The global "warming" charade is not about saving humanity, nor about saving polar bears...it's all about a non-environmental agenda that is being pursued by the establishment elites and powerful...and they aren't bashful about admitting it...thus, government agencies, such as NOAA, will fabricate anything and everything in support of the agenda.....
(click on graph to enlarge)
The global warming political agenda requires proof that temperatures are getting hotter.
If "hotter," then the public will of course need the government to step in and save them from dangerous hot temperatures.
But what happens when the modern maximum temperatures do not fit the agenda by not being as hot as those experienced in the distant past, earlier in the 20th century?
Well, in the case of NOAA, they just fabricate the "proof."
By simply lowering adjusting past annual maximum U.S. temperatures down until they are below the modern era temps; plus, to provide a little oomph, they raise the modern maximums a bit.
As this chart reveals, NOAA massively lowered the past temperatures prior to the 1990's. The broad black curve is the 5-year mean of the maximum U.S monthly temperatures originally measured and recorded.
And the broad blue curve? That's the 5-year mean of maximum temperatures after NOAA finished with their fabrications adjustments.
Figuratively, with a few strokes of the keyboard, NOAA manipulated the long-standing historical climate records in order to present needed "evidence" that fits with the political agenda.
Unfortunately for the reputation and credibility of science, this style of empirical evidence falsification is widespread, with government climate "scientists" leading the way it would appear.
Note: Original source of chart; the animated gif image was separated into its two frames using '7GIF.' The colors of the the two frames were then changed to be different. Then one graph was superimposed on another.
"Consensus" climate science temperature adjustments by various national climate agencies has pretty much destroyed the credibility of government funded climate researchers...currently, it has gotten so bad that hardly anyone takes seriously the predictions of the climate-doomsday cult...in fact, the only remaining believers are the die-hard fringecult leaders who prosper nicely from doing so.....
Recent examinations by analysts Paul Homewood, Tony Heller and others confirm that a wide variety of official temperature datasets have been excessively manipulated by climate "scientists" - to the point where policymakers can no longer be sure if climate records can be trusted.
The blatant temperature manipulation perpetrated on the public has been, for the most part, an esoteric issue discussed by individuals familiar with temperature record analyses. (Peer reviewed research indicates that the fake-warming likely represents 25 to 50% of reported global warming by the climate agencies.)
In the past, the mainstream press essentially ignored the anti-science temperature record fabrications, but no longer.
And as this cartoon indicates, the consensus science establishment is being mocked for the exposed temperature lies.
Wouldn't it be great if we all could just trust what the establishment science states about actual climate temperature changes and trends? But we can't, as they have categorically proven to be driven by agendas other than scientific truth. One just needs to connect-the-dots, so to speak, to discern what is really happening.
Indeed, the preponderance of evidence from the officially manipulated temperature datasets indicates fabricated cooling adjustments being applied to periods pre-1980 and a fabricated warming since 1980.
The net effect of the joint cooling and warming adjustments appears to be two-fold in support of the UN/IPCC politicalsciencepolitical "science" agenda.
One, the overall warming trend is enhanced, which is then attributed to increased CO2 by the government agency scientists, versus stating that their underlying temp adjustments were the real "enhancement" cause. Two, bureaucrats (both transnational and national), politicians and journalists demand global warming/climate change talking points - thus the creation of higher (i.e. warmer) current temps than any temperatures exhibited earlier in the 20th century.
One of the unintended and humorous consequences of climate record fabrications has been the nonsensical and irrational explanations as to why enhanced global warming is producing colder and more severe winters. The faux-warming has now necessitated the fabrication of new global warming capabilities that are entirely inconsistent with known weather physics and history.
Recent winter weather examples that have caused CAGW alarmists to expose their anti-science rationales include:
Unfortunately, the anti-science of climate science will continue since it appears to be prerequisite of research funding - in simple words, scientists are forced to support the consensus green political agenda in order to survive and thrive.
Some 25 years after NASA's stage-crafted Senate testimony regarding the dangers of global warming from CO2, the public has learned not to trust U.S. climate agencies...NOAA and NASA just confirmed why they still should not enjoy the public's trust...the black cloud of the "climate of lies" just got darker.....
(click on graph to enlarge)
Here's a reporter's excellent synopsis of what he found by simply investigating the exuberant claims of the "hottest year" and "warmest-ever"!
Although a lot of scientists (two examples, here and here) were quickly labeling the claims bogus, David Rose of the UK's Daily Mail was the first major newsprint reporter to actually do the journalism legwork that discredits claims by NASA (and NOAA). (Per standard operating procedure, the American press simply reported the NASA/NOAA press releases, with complete gullibility.)
The adjacent graph readily explains the NASA deceit (NOAA's deceit is similar). When the known error bars are added to the reported annual temperatures since 1998, one discovers that multiple previous years may have been warmer than 2014.
The facts are that no scientist can determine the world's "hottest" temperature - due to the statistical uncertainty, the margin of error doesn't allow for it. And it's simply lying not to inform the public of this.
That's why NASA's "experts" now say they are only 38% sure about 2014 being the "warmest-ever".
Yet these government-funded scientists will continue to mislead the public about the climate reality, and most "journalists" are too intellectually lazy (brainless?) or just too complicit to report the objective truth .
The EU elites and bureaucrats continue to beclown themselves...they are now going to pursue CO2 emission reductions that will accomplish zilch for the climate....
(click on image to enlarge)
The EU members have just agreed to reducing, by 2030AD, their own CO2 emissions by 40% based on 1990 levels (4.5 billion CO2 tonnes in 1990), for the next 17 years (including 2014, until the end of 2030).
That would simply average out to a 106 million tonne reduction per year. The result by end of 2030 would be 1.8 billion less tonnes emitted by EU countries, per year - assuming they can force every single EU country to comply (stop it! no laughing).
For context, the EU since 1990 has reduced their annual CO2 emissions by 598 million tonnes, total. That is an average of 26 million tonnes per year of reduction success since the end of 1990 - a fraction of the 106 million tonne per year reduction average needed for the next 17 years.
What would be the impact on global temperatures if the EU could wave a wand and immediately reduce their current emissions by 1.8 billion tonnes/year?
Absolutely NOTHING....their reduction plans essentially have an unmeasurable yearly impact of global temperatures (i.e. 'unmeasurable' not being at least a 2 decimal point degree (C) decrease/increase, for example, -0.01, -0.02, +0.01, +0.01 and etc.).
The basic arithmetic of CO2's past impact on global temperatures can be determined utilizing the standard 3rd party estimates of total global temperature increase and total CO2 emissions from 1850 on.
Using the historical CO2 emission and temp records, since 1850 global temperatures have increased by 0.00000000000061°C per CO2 tonne emitted (assuming the climate-doomsday alarmists' claims that all warming is due to CO2 and that all human emissions remain in the atmosphere from hundreds to thousands of years).
As can be seen with the above depiction of the 'C3' CO2/temperature estimator, the total reduction of 1.8 billions tonnes of CO2 emissions will have absolutely no yearly measurable impact on global temperatures (top panel of depiction).
(The various arithmetic calculations are not difficult, however they are tedious. So instead, one can use this simple 'C3' estimation tool to broadly estimate the impact of CO2 reductions/avoidance (or additions) on global temps.)
Since an immediate 1.8 billion tonne annual reduction is not possible, but a 106 million tonne reduction/year over the next 37 years (including 2014 through the end of 2050) could possibly be accomplished, what is the temperature impact with that scenario?
Again, absolutely no measurable impact on global temperatures (bottom panel of depiction). That's zero impact after 37 years of avoiding 106 million emission tonnes/year.
And by now you are probably asking yourself just how many years the EU has to reduce their CO2 emissions by 106 million tonnes per year for a measurable impact to be produced (i.e. -0.01 degree change)?
Approximately 165 years from end of 2013! But wait...there's more absurdity...if they're reducing CO2 emissions by 106 million tonnes per year, the EU finally gets to zero CO2 emissions by year 2056 (43 years from end of 2013 - currently, the EU emissions per year are about 3.9 billion tonnes per year).
Well, it means the EU won't ever reach the 165 year mark in CO2 reductions to achieve a -0.01 degree impact. And two, over the next 43 years, despite the 106 million tonnes/year reduction, the EU will still emit another 74.5 billion tonnes in total. That translates into a global temperature impact of +0.04.
On top of this obvious futility from the EU's newest CO2 moral posturing, the other countries of the world will just keep emitting CO2, completely wiping out any reduction the EU achieves. Simply put, no one gives a flying f*#k what the EU does any longer - not Russia, not China, not India, not Brazil nor any other nation on the cusp of climbing out of economic poverty.
Even if other major emitters were to go along with the EU's preening, they will simply ignore their CO2 promises to protect their economies and their citizens. And what will the EU do do enforce their moral superiority? Hmmm...think Russia's wars with the Ukraine and Georgia or think Iran and nuclear weapons - yep, you're right, in diplomatic-speak, the EU can't and won't do squat.
The EU's latest CO2 self-righteousness is as worthless as used toilet paper and everyone knows it.
Update: Another way to view the proposed 2030 impact of the new EU's CO2 reduction scheme.
If the EU's existing CO2 reduction achievements since 1990 continued through 2030, total EU emissions would be 63.1 giga-tonnes.That would produce a global temp increase of +0.039.
If the proposed 40% CO2 emission reduction by 2030 can be achieved, total emissions from 2014 through 2030 would 50.3 giga-tonnes. And that would produce a +0.031 increase.
It would seem the EU's plans to spend directly/indirectly billions-to-trillions of Euros to reduce global temps, by maybe only 8-thousandths of a degree, is tantamount to collective insanity by the elites.
Note: Global temperature source; historical and modern CO2 emission tonnes used by the 'C3' estimator tool. This tool is a quick and dirty means to calculate CO2's impact on temperatures. More information here.
