EPA Document Exposes Extreme Climate Fraud At NOAA

The NOAA Climate Extremes Index (CEI) is the crown jewel of NOAA climate fraud.

The graph below is an EPA graph derived from CEI, which shows US summers much hotter now than the 1930’s, and shows that only half of the US was hot during the summer of 1936.

ScreenHunter_966 Jul. 12 18.36

This graph is quite remarkable, because another EPA graph in the same document shows that heat waves were much more severe during the 1930s.

ScreenHunter_967 Jul. 12 18.42

Heat waves in the 1930s remain the most severe heat waves in the U.S. historical record (see Figure 1). The spike in Figure 1 reflects extreme, persistent heat waves in the Great Plains region during a period known as the “Dust Bowl.”

High and Low Temperatures | Climate Change | US EPA

The fraudulent EPA graph (top) is based on this garbage NOAA CEI data set, which shows the summer of 2012 as hot as the summer of 1936.

ScreenHunter_961 Jul. 12 18.28

www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cei/dk-step1.06-08.results

So how bad is the fraud? Worse than you can possibly imagine. The percentage of US maximum temperature readings over 100 degrees in 1936 was more than double 2012 – which didn’t even rank in the top 10.

ScreenHunter_963 Jul. 12 18.34

The average maximum summer temperature in 2012 didn’t rank in the top ten, and was almost 1.5C cooler than 1936.

ScreenHunter_965 Jul. 12 18.35

Further evidence of  the NOAA data fraud includes the original Weather Bureau maps  from the summer of 1936, which showed almost the entire US far above normal temperature – not 50% as NOAA now claims in their CEI data.

ScreenHunter_969 Jul. 12 18.54

ScreenHunter_960 Jul. 12 17.43ScreenHunter_968 Jul. 12 18.54

Index of /rescue/mwr/064

Temperatures in 1936 were “over 100 degrees throughout a large part of the nation

 Below350.org

 Below350.org

http://news.google.com/newspapers

The only question is – is this criminal incompetence, or due to criminal intent?

Advertisements

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

27 Responses to EPA Document Exposes Extreme Climate Fraud At NOAA

  1. Wyguy says:

    Intent has my vote and yep criminal to the core, right from the top down.

  2. Morgan says:

    But 97% of climate seinfelds agree.

    If the government asks 1000 scientists if AGW were a reason to be alarmed, 900 would say no, and the government would audit their IRS returns and jail them in Guantanimo Bay. The other 100 seinfelds would be asked a second time, this time with the government offering a 4.7 million dollar grant if they gave the right answer, and 97 of them, learning their lesson, and not wanting to be jailed or blacklisted, and having a use for the $4.7 million, would say yes, leaving you with the 97% consensus.

  3. hazze says:

    Well…its enough to let the attorneys have a look at it…is anyone working on getting them to court ? Coz its criminal intent..they have been reminded for years..by you and others. Its about time to start a process…long overdue.

    • RossP says:

      Absolutely right haze. Any decent attorney who wants to make his/ her name has been gifted the opportunity on a plate. I will be extremely disappointed if no one takes this to court.
      I hope someone alerts John from the thread below about this –it might open his eyes a little.

  4. mjc says:

    We are looking at this all wrong…those temps are displayed in 2012 degrees, not 1936 degrees. You have to adjust for inflation and all that…

  5. nigelf says:

    Criminal intent, straight up.

  6. Jeffk says:

    Do the experts trust ocean temps from the past 150 years, but not land and air temps? Or is the former also rigged to look cooler?

  7. _Jim says:

    “Job security.”

    Anyone here ever heard this term before?

    .

    (Translated literally: If there is no problem, then they are out of work.)

    .

  8. a p garcia says:

    I vote criminal intent.

  9. Anto says:

    Intent – undoubtedly. If it was another department, you might go with incompetence, but not the EPA.

  10. Jason Calley says:

    Incompetence? Unless there such a thing as “anti-competence”, I am voting for “criminal”.

  11. geran says:

    How about both criminal incompetence AND criminal intent?

  12. _Jim says:

    I have a further pair of words on this: “Climate Audit”

    Where is McIntyre on this?

  13. Chewster says:

    The coddled government criminals have learned for the past two decades that they are beyond the long arm of the law, and they have capitalized on it.
    As Joe D’Aleo and others have stated “the rapid decrease of planetary temperatures will accelerate”. There should be no doubt that the criminals will cover their lies with new lies, when all is lost in their alarmist claims.
    The working hypothesis can only continue where there is money, and they also know that simple fact!

  14. wwlee4411 says:

    Reblogged this on wwlee4411 and commented:
    The truth comes out.

  15. Brad says:

    Zeke, Mosher and Nick say it’s all good. “Good work boys. Keep it coming.” A remarkable thing going on.

  16. Andy DC says:

    97% of climate scientists agree that 1936 never happened.

  17. Eliza says:

    I notice that the gang of 3 (Mosh, Zeke and Nick) seem to have totally dissapeared from all skeptic blogs of late… LOL

  18. Eliza says:

    Actually gang of 4 (L Svaalgard) LOL

  19. meltemian says:

    Well it certainly isn’t ‘accidental’!!

  20. Ursa Felidae says:

    hazze says:
    RossP says:

    I agree, but the funding for such an endeavor would be massive. I’ve had personal experience lately with the judicial system: extremely costly and everything takes forever to happen. I would be curious to hear from any with legal experience on how this would happen if the funding were there/and how much it would take, funding-wise.

  21. BigWaveDave says:

    A criminal case would need a prosecutor willing to prosecute government agents, and willing to face the political backlash.
    For a civil suit, one would need to show that the Weather reporting agents, acted in bad faith or outside of their duties protected by immunity; and the plaintiff was damaged by the act , to an extent sufficient to give standing to to bring the case to the court, The plaintiff would also need to show that all proper non-judicial means to correct the problem with the agency have been exhausted
    It would help in either case if there are particular statutes that define the agents specific actions as criminal or maleficent.
    But, one problem in assigning culpability to temperature anomaly graphs may be the work done by innocent support staff who merely follow procedures that produce the alterations.

  22. rishrac says:

    Tell a lie often enough and long enough, then no matter what, people will believe it to be true. This past winter when the great lakes froze over was probably one of the warmest winters on record too. It really wasn’t that cold.. after all a peach is a peach, but not a peach until the officials say it is. So whether it was cold or not doesn’t matter. Only the official record is what matters and what matters is decreed by fiat.

  23. stevenm13 says:

    Yes, they’re lying, they’re taking more of your money for carbon taxes, they’re going to enact carbon laws to control every aspect of your life, you’ll only be aloud to complain if you stand in a little box marked as free speech zone, and they’re getting away with it. And don’t forget to drink your fluoride.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s