What Part Of This Isn’t Clear?

NASA has altered their own data to hide the decline globally. The animation below shows changes to published NASA global temperature data from 1981 to the present.

NASAGlobalChanges1981-2001-2014

pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_etal_1.pdf

The 2001 and 2014 data sets are located here:

2001 version : wayback.archive.org/……./FigA.txt
2014 version : data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A.txt

NASA has altered their own data to hide the decline in the US. The animation below shows changes to published NASA US temperature data since 1999.

NASA is hiding the decline the Arctic. The animation below shows recent changes to NASA published Iceland temperatures

The EU is faking the rise in sea level rise rates. The graph below shows recent changes to the published Envisat sea level graphs.

NASA is constantly altering data to create the appearance of warming. This shows changes to global temperatures in just the past two years.

ScenarioCJan2012VsNov2013

These changes go on year after year. Always making the past cooler and the present warmer. The animations below show successive changes to NASA published US temperatures.

GISSUSTampering1999-2013

GISS-global-2006-2013

They are hiding the decline Texas. The animation below shows how NCDC alters Texas measured temperatures before publishing.

TexasAdjustments

They are creating fake warming in Australia. The animation below shows recent changes to NASA published temperatures.

AliceSprings

Why are there still skeptics who believe the NASA/NOAA data is legitimate? They are doing a spectacular hockey stick of data tampering.

ScreenHunter_1866 Aug. 10 16.55

Advertisements

About stevengoddard

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

242 Responses to What Part Of This Isn’t Clear?

  1. Steve Case says:

    How come you didn’t mention the ARGO floats?

    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/

    • philjourdan says:

      Love that line “When scientists do not trust the data”. And that is when? It does not agree with their models.

      Models good, data bad.

      • KTM says:

        Truly bizarre. A modern temperature probe can’t be trusted, but they trust the data from the old dusty library stacks… unless there is an unexplained warming in the 1970’s then they get heartburn until they magically make it go away.

      • tom0mason says:

        Reference the Australian site – IMO the common thread is to defend manmade CO2 levels, and residence time in the atmosphere, that is the weakest point. TP on the ‘Strike Six’ thread runs the same, and ice-core figures (his speciality, I’ve looked him up) GC is defending well.

        • philjourdan says:

          Steven has got toilet paper on one of his blogs?

          OH! You mean Anthony Purcell! The conspiracy nut case that thinks Steven Goddard outed him.

        • tom0mason says:

          Yes there is a strange congruency to the remarks of TP’s and the Craig Thomas’ line of attack.
          The other thing (of course) is that this site and Joanne’s both have been high profile to the public recently.
          Tony/Steven has complained before about WP and it’s quirks, so TP’s threats of legal action are empty, he could always sue WordPress – that would help their cause 🙂

    • kuhnkat says:

      Steve, before or after their main man spent years getting rid of the cooling???

  2. Ben Vorlich says:

    Why are there still skeptics who believe the NASA/NOAA data is legitimate?

    Because most people apply their moral values to everyone else. That’s why MM thinks everyone else is devious, lying and cheating. Most sceptics, and most scientists, are decent honest people.

    • Edmonton Al says:

      I’ll second that. For years I took scientific studies at face value.
      Nowadays, I am more skeptical than ever.
      That is why I like Steven’s blog. No BS here…………..

  3. Eliza says:

    This is the kind of post that should be made sticky. This is what is utterly deadly to the AGW establishment.They do not WANT ANYBODY TO SEE THIS.

  4. Eliza says:

    Well I’m going to bookmark this page. Show it to your warmist friends!

  5. John Silver says:

    Tell Buzz Aldrin about it!

  6. bit chilly says:

    the only conclusion i can come to is climate scientists are quite happy to be the useful idiots when it comes to aiding and abetting various governmental organisations in extracting extra tax dollars from the developed nations populace.

    to be fair,maintaining the meme means they continue to put food on the table ,though the apparent lack of either ability to see something is wrong with the science , or lack of integrity to stand up and say something is wrong is alarming.

    • stewart pid says:

      They prefer to be useful idiots than unemployed smart guys 😉

      • _Jim says:

        Yes … Who Benefits from Alarmism?

        Ron Arnold (a Washington Examiner columnist) explains who benefits from climate alarm and where all the money comes from that is pushing it.

        This talk was at The Ninth International Conference on Climate Change, which took place on July 7-9, 2014 in Las Vegas, Nevada,

      • bit chilly says:

        i can understand that in many walks of life,personal integrity seems to take a back seat to making money and self aggrandizement ,but the only serious (non climate) scientists i know would rather cut their own throats than not challenge any tiny weakness in a hypothesis head on.
        in fact,if arguing any technical point with them you better be 100% certain in your knowledge ,though usually if i am they already know and there is no argument. the mere fact that people with non expert knowledge can present so many valid challenges to climate science today leads me to believe there is something seriously wrong with the entire field .

        i struggle to believe there is 100% willful deception going on in the community , but at some level there has to be promotion of the current state of the science by senior people that know there are problems. i do believe that group think over the last few decades has permeated the educational establishments that the majority of current climate scientists have passed through,the result of that is the current state of affairs.

        • DirkH says:

          I talked to a mathematician (who had switched from a university job in Norway to a development job at a renewables company in Germany) about the insurmountable problems in modeling a chaotic system like climate. He understood every word I said – then he said “Oh I’d like to do that”.

          So, the answer is: The job attracts idiots.

        • bit chilly says:

          thanks for that insight dirkh,i never gave that possibility a thought,but i reckon you are on to something there .

  7. hazze says:

    Its bright n clear …its smash n grab in open daylight ..its not an X-file…cant last..just cant

  8. Latitude says:

    clear enough to me…….100% of global warming is adjustments

  9. Kassu says:

    That Envisat-stuff is total BS, the fixing of a bug in the earlier version of the altimetry-processing is well and openly documented and those docs are freely available on the internet.

    • Sea level rise is closer to 1 mm/year. Before they “fixed” it – they were correct.

      Less than 15% of tide gauges are above the satellite mean. Satellite 3mm is complete BS.

      • Kassu says:

        What is your assessment of the error of omission in the tide-gauge record? As far as I know the number of tide-gauges that are not on a coast is zero. Altimeters do not have this limitation.

        • Water is a low viscosity fluid which seeks a level surface.

          The satellite data is massively skewed by an area of 9mm/year near the Philippines – which has a reported error almost as large as the trend.

        • Billy Liar says:

          Altimeters have instantaneous inverse barometer correction?

        • Robert Austin says:

          Those “hot” spots of rapidly rising sea level in the Pacific should ring skeptical alarm bells in any rational person. Are these slow motion water spouts actual physical entities or are they artifacts of the method and errors of measuring sea level by satellite?

        • Latitude says:

          they are artifacts…it’s impossible for it to be gaining height constantly

        • DirkH says:

          Robert Austin says:
          August 12, 2014 at 6:38 pm
          “Those “hot” spots of rapidly rising sea level in the Pacific should ring skeptical alarm bells in any rational person. Are these slow motion water spouts actual physical entities or are they artifacts of the method and errors of measuring sea level by satellite?”

          The signal that is measured by satellite altimetry is basically the same that they use to measure local gravity. In other words, movements of material in the crust have an effect.
          Ring Of Fire.

        • Honolulu is not on a coast and is the only tide gauge you need. Mauna Loa for CO2, Honolulu for sea levels.

      • matayaya says:

        So you trust satellite data when they give temperatures you like and distrust satellite data on sea level when the numbers disagree with your premise. Also, you seem to repeat the same graphs showing fraud every week as though repeating them makes your fraud premise more credible. I notice Anthony Watts prefers to keep his contrarian premise primarily on; uncertain science, only warming a little, it’s won’t be bad, or its not CO2. He does some of the “biggest fraud in history” stuff as well, but it is not his bread and butter as it is with you.

        • Satellite data is fine. It is the idiotic manipulations/interpretations of satellite sea level data by academics that is the problem.

          Hopefully you aren’t as simple minded as you pretend to be.

        • matayaya says:

          You can’t just give a reasonable response without capping it off for your simple minded devotees with an insult to the discordant voice.

        • philjourdan says:

          Are you a devotee matty? The comment was for you. Perhaps you can pen a comment without a childish insult? Or in your case, self immolation.

        • DirkH says:

          matayaya says:
          August 12, 2014 at 9:06 pm
          “So you trust satellite data when they give temperatures you like and distrust satellite data on sea level when the numbers disagree with your premise. ”

          Satellite altimetry, determining millimeters of sea level rise from a height of 50 or 100 km?
          Yeah right.

          Somehow I think you never concerned yourself with sensors and measurements.

        • According to the University of Colorado numbers, eventually the oceans will form a Mt. Everest sized mound just east of the Phillipines.

        • matayaya says:

          Instead of the hyperbole, this would be a good place for you to inform your audience why water is piling up in the western Pacific. It is a good way to help explain la nina. Trade winds blow toward the west, furrowing and pushing water as the wind blows year after year. This warm surface water “piles” up in the western Pacific and weighs down and pushes warm water down on the thermocline. The eastern Pacific thermocline bulges up and releases cold water to the surface. Altimetry shows this ocean surface incline from west to east across the ocean. This could even help explain the “pause”.
          “Just a theory” but I bet most of your audience and never heard any of this as they scrupulously avoid the mainstream climate science. It is ok we come away with different conclusions, but everyone should at least be fully aware of the full scope of the discussion.

        • It would be impossible to maintain an ongoing rise in sea level due to such an effect. If water is piling up in one place, it is being depleted somewhere else. That should be obvious to anyone with an IQ higher than a turnip.

        • matayaya says:

          There you go again with your staple insult that is supposed to neutralize me before your devotees.
          Sea level science does averages. They don’t have the luxury like you to play around with anomalies and give a misleading picture. There was humility in the Colorado Univ. webpage presentation asking the viewer to not be overly literal with the data and come back soon when the data and presentation get better over time. A short term snap shot will look different from the long term trend.

        • philjourdan says:

          You must really be devoted to him. As the statement was for you alone. Get your head out of his butt.

