C3

California Dreamin' - NOT

Some favorite memes about the once 'golden state', beloved by all, but now crumbling to devastation from the multiple stupid policies enacted by Democrats, liberals, and progressives.

Image source

Image Source

Image source

Image source

Image source

Image source

Image source

Image source

The Facts: Government Subsidies = Higher Prices For 'Green' Renewable Energy

Today's lesson: When government is involved, consumers always pay more for less.

Why would this be a surprise to consumers regarding energy? There are multiple examples in the past where government intervention and subsidies have made costs soar - think health care and higher education for example.

"In 2013, a German economist predicted that the economic value of solar would drop by a whopping 50% when it became just 15% of electricity and that the value of wind would decline 40% once it rose to 30% of electricity.

Six years later, the evidence that solar and wind are increasing electricity prices in the real world, often without reducing emissions, is piling up.

In 2017, The Los Angeles Times reported that California’s electricity prices had risen sharply, and hinted it might have to do with the deployment of renewables.

In 2018, I reported that renewables had contributed to electricity prices rising 50% in Germany and five times more in California than in the rest of the US despite generating just 17% of the state’s electricity.

And in April, a research institute at the University of Chicago led by a former Obama administration economist found solar and wind were making electricity significantly more expensive across the United States.

The cost to consumers of renewables has been staggeringly high."

 

Read the full article.

UK Project Reveals Cost of Retrofitting Homes To Reduce CO2 Emissions Is Exorbitant & Not Viable

An analysis of a UK home retrofitting project provides a glimpse into the future massive costs of doing this for an entire country, while not achieving the  CO2 emission reduction goal desired per home.

The project architects had hoped for achieving an 80% CO2 decrease by replacing all existing appliances with newer more efficient ones; by increasing full wall insulation; by adding underfloor insulation; and etc.

Instead, a 60% CO2 reduction was achieved. The estimated cost of doing the same for every UK home would amount to a total of $5.6 trillion, which is about $193,000 per home (there are 29 million UK homes). The payback period from the energy savings for each home owner would be 150 years.

Assuming that same style of retrofit was done for the approximately 138 million U.S. homes, which tend to be larger than UK homes, the total retrofit cost would be some $26 trillion for just a 50-60% CO2 reduction.

And that's just for the U.S. residential units. Add on the retrofit cost of all commercial, industrial, and government structures and entire cost for the U.S. would be significantly higher. 

It's not just the UK retrofit project that throws real shade on the Green New Deal's insanely expensive concept of retrofitting homes for "maximum" CO2 reductions. A study out of Australia suggests that decreases in both CO2 and total home energy usage would not be significant in long run.

Image source.

New Study: U.S. States That Imposed Renewable Energy Goals Resulted In Consumers Paying An Additional $129 Billion

Green Renewables: It's all about the Benjamins.

Every country that has attempted to force solar and wind energy sources on their national grid have all discovered the same thing: the cost of retail electricity jumps with the consumer being the ultimate chump that has to fork over more money to the providers.

Study out of University of Chicago has determined the same result happened in the 29 U.S. states that imposed Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS).

"RPS "significantly increase average retail electricity prices, with prices increasing by 11% (1.3 cents per kWh) seven years after the policy’s passage into law and 17% (2 cents per kWh) twelve years afterward," the economists write."..."All in all, seven years after passage, consumers in the 29 states had paid $125.2 billion more for electricity than they would have in the absence of the policy,"

And the money flowing out of consumer wallets - for dubious climate change "improvements" - will only keep climbing faster as renewable % goals are increased.

And making the pain even worse for consumers. is the following comment from the researchers:

"But are renewables cost-effective climate policy? They are not. The economists write that "the cost per metric ton of CO2 abated exceeds $130 in all specifications and ranges up to $460, making it at least several times larger than conventional estimates of the social cost of carbon."

That last comment indicates the massive stupidity of today's virtue signaling politicians who could care less about the real impacts on society and constituents when imposing regulatory schemes that have been proven failures wherever implemented.

Whether It Is A U.S. Politician or An EU Politician, Forcing Carbon Taxes On The Masses To Fight Climate Change Is Dumb

Politicians across the political spectrum and across the globe are discovering how dumb it is to demand the average citizen pay a carbon tax.

Dumb because a carbon tax will not have a single impact on climate change, be it natural or man-made.

Dumb because it is widely unpopular due to its regressive nature, which punishes the non-wealthy to an excessively painful extent.

Plus, the average tax-paying citizen no longer believes the elites' hyperbole about climate change doomsday and global warming. The constant 'crying wolf' and then demanding more taxes in the next breath has proven time and again to be a politically losing proposition.