All politicians, bureaucrats and scientists are prone to ludicrous exaggerations, lame mistruths and outright lies as techniques to frighten and push the general public towards accepting an agenda...and leftists, socialists, marxists, progressives and liberals are really exceptional talents in this art of public deception...some very recent climate-liar examples:
"Climate change is the most consequential, urgent, sweeping collection of challenges we face" (Hillary Clinton)..."confronting climate change” is “a duty or responsibility laid down in scriptures" (John Kerry)...“Climate change is so much more consequential than ISIS ever was" (Leading Democrat consultant)...“we are not very far” from the point where climate change should be declared an international public health emergency" (UN's Christiana Figueres).....
(click on to enlarge)
Any political success that is achieved by deceit, hyperbole and hysteria always requires a sacrifice of the empirical evidence and unbiased science.
Yet it is scientific facts and methodologies that ultimately win...it follows that the public can only be mislead for so long.
Despite the extremist hyperbole and doomsday-cult scenario hysteria, the science of climate change is rather mundane, from a long-term view: it gets cold and, OMG!, then it gets hot, with some periods of in-between. Climate change is constantly in play; and humans can no more stop its chaotic version of ebbs and flows, let alone ever controlling a single cloud, thunderstorm, hurricane or tornado.
This chart, from the science journal New Scientist, is a prime exhibit of real-world scientific evidence that reveals how inconsequential today's climate change is compared to all previous climate change.
From the chart, it is clear that extreme climate change is a constant; there have been much higher and lower temperatures in the past; modern climate temperatures are not excessive in the least; and, the purported human-induced, "dangerous" modern temperature warming is only a fraction of past natural increases.
We say purported, because our existence is taking place during a global cooling phase (look at chart closely and note the pale blue areas) which is rather long-in-the-tooth, and at some point would normally rebound to warmer temperatures, just naturally. Indeed, the entire warming since the Little Ice Age is likely to be predominantly a natural response to the prior millenniums of extended cooling.
As the chart's inset clarifies, the modern warming since the end of 1949 has been very modest, being completely within the bounds of previous ancient and geological warmings that have been identified by empirical science.
And the "tipping point" warming has become even more modest during the 21st century:
The atmosphere has not experienced statistically significant warming since March 1996.
The oceans have not experienced statistically significant warming since August 1994.
The globe has not experienced statistically significant warming since November 1996.
Memo to GOP elites: Do not just passively accept the climate-liars' exaggerations, hyperbole and factual misrepresentations. The public wants the science facts; they want evidence that challenges the mindless, ludicrous fear-mongering. Crush the Democrats' hysteria with the real science; and denigrate their junk science predictions generated from the failed computer climate models. Facilitate the flow of scientific empirical evidence and debate - hmm...it's called educating the public, eh?
There's a dirty little secret about the major CO2 emission reductions Obama's EPA is proposing...cutting CO2 emissions will have an impact of just about squat on global temperatures and the EPA is hiding that inconvenient factoid.....
(click image to enlarge)
To the numbers:
===> The EPA is proposing a 30% reduction of power plant CO2 emissions from 2005 levels
===> The reductions are expected to reduce U.S. economic growth by some $2 trillion
===> Consumers of electricity can expect their rates to increase by 10% per year
===> The CO2 regulations will likely reduce employment by 600,000, plus make U.S. manufacturing (huge consumers of electricity) even less competitive
===> Finally, per an expert computer analysis of the CO2 reductions, based on the known physics of climate science, the expected global temperature increase by 2100AD will be smaller, by an immeasurable, undetectable, trivial 0.02 degree, and that's rounded up.
The chart tells the factual story.
The IPCC is predicting global temperatures to be about 16°C by 2100. And with the EPA reductions? They still expect global temperatures to be about 16 degrees (15.98°).
And if global temperatures exceed the IPCC prediction and climb to 18 or 20 degrees by 2100, what then will be the EPA reduction impact? Still squat, since the global temperature averted will not change from 0.02°C.
What could make this 'squat' result even more embarrassingly bad for Americans? The evil CO2 twins, China and India.
While the U.S. has reduced its emissions by 7% over the last 5 years, China and India have increased theirs a combined 32%. The EPA enforced CO2 reduction will not only make Americans poorer, any global warming reduction will be completely wiped out and vastly exceeded by other nation's (America's global competitors) huge CO2 increases.
Talk about freaking and amazingly stupid bureaucrats gone wild.
Even the progressive liberal New Republic recognizes the non-existent temperature impact of the Democrats' CO2 regulations on global warming:
"The goal of these regulations is not to stop global warming, but to prove to the international community that the U.S. is ready to pay additional costs to combat climate change."
To summarize: The Democratic Party and Obama are using EPA bureaucrats to deliver a meaningless symbolic "climate change" message to foreign elites, purposefully sacrificing and harming American labor, consumers and businesses. To top it off, Obama's regulations ultimately produces no climate benefit or global warming reduction.
An analysis of NOAA's U.S. temperature dataset confirms the existence of fake climate warming that overstates actual warming by considerable amount...documentation and surprising revelations support the growing concerns by critics that U.S. climate scientists are driven by a non-science agenda.....
(click on image to enlarge)
Government bureaucrats and scientists have not exactly gone out of their way to publicize the growing use of estimated temperatures, instead of reality - actual temperature measurements.
For good reason.
Based on an examination by independent analysts, after 1990 the U.S. climate agencies chose to start replacing real-world measurements with entirely fabricated (i.e. "estimated") numbers.
Per the top chart on the left, utilization of estimated temperatures is now approaching 40%.
So, what's the problem with using NOAA's fake temperatures instead of real-world temperature measurements?
The bottom graph on the left explains the problem. The estimated temperatures produce a much greater warming trend then the actual temperature measurements.
By using estimates, government officials are able to claim bogus climate warming statistics in order to advance the scary talking points of catastrophic global warming and extreme climate change.
Deception is as simple as that, yet can be effective propaganda.
The political agenda of "global warming" is so important to government-sponsored scientists that massive fabrication of temperature warming is required to convince policymakers and the media.
The latest analysis (see graph) reveals the extent to which this temperature fabrication goes.
Although the actual climate records' empirical evidence shows essentially a flat temperature trend for the U.S. since 1985, NOAA has added warming "adjustments" to the historical empirical database to create a false warming trend of 1.5°F per century.
As this analysis indicates, consensus corruption of empirical science by U.S. scientists is active and robust, done with a seemingly obvious intent to deceive.
This is also true for the continental U.S. temperatures during the 21st century, though, with an obvious difference. As the adjacent chart reveals, the U.S. temperatures exhibit an actual cooling trend - actually opposite of the rapid, dangerous, "scorching" climate that the White House and some propagandistsliars journalists report.
Based on moving 5-year averages of U.S. monthly temperature anomalies, America's continental climate is currently cooling at a minus 1.2°F per century rate.
It's just another case of 'those stubborn facts' being mighty inconvenient.
Note: Excel used to produce chart, averages and linear trend. NOAA temperature dataset used can be downloaded from this site.
If wild-assed guesses and purposeful doomsday, fear-mongering claims are the "new science" gold standard, then Obama's 'National Climate Assessment' report must be a winner, no?.....well, it's at least deserving of 5-Pinoccio gold stars for anti-science propaganda...
(click on image to enlarge)
The 2014 climate-doomsday assessment report recently issued by the White House and Democrat cronies has not been well received by actual climate scientists.
The report is a compilation of every scary climate prophecy imaginable, most of which are highly speculative with little, if any, likelihood of happening.
Ahem.....yes, Virginia, you are more likely of being struck by lightening exactly between the eyeballs than suffering through any of the Democrats' climate doomsday scenarios.
Besides the White House's extreme scare-mongering, the report's credibility is also D.O.A. due to its blatant falsehood regarding "CO2-caused" warming of the globe and the U.S.
===> "The government’s newest national assessment of climate change declares that increased global warming is affecting every part of the United States."
From a vast array of empirical reports (here and here), recent research and widely disseminated media reports, it has been well verified that the "expert" predicted accelerating freight train of dangerous global warming has been stopped cold in its tracks.
Obama's assessment: it completely ignores this major climate reality that so dramatically differs from the previous global warming alarmism speculations.
And the actual scientific truth about global temperature change is not difficult to determine, since all it takes to analyze temperatures is to download the NOAA/NASA satellite temperature datasets and then plot the measurements using Microsoft Excel.
That is what has been done in producing the accompanying charts.
The top graph plots the changes in tropical oceans (a latitude range of -20 to +20); the tropical atmosphere (a latitude range of -20 to +20); and the continental U.S.
Obviously, since 1996, the last 18 years has witnessed its normal wide variation in temperature swings but the overall linear trends are cooling for all three datasets, NOT WARMING as predicted.
The bottom chart represents the moving 5-year averages of all three of the same datasets, plus the moving 5-year average of atmospheric CO2 levels (ppm). Clearly, the huge growth in CO2 levels has had zero global warming impact on the 5-year temperature change over the last 18 years, contrary to the Democrats' "consensus" predictions.
This actual empirical evidence devastates the White House claim that Earth is becoming Venus-like, where CO2 causes the tropical atmosphere to develop incredible hotspots, which then produces a boiling-off of sea water, starting with the tropical oceans. As can be seen here, this is the entire "scientific" basis of the Democrats' extreme climate change, doomsday predictions.
Doomsday predictions that do not comport with any known climate reality on Earth (again, view above graphs).
Unfortunately, reality has not kept this White House from misleading Americans on a wide range of issues, including Obamacare; the Benghazi terrorism attack; the IRS politicization; the NSA's illegal spying on Americans; the Operation 'Fast & Furious' fiasco; and etc.
Thus, Obama's climate assessment report utilizes the same lie-at-all-costs tactics as the previous instances. This report is just another attempt to bamboozle the public.
"5 reasons voters don’t believe the White House about global warming: OVERREACH, HYPOCRISY, AGENDA-DRIVEN, UNILATERAL, NOT CREDIBLE" - that's how the Washington Post assesses Obama's assessment.