        • philjourdan says:

          And it is self correcting. Sea levels are higher in the Western pacific (we are talking small amounts), and when the trade winds stop, El Niños start. But the sea level is relatively constant. It does not keep building and building and building like the Philippine’s measurements do.

        • _Jim says:

          Wow … the ‘water piling up’ theory … who woulda thought it was a ‘working’ theory …

        • Latitude says:

          mata, it’s an anomaly

        • DirkH says:

          matayaya says:
          August 12, 2014 at 10:22 pm
          “Instead of the hyperbole, this would be a good place for you to inform your audience why water is piling up in the western Pacific. It is a good way to help explain la nina. Trade winds blow toward the west, furrowing and pushing water as the wind blows year after year.”

          So you are saying that the trade winds get stronger every year.

          I guess the climate models did predict that, and the climate “scientists” warned the inhabitants of Indonesia?

          Funny that we here so little about how they reinforce their houses against the ever stronger trade winds.

        • DirkH says:

          matayaya says:
          August 12, 2014 at 10:22 pm
          ““Just a theory” but I bet most of your audience and never heard any of this as they scrupulously avoid the mainstream climate science. It is ok we come away with different conclusions, but everyone should at least be fully aware of the full scope of the discussion.”

          One moment it’s we’re all gonna die (from warming or groundwater depletion, depending on the mood of the alarmist) (and we’re certain, there’s consensus, we’re the IPCC), next it’s “it’s just a theory, we’re humble scientists”?

    • DirkH says:

      Kassu says:
      August 12, 2014 at 3:32 pm
      “That Envisat-stuff is total BS, the fixing of a bug in the earlier version of the altimetry-processing is well and openly documented and those docs are freely available on the internet.”

      Ah EniSat, that EU spy satellite with an altimeter bolted on. Bus-sized – like the US CRYSTAL spy satellites launching at Vandenberg…
      http://suyts.wordpress.com/2012/05/26/the-predicated-argument/#comment-11362
      In 2010, they changed Envisat’s orbit by 17km vertically…
      Well you do that with Spy satellites dontcha…

      Good luck with the submillimeter sea level measurement time series continuity though…

      (Simple: you re-calibrate using …. TIDE GAUGES. Then you interpolate at will and pretend NOTHING HAPPENED.)

      Part of the mission statement of EnviSat was …

      CIVIL SECURITY.

      Which is also the mission statement of the EU’s multinational internal army EUROGENDFOR whose purpose is to quash internal civil wars.

      • Kassu says:

        Envisat was not a satellite of the “EU”.

        Also, if sea-level bulges somewhere due to heat-expansion (for example), it does not mean that sea-level has to go down somewhere else.

        • DirkH says:

          Kassu says:
          August 13, 2014 at 5:56 am
          “Envisat was not a satellite of the “EU”. ”

          Because ESA is not the EU, right? I don’t care for a propagandist’s sophistry; but it’s good that you devolve into sophistry because it shows you for what you are.
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Envisat

    • Latitude says:

      That Envisat-stuff is total BS, the fixing of a bug in the earlier version of the altimetry-processing is well and openly documented and those docs are freely available on the internet.
      ===
      yes they are, you might want to actually read them before making a total fool of yourself

      http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/fileadmin/documents/calval/validation_report/EN/annual_report_en_2009.pdf

  10. Kassu says:

    You do not seem to have a grasp of regional sea-level trends, which certainly do exist and can be measured with tide-gauges and satellites. Western Pacific is bulging since years.

    • You have no grasp on the fact that the error there is as large as the claimed trend

      http://web.archive.org/web/20070111043347/http://sealevel.colorado.edu/maps.php

      • Kassu says:

        The presented maps do not match.

        • Ernest Bush says:

          That’s because one shows data and one shows error. And a little study of them does show a rather large error in many parts of the Pacific. Thanks for the link Tony. Its always good to have visual data for us laymen.

          Kassu, we know what you are, here. I will no longer waste time reading your posts since it is better applied elsewhere. Whatever else you are, you are a member of the Warmist cult, blind to actual data. You may be using multiple false names; you may be paid to harass this site; you may think you are doing good things. Regardless, you are a fraud and a waste of time. Have a good day.

        • squid2112 says:

          Ernest,

          Kassu is what we refer to as a “useful idiot”

      • matayaya says:

        Steve, raising the “error” is taking a strength of mainstream climate scientist toward transparency and honesty and using it maliciously to discredit their data. Let’s see some “error bars” around your stuff.

        • It is not my stuff. It is their stuff.

          Only a flaming idiot could believe that satellite sea level rise rates can be 2-3X higher than tide gauges for any extended length of time.

    • DirkH says:

      “Western Pacific is bulging since years.”

      Interesting. Did any climate model predict that sea level rise would happen only in the Western Pacific? No? Now that’s funny because it means the models have no predictive skill. They predicted sea level rise everywhere. How about we throw them away? They’re no doing their job.

      • Kassu says:

        Sea-level is still rising, there’s no hiatus.

        • Sea level has been rising for 20,000 years – because we are in an interglacial. When it stops rising we are in an ice age.

        • mjc says:

          And somewhere between 1000 and 333 yrs from now we will hit that vaunted 1 meter rise…

          Oh, and if the temperature starts climbing again, by 2100 we may hit the MWP…and if we are lucky the Roman Warm Period.

          Something that many seem to forget…the vast majority of agriculture (crops and animals) were domesticated and civilization itself was begun during the HCO and following WARM periods! All of which are generally agreed to be AT LEAST 2C warmer than currently.

        • Glacierman says:

          MJC – “Something that many seem to forget…the vast majority of agriculture (crops and animals) were domesticated and civilization itself was begun during the HCO and following WARM periods! All of which are generally agreed to be AT LEAST 2C warmer than currently.”

          They haven’t forgotten, they have just decided to teach an alternate history of Earth’s climate. MMs hockey stick was no accident. It was the beginning of purposeful propaganda campaign.

        • jst1 says:

          The one graph about sea level gets all the attention? What about the others?

        • mjc says:

          Glacierman…and it’s a point that needs to be stressed again and again to keep reminding folks of reality…instead of the ‘Team’s’ fantasyland.

        • Gail Combs says:

          No Sea level is NOT rising it is in fact FALLING!

          The sea level has gone down since the highstand during the Holocene Optimum.

          Mid to late Holocene sea-level reconstruction of Southeast Vietnam using beachrock and beach-ridge deposits
          http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818113001859

          Abstract

          Beachrocks, beach ridge, washover and backshore deposits along the tectonically stable south-eastern Vietnamese coast document Holocene sea level changes. In combination with data from the final marine flooding phase of the incised Mekong River valley, the sea-level history of South Vietnam could be reconstructed for the last 8000 years. Connecting saltmarsh, mangrove and beachrock deposits the record covers the last phase of deglacial sea-level rise from − 5 to + 1.4 m between 8.1 to 6.4 ka. The rates of sea-level rise decreased sharply after the rapid early Holocene rise and stabilized at a rate of 4.5 mm/year between 8.0 and 6.9 ka. Southeast Vietnam beachrocks reveal that the mid-Holocene sea-level highstand slightly above + 1.4 m was reached between 6.7 and 5.0 ka, with a peak value close to + 1.5 m around 6.0 ka….

          Another paper:
          http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/ericg/kap_paper.pdf

          CONCLUSION
          We have constructed a new Holocene sea-level curve for Oahu showing mean sea level higher than today between ~5000 and ~2000 yr ago with a maximum ~2 m above present ca. 3500 yr ago….

          Sea-level highstand recorded in Holocene shoreline deposits on Oahu, Hawaii
          http://jsedres.geoscienceworld.org/content/66/3/632.abstract

          Abstract
          Unconsolidated carbonate sands and cobbles on Kapapa Island, windward Oahu, are 1.4-2.8 (+ or – 0.25) m above present mean sea level (msl). Agreeing with Stearns (1935), we interpret the deposit to be a fossil beach or shoreline representing a highstand of relative sea level during middle to late Holocene time. Calibrated radiocarbon dates of coral and mollusc samples, and a consideration of the effect of wave energy setup, indicate that paleo-msl was at least 1.6 (+ or – 0.45) m above present msl prior to 3889-3665 cal. yr B.P, possibly as early as 5532-5294 cal. yr B.P., and lasted until at least 2239-1940 cal. yr B.P. Hence, the main phase of deposition on Kapapa Island lasted a minimum of c. 1400 yr and possibly as long as c. 3400 yr. No modern samples have been recovered from the fossil beach…Radiocarbon ages of coral and mollusc clasts from a breccia lining an emerged (1.4 + or – 0.25 m msl) intertidal notch, cut into emerged coralline-algal carbonate of presumed last interglacial age, on south Mokulua Island (15 km to the southeast of Kapapa Island) correlate to the history recorded on Kapapa Island. Calibrated ages range from 2755-2671 to 3757-3580 cal. yr B.P. (averaging c. 3100 cal. yr B.P.) suggesting that a higher than present sea level formed the notch prior to 3757-3580 cal. yr B.P….

          The Authors interpret this data to agree with subsidence based on models: ” This history is consistent with geophysical models of postglacial geoid subsidence over the equatorial ocean first predicted by Walcott (1972) and later refined by Clark et al. (1978) and Mitrovica and Peltier (1991).” However if the Southeast Vietnam coast was geologically stable and showing the same type of data, that interpretation based on models is open to question.

          Data on glaciers support this as independent verification.

          The paper, Temperature and precipitation history of the Arctic says:

          Solar energy reached a summer maximum (9% higher than at present) ~11 ka ago and has been decreasing since then, primarily in response to the precession of the equinoxes. The extra energy elevated early Holocene summer temperatures throughout the Arctic 1-3°C above 20th century averages, enough to completely melt many small glaciers throughout the Arctic, although the Greenland Ice Sheet was only slightly smaller than at present.