Even in the EU, the populace rejects having to pay higher taxes that will only enrich the establishment with more money and control. Noteworthy are the recent major protests in France regarding Macron's hydrocarbon tax. A levy that is boosting fuel costs for the masses, which has proven to be, not only wildly unpopular, but also deadly.

And in the U.S., politicians who push a carbon tax on the masses might as well not plan on getting elected the next time. A classic example is a GOP incumbent Latino in Florida who had all the right qualifications, except for his 2018 climate change tax stupidity - a political position of 'I am going to save the world and you will pay for it' that did not exactly resonate with voters.

When a politician chooses to advocate taxing his/her constituents more on a daily basis, one does not have to be a petroleum engineer to figure out that votes will not come gushing in for that politico.

Finally, if politicians were really serious about battling climate change with taxes, they would propose a climate change reparations surcharge tax on asset wealth. The 'asset wealthy' being not only individuals who own Teslas, but also foundations, endowments, religious institutions, and any other organization responsible for directly (or indirectly) using large amounts of fossil fuels.

A climate surcharge on the asset-rich, which would be unable to pass the surcharge taxes onto the masses via price increases. The asset-rich who will then deservedly become the elites' role models for saving the climate from their own doomsday scenarios.

Importantly, the mass of voters - conservative or progressive - would likely support that type of climate change tax in a heartbeat.  

Skeptics Win! Trump/GOP Landslide Provides Firm Foundation for Empirical Science & Policies To Triumph

The 2016 Trump election landslide and Republican down ticket success indicate a strong possibility of a return to common sense and honesty in climate science, as well as a massive voter rejection of Democrats’ climate fear-mongering ... catastrophic global warming skeptics should rejoice......

 

The popular mandate that Obama and Democrats assumed they had from the American public has been shattered, with a top-to-bottom landslide of the GOP 2016 election victories.

This election, and the cumulative effect of prior ones, has decimated the once major party across the country. They have been reduced to finger-pointing recriminations and internal threats to Democrat cohesion.

They no longer have a supposed mandate, let alone majority voter support, for any of their U.S. national policies, including the recent unilateral climate change regulations and associated anti-growth policies issued/authorized by Democrat politicians.

The 2016 election numbers speak for themselves regarding the decimated state of Democrats and the resurgent GOP:

• If the Hillary Clinton popular vote is the proxy for supporting Democrat proposed climate change solutions, then 52% percent of U.S. voters cast their ballot against her¹.
• If the Hillary Clinton states-won is the proxy for 'green' climate change solutions, then at least 60% of the states voted against her².
• If the Hillary Clinton counties-won is the proxy for support of progressive climate change solutions, then 84% of state counties voted against her^3/*.
• If the Hillary Clinton suburbs-won is the proxy for supporting Democrat proposed climate change solutions, then 75% voted against her⁴.
• If the Hillary Clinton medium cities-won is the proxy for supporting left-liberal proposed climate change solutions, then 75% voted against her⁴.
• If the Hillary Clinton small cities-won is the proxy for supporting Democrat proposed climate change solutions, then 85% voted against her⁴.
• If the Hillary Clinton rural areas-won is the proxy for supporting Democrats' 'green' proposed climate change solutions, then 90% voted against her⁴.
• If the number of Democrat House Representatives is the proxy for Democrat climate change solutions, they received 3.7 million less votes than their GOP opponents⁵, which resulted in the Dems winning less than 45% of House seats⁵.
• If the number of Democrat senators is the proxy for Democrat left-wing climate change solutions, they remain less than 50% of the Senate's makeup⁶.
• If the number of Democrat governors is the proxy for Democrat climate change solutions, they now only occupy 30% of the state mansions⁷.
• If the number of Democrat majority state legislatures is the proxy for Democrat green-progressive climate change solutions, they now only control 31% of these chambers⁸.

Based on all the above datapoints, combined with the election map's visual representation, Trump and the GOP totally destroyed any mandate and power base that Democrats once possessed, besides laying waste to Hillary Clinton's presidential aspirations.

The 2016 election outcome significantly reduced the impact of Democrat office holders across the entire country, but with a single exception - the Democrat one-party rule in U.S. major urban centers.

Election results from 2016 do show that Hillary Clinton and the Democrats continue their decades-long dominance (and mismanagement) of the modern urban-plantation areas. These metro geographic area characteristics include: high levels of poverty, huge young person unemployment, significant welfare dependence, massive violent crime outcomes, substantial illegal immigrant populations, and just plain, awful, lousy education performance.