And of course, when this latest fear-report fails to convince the public, the liberals' anti-science approach will then embrace other tried and true "professional" tactics - like this.
Note: Yes, you too can do your own empirical analysis - download datasets used in Excel to produce above charts, linear trends and moving averages. Btw, U.S. April anomaly used was an estimate (included in the download). Hey, don't know how to chart in Excel? It's easy. Go here to learn how.
Like the UN, the IPCC is a political organization that seemingly has a primary objective of misleading the public and policymakers about climate science. Another example of such behavior is.....
(click on chart to enlarge)
The empirical evidence and peer reviewed research is indisputable - essential food production has dramatically improved while CO2 levels and global temperatures increased.
Those are the stubborn facts that the adjacent chart reveals as unequivocal.
Yet, because of the political-driven agenda the IPCC pursues, their latest report states that the world's food production would be more "secure" if CO2 emissions were reduced. Hmm...the exact opposite of known scientific fact.
"There, it can be seen that enriching the air with CO2 almost always leads to significant increases in the photosynthetic rates and biomass production of all of the world's major food crops. And as for the highly-unlikely increase in global temperature that the world's climate alarmists predict to result from projected increases in the air's CO2 content, there are also many studies that reveal the positive consequences of warming for agriculture in Earth's cooler high-latitude regions, such as the recent study of Meng et al. (2014) dealing with maize production in the northern reaches of China. And there is also the significant body of work that reveals that as the atmosphere's CO2 concentration rises, the various temperatures at which different plants photosynthesize most proficiently rise right along with it..."
"Yet the primary efforts of both of these entities [Ed. the UN's IPCC and the UNFCCC] have been, and continue to be, directed against that which is most needed to produce the required amount food, as they both argue for reductions in anthropogenic CO2 emissions, which comprise much of the aerial "food" that sustains all of our food crops."
Truth be told, the headline of this post is not an IPCC quote but obviously it represents what the IPCC is attempting to convince the public of, and unfortunately, the real-world, objective science does not support it in the least.
Summary: The IPCC's fundamental lies continue to establish the blatant anti-science which permeates the entire UN's climate "research" reporting - it's propaganda spin all the way down.
Additional 'C3' charts that challenge the IPCC's anti-science. Note: NOAA CO2 levels on above chart have been super-imposed on the original found here.
Quack anti-science runs rampant among progressives and Democrats...a recent classic example was their 'cash-for-clunker' program.....
(click on image to enlarge)
The Democrats' 2009 plan to stop global warming, and stimulate the economy at the same time, turned out to be a major flop on all fronts.
This article provides a synopsis of the failed "clunkers" economic stimulation; this PDF provides a detailed 41-pages of analysis.
Regarding the impact on global warming, we need to turn to the math to assess the infamous "clunker" program.
First, from Wikipedia we know there are an estimated 270 million U.S. passenger vehicles as of the end of 2013.
Next, from the EPA we know the average U.S. vehicle emits some 4.75 metric tonnes of CO2 per year.
Using these two factoids, we can do the multiplication and determine that a year's worth of auto CO2 emissions would weigh-in at approximately 1,282,500,000 tonnes.
That's a lot (1.3 billion tonnes 'a lot'). But would it affect global warming if the U.S. were to ban all passenger vehicle driving for a year and elimanate all those tonnes in one fell swoop?
The simple 'C3' estimating tool provides the answer to that. Observe the global warming impact that has a green square drawn around it in the above image - the temperature impact is zero.
Yes, that's right, banning all car and light truck driving for a year in the U.S. will have zilch impact on global temperatures. (Btw, if U.S. vehicle emissions were double, the impact would still be nothing - try 2.6 billion in the 'C3' estimator to check it out.)
Regarding the 'cash-for-clunkers' program, there were a total of 660,000 clunkers disposed of, and for our math, we assume that they spewed twice the amount of CO2 - 9.5 metric tonnes per year instead of 4.75. When the multiplication is completed, it means the "clunkers" total CO2 emissions removed from the road came to 6,270,000 tonnes (millions, not billions).
What would happen to global warming if the Democrats ran the 'ClunkerCare' program each of the next 20 years and never allowed a single replacement of the junked, CO2 belching jalopies with newer, more efficient cars?
Again, the 'C3' estimating tool provides the answers, which are the resulting numbers with a cyan circle around them on the above image. Whoo-wee...it's zero impact again, even after 20 years of ClunkerCare.
Hey, did we mention progressive quacks yet? Democratic anti-science?
Most everyone (99.9%?) involved in the climate science community are fully aware of NASA's gross manipulation "enhancement" of the historical global temperature record dataset.
It's understood by all that the real 20th century warming was just not very dramatic, thus it had to be 'sexed up' to fit the alarmist fear-mongering. As a result, the NASA/GISS climate agency has shown their amazing "scientific" capabilities by producing an enhanced global warming trend.....by simply, and literally, lowering (ie, cooling) past recorded temperatures prior to 1960.
This chart clearly reveals these NASA's manipulation "enhancement" results, which are laughable, unless of course, one is unaware of the back story of manipulated "enhancing" climate science.
NASA's has done a yeoman's job keeping the U.S. mainstream press from discussing the faux global warming trend but international news agencies have less qualms about reporting the truth.
This chart comes from an international newscast regarding the fake global warming. The newscast about the chart and the political agenda behind it can be watched by clicking on the graph. Or read about it here.
Establishment climate science has been a never-ending cornucopia of fraud, fabrications, misrepresentations and wild exaggerations that multiple skeptics have publicly exposed, much to the chagrin and angst of the anti-science "consensus."
Without much argument from the masses, the climate science "elites" have done a yeoman's job of tarnishing the overall reputation of the science community.
Yet, as much as we complain about the scientific wrongdoings in the climate realm, the same is happening in other research fields. And medical research is likely the super nova of scientific misconduct.
The two images on the left are explained by the above short video clip provided. In a nutshell, the consensus hypothesis that fats and cholesterol cause heart disease is a result of extreme cherry-picking and other fraudulent practices of establishment science.
And, this heart-healthy science fraud has uncanny similarities to what has happened in the climate science establishment, as written about in this JoNovaarticle.
The above short video clip is a teaser. The entire Catalyst show episode on heart health can be viewed here - it is well worth one's time. It is a reminder that scientists, in general, should not be trusted at face value.
It's also a warning to those who are worried about cardiovascular disease. Instead of accepting traditional medical advice from "experts", you may be better served doing your own due diligence on the actual science of heart disease causes and potential treatments. A good place to start is here (I own the Kindle version; an excellent, informative and eye-opener read for the layperson).
Simply stated, the Obama Administration and leading Democrats refuse to be honest with the American public - the empirical evidence and climate scientists now confirm that real global warming and climate change will be significantly less than predicted, making the politician lies even more troubling
As previously discussed, the consensus regarding future global warming and climate change has fallen apart.
Essentially, the climate research agencies programmed their computer models with an extremely high sensitivity to atmospheric CO2 levels. As a result, these computer climate simulations predicted outlandishly high future temperatures.
These alarmist, catastrophic temperature simulations were portrayed to the public by the mainstream media, the United Nations and Obama's big government advocates as gospel truth, when in fact they were nothing more than hypothetical speculations with no empirical foundation.
The above two charts provide further proof that computer model simulations were spectacularly wrong.
The IPCC chart on the left has a mauve curve that represents future temperatures if CO2 emissions were held constant at 2000 levels. This chart also has two red lines of actual observed HadCRUT global temperature trends (red lines) when projected out to 2100AD.
Clearly, observed temperature trends are predicting a future temp that resembles the IPCC projection if CO2 was held constant - the actual trends are multiple times below the "runaway" and "accelerating" global warming that Obama and the IPCC still push.
The second chart on the right plots the IPCC's different CO2 scenarios that the world may follow. A close examination of this chart reveals that actual CO2 emissions continue to follow the 'business as usual' scenario (A1F1), which the IPCC and Obama state is the cause of "runaway" global warming and climate change.
Since the "runaway" and "accelerating" scenarios have been ginormous scientific failures, as previously discussed, AGW scientists and alarmists/advocates are having to seriously re-think the basic assumptions of catastrophic global warming.
As is usually the case though, the now proven bad, anti-science is not stopping Obama and his Democrat comrades in their attempts to perpetrate a new tax Americans on carbon usage.
Global warming science facts can be very disturbing at times - NOAA has been a leader in fabricating temperatures (faux warming), which many view as faux (fake) climate science
(click on image to enlarge)
'C3' and others have often written about the fabrication of global warming by various climate agencies around the world. NOAA has been at the forefront of "adjusting" historical temperatures to fabricate increased warming for modern decades (1960's and more recent) and increased cooling for the earlier decades (pre-1960's).
The adjacent chart visually depicts the changes to monthly global temperatures that NOAA has made since 2008 (updated through May 2012). Since 2008 they have "adjusted" every single month back to January 1880 (that's 1,548 months of "adjusted" empirical evidence through 2008) except for one solitary month (December 2006).
The chart is a plot of coolest temperature adjustment to the warmest temperature adjustment - from left to right. Summary factoids below:
1. Out of 1,548 monthly temperature records, NOAA "cooled" 754 months
a. 49% of all months had their historical temperatures lowered
b. Total "cooling" applied was -29C degrees
2. Out of 754 "cooled" months, only 17 of those had dates post-1959.
a. That's only 2% - one would naturally expect close to 50% of all cooled months to be post-1959 if adjustments were applied with robust scientific rationale
3. Out of 1,548 monthly temperature records, NOAA "warmed" 793 months
a. 51% of all months had their historical temperatures raised
b. Total "warming" applied was +23C degrees
4. Out of 793 "warmed" months, 570 had dates post-1959
a. That's 72% - not exactly random; more like adjustments due to a non-scientific rationale
7. One example of wacky (nonsensical) adjacent temperature adjustments
a. December 1881 = +0.10C deg (adjusted up since 2008)
b. January 1882 = -0.02C deg (adjusted down since 2008)
Keep in mind, when reviewing the above factoids and chart that these are NOAA adjustments made to historical temperatures (January 1, 1880 thru December 31, 2008) since 2008. The NOAA adjustments to the historical temperature dataset made prior to 2008 have also been massive, as indicated here by an Oak Ridge National Laboratory analysis.