          Another, more recent study in Norway agrees:

          A new approach for reconstructing glacier variability based on lake sediments recording input from more than one glacier January 2012
          Kristian Vasskoga Øyvind Paaschec, Atle Nesjea, John F. Boyled, H.J.B. Birks

          …. A multi-proxy numerical analysis demonstrates that it is possible to distinguish a glacier component in the ~ 8000-yr-long record, based on distinct changes in grain size, geochemistry, and magnetic composition…. This signal is …independently tested through a mineral magnetic provenance analysis of catchment samples. Minimum glacier input is indicated between 6700–5700 cal yr BP, probably reflecting a situation when most glaciers in the catchment had melted away, whereas the highest glacier activity is observed around 600 and 200 cal yr BP. During the local Neoglacial interval (~ 4200 cal yr BP until present), five individual periods of significantly reduced glacier extent are identified at ~ 3400, 3000–2700, 2100–2000, 1700–1500, and ~ 900 cal yr BP….

          The authors of all these papers simply state that most small glaciers likely didn’t exist 6,000 years ago, and the highest period of the glacial increase has been in the past 600 years. This is hardly surprising with ~9% less solar energy.

          9% less solar energy translates to ~120 W/m² less solar energy based on 1,361 W/m² (solar min) and 1362 W/m² (solar max) @ ToA.

          The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Schimel, 1996] estimated that the change solar forcing between 1850 (start of the industrial age] and 1990 was only •0.3 W/m 2 at the top of the atmosphere vs. 1.5 W/m 2 for forcing anthropogenic CO2 [cf., Reid, 1997].

          The warmists sure will twist and turn and ignore the facts to support their believe the earth is warming, glaciers are melting and the sea levels are rising – OH MY!

        • DEEBEE says:

          Moron, the hiatus being spoken of is in surface temps. Sea level is not rising at the predicted rate but almost a third of that value.

        • philjourdan says:

          Except, mysteriously, in 2010, when it fell.

          And which models predicted that?

    • Latitude says:

      Western Pacific is bulging since years……
      …and the Chinese are turning it into a theme park!

  11. tom0mason says:

    Steven you must be doing a good job as so many CAGW alarmist keep turning up here and mouthing off. They are fearful, they know that Real Science is winning (and I don’t just mean this site.)

  12. A C Osborn says:

    Looking at the data you can see that there is not a conspiracy.
    On a second look perhaps my first statement could be wrong.
    On a third look there definitely is a conspiracy, I don’t care how mad it makes me sound to other people, but it is a collection of Governments that are perpertrating it aided and abetted by the Scientists and MM.

    • tom0mason says:

      They are working to the rulebook of their paymaster, a rulebook authored by the UN and shown in the mandate for the instituting the UN-IPCC. That is to say they will find catastrophic, human caused, climate change. There is no science behind this mandate, it is a statement of fact from the UN that is is so.

      Always remember it is your taxes, and excessive fuel and electricity charges, paying for this.

    • matayaya says:

      A.C. Osborne, I see a sort of reverse conspiracy theory: mainstream climate scientist are not the ones foisting dubious science upon us; rather it is deniers who are running their own well-funded and organized long-term hoax.

      • DirkH says:

        We hypnotized all the worlds thermometers and satellites.

        Unfortunately we haven’t found a way to hypnotize the supercomputers.

        So the climate models are the last objective information about reality.

      • mjc says:

        Listen you vile, disgusting little twit…I’ve about had it with all this ‘denier’ horseshit. Get it through your thick skulls, that word is about as vile as the ‘n’-word or ‘tr***y’ or any other slur your lot thinks is ‘evil’ this week.

        And your delusion of the ‘Save the planet’ crowd being poor is just in your own misanthropic mind.

      • Gail Combs says:

        ROTFLMAO!

        You have to be kidding! ‘Deniers’ are self-funded for the most part. Anthony Watts got a very small (couple thousand?) grant to do a study on weather stations. There was another 23 million from Exon over ten years and that is it. Believe me Greenpeace LOOKED TOO.

        This is the latest from the US Senate: The Chain of Environmental Command: How a Club of Billionaires and Their Foundations Control the Environmental Movement and Obama’s EPA

        Aren’t you happy you are a stoodge for the billionaires? Doesn’t that make you smile?

        So WHO is making money? from the Scam? (GE controls MSNBC)
        In 2011 GE generated $21 billion in “clean energy revenue”. (GE Annual Report 2011, p

        Jo Nova has done a lot more digging:

        2010Follow the money

        Money for Sceptics: Greenpeace has searched for funding for sceptics and found $23 million dollars paid by Exxon over ten years (which has stopped). Perhaps Greenpeace missed funding from other fossil fuel companies, but you can be sure that they searched….

        Money for the Climate Industry: The US government spent $79 billion on climate research and technology since 1989 – to be sure, this funding paid for things like satellites and studies, but it’s 3,500 times as much as anything offered to sceptics. It buys a bandwagon of support, a repetitive rain of press releases, and includes PR departments of institutions like NOAA, NASA, the Climate Change Science Program and the Climate Change Technology Program. The $79 billion figure does not include money from other western governments, private industry, and is not adjusted for inflation. In other words, it could be…a lot bigger….
        http://joannenova.com.au/2010/03/the-climate-industry-wall-of-money/

        …US environmental activists have access to $13 billion?

        I’d like to see a detailed breakdown of that. But if we include government funding to activist-scientists, as well as government grants for all forms of emissions reduction and education campaigns, it’s believeable. Compare $13 billion to funding for skeptical scientists. The Heartland Institute are the largest single group usually named as supporting skeptical scientists. Their total budget (for all their projects, which involve a lot more than just the climate) is about $6 – $7m.

        “… you do need detailed knowledge to parse Big Green into its constituent parts. I spoke with Washington-based environmental policy analyst Paul Driessen, who said, “U.S. environmental activist groups are a $13-billion-a-year industry — and they’re all about PR and mobilizing the troops.

        “Their climate change campaign alone has well over a billion dollars annually, and high-profile battles against drilling, fracking, oil sands and Keystone get a big chunk of that, as demonstrated by the Rockefeller assault.”
        Mind-boggling. One hundred billion at their disposal?

        Driessen then identified the most-neglected of all money sources in Big Green: “The liberal foundations that give targeted grants to Big Green operations have well over $100 billion at their disposal.”

        That figure is confirmed in the Foundation Center database of the Top 100 Foundations. But how much actually gets to environmental groups? The Giving USA Institute’s annual reports show $80,427,810,000 (more than $80 billion) in giving to environmental recipients from 2000 to 2012.

        I checked the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and found $147.3 million in assets while environmental donor Gordon E. and Betty I. Moore Foundation posted $5.2 billion.

        Driessen pointed out another unperceived sector of Big Green: government donors. “Under President Obama, government agencies have poured tens of millions into nonprofit groups for anti-hydrocarbon campaigns.”….
        http://joannenova.com.au/2014/05/big-green-have-more-money-than-big-oil-but-the-media-are-blind-to-it/

        • tom0mason says:

          What?! You haven’t got your big oil money yet either.
          Oh sorry, I forgot big oil now pays Big Green Blobs instead.

      • Jl says:

        Sorry matayaya, but it’s the climate astrologers who are the well-funded ones, as anyone with half a brain would already know.

      • DEEBEE says:

        Finally all the air came out to reveal your vacuousness

  13. Kassu says:

    So are you saying that the seas have been warming up for the past 18 years or so, as indicated by the no-hiatus-in-sea-level-rise? This sure is an issue that skeptic blogs love to ignore.

    • Sea levels have been rising for 20,000 years because of glacial melt. Recently, groundwater mining has also contributed significantly.

      • Kassu says:

        Yes, and thermal expansion also has a rather large effect. Do you think that thermal expansion has stopped ~18 years ago?

        • Edmonton Al says:

          It doe s not matter if it stopped or not..
          CO2 emiisions are not causing global warming or anything else except improved crop yields and a greener earth.

        • Robert Austin says:

          Don’t play obtuse. The vast thermal mass of the oceans take millennia to warm. Of course the oceans have warmed (and expanded) in the last 18 years just as they have warmed (and expanded) over the entire Holocene. As Steven said, when they stop rising, then we are in trouble.

        • kim2ooo says:

          Kassu… so what?

          It only matters to those who try to portray earth – as in a MAGICAL static state.

        • policycritic says:

          @Kassu,

          Yes, and thermal expansion also has a rather large effect. Do you think that thermal expansion has stopped ~18 years ago?

          What rather large effect? As Bob Tisdale reported on New Year’s day in 2010,

          According to the supplemental material furnished with [NOAA’s] Levitus et al (2009), the temperature of the Global Oceans (0-700 meters) rose about 0.17 deg C from 1969 to 2008. Refer to Table T1 from Levitus et al (2009) . . . . This equals a trend of approximately 0.042 Deg C/Decade or less than a half degree per century for the upper 700 meters.

          Here’s the table:

          Levitus et al (2009) Table T1

          You’ll see that oceans warmed on average globally 0.0168 C in 40 years in the 0-700 meter depth, for a heat content of approx. 16*10^22 Joules. Big whoop.

          Download the the entire Levitis, et al, paper here. The tables are at the end.
          ftp://ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/pub/data.nodc/woa/PUBLICATIONS/grlheat08.pdf

        • philjourdan says:

          We are not so ignorant as to pretend we know the answer to which no data exists.

        • cdquarles says:

          Mata, I’m not arguing against thermal expansion. I called BS on that being *significant* in terms of ‘sea level rise’, to the extent that there *is* sea level rise. Some gauges say yes, some say no change and some say the sea level is falling. Now, I ask, how can that be? What could make the sea level rise relative to the land edge? Well, sinking land faster than the sea is sinking :P, sinking land with no change in the real sea level, sinking land with real sea level rise. How can I ground truth this within the system lacking a *fixed frame of reference*? One way to do it would be to compare slopes from *every* station and try to find some where the land is neither sinking nor rising. The satellites can’t help much here. What are you going to use to calibrate them against?

          About ‘cooling’, well where I live even *GISS* shows cooling. I call BS on ‘averaging the globe’s temperatures’ as meaningful. You can do it but is that something of value? You have to show *how* is it truly useful, showing how you could be wrong about it. Note, averaging the globe’s temperatures is not the same thing as averaging the results of a set of thermometers indicating the temperature of the same sample of material.