Clinton won 90%⁴ of this metro constituency (note: these voters really don't care about climate change or honest science - understandably, they just want to simply survive their concrete hellholes on a day-to-day basis).

In contrast to Clinton's urban strongholds, Trump won the entire country with 306 electoral votes⁹, which clearly indicates his geographical diversity and dominance.

Looked at another way, on Nov. 8, 2016, there were 51 popular elections held (the 50 states, plus the District of Columbia); and Trump won 31⁹ of those popular elections.

Going even more granular, each county in the country held a popular-vote presidential election and Trump won 2,633^* of those county elections, while Clinton only won 487^* counties. 

Unequivocally, there exists an overwhelming and diversified geographic domination by Trump and the GOP - it represents a solid, country-wide mandate.

And all of the above represents a clear refutation of the post-election urban millennial temper tantrums that have produced dangerous, destructive riots plaguing the remaining one-party strongholds of Democrats. In addition, the country-wide success of the GOP and Trump on election day is also clear refutation of Hollywood's and Silicon Valley's wealthy safe-space temper tantrums.

Finally, the left/liberals who thought Hillary Clinton would win in a "landslide" were demanding that Republicans and Trump voters support country unity with the inevitable Hillary win. Yet with roles now reversed, the Democrats choose to promote country disunity by their attempts to reverse the substantial Trump electoral and geographic election wins.

While the Democrat progressive post-election meltdown continues over their massive election loss, GOP leadership needs to immediately focus their own re-energized strength on quickly reversing the economic/business damage that the UN, Obama and the EPA imposed in the name of global warming and climate change.

And with the backing of a strong voter mandate, Republican leaders should absolutely ignore any and all pleas of their Democrat counterparts for climate/energy policy compromise - ahem.....let's hope the stupid party does not fall for that scam again.

Paraphrasing the great words of the legacy-less Obama - "we won," now shut up and enjoy our fossil fuel independence, security and economic growth.

*USA Today and Wikipedia were used in combination to ascertain how many total U.S. counties (including parishes, and counting Alaska as a single county since it is not divided into the familiar county structure). For example, here are the respective links (USA Today and Wikipedia) used for Alabama counties - each state has its own link within these two web publications that list their counties info.

Note: Long-term modest global warming has taken place since the Little Ice Age ending; climate change has been a constant since the beginning of Earth's climate(s) and will continue to take place regardless of human activities.

'Green' Corporate Welfare On Steroids: "The Crony Capitalist King"

Can green entrepreneurs and corporations be successful without government handouts?

As this article discusses, Elon Musk is proving that having a 'green' business model is literally not sustainable without massive subsidies from the government.

"Tesla is a newfangled take on the welfare queen. Or more accurately, the EBT card – which is designed to look like a credit card. To have the appearance of a legitimate transaction … as opposed to a welfare payment...Underneath the glitz and showmanship, that’s what all of Musk’s “businesses” are about. They all depend entirely on government – that is, on taxpayer “help” – in order to survive...Without that “help,” none of Musk’s Tesla’s could survive."

As Musk and his ilk continue to line their pockets with "green" from average taxpayers, it is important to remember that it is the Democrat and Republican establishment types who have encouraged and allowed this to happen.

And, also remember it's the the mainstream media and the climate alarmist science community that created these green-crony hucksters sucksters - they too should be held accountable for what has happened. Simply, it is their constant hype of catastrophic alarmism that elected officials were able to hide behind as billions of taxpayer dollars were being sucked into non-viable commercial solutions instead of the basic research that is needed to pursue superior green technologies. 

#ExxonKnew - Democrats' Fascist-Like Intimidation Tactics Rear Its Very Ugly Head

The #ExxonKnew propaganda tactics and legalized-actions being utilized by "green" Democrats, liberals, progressives, and other assorted leftists, is built on the belief that intimidation, suppression, coercion are effective, non-violent terroristic tools to be used to frighten individuals and groups, such as Exxon and other fossil fuel corporations.

The dozen recent articles below (click on each image for supporting article) accurately reflect an unprecedented, anti-American censorship and intimidation mindset that has come to possess the soul of the Democratic Party.

Unfortunately, this mindset should not come as a surprise. The book Liberal Fascism provides an understanding of how left of center philosophies almost always end up utilizing intimidation and bullying tactics to enforce a single viewpoint - aka, government-approved 'groupthink'.

And this book, The Wages of Destruction, provides the meticulous details how elected fascism was used during the 1930-40s to coerce corporations (both private and public) to the will of the big, all-knowing, socialistic government that had come to power, bringing with it an ilk of a Nazi-Orwellian politically correct religion. 