Clearly, since the Obama election of 2008, NOAA has pursued a frequent policy of temperature adjustments (literally monthly) to meet some non-scientific objective. Their methodology has primarily consisted of lowering the majority of temperature records prior to 1960 and raising those post-1959. The cumulative effect of all these adjustments is to build a better case that modern warming is a result of human CO2 emissions.
No other major climate science agency has pursued such an aggressive (ie, frequent) process of fabricating temperatures.
Finally, some proponents of the NOAA methodology attempt to rationalize all these adjustments as "quality control/management" which is patently absurd. During 2012 alone, NOAA has "quality control" adjusted the entire historical temperature record at least 18 times - for example, they have reported at least 18 different temperatures for January 1880 over the past 5 months. This is not "quality control" in any sense that experts of quality control would understand. Instead, it's ludicrous faux-science for non-scientific reasons, month after month, plain and simple.
Conclusion: The global warming science facts are that NOAA promotes a fake style of climate science by essentially fabricating temperatures - it's enhanced modern "global warming," either by raising or cooling the appropriate temperature records.
Both Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi wanted to force the U.S. economy to a regulated 'cap and trade' straitjacket policy for CO2 emissions. This was the failed scheme that Australia and the EU actively pursued, and the U.S Democrats wanted to mimic.
The American public, and most Republicans, wanted nothing to do with 'cap & trade' straitjacket regulations, but instead desired a free market approach to reducing CO2 emissions.
And, as it now turns out, the American public and Republicans were a lot smarter than Obama, Pelosi and the incredibly dull leaders of Australia and the EU. Since 2006, the U.S. has led the world in reducing CO2 emissions and did it without bureaucratic mandates that politicians across the globe love.
Conclusion: The amazing and flexible free market in the U.S. has been responsible for the impressive and global-leading CO2 reductions, not the U.S. government and its stifling bureaucracy.
Hey, with that said about the wrong-way Democrats, Nancy sure does look great though, eh?
The electric car advantages that the Obama administration touts turns out to be a giant scam perpetrated by the EPA bureaucrats - you know, the same bureaucrats 'crucifying' the fossil fuel energy industry in order to make energy costs skyrocket
Read here. Numerous persons, from a wide variety of political persuasions, are making it clear they are not happy with the miles-per-gallon fraud that Obama's EPA is foisting on the public. Simply put, if an all electric vehicle has an EPA mileage rating of 99 mpg (MPGe), such as the Nissan Leaf, in reality it is only getting 36 mpg.
The EPA fraud is the improper accounting of all the fossil fuels used to produce the electricity to power an all electric car. There is a correct accounting method readily available but the Obama EPA team chose an inferior method that allows electric car firms to claim huge fraudulent mileage statistics. For the details of how the EPA fraud is done, check out these articles: here, here and here.
And btw, don't expect any of Obama's consumer protection agencies to bring the EPA up on consumer fraud charges or criminally crucify the bureaucrat scum culprits.
Conclusion: The electric car advantages are mostly illusionary, which the EPA and Obama administration knows. Instead of being honest and transparent, the EPA decided to put lipstick on the EV pig, which is not flying well with consumer advocates, so-to-speak. To determine the true MPG of an EV, divide the EPA's MPGe published figure for any electric car and then divide by 3 - voila, that gives you close to the legit MPG.
Read here. The Tesla electric car is produced by a company run by a whiny corporate billionaire and taxpayer welfare mooch - to the tune of $450 million in U.S. taxpayer loans provided by Obama. What did Obama see in the company? Great question, and btw, don't expect the loan to be repaid, ever.
Tesla introduced their EV Roadster back in 2008 with much fanfare but in 2011 announced they would quit producing it - lackluster sales did the car in. And now the Roadster owners are finding out that if the car is parked too long the batteries go dead, for good.
The batteries represent about one-fifth the EV's sticker price, which comes out to approximately $40,000.00. Ouch!
"DON'T leave your electric car parked for too long - by the time you get back it could have turned into a $200,000 brick. Tesla owners in the US who have parked their vehicles with low battery power remaining - for as little as a week - have found their cars had become "bricks" that could not be re-charged...Electric car maker Tesla is defending claims its cars become immobilised if the battery ever becomes completely discharged. This results in a battery replacement cost of about one-fifth the car's $206,000 sticker price...Tesla owners in the US who have parked their vehicles with low battery power remaining - for as little as a week - have found their cars had become "BRICKS" that could not be re-charged."
Unfortunately, Tesla's electric car advanatges, known as batteries, are not the only expensive ones on the market. To replace battereis in any of the current EV's on the market is incredibly expensive, especially if they frequently catch fire. The good news? When it's time for resale or trade-in, the wealthy owners of these vehicles will receive just karma for leeching off the average taxpayer.
Read here. The rash of Volt fires during early 2012 put the kibosh on sales of the electric 4-wheel barbeques, but during March 2012 they became red-hot (ooops) again. March sales figures were...ahem...'on fire' as each Chevy dealer sold at least three-quarters of a Volt each for the entire month...hot damn!
That March sales figure represents a huuuge 277% increase over the previous month sales figure! That translates to Volt sales taking a giant leap of...well...er...from 0.27 Volts per dealer to that red-hot figure of 0.76 volts per dealer. Woooweee....now we're cookin with gas batteries!
This 'Government Motors' (Uncle Sam owns 26% of GM) electric vehicle sales fiasco has been a overdone turkey for the taxpayer since Day 1. But for the wealthy who purchase this rolling $40,000+ Weber grill, they get subsidized by all the rest of us to the tune of $7,500, which Obama now wants increased to $10,000, per wealthy consumer. OMG, thank you Obamamama.
Now that is some really ugly Volt arithmetic for the average person to swallow, but wait.....it gets worse:
"The analysis includes adding up the amount of government subsidies via tax credits and direct funding for not only General Motors, but other companies supplying parts for the vehicle. For example, the Department of Energy awarded a $105.9 million grant to the GM Brownstown plant that assembles the batteries. The company was also awarded approximately $106 million for its Hamtramck assembly plant in state credits to retain jobs. The company that supplies the Volt’s batteries, Compact Power, was awarded up to $100 million in refundable battery credits (combination tax breaks and cash subsidies). These are among many of the subsidies and tax credits for the vehicle...GM has estimated they’ve sold 6,000 Volts so far. That would mean each of the 6,000 Volts sold would be subsidized between $50,000 and $250,000, depending on how many government subsidy milestones are realized."
Conclusion: The electric car advantages are real for Obama's cronies and really, really ugly for taxpayers. We are paying Government Motors between $50,000-$250,000 per Volt that GM sells for $41,000.00. Damn that car is hot!
Electric car advantages disappear for the Obama-funded Fisker EV - Consumer Reports can't complete tests of Fisker due to its failing after only 180 miles
(click on image to pleasantly enlarge)
Read here. Good looking car, better looking battery charger - does she do maintenance too?
The electric vehicle initiative from the Obama team has been a colossal example of failed leadership and the incompetence of a Democrat / liberal government. The inept Obama loaned Fisker, a Finnish company, tax-payer multi-millions to build a $100,000 plus vehicle in Finland, not in the U.S.
Obama crony capitalism at its worst
Sooo.....what could go wrong? Well, Consumer Reports discovered the real electric car "advantages" when its test Fisker EV went kaput after only 180 miles. Like all of Obama's green expenditures (billions of dollars over past three years) this was another failure that reveals why governments should not be wasting tax-payer dollars subsidizing Al Gore and wealthy consumers.
p.s. Hey, can I keep the charger if my "Fisker" fails?
The disgraced climate science-fraud Peter Gleick of 'Fakegate' fame is not alone in the realm of climate science malfeasance - indeed, the lies of disaster alarmism persist as insurance companies and NOAA are still pushing climate change fraud
Read here. One of the world's foremost experts takes the large insurance companies and NOAA to task for brazenly misleading the public and policymakers about global disaster trends.
If there was ever a definitive indicator that science fraud is being perpetrated, the collaboration of big insurance companies and government bureaucrats has to be the best-of-breed known.
"NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco and NCDC head Tom Karl write in Physics Today about the 14 "billion dollar disasters" tabulated by NOAA for 2011 and ask "Why did we see such expensive damage last year?" Their answer, predictably, includes "climate change" and is followed by a lengthy exposition on why NOAA needs more money.
Reality Check: Lubchenco and Karl somehow failed to note that NOAA and NCDC have cautioned against drawing any such conclusions from the "billion dollar disasters." And even though Lubchenco and Karl cite the recent IPCC Special Report on Extreme Events, they also somehow forgot to mention this part: "Long-term trends in economic disaster losses adjusted for wealth and population increases have not been attributed to climate change, but a role for climate change has not been excluded." Deceiving."
Summary: Despite the well publicized fraud and deception of the amazing Fakegate climate science, major business and government officials continue pushing climate change fraud even when the known empirical evidence refutes their climate change claims.
Previous Lubchenco's NOAA "Science" Posts here, here and here.
Last time we checked, 'Lubchenco Science' had accomplished 3 full revisions of the entire historical temperature dataset during January, adding to the 6 known full revisions done in December.
Surprise!....Lubchenco has managed to squeeze another full revision of the entire temperature dataset in the last few days - making it at least 4 for January.
NOAA is now up to 10 full revisions since October - they refer to their constant revising of the historical data going back to 1880 as "quality control." In contrast, NASA/GISS, HadCRUT, UAH and RSS have not revised their entire datasets once during the last two months.