        • matayaya says:

          cdquarles, I think you underestimate the accuracy of satellite altimetry for an important measurement of sea level rise. Guages are useful but reference to changing land elevations make them problematic. From what I have seen, the sea level is about 7 inches higher than 100 years ago. That doesn’t sound like much, but it is projected that rate will rise as warming continues resulting in more thermal expansion and glacier melt. We are on course to rise 3 feet by 2100 if we continue “business as usual” with our fossil fuel consumption; and significantly more beyond 2100 once the process is fully put in motion.
          I know there is a lot of information saying it is not warming and there is nothing to worry about; but I find far more credibility with NASA, NOAA, Academy of Sciences, Snow and Ice Data Center, IPCC and all the other major science organizations of the world. I know the spiel about them being “frauds”, but for me, following their information over a long period, understanding their methods, I find that charge silly and misfortunate. I know the history of how the effort to get lead out gasoline, CFCs out of the ozone, over use of pesticides on the land, and regulating tobacco all met with stiff resistance over many years before the truth won out. I see the current effort against climate science as the same.

      • matayaya says:

        Thermal expansion contributes significantly more to sea level rise than groundwater mining.

        • “Large-scale abstraction of groundwater for irrigation of crops leads to a sea level rise of 0.8 mm per year, ”
          http://www.deltares.nl/en/news/news-item/item/11864/global-groundwater-depletion-leads-to-sea-level-rise

        • matayaya says:

          At the rate groundwater is being extracted it will be a moot point before long; whereas the effect of land ice melt and thermal expansion of the ocean with be with us for a 1000 years.

        • philjourdan says:

          Unless the interglacial ends. Which is much more likely.

        • Olaf Koenders says:

          So NOW YOU ACCEPT that thermal expansion of the oceans takes millennia? Just how plastic are your beliefs Matayaya? It seems a few posts back you were quite happy to spout that severe thermal expansion takes only 150 years, if not the last few decades.

        • philjourdan says:

          Got some numbers to back you up on that?

        • cdquarles says:

          I call BS on this. Show me the calculations. Thermal expansion is an intensive property, so you are going to have to specify what, where, under what conditions, how the integration is done, etc.

        • matayaya says:

          cdquarles, someone else asked me to document this as well and I spent awhile last night looking for where I read someone who put some numbers to it, but failed to find it. I will say that any discussion of sea level rise from NOAA, NASA, Academies of Science, IPCC and all the others of mainstream climate science always mention land ice melt and thermal expansion being primary causes of sea level rise. I just don’t see the percentages you request.
          Steve said ground water “mining” was a noticeable contributor to sea level rise (he says very small rise) without mentioning thermal expansion, so I mentioned thermal expansion and threw in land-impoundment of rain lowering the sea level more than ground water extraction would raise sea level.
          Seems altimetry was able to correlate a slight drop in sea level rise several years ago when Australia had massive flooding from rain. Seems it rains on land more during la nina than during el nino or neutral. I would wager, if we can find the numbers, that I am right that land-impoundment is more significant to sea level than ground water extraction. For one, farmers try to keep all the water on the land and not run off into the ocean. It is equally true that the issue of ground water extraction in the long term will be a moot issue as ground water is used up, and thermal expansion and land ice melt start kicking into high gear.
          Of course, we don’t agree on anything. You probably think the world is cooling and don’t think there is sea level rise; therefore there can be no thermal expansion, even if the physics said there would be if the globe was warming. In case you missed the physics, put a pot of cold water on the stove, check the top level. Then turn the heat on and watch the level rise as the water slowly warms up. That’s thermal expansion.

    • DirkH says:

      You mean the Global Warming is hiding in the oceans?
      That’s wonderful because the heat capacity of the oceans is 1000 times that of the atmosphere.
      So the dreaded 2 deg C rise til 2100 becomes a 0.002 deg C rise.
      Laws of Thermodynamics tell us that energy once diluted doesn’t concentrate itself on its own.
      Problem solved.

    • Latitude says:

      65% of tide gauges….show no sea level rise at all

      http://pluto.mscc.huji.ac.il/~msdfels/wpapers/Tide%20gauge%20location.pdf

    • lance says:

      Satellite height accuracy is about 4-5 cm….how can they possibly measure sea level to ml? They guess!

    • philjourdan says:

      Actually no one said that. There are 4 ways for the “sea level” to rise
      #1: The land subsides
      #2: The ocean floor rises
      #3: The oceans warm
      #4: More water is added.

      So prove which one is happening.

  14. Rick K says:

    One of your most powerful posts ever. You don’t get enough thanks for the work you do.

  15. Ernest Bush says:

    It is great to have everything in one place, since I tend to show posts on this site to any friend or acquaintance who will let me. It will allow me to show a lot of data in a short amount of time.

  16. BobW in NC says:

    Ernest Bush says: I

    I completely agree with Ernest. It is great to have everything in one place.

    That said, Steve, the one more piece of data to further complete the sea level argument you noted above in your reply to Kassu was the bar graph chart you published several weeks ago showing the variability of sea level rises around the globe.

    Well done!

    • A C Osborn says:

      I think the Graph that Olaf Koenders posted at August 13, 2014 at 9:06 am
      would be even better as it shows the many Metres (120) of rise prior to about 8000 years ago.
      It reall puts millimetres in to perspective.

  17. Owen says:

    There is no global warming, climate change or extreme weather. Leftists are fabricating a phoney crisis in order to scare people. By scaring the uninformed, gullible masses, leftists have an excuse to destroy democracy, destroy our freedoms, to take power and impose on us their sick, twisted ideas of how the world should be run. The Climate Liars are a Political Movement. Climate science is their cover. Lenin and Stalin would be proud of these creeps.

    • tom0mason says:

      You got it
      🙂

    • Olaf Koenders says:

      Seems leftists and greens would love to resurrect Lenin and Stalin, as evidenced by those very same creeps holding up socialist flags at Jokenhagen..

      • Gail Combs says:

        The true ‘socialist’ agenda has ALWAYS been about totalitarian control and nothing else.

        ‘Enviornmentalism’ and ‘concern for their fellow humans’ is nothing but a sheepskin to hid their true goals under.

        • matayaya says:

          Gail, flip that on it’s head it can be said that you all never recognize when the market fails and government needs to step in and protect people from harm. Free market fundamentalist did it with acid rain, the ozone hole and tobacco. There needs to be some balance between market freedom and government’s role. AGW is the biggest market failure ever. Science shows us the invisible hand that never picks up the check.

        • philjourdan says:

          I love that – the free market failed with tobacco? how? What did government do? Did they ban it? (thank god they did not or there would be 2 dead doctors from Ebola). No, they simply taxed it more.

          Did they force anyone to use it? Nope. Did people (do people) have a choice in using it?

          So where did the free market fail?

          That is called a tell, mata. A tell is when you know someone is lying. Bringing up tobacco in your statement shows you have no clue what you are talking about, but the talking points fed to you said to include it.

          Sorry, you do not get 3 strikes. That statement of yours is so stupid, you go straight to idiot.

        • matayaya says:

          philjourdan, I say the market failed because the market had a massive marketing campaign telling people tobacco was not harmful. People continued harming themselves for years with tobacco long after the science had make is abundantly clear that tobacco was harmful. Why, because of the tobacco market and their hired scientist with their anti-science marketing campaign. Forces beyond the tobacco industry finally got the upper hand on the issue and today fewer people smoke.

        • kuhnkat says:

          Yes Matty, the PROPAGANDA machine finally got the upper hand. Like all your other alarmist trash, tobacco is another victory for PROPAGANDA over Science. You can, to this day, still not PROVE any particular cancer was caused by smoking or even the NUMBER of cancers in general caused by smoking. The so-called Science can only show a correlation!!

          But thanks for showing us you are a moron.

          Oh, and the correlation?? Not so good. Tobacco use per capita was dropping since the 50’s. Drops in cancer?? Not so much.

        • matayaya says:

          kuhnkat, I’m amazed. I didn’t think anyone today would still so overtly deny the connection of tobacco and bad health. It is not just cancer, but heart disease, emphysema, strokes, just about everything. Smoking killed both my parents and there was no doubt the connection between smoking and their emphysema. It is easy to see where you get your bonafides for climate science denial.

        • kuhnkat says:

          Yes Matty, your type swallow the propaganda as if it were straight from your God and could not possibly be other than the truth. Of course, the number of smokers who do NOT die or are harmed by the list of diseases you have given put the lie to your DENIER speak!!

          HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

          Yes, I smoked for 17 years and am quite healthy at over 60 so I do have a little evidence that y’all DENY!!! As with the cholesterol evidence, the real studies showed that only about half the people dying of heart disease and clogged arteries actually had blood cholesterol levels over 200, yet, they continued to promote the propaganda because “what else could it be!!” That phrase sound familiar?? It is the exact phrase that your climascientologists used when questioned closely about why they hooked a healthy gas to warming. It has been used in any number of other discussions where the propagandists are speaking from IGNORANCE like you!!

          Link up the hard research where the PHYSICAL connection between smoking and cancer is shown. You can’t because there is none. There are only the slimy correlative studies that prove NOTHING!!! Then there is second hand smoke. Fools like you probably believe it causes cancer, emphysema,,, also!!!

          HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

          My dad smoked so I was also exposed to second hand for about 18 years giving me a total exposure of 35 years for cigarettes. Then there was the exposure to asbestos changing the old brake pads. Any number of carcinogenic chemicals in electrical and mechnical solvents, lubricants, fuels. Oh, and lets not forget the years living in a commercial agricultural area with the exposure to fertilizers, insecticides, pesticides from crop dusting… Yeah, I should be dead by now if ANY of what you MORONS claim were true!!

          HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

          Sorry Matty, y’all are gonna have to kill me and any number of other people who grew up on farms and smaller towns working on vehicles and exposed to the carcinogens!! The fact that I moved from the country to the city just means I added another set of carcinogens in the cleaners for the computers I built and worked on!! And just to be clear, I don’t claim to be a genius so never used the gloves, masks or other protective gear.