And, it is well known that Democrats have long been associated with the awful affliction of political correctness. This affliction, as predicted by many, has now progressed to the obvious fascist-like, big, all-knowing government environment that many left-leaning American elites have fully embraced and pursued (as the above articles confirm). 

Frankly, it has become an incredibly sad state of affairs for the American public. It's just more evidence that elections really do matter, as the Germans belatedly discovered after voting into power the aggressive National Socialist party.

For those interested, additional articles regarding the Democrats' recent intimidation attempts to shut down public debate and dialogue in order to enforce political correctness: go here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. 

Solar Flare(out): $1.5 Billion U.S Taxpayer Loan At Risk For Another Green Energy Boondoggle

The list of failed U.S. taxpayer-funded green energy projects just keeps growing.

It is now being embarrassingly reported that the gigantic Ivanpah solar farm, which Google and NRG received huge subsidies for, is not producing the amount of energy contracted for.

The wealthy investors in the project are now requesting an extension of the time needed to prove the farm's output can even meet minimum levels agreed upon.

As this failed boondoggle is proving for U.S. taxpayers, sustainable, efficient and affordable green energy is not easy nor cheap. Deriving energy from the Sun is not "free" as activist proponents of non-fossil fuel sources claim.

And it's not only the U.S. that continues to experience terrible results from subsidized-green projects designed to enrich wealthy investors - here are recent examples of Australia and Spain, plus the ever-growing German Energiewende flop.

As has been well documented from multiple public sources over recent years, the establishment elites of power and wealth continue to easily waste taxpayer billions on questionable politically correct energy sources, instead of focusing those dollars for the basic research needed to make green energy a viable self-standing possibility.

Note: Image source

EPA Smackdown: Was Supreme Court Decision A Result of Govt Agency That Has Gone Rogue?

As these two recent stories indicate, the U.S. EPA agency has seemingly morphed into an enemy of the people. After doing much good for the nation's water and air qualities during the 1970's and 80's, the EPA has gone bureaucratically rogue by simply issuing new policies, fines/fees, onerous regulations and decrees without any representation - kinda like that old meme of 'no taxation without representation'. The Supreme Court has finally stepped in, via an unprecedented action, to delay the EPA from imposing even more potential  harm on Americans from the EPA's 'Clean Power Plan'. Based on the recent evidence of the EPA's malfeasance and poor judgment, maybe the Supremes finally recognized that the rogue EPA had to be reined in. Update: How much did the EPA pollute that Colorado river with?  (click on either image for for picture and article source)

Remember When The UN, The EU, And Obama Claimed To Have Saved The Planet?

December 15, 2015: The just finished Paris COP21 climate "Treaty" supposedly will stop global warming and climate change, so say those political soothsayers whom claim omnipotence over Mother Earth - claims that have an eerie similarity to those a century before when the elite politicos absurdly proclaimed to have stopped future wars.

Below are a dozen recent articles regarding the non-binding, non-enforcement, non-penalty "Treaty" to save the world. Click on any of the dozen to go to article's source.

 

Additional article links here.

Climate Fraud: NASA's Recent Global Warming "Corrections" Equal A +95.0°C Per Century Trend

How much has NASA's GISS climate research unit increased global warming under the Obama administration?

The earliest monthly global dataset that we have available from NASA is the one produced for the August 2005 reporting period. Overall, that dataset contains 1,508 monthly observations since the beginning of 1880.

It seems that under Obama, NASA has conducted a global warming fabrications corrections effort, especially focused on the most recent decades since the 1970's.

Specifically, when comparing the newly adjusted NASA dataset to the one reported in August 2005, out of the 308 months spanning January 1980 through August 2005, NASA has warmed 302 months (only 2 months were cooled and 6 were left unchanged from the 2005 dataset).

Of the total warming adjustments corrections applied to the 1980's, 1990's and 2000's (through Aug 2005) they average out to a bureaucrat-made warming increase of +0.08°C per month.....

===> that's equal to a 96°C per century warming trend if NASA continues with a pattern of similar "corrections."

This NASA non-random treatment and purposeful changes of past empirical evidence is beyond just being anti-science. It is fraud-like, with the root cause being attempts by bureaucrat-scientists to meet the political and propaganda agendas of government elites - agendas that have been blatantly obvious over recent years.

Prior to the upcoming, yawn-producing UN's 2015 Paris COP21 greenhouse gas fear-mongering conference, one could surmise that NASA was charged with creating global temperatures that were the hottest ever, regardless of the integrity and credibility damage that the science community and objective scientific methodologies would sustain.

NASA provides ample evidence why scientists, bureaucrats and political elites should be held in contempt by the public. Literally, their utterances should never be trusted on any issue that requires an objective, impartial scientific treatment.

