tolerated for so long.

    They must break him at last. They are trying every technique they know: moles within the ranks, as with the disingenuous “conservative” labelling of establishmentarians such as Karl Rove and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; smear campaigns (racist, sexist, homophobe); bureaucratic-regulatory bullying (IRS, NSA, EPA, etc.). And now, the psychological warfare of flagrant propaganda: Give up, you’re outnumbered, no one agrees with you, we’re all laughing at you, even your friends are leaving you — you’re outside the mainstream.

    So predictable.

  97. Chris says:

    Tina: “Did you hear about the BBC banning all skeptic voices from theor airwaves?”

    That’s a lie.

    “The BBC Trust’s report said that journalists should not completely exclude skeptics, but should convey their views appropriately.”

    http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/211414-bbc-criticized-for-booking-climate-skeptics

    The BBC did not “ban all skeptic voices from theor [sic] airwaves.” Whoever told you this is either lying to you, or is equally uninformed.

    What the BBC did is instructed its journalists not to give the voices of skeptics “equal time” to the vast majority of scientists and scientific evidence. This makes sense; if 97% of scientists believe one thing, and 3% believe another, it is irresponsible for the media to give equal time to the 97% and the 3%. Doing so creates a false balance, and misleads the public by making them believe that this matter is hotly debated within the scientific community, when it is not. This is why polls have found many Americans do not know that the majority of scientists accept the theory of AGW; polls found that FOX News viewers, especially, were more likely to believe that the majority of scientists do not agree.

  98. Chris says:

    John Oliver’s “Statistically Representative Climate Change Debate” is perfection.

    “Before we begin, in the interest of mathematical balance, I’m going to bring out two people who agree with you, climate skeptic, and Bill Nye, I’m also gonna bring out 96 other scientists. It’s a little unwieldy, but it’s the only way we can actually have a representative discussion.”

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

Comments are closed.