          If you are ever in Southern California we can discuss it on a bicycle ride along the beach or the mountains. (snicker)

        • philjourdan says:

          No mata, you are now trying to slither away. The market did not fail. Nor did the government do anything about it (it is still legal). The market is not perfect. But no one, NO ONE, was bound and gagged and forced to buy a product they did not want. The market worked. So did science, which then came out with the dangers of tobacco (except where Ebola is concerned), and the populace was informed and still made their own decisions.

          The market worked. You failed. So slither away again.

        • philjourdan says:

          BTW: Your slithering ad hominems are duly noted. For the rest of the intelligent readers, they will see I never defended tobacco or smoking. Nor did you bring up that aspect. it is about the market, not the dangers of tobacco.

          The death of your parents is slimed by your stupidity.

        • mjc says:

          Horseshit…

        • DirkH says:

          matayaya says:
          August 13, 2014 at 8:01 pm
          “Free market fundamentalist did it with acid rain, the ozone hole and tobacco.”

          Luckily Big Government stepped in, sat down with its fat arse right on the face of the free market, and fixed the Ozone Hole. Wait…

          Well, nevermind.

        • philjourdan says:

          Acid rain turned out to be primarily natural as well. So none of his examples support his contention.

        • matayaya says:

          Philjourdan, that sure seems like revisionist history. Coal fired plants in the mid west were sending their toxic brew to New England. Thats a fact, you can’t deny that. It wasn’t “natural” as you say. Regulation putting “scrubbers” on the coal fired plants made a big difference and the rain over New England is no longer so acid. And the market survived the effort without us sliding into socialism.
          The temperature record even noticed as when the sulfuric aerosols from the coal burning that had been masking temperature were removed from the atmosphere, a measure of warming occurred with the clearer skies.
          It is now said that if Mumbai, Delhi, and the many other big cities in China remove the sulfuric aerosols as did the U.S., Europe, Mexico City and others have done, that the masked cooling from the sulfuric aerosols, while clean air is good for their citizens, will clear the sky and unmask more temperature rise for the rest of us.

        • philjourdan says:

          Little parrot. I did not say ALL, but primarily, yes it is and was. Rain is naturally acidic. And they found out that even when the man made sources were removed, it still occurred! The Idiots at the EPA are trying to clean up streams that are naturally acidic!

          Keep up with the news or fall behind. You are 0-3.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Gail, flip that on it’s head it ….

          matayaya, go read E.M. Smith’s “Evil Socialism” vs “Evil Capitalism” It is a short comment. He was trained as an economist and makes a lot of sense. Also I am not a straight ‘Capitalist’ (Which is why _Jim goes after me so often) I pretty much agree with E.M. except for his position on Fractional Reserve banking which I consider pure theft.

          I like gold because it removes money from the hands of government and bankers. Also it has some “elasticity” If the market signals are correct then the ‘value’ of gold as a trade item rises and it makes it worth mining. If the value as a trade item falls, then mining stops.

          Paper money does not have that quality. Look at the doubling of the money supply in 2008-2009. It did nothing except half the value of people’s saving as it trickles through the world economy. It also made the Chinese who hold a lot of US $$ very very angry.

          3/13/2009
          ….Meanwhile, China’s Premier Wen Jiabao says he’s “worried” about the health of China’s $1 trillion worth of U.S. Treasury bonds. The consequence of a slowing U.S. economy, weakening stock market and massive government spending are threatening to send the dollar lower over time, devaluing holdings like Treasuries. That doesn’t, however, mean China will sell its massive bond holdings, since there are so few places for such huge pools of capital to go these days (that of course, is not a good thing). Quoted in the Financial Times, Luo Ping, a director-general at the China Banking Regulatory Commission, put it more bluntly:
          “Except for US Treasuries, what can you hold?” he asked. “Gold? You don’t hold Japanese government bonds or UK bonds. US Treasuries are the safe haven. For everyone, including China, it is the only option.”

          Mr Luo, whose English tends toward the colloquial, added: “We hate you guys. Once you start issuing $1 trillion-$2 trillion [$1,000bn-$2,000bn] . . .we know the dollar is going to depreciate, so we hate you guys but there is nothing much we can do.”
          http://www.usnews.com/blogs/the-ticker/2009/03/13/signs-of-stress-warren-buffetts-downgrade-chinas-treasury-jitters.html

          Except China (and Russia) are doing something. They are divesting themselves of US dollars, making trade agreements to use currency other than US $$ and amassing gold.
          …..

          “A disordered currency is one of the greatest of evils. It wars against industry, frugality, and economy. And it fosters the evil spirits of extravagance and speculation. Of all the contrivances for cheating the laboring classes of mankind, none has been more effectual than that which deludes them with paper money. This is one of the most effectual of inventions to fertilize the rich man’s field by the sweat of the poor man’s brow. Ordinary tyranny, oppression, excessive taxation: These bear lightly the happiness of the mass of the community, compared with fraudulent currencies and robberies committed with depreciated paper.” – Sen. Daniel Webster, during the debate over the reauthorization of the Second National Bank of the U.S. in 1832

        • matayaya says:

          Gail, lots of non-sequiturs there but I will bite on one. You seem to be saying all efforts at environmental protection are a slippery slope to socialism. The first environmentalist were Republicans. Teddy Roosevelt with national parks and Richard Nixon created the EPA. It wasn’t until the scientific community opposed Reagan’s star wars that the anti science think tanks got going. With the collapse of the Soviet Union and exaggerated need for SDI in the dust bin of history, they shifted over to anti environmentalism.
          The market resisted getting lead out of gasoline, CFC out of the ozone layer, acid rain coming from mid west coal plants, excessive pesticides on the land, and regulation of tobacco. U.S. capitalism survived all that and chugs right along without having slid into socialism. Sometimes the market needs protecting from itself.

        • kuhnkat says:

          Matty you moron, what do you mean the US has missed socialism?? Over 50% of the population depends on socialism at this point.

        • philjourdan says:

          WRONG! The market does not need government intervention – period! Every time the government gets involved, the only thing that happens is they pick bad winners, and kill good losers. They do nothing to “help” the market.

        • cdquarles says:

          Mata, you’re out of your mind. The US has been fully going down the Socialist road for just about 120 years now, ever since the “Progressives” decided that they’d take over the D & R establishments (TR and WW/FDR) and make the ‘long march’ through the institutions. TR/FDR, et. al. were fascists. They’d control business via Brain Trusts, aka cronies, making them ‘private’ government agencies. The Federal Reserve was not the first time the banks were nationalized (Bank of the US 1 and 2). Every time the banks were nationalized the US suffered *depressions* with the 3rd and 4th being the most severe (via removing circulating gold in the 3rd and flooding the world with monetized treasuries in the 4th).

  18. Douglas Hoyt says:

    A scorecard comparing observations to the greenhouse models can be found at

    http://www.warwickhughes.com/hoyt/scorecard.htm

    Nearly all the predictions are falsified by the data.

  19. MrX says:

    Why do leftists hate reality so much? LOL I think that answers itself. They’re leftists.

  20. anthonyvioli says:

    Good work Steve, the global cooling deniers know the game is up.

    Maybe no one has heard of the West Pacific Warm pool??

  21. anthonyvioli says:

    Reblogged this on The Real World and commented:
    Look at all those adjustments!! No wonder there are lots and lots of sceptics!

    • Gail Combs says:

      Anyone who has two brain cells, does not have an ‘Agenda’ and bothers to look can see CAGW is a hoax.

      You do not need to understand the ‘science’ either all you have to do is look at the players, Like the UN, the World Bank. the World Trade Organization, Shell Oil, GE….
      Heck I think this says it all:

      World Bank Carbon Finance Report for 2007
      The carbon economy is the fastest growing industry globally with US$84 billion of carbon trading conducted in 2007, doubling to $116 billion in 2008, and expected to reach over $200 billion by 2012 and over $2,000 billion by 2020.

      We get sheared in scam after scam after scam.
      One of the latest (after Foreclosuregate) How Goldman Sachs Created the Food Crisis
      The World Bank
      The World Bank’s Robert Watson was head of the IPCC. The Copenhagen talks broke down thanks to the Danish text leak: a secret draft agreement .. hands effective control of climate change finance to the World Bank

      The World Bank released a very inflammatory document: The World Bank 4 degree report in full here and summary for policymakers here.

      All the while the World Bank is lecturing the West on the evils of CO2 it had MASSIVELY increased its lending for Coal Plants! GRAPH of World Bank spending on coal fired plants in the third world.

      World Bank: Record sums were invested last year in coal power.. (Much of this is money from the USA tax payer BTW)

      More than 1,000 New Coal Plants Planned Worldwide

      • Latitude says:

        Anyone who has two brain cells, does not have an ‘Agenda’ and bothers to look can see CAGW is a hoax.
        ===
        LOL…
        Gail, if you really want to put the nail in it…

        CO2 global warming is all based on run away humidity.
        CO2 is supposed to cause a tipping point that’s amplified by moisture in the air.

        If that’s true…then we would have run away global warming every time the humidity went up…and it would never stop

        A little humidity would raise temps…which would raise humidity…which would raise temps…which would raise humidity………wash rinse repeat

        • DirkH says:

          AND, as the residence time of water vapor in the atmosphere is on average two weeks, this feedback loop must unfold within a time of weeks – not centuries. So Singapore should have turned into a local mini-Venus a long time ago.

          But all they get is a daily thunderstorm.

        • Latitude says:

          Dirk, it would have no residence time according to CO2 global warming theory…
          it would constantly increase as a result of constantly increasing temperatures

          We would have run away global humidity..and it would have already happened with or without CO2

        • Jason Calley says:

          Hey Latitude! Yes, the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Wetting theory says that it is self-reinforcing from ANY cause of initial warming. The theory would have us believe that the Earth has been sitting in stasis, balanced, as it were, on a thermal knife edge for hundreds of millions of years. If the temperature had gone up just another fraction of a degree, anywhere in the world, the positive feedback would have spread like a bad rash to cover the planet and bring us catastrophe!