'Never trust, only verify' should be the new motto for the public to take to heart.

Note: Spreadsheet with NASA GISS datasets: August 2005 & June 2015

The Faux-Sɔıǝuɔǝ of Global Warming: Documenting NOAA's Temperature Fabrications

(click on to enlarge)

There is an anti-science political agenda that is driving governments to fabricate excess global warming that really does not exist.

When one listens carefully, the political agenda becomes obvious. And government-funded scientists certainly listen very carefully to their paymasters.

As a result, faux-science is pervasive.

Case in point: NOAA's bureaucracy "scientists" are seemingly dedicated to squeezing manufacturing new global warming from any and all past empirical measurements, every single month - literally.

Their quasi-religious green jihad against the historical climate records has just been well dissected and documented by Walter Dnes. The adjacent chart is his analysis, with some additions by 'C3' (bold green, red and cyan lines, chart text and title added to his original).

===> The 'C3' horizontal dark green line is placed at zero degree change; vertical red dashed lines represent the beginning of periods with extreme high frequency of warming adjustments; and cyan vertical dashed lines periods represent the beginning of periods with extreme high frequency of cooling adjustments.

As the chart depicts, from the 1880s thru the mid-1920s, the monthly temperature adjustments applied by NOAA appear to be somewhat random in regards to cooling and warming changes.

From approximately 1926 on though, NOAA's warming and cooling adjustments give all appearances of not being the least bit random, but specifically designed to make historically documented warming periods cooler (such as the extreme warming of 1930s) and the more recent warming of the last two decades - made to appear even greater than reported during real-time.

The most recent decades of non-random adjustments are clearly an attempt by agenda scientists to rid the NOAA global dataset of the very inconvenient and embarrassing 21st century 'pause', also called the 'hiatus.'

What many don't realize (i.e., politicians, policymakers and the public alike) is that NOAA adjusts the monthly historical climate records every single month. And within the next few days, NOAA will release a new historical dataset ending at June 2015, which will likely include some 80% of the monthly records back to 1880 being "adjusted" once again. And they will do the same for the July 2015 historical dataset.

The constant manipulation and adjusting of empirical measurements simply never ends - it's ad infinitum, déjà vu.

The global warming political agenda demands a convincing story, and the falsification is necessitated when nature does not cooperate with the global warming narrative.

Walter's article goes into much greater detail with many more charts - a definite read by those interested in faux-science perpetrated by govt types. But he has only dissected NOAA's fabrication adjustments from late 2010 and forward to the present. In reality, the fabrication of all temperature records started much earlier though, which can be seen here, here, here, here and here.

For the record, it's definitely not only the U.S. climate agencies that are knee-deep in the 'sɔıǝuɔǝ' cesspool of data falsification.

Note: For those wondering how 'science' was transformed to 'sɔıǝuɔǝ', it was created here.

"Correcting" The Global Warming Pause: NOAA's Lame Statistical Flimflam

Political expedience, and a craving to please, truly corrupts scientists and the science they produce...in an era when science fraud is on an exponential rise, one would think that climate agencies would be more careful with their scientific integrity...especially in a year of a major climate conference...did NOAA just provide a new Climategate-effort of science deception?...similar to what sunk Copenhagen2009?.....

(click on graph to enlarge)

The past several days has seen much written about the new revision of the NOAA global temperature dataset - a revision that supposedly eliminates the global warming 'pause' or if you prefer, the 'hiatus'.

The revision has received withering scrutiny, with multiple significant criticisms being leveled. Clearly, as the critics point out, this revision is not based on any known physical science principles, nor on any new empirical evidence, but instead on a political agenda that demands "scientists" find more global warming, pronto, for the Paris 2015 climate elite bureaucrats hookup extravaganza.

By utilizing questionable adjustments based on even more questionable assumptions, NOAA managed to produce an entirely fabricated increase in the global warming trend from 1998 to 2012. Theirs is not a real global warming event, it is essentially nothing more than statistical flimflam.

Per the critics, several key failings include:

• The complete ignoring of the world's best climate measurement technologies -  satellites and the Argo ocean-float array system - likely ignored because both technologies show little if any warming in their respective realms.

• The authors provided a statistical significance level of a remarkably lame .10 - so lame it pretty much alone indicates this study's claims have the lasting robustness of toilet paper after flushing.

• This study significantly lowered sea surface temperatures, specifically from 1998-2000. This lowering had the immediate impact of making the temperature rise from 2000-2012 appear much larger than it really was.