The NASA climate model developed by James Hansen has been atrocious at predicting global warming over the last 15 years and the evidence mounts it is even worse at predicting ocean heat content
Read here. The oceans represent some 70% of the globe's surface and is a giant reservoir of energy, with an immense effect on the climate. Being able to accurately predict the heat content is absolutely essential if climate models are ever to be trusted.
As the adjacent chart by expert Bob Tisdale reveals, the NASA climate model prediction for ocean heat content (OHC) is robustly higher than actual measurements of OHC since 2003. The model doesn't work as advertised, like most climate models' predictions.
"The reality is, the flattening of the Global OHC anomaly data was not anticipated by those who created the models. This of course raises many questions, one of which is, if the models did not predict the flattening of the OHC data in recent years, much of which is based on the drop in North Atlantic OHC, did the models hindcast the rise properly from 1955 to 2003? Apparently not."
The NASA model was developed by Hansen. He had it programmed to predict a rapid increase in OHC based on the questionable CO2-based AGW hypothesis. Because of a major weakness in the AGW hypothesis (the never realized positive feedback loops) NASA's model is unable to predict OHC correctly, let alone the world's climate.
The NOAA under Lubchenco's control continues to make a mockery of empirical-based science as global warming fabrication continues unchecked
This is an update from the two previous posts, here and here. During the month of December, NOAA / NCDC revised their published historical temperature dataset at least 6 times - affecting monthly historical temperatures going back to 1880. These major revisions were not constrained to just a few recent months or a few recent years, but to all the historical empirical records.
If doing it 6 times in December wasn't bizarre enough, the NOAA "scientists" have already revised the entire dataset 3 times during January (the month isn't even over yet). [Ed. Good news: No new revised datasets in last 2 days, which means the incessant changes may be halted until next month]
Since the Obama administration takeover of NOAA / NCDC, it has been on a tear to fabricate global warming, conducting major temperature fabrication on an almost monthly basis, which has now culminated to producing multiple major revisions per month. (click to enlarge images)
(Above is a sample of revisions, including 2 (of 3) done in January 2012.)
Defenders of Lubchenco's empirical evidence revisionism refer to the constant revisions as "quality control" which is categorically one of the lamest piles of B.S. uttered in the debate on global warming. If the 'QC' defense had even an ounce of truth to it, it would mean every single previous revision had "quality control" issues even though each was a result of the same quality control process.
Plus, in contrast to the 7 major revisions done by NOAA / NCDC over the last 4 weeks, there has been only one major revision by GISS and zero for HadCRUT, UAH and RSS. (These other alphabet climate agencies do not do major revisions every single month, let alone multiple major revisions to the historical record within a month.)
Simply put, the 'big green' activist Lubchenco must have a political agenda that calls for the NCDC dataset exhibiting more "global warming."
Needless to say, her servile puppet-scientists have performed that task since 2008, month-in and month-out, as the change in the global warming trend exhibits (red is new trend; blue is old) in the adjacent chart.
[Bonus recommendation to NOAA/ NCDC: Publish only one set of numbers per month; avoid changing historical temperatures prior to 1990; and, make future changes random so that they don't appear to be purposefully warming specific periods while cooling others. Food for thought.]
BTW, this Excel chart represents the typical way that alarmists portray "runaway" global warming. That red trend line leaves the impression that global warming will go through the roof by 2100. In fact though, that red trend line indicates a "global warming" of about +0.5°C by year 2100. To mislead the public and policymakers, alarmist scientists and the mainstream press typically avoid putting numeric linear trend information on the chart, for very obvious reasons.
Policymakers reliance on the significantly wrong United Nations' IPCC climate model predictions is leading to needless death and suffering - East Africa is recent example
Read here. Map source here. Both recent peer reviewed empirical research and anecdotal evidence clearly indicate that the UN's IPCC's climate models are notoriously wrong.
Not only have its models been conclusively wrong about CO2-caused global warming over the last 15 years, but the climate models' regional predictions are often diametrically opposite of reality. These bad regional predictions are causing policymakers to make incredibly stupid decisions based on an IPCC computer simulation, which ultimately causes needless deaths and suffering.
Egregiously wrong regional IPCC forecasts for East Africa are the latest example of these worthless, killer climate model predictions:
"The quality of the global models are too poor to give any clear information about regional climate change. We can state for the various regions, where there is some information, to what extend there is agreement between models etc. However, even agreement amongst models does not at this stage allow for any thorough assessment about uncertainties about changes."
""We thought trouble was coming“, describing “how his group last year forecast the drought in Somalia that is now turning into famine — and how that warning wasn’t enough” and in particular lamenting that: The global climate models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change were never intended to provide rainfall trend projections for every region. These models say that East Africa will become wetter, yet observations show substantial declines in spring rainfall in recent years. Despite this, several agencies are building long-term plans on the basis of the forecast of wetter conditions."
The embarrassing outright fabrication of the global temperature dataset continues at NOAA / NCDC - Obama's anti-science regime not challenged by the mainstream press
How bizarre is changing historical temperatures, all the way back to 1880, on a monthly basis? Recently, we wrote about NOAA's monthly temperature revisionism and the political, anti-science agenda that's driving it, global warming alarmism. [Ed: part III here]
Well, it's definitely bizarre science since other major climate agencies are not doing the same.
Amazingly though, the NOAA / NCDC agencies are now seemingly dissatisfied with just monthly fabrications. They apparently have now embraced almost daily revisionism of historical temperatures.
Although we did not check the NOAA / NCDC dataset on a daily basis during the month of December, we did check six times, downloading six different historical datasets. Did we say bizarro? (image source)
There is no rational explanation for continuously fabricating a new historical temperature dataset multiple times during a month, let alone a year. [Note: You can download the six December 2012 revisions of historical data by Obama's "science" team here.]
Of course, the mainstream press (e.g. NYT, WaPo, CNN, LA Times, BBC, Newsweek, CBS, MSNBC, etc.) refuses to report on the actual bogus and fraud Bernie Madoff-like science that is being perpetrated by their comrades in the climate science bureaucracy. Obviously, for the left / liberal / progressive / Democrat anti-science mindset, fabricating empirical evidence is not bizarro.....
From Wikipedia: "...introduced the strange speech patterns that became synonymous with the character, with all of Bizarro's comments meaning the opposite (e.g.. "bad" means "good")."
[Editor's special note: The NOAA/NCDC revisions this post is about are entire historical temperature dataset revisions being done multiple times per year and even multiple times per month (December 2011). We are not referring to the common practice of revising the temperatures of a few recent months that is done by all climate agencies frequently.]
All the facts, research and evidence establish the true Antarctica reality - the IPCC's "global warming" is not warming and melting the ice sheets
The IPCC and its Climategate maladjusted scientists have long claimed that Antarctica was dangerously warming and predicted its ice sheets were close to catastrophic melting. The only problem with that characterization was its being totally wrong, big-time.
In two previous postings, we discussed how both satellite and thermometer measurements document the extremely cold regions of Antarctic that are covered by ice sheets, and the fact that for the lost 30 years those areas have experienced a slight cooling.
Read here. Adding to the known empirical evidence is the experiences of one of the world's topmost polar scientists, Heinrich Miller. This man is not a climate-model or computer-simulation jock; he is a field scientist who conducts his research in the polar extremes. What does he say about Antarctica?
"Here almost nothing has changed. At least not near the surface. The average annual temperatures have remained the same. There are of course large fluctuations from year to year. If anything over the last 30 years we have a slight cooling trend. And this flies in the face of what is always immediately claimed: ‘The climate is warming and the Antarctic is melting’.”
Read here. The alarmists at the IPCC and 'Big Green' like to point to the gigantic icebergs produced by Antarctica as proof that global warming is directly melting the polar continent with high temperatures. Unfortunately for the alarmists though, research by polar experts have determined the iceberg calving to be a normal condition, happening with regular frequency. Whether its deep warm ocean currents melting floating ice shelfs or the remnants of a far away tsunami, huge icebergs are a natural result.
"Despite what many alarmists will say, humans had nothing to do with the PIG's latest iceberg extravaganza. The events about to unfold on the bottom of the world are, in fact, all natural and have happened countless times before. You see, NASA researchers say this latest iceberg is part of a natural cycle seen every 10 years or so on this particular glacier..."ocean measurements near Antarctica’s Pine Island Glacier showed that the ice shelf buttressing the glacier was melting rapidly. This melting was attributed to the presence of relatively warm, deep water on the Amundsen Sea continental shelf."...Satellite photos show huge icebergs were created when the remains of the Japanese tsunami hit the Sulzberger Ice Shelf..."The impact of the tsunami and its train of following dispersed waves... in combination with the ice-shelf and sea-ice conditions provided the fracture mechanism needed to trigger the first calving event from the ice shelf in 46 years,”"
Read here. Finally, climate scientist Eric Steig and his research team have determined that the natural conditions and phases of tropical Pacific waters are the real cause of Antarctica's coastal glaciers' melting.
"He [Steig] noted that sea-surface temperatures in the tropical Pacific last showed significant warming in the 1940s, and the impact in the Amundsen Sea area then was probably comparable to what has been observed recently. That suggests that the 1940s tropical warming could have started the changes in the Amundsen Sea ice shelves that are being observed now...He emphasized that natural variations in tropical sea-surface temperatures associated with the El Niño Southern Oscillation play a significant role."
Despite all the research, the recognized experts and empirical evidence though, the IPCC and Climategate's Josefino Comiso are already attempting to smother the facts and truth about Antarctica in the next IPCC report, AR5. Will this level of UN sponsored climate science misinformation eventually rise to the moniker of PolarGate?