          Some of the errors with the CAGW crowd are so huge, so glaring, so outrageous, that it took me a long time to come to grips with them. I kept thinking, “I must be misunderstanding what they are claiming. They can’t be THAT wrong, not and still keep a straight face.”

          I was naive.

        • Latitude says:

          Jason, that one fact….
          Now we have people discussing everything from thermal expansion, to satellites, to back radiation, to the sun……

          All because of someone’s bad joke to begin with….I think the whole thing is a ruse

        • mjc says:

          It thought it was CCGW…Catastrophic Cephalopod Global Wetting…and that to fix it someone needed to go back in time and steal high energy particles from some ship, docked in Alameda?

        • philjourdan says:

          At the height of the cold war using a Russian accent no less – the wessel.

        • tom0mason says:

          Yep, that’s why there are no tropical jungles.
          On land they were the biggest source of CO2, and also were so humid they just positively fedback till they just melted away.
          🙂
          Happy days when Cental Africa, South America and the Far East were covered in tropical rain forests.

      • _Jim says:

        Gail should well make note of this too as it addresses additional ‘warped’ factors that Ron Arnold has identified in the psyche of the Alarmists – The following is from Ron Arnold’s slide set (which I’m sure no one has gone through) at:

        http://climateconferences.heartland.org/wp-content/uploads/Powerpoints/ICCC9/RonArnold-Panel5.pptx

        – – – – – – – – – –

        * * MASLOW’S RESEARCH * *

        o Basic human needs, as common sense has always known, are material – food, shelter, safety from harm, and the means to live.

        o Maslow asked, what happens once those basics are satisfied, and saw that needs then spread outward:

        o the need for love,
        o for a sense of belonging,
        o for social recognition,
        o and personal accomplishment

        – – – – – – – – – –

        It took Maslow until the 1960s to see that he hadn’t gone far enough. His second edition found that once the personal and social needs are satisfied, needs again spread outward, to non-material needs

        o The need for knowledge and to understand
        o And finally the need for inspiration and beauty.

        [Do you see where he is going this yet? – _Jim]

        – – – – – – – – –

        . . . THE PITFALL . . .

        But there’s a problem:

        o As people climb the needs hierarchy, they begin to take the lower needs for granted, they focus only on the higher needs, and some begin feeling “eliteness” and “deserved” superiority and self-righteousness. [think EPA passing regulations simply for the ‘environment’ without weighing the costs to the people – see the tie-in yet? – _Jim]

        o Serious COGNITIVE CHANGES affect such people: their values change, their thinking changes, and their memory begins to block the old values. [the elite, the Gates of the ‘whirled’]

        – – – – – – – –

        o Maslow wrote: “We tend to take for granted the blessings we already have, the food, the security, the love, the admiration, the freedom that have always been there, never lacking or yearned for.

        o “Those blessings tend not only to be unnoticed, but even to be devalued or mocked or destroyed.”

        – – – Devalued – – mocked – – and eventually – – Destroyed – – –

        – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

        POSTGRATIFICATION FORGETTING AND DEVALUATION

        Maslow concluded, “This neglected pathology of “postgratification forgetting” and devaluation is, in my opinion, of very great potential importance and power.”

        The pathological need to devalue, to mock and to destroy basic needs is the basis of alarmism.

        o Alarmism gratifies a pathological need.

        That gratification is the Dark Benefit.

        – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

        This would explain a lot – Arnold goes through this near the end of his presentation in the video linked above. _Jim.

        .

        • tom0mason says:

          Jim
          I prefer it simpler – some are just bonkers (IMO quite a lot), others are taking, or have taken, too many mind altering substances.
          Both groups are very dangerous to themselves and others by causing social chaos, excessive material losses, and premature loss of lives.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Thanks for the link.

          I spent some time living in Westchester county New York as a teen and ran into the people who ‘own’ those foundations, especially their children since I was always horse mad.

          They seem to see the rest of us as chess pieces or sub-human or play toys. They certainly do not see us as their equals.

          This of course does not apply to all but it was common enough for a teen to notice and discuss with her parents.

          I was aware of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, at least the early version. However I put the ‘need to destroy’ syndrome down to a bad case of wealthy spoiled brat combined with the feeling of superiority in the parents.

        • Jason Calley says:

          Wow! Just went through Ron Arnold’s slides. Good info about CAGW funding and Maslow. Thanks!

        • cdquarles says:

          I always thought Maslow was FOS once he got past the ‘common sense’ parts. 😛

        • _Jim says:

          Take it up with Ron Arnold; he seemed to find some value in his theories to explain how relatively normal people eventually turn into elites who want to impose their new-found visions on us all …

      • GW says:

        Been reading your posts for years. You’re my hero !

      • DEEBEE says:

        Gail, that was exclusionary of you, of all the one brain cell warmest cultists

  22. craigm350 says:

    Reblogged this on the WeatherAction Blog and commented:
    We keep getting told any adjustments will even themselves out…

    • Jason Calley says:

      “We keep getting told any adjustments will even themselves out…”

      I have heard that one before, too. Don’t fall for it! The CAGW version goes like this: “Sure, we adjust data. Sometimes it needs it. Still, if you add up the adjustments, the negative adjustments pretty much balance out the positive adjustments. There is very little overall change.” The trick, of course, is that the “adjustments” are not evenly distributed. If you put the negative adjustments on the older data, and the positive adjustments on the more recent data, you suddenly get a positive trend even if there was not one before.

      Which is exactly what Tony has been documenting for so long — Thanks, Tony!!

  23. kirkmyers says:

    The worst part of this scientific subterfuge is the fact that it implicates all science. In fact, the global warmists have destroyed much of the integrity of their fellows, who are actually still practicing what we once knew as “science.”

    The destruction of science, in the ostenstible crusade against the imaginary bogeyman called global warming, has been fueled mostly be a love of research dollars and by an ever-present fear of peer ostracisism and tenure denial. Einstein, and other real scientists, were they alive, would be outing the “climate change” mountebanks as nonsensical idiots.

    “Climate change?” Of course, the climate changes and has been for more than 4 billion years. Every so-called scientist endorsing the global warming (aka climate change) fiction should be laughed out of his job and branded a carnival barker.

    Now the 90-year-old ex-president, in his final obviously-suffering-from-dementia days, has decided to open his pie-hole and blame CO2 on global warming: JImmy Carter is against “climate change.”

    “ASPEN, Colo. — President Jimmy Carter called a tax on carbon emissions “the only reasonable approach” to combating climate change during an appearance here Tuesday, but lamented that even piecemeal actions are unlikely to get through a divided Congress.

    Carter, 89, who received a lifetime achievement award on the final day of the American Renewable Energy Day summit, spoke . . . .”

    Does any more need to be said.

  24. gregole says:

    Alterations to the temperature record are not just about “Hide the Decline”, but also, and maybe more importantly for Warmista propaganda, “Produce an Incline” which is dramatically shown by cooling the past.

    Sneaky. Cleaver if you think about it.

    From a publicity / propaganda strategic view, it is of great importance to show ever rising temperatures and sea-level. Why? Warmista predictions have repeatedly failed the test of time – but the average non-interested reader probably just got the message there was a problem, and then pretty much forgot about it when nothing happened.

    No connection is made in the average person’s mind between the forecasts of doom and repeated failure of doom to occur – so the value of repeated forecasts of doom keeps the scam going, even in the face of repeated and obvious flaws in the idea that Man-Made CO2 is destroying the planet.

    Expect the data tampering to continue. It has to. But they are playing a dangerous game. Antarctica, and now the Arctic are not playing along. Sea-level rise (excuse me a minute while I privately laugh my ass off at these idiots) is not playing along. We are have a discussion of an alleged mountain of water in the middle of the Pacific? Oh for God’s sake! Just name a major sea-port with major problems with sea-level rise; show me dykes breaking in Holland, show me a real problem (and not land subsistence like in the Gulf of Mexico!). But a mountain of water in the Pacific?

    And now to make matters worse, temperatures are certainly not rising, and haven’t for some time, and are probably dropping and quite possibly getting ready to drop more (PDO flip, AMO to follow). Incidentally, beautiful pleasant summer here in Phoenix, Arizona, nicest, coolest weather I’ve seen.

  25. BallBounces says:

    Each time you hit us with these before/after charts, could you include this link at the top, so we can sing along while we peruse the charts?

  26. GW says:

    So Steve, are you intending at some point (soon) to make a formal presentation of all this evidence to any elected federal officials ? There are surely a small number who would like to know and might take action. Otherwise you’re just preaching to the choir.

  27. Eliza says:

    Wow this posting did have quite an effect on the AGW. As stated previously this is the kind of posting that really hits very very hard at the AGW establishment and all its cohorts. I suggest SG do a complete posting before/after of all the graphs. There are hundreds of them for GISS, NCDC ect and keep it a number one for 1000’s, not hundreds, to see. The other point is that the AGW trolls are here to distract from the graphs posted not to contribute in general. I would recomemnd that only SG answer them once and avoid any further parlance as well as other contributors. I also agree with GW last posting about getting someone to do something about this rather than preaching to the choir.I would suggest some very well heeled high profile lawyer/legal person not SG

  28. Phil Jones says:

    Steven… it would help if the sources for some of this data were cited… Web Links or NASA published report with page number… etc…

    This is serious shit. Exact source information would help the case.

  29. I love those animated graphs. You seem to be the only one doing it so please don’t stop.

    For many of us Richard Lindzen summed it up best when he said:
    “We may not be able to predict the future, but in climate ‘science,’ we also
    can’t predict the past.”

    Here is the full context for Lindzen’s quote:
    http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02148/RSL-HouseOfCommons_2148505a.pdf

  30. Eliza says:

    Agree with Jones. Each graph should have the data to back them up.Ie Raw 2001, Adjusted 2001 ect under the graph (as shown on this site previously). Otherwise the AGW trolls will just say you made it up. Assume Murphy’s law for everything LOL

  31. Gail Combs says:

    matayaya says:

    ” …… U.S. capitalism survived all that and chugs right along without having slid into socialism….”
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    No mata, capitalism has been deader that dead for over a century. What you are calling ‘capitalism’ is actually cronyism, a form of socialism. Clinton and UK’s Tony Blair are all for it. They call it “Third Way” as E. M. pointed out.