• Study used Arctic land temperatures to manufacture rising Arctic sea temperatures - conveniently ignoring that regional sea temperatures are  almost always zero (0°C) since sea ice stretches across the area for a majority of a given year.

• In a rather bizarre manner that non-biased scientists would not employ, this study massively adjusted up the ocean buoy temperature measurements in order to match the ship records of engine water intake temperature; yet the buoys were designed to measure surrounding sea temperatures, and the engine intakes were not. Scientists familiar with this issue agree that the ship engine enhanced temperature measurements should have been adjusted down instead.

• Despite all the ludicrous adjustment machinations this newest NOAA revision relies on, the per century global warming trend fabricated (for the 1998 to 2012 period) remains well below even the IPCC's average climate model projections.

(Plenty more details on NOAA's 'flim' and its 'flam' here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.)

Relevant to that last point, is the above chart. It's a comparison of warming trends during the 15-year periods ending 2012 (see blue rectangles) and 1997 (see red circles).

Using climate agency temperature anomalies that were reported as of the end of 2012, one can clearly see the dramatic drop in global warming rates from the earlier 1983-1997 period versus the period ending 2012.

Did it still warm from 1998 to 2012?

Yes, it did. But it was at a fraction of the warming trend of the previous 15 years - a definitive slowdown versus the prior warming trend.

And as the chart reveals, the CMIP models (the RCP 4.5 scenarios) expected significantly more warming than observed during 1998-2012 period. Objectively, the models predicted an accelerating warming rate, which actually failed to happen, as the empirical evidence proves.

Because of this decline ('pause'?) in global warming trends, NOAA felt compelled to simply fabricate more warming in a rather feeble attempt to make global warming seem more of a existential threat that might even scare an anti-capitalism Pope into embarrassing fear-mongering.

Unfortunately for the "scientists" at NOAA, despite all their really lame statistical shenanigans, the revised NOAA temperature trend for the 15-year period ending 2012 is still a quite tepid 0.9°C per century - indeed, the descriptor 'lukewarm' readily comes to mind.

Additional modern-temp and climate-model charts.

EPA “Science”: Evidence Grows - It’s A National Disgrace Perpetrated On Americans By D.C. Elites & Bureaucrats

Article: It's indisputably obvious - the attack on scientific honesty and credibility is taking place at the highest levels of government. The EPA pursues a blatant strategy of the 'ends-justify-the-means,' thus trashing the requisites of scientific methodology and integrity.

This followup article confirms the sanctioned malfeasance of promoting environmental regulations that can't pass any strenuous cost-benefit analysis.

As they say: "Trust No One".

Remember When Experts Predicted That Eating Saturated Fat Would Give You Heart Disease?

The establishment's health/medical/nutrition consensus science rivals the IPCC's anti-CO2 crusade climate science in terms of producing spectacularly wrong theories and the associated fact-less, terrible predictions.

The anti-fat/cholesterol heart disease theory has been a mainstay of medical dogma for decades. In recent years though, it has been torn asunder by actual real empirical science. This non-consensus science is finally coming to the forefront due to establishment-nutrition skeptics, not the goose-stepping health elites and their press release parrots, the mainstream media.

More here, here, here and here.

Climate FactCheck: Analysis Confirms NOAA's Climate Record Fraud

The mountain of empirical evidence of fraud just keeps growing...massive climate record adjustments by NOAA and other climate agencies continues...blatant adjustment manipulations presented as the actual temperature measurements...all in the name of the "global warming" agenda of power-hungry elites...simply, it is an agenda of pure ideology supported by anti-science quacks producing fabrications...a disturbing FactCheck.....

(click on chart to enlarge)

A new article over at NoTricksZone brings us yet another example of scientific fraud perpetrated by the national climate agencies.

As the adjacent chart from the NTZ article documents, NOAA's definitive manipulations of a U.S. states climate records to enhance the modern global warming trend is indisputable.

As the engineering physicist who analyzed the recent NOAA dataset for Maine concluded:

"In my opinion, this is out-and-out fraud. Why did they corrupt national climate data? Global warming is a $27 billion business on an annual basis in the U.S alone...They have corrupted Maine climate data between 1895 and present by a whopping accumulated 151.2°F."

How To Make The World Hotter? NOAA Starts With The U.S., Then Just Fabricates Where Needed

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."

How?

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.

Official Fake Temperatures By Climate Agencies: The Temperature Fabrication Issue Bigger Than Thought

"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 fringe cult leaders who prosper nicely from doing so.....

Cartoons by Josh

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.