To promote the global warming scare, Jane Lubchenco's NOAA continuously changes past temperature records to create fake warming - on a monthly basis
When one starts working with temperature data from various climate research agencies, one begins to notice rather bizarre style of science that would likely qualify as fraud in the mind of a normal person. In the case of NOAA / NCDC, this Obama "science" research group is demonstrably fabricating new "global warming" every single month. [Ed: Updates here and here]
Below is a simple example of the historical temperature record changes being done by Obama's NOAA on a monthly basis:
As can be seen, literally, Jane Lubchenco and her team are changing historical temperature records each and every month (note how they have "warmed" May 2008 since the NOAA report of December 2008) - even changing the historical record back to the very beginning, the January 1880 temperature record.
We asked a well known climate expert, Dr. Timothy Ball, if what Obama's NOAA / NCDC climate scientists are doing is common in the general science community: that is, is it common to constantly revise historical empirical evidence? Here is his response:
"Absolutely Not. There are adjustments to the raw data done by each nation when it collects the data. For me there are even questions about this, but it means that what goes to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and then to the Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN) and used as “raw data” is already adjusted. Post-collection adjustments are unnecessary and unacceptable."
With that said, it appears Lubchenco's NOAA is conducting a corrupt-like style of science that amounts to an Orwellian revision of history and empirical evidence. Not necessarily a surprise when a left / progressive 'Big Green' political hack is put in charge.
So what has been Jane's impact on temperature history with all these small revisions being done on a monthly basis? Well...one would expect that proponents of global warming alarmism would want to make modern temperatures warmer and earlier temperatures cooler.
Surprise! That exact politically-correct green agenda is robustly being carried out by NOAA's "scientists" as seen below.
The above record of temperature change over the four months since July 2011, by NOAA & NCDC personnel, is definitely not random. There is a significant man-made pattern to the cooling and warming changes.
Soooo...since Obama's "science" team has been in place, how much have they changed the historical temperature records?
Examining the historical record changes since 2008, the same pattern emerges with warming changes dominating after 1951 - "Unequivocal" global warming by humans indeed! Those cooling changes dominate the period prior to 1940. Lubchenco even provides "unequivocal" global cooling on demand - what an amazing goddess of left / liberal / progressive science!
Back to the facts. And when comparing the left axis of both charts, it becomes abundantly clear that all those small changes done on a monthly basis by NOAA starts accumulating to become ever larger changes over a few years. Obviously, Obama's team believes in man-made warming, especially when they can simply accomplish it on their PCs.
Most importantly for policymakers and the public, the above data falsification is good reason not to trust anything the green activist Jane Lubchenco says, nor any of her NOAA / NCDC minions carrying out her political agenda.
Special note: During the month of December 2011, NOAA / NCDC had at least 4 different6 different versions of their global dataset available for download from its ftp site. Older versions are overwritten by the newer versions as they are uploaded by the agency (NCDC uses the same file name over and over apparently). NASA's GISS uploaded their first major revision of the year (December 2011) that affects all historical temperatures. The HadCRUT series has not had a major (entire historical dataset) revision this year from what we know.
IPCC 'lead author' Josefino Comiso suppresses peer-reviewed research that completely discredited his previous "Antarctica is warming" study
Read here and here. The IPCC is continuing its tradition of fraudulent bogus climate science for the 2013 climate report by utilizing Climategate-style scientists that excel in global warming fabrication and suppressing research that challenges the blatant fabrication.
As the recent Climategate2.0 emails reveal, research conspiracy, science fraud bogosity and science process malfeasance is alive and flourishing within the IPCC community.
How about this interesting example?
Josefino Comiso is a co-author of the infamous Steig et al. research that attempted to take real warming in the Antarctica Peninsula area and then magically spread it to the rest of Antarctica using rather bizarre techniques. A team of statistical and mathematics experts closely analyzed Comiso's work and found the expanded warming of Antarctica to be entirely bogus based solely on the work's bad math and bad statistical methodology.
"Jeff Id has an excellent post on IPCC AR5 use of the highly flawed Steig et al 2009. Despite Steig’s efforts to block the publication of O’Donnell et al 2010, O2010 shows clearly that whatever is new in Steig et al 2009 is not only incorrect, but an artifact of flawed math and whatever is valid was already known."
The team of math/stats experts, O'Donnell et al., published peer-research that establishes, without any scientific doubt, that Steig et al. was literally garbage science, and that warming for the majority of Antarctica was irrelevant to nil.
"When S09 came out, the Authors tried to discuss the Western continent warming only at Real Climate – the continental plot was entirely red though. Crack cocaine for advocates. A huge media blitz ensued proclaiming the warming of the entire continent. Questions arose in the Real Climate thread about the warming pole right away and were dismissed as not important. Objective people knew the now blindingly obvious truth that the red continent had to be an artifact of flawed math. No scientist can accept that plot without question and our initial skepticism was proven out in a prominent journal. True to climategate form, as the IPCC chapters continue to be leaked out, we can see the widespread attempt to ignore O[Donnell et al.]10 and use the incorrect warming caused by math errors of S09 to claim that the Antarctic is in danger of melting – even though it is not."
In fact, the gold-standard and leading edge technology in temperature measurement, satellites, has Antarctica very slightly cooling since 1978, as the above chart depicts. (click on to enlarge)
Antarctica is not warming, nor is it melting. And note that atmospheric CO2 emissions (black dots in chart) have had absolutely no impact on the regional temperatures of Antarctica.
Despite the overwhelming empirical evidence and the complete peer-reviewed refutation of Comiso's Antarctica research, the IPCC chose to put him in charge of the chapter dealing with the Antarctica analysis for the next IPCC report. And the result?
Comiso appears to be suppressing the the peer-reviewed research that refutes his god-awful science, the actual satellite empirical evidence, and ignoring 99.9% of all scientists who know that CO2 is not causing warming/melting in Antarctica.
99.9% ??? The vast majority of scientists look at the above chart and instantly know that the Antarctica warming scare pushed by Comiso is a fabrication - like much of the IPCC "science" the public and policymakers are now identifying as a fabrication. Other than a handful of alarmist Climategate related scientists, no reputable scientist rejects the real Antarctica empirical evidence of 30+ years of slight cooling.
Global warming agenda of elites becomes a major fail...empirical evidence does not support CO2 climate change hypothesis.
Read here. The world's science community is slowly but surely coming to the same conclusion as global warming skeptics: the UN's IPCC is nothing more than political propaganda devoted to the anti-empirical science of big green special interest groups/lobbyists.
The team of climate researchers, Fang et al., came to the following conclusions after an exhaustive review of the IPCC's "consensus" climate science:
"...with regard to the IPCC claim that "the increase in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases (including CO2) is the driving force for climate warming," they note the following four problems:
(1) "it remains unclear how the human and natural factors, especially the aerosols, affect the global temperature change,"
(2) "over the past century, the temperature change has not always been consistent with the change of CO2 concentration," since "for several periods, global temperatures decreased or were stable while the atmospheric CO2 concentration continuously increased,"
(3) "there is no significant correlation between the annual increment of the atmospheric CO2 concentration and the annual anomaly of annual mean temperature," and
(4) "the observed significant increase of the atmospheric CO2 concentration may not be totally attributable to anthropogenic emissions because there are great uncertainties in the sources of CO2 concentration in [the] atmosphere." [JingYun Fang, JiangLing Zhu, ShaoPeng Wang, Chao Yue and HaiHua Shen 2011: Science China Earth Sciences]
Unfortunately, the establishmentapparatchiks are still wasting their time and untold billions on a political agenda, based on a failed global warming theory and climate change denial of reality, while real problems go unresolved.
The above temperature reconstructions of satellite measurements are as of the end of October 2011. The white areas of each (land, sea and air) represent zero to insignificant temperature cooling/warming; yellow-orange-red colors represent warming; and the blueish areas represent cooling. (click on images to enlarge)
Clearly, what the world's best scientific-based technology tells us is that global warming is not "unequivocal" as most IPCC Climategate scientists robustly claim. In fact, as has been well documented by numerous studies, including BEST, significant warming has been basically absent for some 15 years, which has caused great befuddlement for the IPCC's climate "scientists."
At any point in time, at anyplace on the globe, there could be significant warming, while significant cooling is simultaneously happening at another locale, and both can be associated with vast regional areas of insignificant temperature change. When speaking of "unequivocal" global warming, there is no such thing.
One would think this needless to say, but it seems necessary: the IPCC's unequivocal climate liars would do all of science, the world, and the policymakers a huge service if the lies of "unequivocal," "accelerating," and "unprecedented" global warming were eliminated from the public discourse. These are propaganda terms that the objective empirical evidence robustly refutes.
If that were to happen, it would become increasingly difficult to accurately label scientists as "unequivocal" liars.
How does the BEST temperature dataset relate to the datasets of the major climate agencies? Using the BEST monthly anomaly data and the handy Excel correlation function, since 2001 the BEST dataset matches up quite well with the NCDC and CRU data, as the adjacent chart shows.
In essence, when NCDC and CRU temperatures 'zig,' the BEST temps are probably doing the same.
And GISS temps? Not so well. In fact, it's the worst. In contrast, when BEST and the other agency anomalies are 'zigging,' GISS is likely to be 'zagging.' This GISS divergence problem also extends to its performance versus the RSS and UAH satellite datasets, as previously pointed out by skeptics.
Why doesn't the GISS dataset comport with climate reality as documented by other sources and experts? Hmmm...one thinks global warming fame and fortune is not likely to visit those who report modest or little warming.
Since it is now clear that GISS isn't up to the "BEST" standards of science, and there is no good reason for NASA to be in the temperature reporting business in the first place, it's time to fold the GISS tent and save taxpayers some money - outsource the GISS efforts to BEST and be done with it.
Now that BEST has shown GISS to be a wasteful, error-prone (remember the Y2K error) redundancy, maybe it's time to shine a bright light on the idiocy emanating from NOAA's NCDC - their temperature dataset should also be on the hot seat of scrutiny also.