    No go back and READ what E. M. Smith said. link

    Capitalism in its simplest form is about taking my wealth (resources) and labor and creating something. I can then take the excess of what I created and trade with someone else who has taken their wealth and labor and created products I want.

    Since both of us have created something that did not exist in nature and we can trade with each other we are both better off. (It is the basis of civilization, other wise why bother.)

    The current system is all about RESTRICTING people from creating and trading. It is about the government, the banks and other parasites taking a slice of what we make and in return making it as difficult as possible for us to remain creative and productive.

    Federal regulations have lowered real GDP growth by 2% per year since 1949 and made America 72% poorer

    It is way past time for every government at local, state and federal levels to go through the books and get rid of as much red tape as possible. Too much red tape just makes people numb after a while and they spend time figuring out ways to evade ALL regulations in cluding taxes, hence the 2 trillion dollar underground US economy.

    Soviet History: 1980: Underground Economy
    Involvement in the underground economy had become a fact of Soviet existence by 1980. Economic activities regarded as normal in market economies not only were prohibited under Soviet law, but also carried heavy penalties. The acquisition of consumer services (repairs of appliances and autos, medical services) and residential housing, the resale of scarce consumer goods, trade in western consumer goods such as blue jeans or cigarettes were on a par with criminal activities such as the narcotics trade and moonshine liqueur. Virtually every citizen became a de facto criminal in the quest for a more comfortable life. The command economy strangled the growing consumer society and created ideal conditions for a black market….

    • matayaya says:

      Gail, we are about the same country today as we were when Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, and all the others, worked out the compromises and details. We are capitalist, not free market fundamentalist. Capitalism recognizes that a successful economy and quality of life depends on a balanced mix of free market and government. Unlike most places in the world, politics is alive and well here and our founders intended; so we must be doing something right.

      • Gamecock says:

        “Capitalism recognizes that a successful economy and quality of life depends on a balanced mix of free market and government.”

        Capitalism realizes nothing; it is not a sentient being.

      • Gail Combs says:

        As I said read E. M. he is not only an economist by training, he is also smart.

        What you describe is called a Mixed Economy.

      • Gail Combs says:

        OH, and if you want an example of a real capitalistic/anarchy read Mark’s 1,000 years of Irish Anarchy and 9,000 years of anarchy in Ireland?

        • Gail Combs says:

          Kim,

          What I find so puzzling is the “THIS time it will work for sure.” attitude of the useful idiots. Communism in some form or other has been tried over and over since the 1400s.

          The USSR and other countries has shown that once a small group has grabbed control of the government the next stage is to kill off lots of people, many of whom were ‘allies’

          After the payloads were planted, the vast majority of the communist intelligence operatives met the fate of most stooges of totalitarian thugs—violent death at the hands of their comrades. Communist dictators demand absolute obedience. Nimble, smart, and crafty, covert influence operators did not make good slaves. Stalin feared their abilities. One by one, they were called back to Moscow. An economical one-bullet execution, a 7.62x38mm slug from the KGB’s favorite revolver, the Nagant M1895, ended the lives of the fathers of American PC.….

          From the book Willing Accomplices: How KGB Covert Influence Agents Created Political Correctness and Destroyed America by Kent Clizbe

        • kim2ooo says:

          Gail Combs says:

          August 15, 2014 at 6:08 pm

          Kim,

          What I find so puzzling is the “THIS time it will work for sure.” attitude of the useful idiots.

          Albert Einstein once said “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”.

          Gail, I could almost overlook these idiots if they were my age… kids falling asleep during history…. rose colored glasses… I’m invincible…………..etc.

          Thanks for the link.

      • philjourdan says:

        You are mixing political definitions with economics ones. Capitalism DOES NOT recognize a need for government. Capitalism is the free trade between sellers and buyers. Government steps in (and always screws it up) to REGULATE it, which may be a part of the political system, but is not found in capitalism.

        • Gail Combs says:

          +1

          The Progressives running the MSM always make sure ‘Capitalism’ gets the blame for all the government SNAFUs.

          It is the perfect scapegoat since as Dwayne Andreas, CEO of Archer Daniels Midland Co., said …global capitalism is a delusion. “There isn’t one grain of anything in the world that is sold in a free market. Not one! The only place you see a free market is in the speeches of politicians. People who are not in the Midwest do not understand that this is a socialist country.” in an interview with Mother Jones.

          And Dwayne should know. he has bought many a politician as the USA’s biggest all time campaign ‘contributor’ He even got his hand slapped. Andreas had only been indicted, though never convicted, for making illegal illegal political campaign contributions during Watergate.

        • matayaya says:

          This is supposed to be a website for discussing climate science but it seems most people here come from a free market fundamentalist/libertarian perspective and think the implications of a warming world is a threat to that economic/political world view. Science is science irrespective of economic and political world views. People being more concerned about protecting their philosophy are inventing a scientific view that is not a threat to that economic/political view. Science laughs at such hubris.

        • philjourdan says:

          Most people know where they are. Why are you lost? The blog is about climate science and other topics. The name is REAL SCIENCE (no climate mention). Economics is a science. You may not like it, but it is.

          As for “Global Warming” – name the solutions proposed to date. Any of them is fine. Then find one that does not reduce freedom and liberty. Again, anyone.

          Global warming is the vehicle. The goal is control.

        • Shazaam says:

          @Matayayayaya

          This is supposed to be a website for discussing climate science but it seems most people here come from a free market fundamentalist/libertarian perspective and think the implications of a warming world is a threat to that economic/political world view. — You partly correct. I suspect most are not as worried about the “implications of a warming world” as you are. Mainly because there some very intelligent people questioning the fraudulent methods used by some of CAGW’s leading lights.

          This incident shines a bright light on the means and methods of the CAGW poster child, Michael Mann: http://climateaudit.org/2014/08/13/aclu-and-national-media-intervene-in-mann-v-steyn-et-al/

          Science is science irrespective of economic and political world views. — You are absolutely correct. If only we didn’t have government as the majority funding source for academic research, there wouldn’t be so very many political strings attached to the funding. That’s where the politics slide in and corrupt the whole process.

          People being more concerned about protecting their philosophy are inventing a scientific view that is not a threat to that economic/political view. — Wow. I think you are getting it!!!!! If you really think about your statement. You will see you have just described the CAGW industry in a single sentence!!!

          Government grants are issued to study climate, and the results always seem to favor what the grant issuer wants. Thus the CAGW researchers protect their grant gravy train with an invented scientific view that agrees with the philosophies of their political masters. And every question “requires more study”.

          Science laughs at such hubris. — And many of us are laughing at the CAGW “faithful” as they attempt to “adjust” the data to match their theories. To the deluded faithful, if the raw measured data doesn’t match the model, then that measured data requires adjustment to match. Such actions are destroying the credibility of science.

        • matayaya says:

          Shazaam, you got your rhetoric and talking points down pretty good. It becomes a circular and pointless discussion. At least I was able to let you know how most folk see you all. It is the American tradition. As an optimist and not able to gamble with my grandkids future, I act in my meager way toward an insurance policy against risks. I bet you have insurance for things of less risk, but are willing to gamble on this because winning a political argument now is more important.

        • philjourdan says:

          Can we see a scientific poll of “most folks”?

          No? Your polls are as worthless as all the 97%ers. You speak for YOURSELF. no one else. Get your ego in check.

          And get an education.

        • Shazaam says:

          @matayayayaya

          Shazaam, you got your rhetoric and talking points down pretty good. It becomes a circular and pointless discussion. — Rhetoric and talking points?? I was mostly agreeing with you! Are you saying your statements are nothing but rhetoric and talking points? If so, you got me there.

          At least I was able to let you know how most folk see you all. — Your opinion does not automatically qualify for a majority opinion, but I am sure there are some who agree with you.

          It is the American tradition — Free speech is indeed the revered tradition. The current media propaganda style approach, not so much, shades of Pravda.

          As an optimist and not able to gamble with my grandkids future, I act in my meager way toward an insurance policy against risks. — So you are moving to a colder climate in a less regulated country?

          I bet you have insurance for things of less risk, but are willing to gamble on this because winning a political argument now is more important. — I don’t have any “insurance” against this temperate location cooling. I’d have to move south.

          I would welcome the threatened warming. The only increase in temperature I’m seeing is the inflated NOAA data. Maybe there is a CPI factor built in to the temperature adjustments.

        • matayaya says:

          The propensity to believe in conspiracy theories is interesting. 7000 currently practicing climate scientist world wide could never get together and agree on such a thing. “Consensus” on basics of AGW hardly means the scientist are not constantly and daily bickering over the finer details of the evolving science. To believe in conspiracies is to fail at understanding basic human nature. What is closer to a conspiracy, is how the same tactics that argued against the science of lead in gasoline, acid rain, CFCs in the ozone, danger of tobacco and all the other anti-environment stuff are now being applied to climate science.

        • Shazaam says:

          @matayayayaya

          The propensity to believe in conspiracy theories is interesting. — Seriously? I don’t recall bringing the topic of “conspiracies” up. Is this one of your “talking points”?
          .

          7000 currently practicing climate scientist world wide could never get together and agree on such a thing. — Oh, I agree 100%. That would be much too obvious. There is that little inconvenient bit of climate-gate history to contend with however.
          .

          “Consensus” on basics of AGW hardly means the scientist are not constantly and daily bickering over the finer details of the evolving science. — Wait. I thought it was a settled science and thus we have to act NOW. And you are saying the science is not settled after all?
          .

          To believe in conspiracies is to fail at understanding basic human nature. — Erm no. Caesar would disagree with you there. Fatally it would seem in his case.
          .

          What is closer to a conspiracy, is how the same tactics that argued against the science of lead in gasoline, acid rain, CFCs in the ozone, danger of tobacco and all the other anti-environment stuff are now being applied to climate science.Seriously? That’s all you’ve got to counter the evidence of NOAA and NASA massively adjusting the raw temperature data in an attempt to keep the CAGW meme alive?