Examples of documented questionable climate record adjusting by the climate agency officials are not hard to find: Melbourne, U.S. western areas, 1997 global versus 2014, winter 2014, U.S corn belt, Texas winter temps, Paraguay, Africa, Iceland, GISS land temps, northern hemisphere pre-1940, Alice Springs (Australia), Bolivia, U.S. temperature trends, Arctic adjustments, Antarctica, New Zealand, Australia, Germany, and many others.

The net effect of the joint cooling and warming adjustments appears to be two-fold in support of the UN/IPCC political science political "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:

Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, Halifax, Crimea, New Brunswick, Newark, Prince Edward Island, Boston, Italy, Wales, Mexico, India, Cape Cod, Bulgaria, Delaware, Balkans, Ohio, Pyrenees, Ontario, Europe, Kentucky, Indiana, France, Texas, Seattle, Tibet, Afghanistan, Buffalo, Great Lakes, Japan, Southern California, Iowa, New York, New Mexico, Montreal and even Cuba.

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.

Additional temperature adjustment analysis charts.

Climate of Lies: NASA & NOAA Forced To Publicly Recant Claim That 2014 Was "Hottest" Year

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 .

Additional climate-fabrication and global temperature charts.

Note: Source of NASA annual temperatures. The black dashed line on Excel chart denotes the lower margin of error (±0.1°C) for the NASA 2014 reported annual temp.

Memo To GOP Elites: Stop The Climate-Liars...Crush The Dems' Hysteria With Science Facts

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?

Additional historical, modern and regional temperature charts.

Note: Added the red and blue lines to above New Science chart. The added lines represent the HadCRUT4 global 60-month average temperatures at December 1855, December 1949 and July 2014.

NOAA Confirms: Climate Warming Due To Temperature Fabrication, Not Empirical Measurements

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.

Additional govt-fabricated and modern temperature charts.

Newest Research: NOAA Adds Extreme Global Warming Bias To U.S. Climate Records

(click on graph to enlarge)

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.

Additional temperature-fabrication and modern temperature charts.

NOAA Confirms: CO2 Having No Warming Impact On U.S. 21st Century Temperatures, Instead Cooling

(click on chart to enlarge)

Recently, the White House released their U.S. climate assessment report that was shockingly deceptive - contrary to NOAA's own empirical climate evidence that is widely available.

Many of the mainstream press outlets, acting as this administration's propaganda instruments, reported the deceptions as is, even sometimes enhanced with their own climate-doomsday embellishments.

The major deception of the climate report is the falsehood that accelerating U.S. and global warming is taking place due to human CO2 emissions.

It is important to note that the science journals, and even some mainstream media outlets, are actually reporting the facts that the globe's predicted, unequivocal warming has stalled for over 15+ years.

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 propagandists  liars 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.

Obama's 2014 Climate-Doomsday Assessment Report: An Embarrassing Anti-Science, Left-Wing Manifesto

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.

Fundamental Lies of The UN's IPCC: "Food Production Harmed By CO2 & Warmer Temperatures"

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.

NASA Making International News Re: Global Warming Fabrication For Political Agenda

(click on image to watch news video)

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.

Previous fabricating-fake temperature charts.

Medical Science Fraud: The Cardio-Lipid Hypothesis Suffers From Same Misconduct As Climate Science

 

Medical Science Fraud - Fat, Cholesterol, Heart (Update 11/2/13: New version of video on YouTube) (click on left image to enlarge)

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 JoNova article.

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).

Will Obama Choose To Follow The White Man's Stupidity? (Is The Pope Catholic?)

Politicians' fixation with the non-existent "dangerous" global warming knows no bounds.

Australia has been cursed with a string of very stupid politicos who eagerly embraced the AGW hysteria-farce.

And as Obama has proven, he's as stupid as any pasty white hack politician.

An Obama carbon tax will destroy jobs, businesses and industries, all because of a crazed anti-CO2 religion.

This economic outcome is a no-brainer, as Australia and other countries have already experienced.

Global Warming, Climate Change Lies: Obama & Democrats Hide Science Facts From Public

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

(click on images to enlarge - data sources)

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.

Additional modern temperature, greenhouse gases and climate-model charts.

Global Warming Science Facts: NOAA Takes Faux Climate Science To An Extreme By Fabricating Temperatures

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

5. Extreme "cooling" adjustments - 223 months exceeded -0.5C deg

a. 30% had extreme cooling applied

6. Extreme "warming" adjustments - 70 months exceeded +0.5C deg

a. Only 9% had extreme warming applied

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.

Fabricated-fake, modern, regional and historical temperature charts.

U.S. Leads World In CO2 Emission Reductions - Free Market Solutions Trounce Govt Regulations

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?