Here is an agency that seemingly has the bizarre mission to change historical temperature anomalies on a monthly basis - literally, every single month. Take the very first month of the NCDC temperature dataset, January 1880. Over the past six months, NCDC has changed the January 1880 anomaly six (6) times.
Sept. 2011 version of January 1880: -0.0443
Aug. 2011 version of January 1880: -0.0474
July 2011 version of January 1880: -0.0468
June 2011 version of January 1880: -0.0444
May 2011 version of January 1880: -0.0439
April 2011 version of January 1880: -0.0428
And it's not just a single month they perform this type of climate science magic on. When NCDC reported the anomalies dataset for the September 2011 reporting period, NCDC had changed every single historical month's anomaly as reported in the August 2011 dataset. They changed all 1,580 months of past temperature reporting, adding in a cumulative warming of +0.0966 in a single stroke! Did we say bizarre yet?
The folks at HadCRU don't practice this blatant monthly form of "global warming" revisionism. The folks at GISS aren't constantly revising historical temperature reporting on a monthly basis. And it's hard to imagine that BEST research team would condone, let alone practice, this style of empirical climate evidence tampering.
If BEST plays their cards right and performs in an upright, objective manner, it's not hard imagining that all of the GISS and NCDC temperature measurement/reporting efforts (not necessarily climate analysis and modeling) being on the chopping block. This would likely result in the U.S. finally having a 'BEST'-of-breed global surface temperature reporting system that could be taken seriously by all sides of the debate.
Read here. Wikileaks, the organization dedicated to exposing the dark underbelly of big government, has published documents regarding the UN's climate program known as the “Clean Development Mechanism” (CDM). In essence, the program has been an abject failure bordering on flagrant corruption.
"What has leaked just confirms our view that in its present form the CDM is basically a farce,” says Eva Filzmoser, programme director of CDM Watch, a Brussels-based watchdog organization. The revelations imply that millions of tonnes of claimed reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions are mere phantoms, she says, and potentially cast doubt over the principle of carbon trading. “In the face of these comments it is no wonder that the United States has backed away from emission trading,” Filzmoser says."
Obviously, the CDM program had two principal functions, neither of which concerned a better environment. The first was to enhance the investment profitability of wealthy "green" investors; the second being a massive transfer of wealth from the taxpayers of advanced countries to countries incapable of producing their own prosperity without some form of subsidized theft.
The entire climate change endeavor sponsored by the United Nations is essentially a gigantic fraud, propelled by leftists and greens dedicated to no growth, no prosperity policies. The actual quotes from "elites" who support the UN's "green" policies confirms everything that Wikileaks is now discovering.
Read here. This is a webcam picture of an area smack dab in the middle of a "drought crisis" that government scientists claim is happening.
The image reveals another example of the lengths to which taxpayer funded scientists will push climate change hysteria in order to protect their funding and jobs.
Everything that government climate scientists states as "truth" should really be examined for veracity. And as the reporting of global temperatures indicate, bureaucrat scientists are up to their necks in global warming fabrication and other climate corruption shenanigans.
Read here. It certainly appears the UK police were in cahoots with the UK's Guardian newspaper in violation of various laws. The reporter has admitted to phone hacking voice mails illegally, and he also somehow obtained confidential information about a U.S. global warming skeptic blogger that only the UK police were in possession of.
"The Guardian’s repeated refusal to exclude counter-terrorism police as the source of Leigh’s information leaves obvious question marks. We know that the University of East Anglia retained a former News of the World operative with close connections to the police as an agent to strike back against their critics. It’s hardly implausible (though not proven) that police either connected to this operative (or otherwise) might have leaked personal information to the Guardian as part of the UEA’s campaign to strike back at critics. The Guardian purports to be “bemused” at the idea and is indifferent to the disclosure of Jeff Id’s personal information, presumably on grounds similar to those proffered by David Leigh in relation to his phone hacking (where the Guardian apparently condoned illegal conduct if it believed the cause to be virtuous or if they disapproved of the target.)
However, Jeff obviously has a different view. Jeff is not “bemused” by disclosure of personal information against his express wishes, particularly when, in his view, the disclosure of his personal information lacked any legitimate journalistic purpose and when there are reasonable grounds to suspect that personal information had been leaked to the Guardian by the police, that the police violated UK law in disclosing the personal information to the Guardian and that the Guardian knew that the police had violated UK law in giving the information to Leigh..."
The said reporter is with the Guardian, a non-Murdoch publication. The Guardian has close ties to the Climategate principals, which their heavily pro-alarmist, biased reporting reflects.
It's almost to the point to being needless to say, but it sure seems the entire UK ruling class and elite establishment are rotten to the core.
Read here. (h/t Tom Nelson) Most 'cool dudes' (aka skeptics) have long held the opinion that 'cap & trade' CO2 emission mechanisms are worthless, with the sole exception being for those wealthy individuals and crony capitalists who stand to hugely enrich themselves (Gore, Soros, GE, Duke Energy, Exelon, etc.). Almost all green groups and climate alarmists sided with the self-interested as the 'cap & trade' legislation was being fought out in Congress. Not any more, though.
Since Federal 'cap & trade' legislation is going nowhere soon, some states, like California, are pursuing their own moronic 'cap & trade' policies. But now the California environmentalists are fighting that state's 'cap & trade' implementation using the same arguments that the skeptics (and one single anti-CO2 fanatic named Hansen) were using during the fight over the Federal legislation.
“The fraudulence of … ‘goals’ for emission reductions, ‘offsets’ that render even iron-clad goals almost meaningless, an ineffectual ‘cap-and-trade’ mechanism must be exposed. We must rebel against such politics-as-usual.” - James Hansen, “Never-Give-Up Fighting Spirit,” November 30, 2009
“The truth is, the climate course set by [the] Waxman-Markey [cap-and-trade bill] is a disaster course. It is an exceedingly inefficient way to get a small reduction of emissions. It is less than worthless….” -James Hansen, “Strategies to Address Global Warming,” July 13, 2009.
Read here. Next time you see an American Lung Association (ALA) ad, don't believe a word of it. The ALA is at the pig's trough slurping down taxpayer monies from the EPA. To make their federal money masters happy, the ALA runs questionable, biased, non-objective advertising designed to convince the American public just how great the regulatory-nightmare, job-crushing EPA is.
In the vernacular of D.C. lobbyists, the ads appear to be payback for their sugar daddy.
The American Lung Association is a sleazeball lobbying outfit that is obviously misinforming the public on American's own dime. Don't contribute any more to the ALA; you already have, and there is no need to further help their destruction of American prosperity.
Read here. (h/t Instapundit) The progressive, big government politicians and their bureaucrat cohorts are as committed as ever to make normal day-to-day life as miserable as possible.
The banning of incandescent light bulb manufacture in order to force consumers to an inferior product is a example of the petty, nanny-state big government that greens and other control freaks lobby for and enact. Their entire objective is to provide the legal means for bureaucrats and police forces to further interject anti-liberty pettiness into the daily lives of all.
This classic Audi ad on the left was a humorous portrayal of what our lives will be like under the green boots of big government, 24/7 pettiness; the video on the right provides a real world glimpse of those pathetic, anti-liberty bureaucrats drunk on the power of pettiness, emboldened by state troopers to strip basic freedoms from Americans.
In order to institutionalize this approach at major government agencies (ie, EPA, NOAA, NASA), Obama chose agency/cabinet heads who would bring the fringe Big Green's politicized science to bear. No better example of this approach is the Obama appointment of a Big Green zealot, the anti-growth Environmental Defense Fund's own Dr. Jane Lubchenco, who is actively putting in place the Orwellian ministry called the "Climate Service Office," where the green's fictional science becomes truth.
"She followed the EDF party line with the fisheries and can be anticipated to follow it on cap and trade. In both cases, the EDF stances are the extreme environmentalist positions...EDF's fisheries position: "Fisheries are depleted and fishermen are losing their jobs. Catch shares are the way forward." Once given the power of NOAA, Dr. Lubchenco wasted little time in implementing the EDF tool of choice for fisheries, Catch Shares Management, sometimes derisively termed cap and trade of the fisheries...EDF's global warming position: the science is settled, global warming is "accelerating at an alarming rate," and the answer is cap and trade. I have little doubt that Dr. Lubchenco and her henchmen will adopt and endorse the EDF posture, with all the sociological and economic disruptions it entails."
Read here. It's become common knowledge that the UN's IPCC objective is not one of impartial, scientific analysis of climate change but instead one biased towards political governance and economic control goals. As a result, significant, non-CO2 impacts on global warming are either ignored or trivialized by the IPCC. The urban heat island (UHI) effect on temperature records is one such impact that the IPCC keeps trying to minimize but the actual science keeps refuting the IPCC's agenda-driven science.
Yang et al. published an extensive study on the impact of UHI on China's warming and discovered that over 40% of the increase could be explained by the UHI effect in some urban areas. This study represents additional empirical evidence that significant global warming is not exclusively due to the IPCC's politically correct causation, CO2 emissions.
"Monthly mean surface air temperature data from 463 meteorological stations, including those from the 1981–2007 ordinary and national basic reference surface stations in east China and from the National Centers for Environmental Prediction and National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCEP/NCAR) Reanalysis, are used to investigate the effect of rapid urbanization on temperature change...The trends of urban heat island (UHI) effects...are generally consistent and indicate that rapid urbanization has a significant influence on surface warming over east China. Overall, UHI effects contribute 24.2% to regional average warming trends. The strongest effect of urbanization on annual mean surface air temperature trends occurs over the metropolis and large city stations, with corresponding contributions of about 44% and 35% to total warming, respectively. The UHI trends are 0.398°C and 0.26°C decade. [Xuchao Yang, Yiling Hou, Baode Chen 2011: Journal of Geophysical Research]
Read and view here. The greens/lefties/libs/progressives ludicrous climate exaggerations, science stupidity and gross intolerance of others is on full display in these videos. Let's hope they keep insulting the intelligence of the public because it's working big time in winning the war for the lukewarmers and C-AGW skeptics.