Electric Car Advantages? Obama's 'MPG' Fraud For EV's Is Ripping Off Consumers - Time To 'Crucify' EPA Bureaucrats?

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

(image source)

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.

Gee, it's hard to believe that your government, which secretly sells assault weapons to drug cartels, is perpetuating a fraud on the American auto buyer, no?

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.

Previous electric-vehicle-hybrid postings.

Electric Car Advantages? How Does Paying $40,000 For A Tesla EV Replacement Battery Sound?

The Tesla electric car's batteries will cost $40,000 to replace when they run out of juice - how appealing are those electric car advantages at resale time?

(click on image to enlarge - source here)

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.

Previous electric-vehicle-hybrid postings.

Electric Car Advantages? The Volt's Arithmetic Adds Up To Auto 'Obamacare' For GM Cronies & Wealthy

For Obama's cronies and wealthy consumers, there are definite electric car advantages - for the average taxpayer, the Volt's arithmetic is truly reeeevolting

(click to enlarge image - source here)

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!

FAQ #1: Can I get the Fisker battery charger with the Volt?

Answer: Obama's Secret Service detail is now taking purchase orders for the enhanced, taxpayer subsidized, blonde versatile charger. Call +1 666-666-6666. Satisfaction guarnateed. No refunds. (just kidding - fake phone number, folks)

Previous electric-vehicle-hybrid postings.

Electric Car Advantages? The Obama-Funded Fisker EV Fails Its Consumer Reports Test

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?

Previous electric-vehicle-hybrid postings.

Peter Gleick's Science Technique Is Alive & Well: Insurance Companies and NOAA Pushing Climate Change Fraud

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.

Bizarre "Science" By Lubchenco's NOAA: Fake Global Warming, Part IV

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.

Soooo....Lubchenco '10', Rest of World '0'.

Download the latest spreadsheet of bizarre "quality control" revisions.

Previous fabricating-fake temperature posts and charts.

Ocean Heat Content: Climate Models Continue To Fail Miserably At Predicting OHC

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.

Additional climate-model postings.

"Science" By Lubchenco's NOAA: Fake Global Warming, Part III

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.

Additional modern, fabricated-fake and historical temperature charts.

Download data file of NOAA's January 2012 revisions (3 so far) of historical temperature dataset.

X-File Climate Science In Dublin: When The Government Needs "Global Warming" It Just Happens

Climate research agencies are hellbent on proving their global warming case, even to the point of fabricating higher temperatures

Read here. Steve Goddard identifies another amazing instance of NASA X-Files climate science: robust man-made global warming from a PC.

Per this chart, Dublin was significantly cooler until NASA "scientists" literally changed the empirical evidence.

As they say: Trust no one - especially government employed/funded climate scientists.

The IPCC's Killing Machines: Unable To Predict Accurately, IPCC Climate Models Ultimately Cause Deaths

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."

NOAA Climate Scientists Gone Wild: Bizarro Temperature Data Fabrication Continues

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.]

The Embarrassing & Total Collapse of The IPCC's Antarctica Alarmist "Science"

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?

"Science" By Lubchenco's NOAA: Fake Global Warming By Changing Historical Temperature Data

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 different 6 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.

Previous unequivocal-warming and unprecedented-warming postings. Additional fabricating-fake, modern and historical temperature charts.

IPCC Scientist Responsible For Bogus Antarctica Warming Study Suppresses His Critics' Research

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.

Prominent Chinese Climate Scientists Conclude IPCC Is Worthless: "restricted by its political tendencies"

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 establishment apparatchiks 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.

Previous peer-reviewed postings.

The IPCC's Unequivocal Climate Liars: Satellites Prove That Global Warming Is Not "Unequivocal"

Land - October 2011	Sea - October 2011	Air - October 2011

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.

Modern, historical and fabricated-fake temperature charts.

BEST Confirms Hansen's GISS Temperature Reporting To Be The Worst --- BEST To Replace GISS (Worst)?

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.

Previous temperature fabrication postings and charts.

The Anti-Science, Anti-Growth, Anti-Prosperity, Anti-Job, Anti-CO2 Green Alarmism Coalition Visually Portrayed

The actual quotes of those proposing massive reductions in CO2 emissions are most revealing, and pretty damning as to their true motivations.

Words alone do not suffice, though. Below are new visual depictions of the forced taxpayer/consumer funding of "green" lobby/activists - literally, billions funneled into anti-democratic organizations with the clear intention of clamping a yoke on the necks of humanity. No doubt about it, the pseudo-green alarmists making up the "green" machine are truly evil.

Click to enlarge images. Source of image one; image two; image three.