In the internet age, the lies, threats and propaganda of the left's totalitarian ambitions, as represented by Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, the Union of Concerned Scientists, Environmental Defense Fund and the National Resource Defense Council, no longer works so well, eh? In today's wired world, it's not such a surprise since it has become common knowledge what the radical green, anti-CO2 movement is all about.
Read here (h/t Climate Depot). The EPA and the Environmental Defense Fund are promulgating quack green statistics, such as the over-the-top lie that 17,000 annual deaths are due to electric utilities pollution. Plain and simple, it's fabricated, quack statistics - totally fraudulent, with not a shred of empirical evidence in support of it.
This environmental lie is reminiscent of other leftie/greenie lies, say the infamous 50 million climate refugees or Kofi Annan's global warming's 300,000 deaths per year bogosity, which have been throughly debunked.
Steve Milloy of Junkscience.com puts it this way:
"“Show me the bodies.”...The EPA says air pollution kills tens of thousands of people annually. This is on a par with traffic accident fatalities. While we can identify traffic accident victims, air pollution victims are unknown, unidentified and as far as anyone can tell, figments of EPA’s statistical imagination."
"Consider that the EPA and its enviro-buddies are essentially accusing coal-fired utilities of killing and injuring hundreds of thousands of people annually. Have you ever wondered why there are no class-action lawsuits against utilities for billions of dollars in damages?...Apparently, even trial lawyers have no confidence that EPA science holds up to scrutiny."
Read here, here and here. As these three articles indicate, the IPCC has failed miserably at making climate predictions, despite IPCC claims that their "consensus science" allows them to predict future climate scenarios out some 100 years or more.
Definition of a fortuneteller: "One who professes to predict future events"
The IPCC is a political agency of the UN, which is tasked with proving that human CO2 emissions cause global warming. The IPCC conducts absolutely zero scientific research. Instead, the IPCC seeks out agreeable 3rd party research and propaganda of green groups that they then reposition as confirmed, "robust," scientific evidence of CO2's harm.
According to Pachauri[IPCC's lead "climate scientist"] a “rapid transformation of the economic system” is required"....."Affluent countries, he says, “have to start changing direction. They can’t continue to consume at this level.” "We have been so drunk with this desire to produce and consume more and more whatever the cost to the environment that we’re on a totally unsustainable path. I am not going to rest easy until I have articulated in every possible forum the need to bring about major structural changes in economic growth and development. That’s the real issue. Climate change is just a part of it."
As can be seen, and is also freely admitted by most "elites," politics and global governance and economic transformation are the driving force of the IPCC's activities.
Its Climategate scientists focus the majority of their efforts on the political agenda objective, and as a result, the actual climate science is forsaken to the trace amounts of atmospheric gas - the CO2 god. Thus, this UN sponsored politicization of climate science turns accepted scientific forecasting techniques into little more than bizarre and alarmist fortunetelling...ergo, the IPCC can't predict squat about the climate.
Read here and here. Mitt Romney, leading GOP presidential hopeful, believes in the catastrophic global warming boogieman that the left/liberal/green machine has conjured up. Unfortunately for gullible Mitt and other big government 'tax & spend' supporters, the AGW boogieman and associated issues are primarily fabrications of the green progressives' anti-science - indeed, the liberals/progressives have a definite political agenda and real science is not going to stop them.
As scientists around the world have now come to realize, the extremist Greenpeace organization is the principal leftist entity behind the anti-science approach that is now devouring one of its own, the UN's IPCC, from the inside out.
The latest in a long line of embarrassing IPCC anti-science proclamations is the recent "research" claim that 80% of the world's energy needs in year 2050 could be supplied by renewable energy sources. Based on the known science of technology, engineering, economics, demographics, and combined with an improving standard of living for the world's masses, the 80% renewable solution is an impossibility.
Who authored this new bogus IPCC study? Well, the radical fanatics of Greenpeace, of course!
"It turns out the information the IPCC chose to highlight in its press release comes from a Greenpeace report – and that the person who wrote the Greenpeace report was also a lead author of the IPCC document...It could not be clearer that the IPCC still doesn’t understand some basic concepts. It is improper for the IPCC to base its conclusions on Greenpeace research. I mean, how hard is this? If the IPCC is a scientific organization, if it says it is conducting a scientific assessment it cannot rely on work that was in any way undertaken or funded by activist groups...It is also improper for Greenpeace employees to be IPCC lead authors. Period...At least one prominent individual on the other side of the climate debate – Mark Lynas – has publicly recognized how bad this looks...Nor does the IPCC understand that its credibility will continue to be non-existent so long as it continues to allow its own lead authors to pass judgment on research they themselves have authored."
"The public and policy-makers are starving for independent and authoritative analysis of precisely how much weight can be placed on renewables in the energy future. It expects more from IPCC WG3 than a karaoke version of Greenpeace scenario...Everyone in IPCC WG3 should be terminated and, if the institution is to continue, it should be re-structured from scratch."
Saw Lucia's post about NOAA/NCDC global temperatures being warmer in April, and boy was she right. The April data that NOAA/NCDC has posted on their FTP site has had major adjustments done to it since the March 2011 dataset.
The total cumulative warming that NOAA added to the dataset was 3.42 degrees of anomaly. In summary, from 1880 to 1902, global temperatures were adjusted warmer; from 1902 to 1955, the monthly global temperatures were made consistently cooler; and since 1955, they religiously increased global warming by adjusting up the temperature for most months. This is what taxpayer funded, bureaucrat-scientists call "science."
This is not a new fabrication phenomenon. This has been done multiple times previously, with each having the exact same outcome: cool the earlier years, then bake the later years.
The world's major climate agencies are all on a mission to convince policymakers and the public that global warming is "unequivocal." Because current temperatures are not much different than those warm years in the 1930's, NOAA has cooled the earlier periods, then warmed the later years to reach global warming nirvana - "unprecedented."
(click on image to enlarge) Why isn't this unequivocal and unprecedented temperature fabrication reported by the "science" reporters at the NYT, WAPO or CBS? Well, they decided long ago not to report the accurate and objective truth about climate evidence due to their liberal/left biases - and, btw, 'gloom & doom' sells more papers and makes profits, thank you very much!
Update: Should have noted the new NOAA/NCDC anomalies are the result of their referenced new 'Version 3' of the data.
Update 2: For more context, the below cumulative temperature adjustments (multiple) that NOAA/NCDC have "produced" since 2008.
Update 3: The below shows the amount of adjustment made on each month since publication of the 2008 NOAA/NCDC dataset. Again, it's clearly the bureaucrat-scientists' objective to make recent global warming appear greater than it was in contrast to the earlier 20th century.
Read here. A famous climate scientist takes the Oak Ridge National Laboratory to task for a bogus climate model study where the scientists fraudulently believe that models have told them what regional climate conditions will be during the late 21st century. These virtual climate simulated predictions are about as reliable as astrology, tarot cards, a Oujia board or crystallomancy.
First, Roger Pielke (senior) points out the "scientists" used global climate models to predict regional climates, which is well known to be climate science malpractice. Simply put, global climate models are absolutely worthless as prediction tools for for regional purposes, let alone for global purposes.
Second, the ORNL researchers literally claim that output from virtual computer simulations as "scientific" evidence, which is scientifically absurd. This claim by itself is direct evidence of how science and the peer-reviewed journals have have gone-off-the-rails in desires to enhance careers and champion political agendas.
"However, this article (and the climate modeling research program at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, if this paper is typical) has been derailed from the proper assessment of the skill at climate prediction...Instead, as illustrated in the paper below, they have adopted the scientifically flawed approach of making regional climate forecasts decades into the future. The journal, Geophysical Research Letters, by accepting such a prediction paper, is similarly compromising robust science...The use of the term “evidence” with respect to climate models illustrates that this study is incorrectly assuming that models can be used to test how the real world behaves...Models are hypotheses and need to be tested against real data. However, the climate models have not been shown skill at predicting...there is no way to perform this test until those decades occur."
Read here and here. Let's say you are a NASA climate scientist and have been on record for a very long time that the world is warming due to human CO2 emissions - despite the evidence to the contrary. And let's say you decide to produce a new study to absolutely prove your case by showing how the oceans are heating due to an energy imbalance.
"Improving observations of ocean temperature confirm that Earth is absorbing more energy from the sun than it is radiating to space as heat, even during the recent solar minimum. This energy imbalance provides fundamental verification of the dominant role of the human-made greenhouse effect in driving global climate change."
Finally, let's say you want to enhance your study with graphs that will bolster your case. Then you would use the below graph if you're a NASA scientist with a political agenda, with the actual empirical science being a lower priority. (click on images to enlarge) (image source)
Notice the 1980 starting point for the above graph. Why do you think a NASA scientist would start the graph at 1980 when there is data all the way back to 1955? Oh, here's why. (image source)
Obviously, the ocean heat data prior to 1980 reveals both large increases and decreases of an inconvenient nature that the NASA scientist does not want to bring any attention to.
Of course, if the NASA scientist wasn't just pursuing a political agenda he might of also have brought attention to the fact that the majority of ocean basins (5 of 7) have recently been losing heat, or are flat, in direct contrast with his hypothesis that they are gaining from a CO2-caused energy "imbalance." (image source)
And, if the NASA scientist really desired to mislead policymakers, he would be sure not to include the sea surface temperatures as shown below. Gee, global sea temps seem to be highly variable with a recent significant decline, which neither condition seems to match the NASA "analysis" that oceans are overheating because of an energy "imbalance." (image source)
Wouldn't it be great if we could still trust that our government scientists are objective and truthful, sans their personal and political agenda bullshit?
Updated 4/24/2011: Anthony Watts calls Hansen on the bullshit cherrypicking also. And he describes the new Hansen Mt. Pinatubo hypothesis 'total bollocks.'