          The “same tactics”? If you’ll do a bit of digging, the acid rain scare was just that. A scare. And CFCs are some of the heaviest gasses in creation. I’d love an explanation of how these heavy CFC gasses all floated up that high in the atmosphere.

          Tobacco and leaded gas were mostly resistance of manufacturers and consumers to mandated governmental changes.

          Are you saying all those folks 90+ who’ve smoked all their lives are part of a conspiracy???? I think the fact that everyone knows or has an elderly relative who has smoked all their life and was reasonably healthy, was the biggest reason the anti-smoking campaigns all failed to eliminate smoking. There was so much walking evidence that the smoking scare campaigns were comprised of some fact, and a lot of hype and propaganda.

          And that my friend is the exact same problem CAGW industry faces today. People are tuning-out the increasingly shrill and deceptive warming propaganda campaign because they believe their own experiences far, far more than the words of the government funded experts and the Hollywood actor/actress testimonials….

          Who are you going to believe?

        • matayaya says:

          Shazaam, you defense of tobacco makes my case better than anything else you say. Your “science” is all antidotes. You have to close your eyes to a massive body of science to believe what you believe.

        • philjourdan says:

          you defense

          ??? what about we defense? I defense? He defense. Yea, that makes a good point. Try this link – http://esl.com/

        • kim2ooo says:

          matayaya says:

          August 15, 2014 at 3:32 pm

          Shazaam, you got your rhetoric and talking points down pretty good. It becomes a circular and pointless discussion. At least I was able to let you know how most folk see you all. It is the American tradition. As an optimist and not able to gamble with my grandkids future, I act in my meager way toward an insurance policy against risks. I bet you have insurance for things of less risk, but are willing to gamble on this because winning a political argument now is more important.

          ———————————–

          I’ve been following your comments, here.

          This one left me dazed.

          These “talking points” are offered with links / references.

          It becomes a “circular and pointless discussion” when you don’t follow those references.

          No, you weren’t able to let us know how “most” see us.

          You are not an “optimists” – you state it in your own remaining statement…. [ my bold above ]. Pessimists buy insurance as a hedge against catastrophic loss.

        • kim2ooo says:

          matayaya says:

          August 15, 2014 at 4:26 pm

          The propensity to believe in conspiracy theories is interesting.

          One would have to be a fool not to recognize fraudulent behavior directed at them. When people, as a group, lie – hide – squash dissent – it’s a good reason to believe they are acting in concert, conspiring to promote their ideologies / goals.

        • Shazaam says:

          @matayayayaya

          Shazaam, you (sic) defense of tobacco makes my case better than anything else you say. — I’d suggest you re-read my reply carefully. Sound-out the big words. Take your time.
          .

          Your “science” is all antidotes. — Excuse me? Antidotes? Antidotes to what? If it happens to antidotes to the criminal incompetence and deliberate fraud of climate science, then I’m really happy with that.
          .

          You have to close your eyes to a massive body of science to believe what you believe. — I believe that Toto has exposed the CAGW industry as a massive fraud. That opinion is buttressed by observed weather.

          And I think it is absolutely hilarious that the kingpin of CAGW, Michael Mann is using one of the most expensive tobacco industry lawyers in his quixotic attempt to silence anyone critical of his fraudulent science.

          I’d love to hear who exactly is bankrolling that tobacco lawyer for Michael Mann.

          And Matayayayaya, I’d suggest you take a bit of time to work on your reading comprehension. It does help.

        • matayaya says:

          Shazaam, follow the merits of the case; libel should not be tolerated.

        • philjourdan says:

          mata, follow the facts of the case. Opinion CANNOT be libel (or slander). Period.

        • philjourdan says:

          Soros is funding Mann’s legal team.

        • Shazaam says:

          @matayayayaya

          Shazaam, follow the merits of the case; libel should not be tolerated. — Given Michael Mann’s fradulent claims about his Nobel……. I would not consider rigorous questioning of his methods and data libelous.

          Mann has a track record for making claims that have no resemblance to truth. Are you certain he wouldn’t publish in the same way?

          After all, the peer/pal review system has failed miserably at keeping computer-generated techno-bafflegab from being printed in the professional journals. Are you certain that the peer/pal review system could block fraud?

          Come to think of it, the CAGW industry did indeed make wonderful choice in making Michael Mann their “poster child”. I think Michael Mann and his ethics, accuracy, and credibility are indeed the best possible representation of the entire CAGW industry,

        • matayaya says:

          Shazaam, the Mann/Nobel thing is bogus. The rules of Nobel are that a single prize can be given to only 3 entities. One of the entities was the IPCC of which Mann was a part of. Tongue in cheek but legitimately half serious, he implied he was partly responsible for the IPCC getting a Nobel. Big deal.
          The way you all on the right have made such a mountain out of a mole hill with this is emblematic of your entire approach to bashing climate scientist. The same tactics were used to discredit the effort to get lead out of gas, CFCs out of the the ozone, excessive pesticides out of the soils and waters, to stop acid rain and of course to reduce harm from tobacco.

        • kim2ooo says:

          “matayaya says:

          August 16, 2014 at 4:34 pm

          Shazaam, the Mann/Nobel thing is bogus. The rules of Nobel are that a single prize can be given to only 3 entities. One of the entities was the IPCC of which Mann was a part of. Tongue in cheek but legitimately half serious, he implied he was partly responsible for the IPCC getting a Nobel. Big deal.

          \
          ACTUALLY…no, it is a big deal.

          According to to Geir Lundestad, director of the Nobel Institute, he knowingly and fraudulently counterfeited an instrument [ diploma ] to benefit from it.

          Asked if Mann’s Nobel Prize claim is true. Lundestad responded:

          “1) Michael Mann has never been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

          2) He did not receive any personal certificate. He has taken the diploma awarded in 2007 to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (and to Al Gore) and made his own text underneath this authentic-looking diploma.

          3) The text underneath the diploma is entirely his own. We issued only the diploma to the IPCC as such. No individuals on the IPCC side received anything in 2007.”

          http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2012/10/26/michael-mann-falsely-claims-he-was-awarded-nobel-peace-prize

          You speak volumes in your defense of this act.

        • philjourdan says:

          NO mata, your flimsy explanation is a red herring. The Nobel Committee stated UNEQUIVOCALLY that Mann was not a Nobel laureate. Mann said he was. That is a lie and fraud.

          Period. End of story. Your spinning is atrocious.

        • shazaam1 says:

          @matayayayaya

          Shazaam, the Mann/Nobel thing is bogus. The rules of Nobel are that a single prize can be given to only 3 entities. One of the entities was the IPCC of which Mann was a part of. Tongue in cheek but legitimately half serious, he implied he was partly responsible for the IPCC getting a Nobel. Big deal. — Perhaps you see being a “little bit loose” with the truth as no big deal. (I’m not surprised)

          Michale Mann has refused to release his raw data and refused to reveal the methods used to analyze that data in the creation of his “hockey stick”. Now that hockey stick (which has miserably failed to appear in any raw data) is being used as “settled science” to justify all manner of taxes and regulations.

          I’d like to know that the so-called “settled science” was justifiable, repeatable, and real before having my energy prices and taxes doubled by the politicians.

          It appears that if a PhD says something. You genuflect and believe.
          .

          The way you all on the right have made such a mountain out of a mole hill with this is emblematic of your entire approach to bashing climate scientist. — You can call it bashing climate science. You seem to feel “on the right” is a proper term for anyone who disagrees with you. I prefer “in the right” as the state of “climate science” is pretty much “in the wrong”. Poor methods and bad statistics and massively failed models and unjustified data adjustments to match the (failed) models are not considered “good science” outside of the CAGW industry. If that makes me a CAGW “basher”, then I’m happy to serve in that capacity.
          .

          The same tactics were used to discredit the effort to get lead out of gas, CFCs out of the the ozone, excessive pesticides out of the soils and waters, to stop acid rain and of course to reduce harm from tobacco. — And indeed the CAGW industry is following the playbook of tactics used to push those efforts.

          However, leaded gas is gone. No one is complaining about that.

          CFCs were never in the ozone layer. They’re to heavy a molecule. False crisis.

          Acid rain was a false crisis. The acid streams were from acidic groundwater. Lot of hyperbole about a non-problem discovered via incompetent researchers. (if they’d measured the pH of the local spring water they would have saved themselves that embarrassment)

          Tobacco use has been declining since the 1950s. And all the masses of government propaganda doesn’t seem to stop teens from picking-up the habit. And recent research into those lifetime smokers indicates that the human body easily detoxifies 4-5 cigarettes a day. Thus the secondhand smoke crisis was also a false premise and false crisis.

          And for all your vilification of “evil” tobacco, you are perfectly OK with the CAGW poster child, Michael Mann hiring a tobacco lawyer to represent him…. Have you considered posting under “Mata-Hypocrite” ??? I think it would be a better fit.

          Now the pesticide and weedkiller use is skyrocketing since the GMOs are failing so miserably. (Super weeds and super bugs) So how’d that work out for ya? Looks like a fail to me.

        • Shazaam says:

          Firstly, I’d like Toto to delete the comment held in “moderation”. Perhaps that was for the best (too long? Or did I mess-up the wordpress login?)

          Next. @Mata-hypocrite.

          In my not so humble opinion, the very fact that Michael Mann (the not-a-Nobel laureate despite his published claims), apparently isn’t man enough (pun intended) to present his data and analysis methods to the world to substantiate his conclusions. And instead, Michael Mann has chosen to attack his critics with some very high priced big tobacco lawyers. His actions tell me all I need to know about the veracity of Michael Mann’s work.

          I do hope Michael Mann’s raw and adjusted data and methods are revealed in the trial. Given some of the less-than-factual information submitted to the courts by high-priced-tobacco-team-Mann, he will be starting that trial on the back-foot.

          Reading through some of the case briefs I am hoping that Michael Mann, as the CAGW poster child, will be the one to drive the wooden stake into the heart of CAGW though this game of “sue anyone who disagrees”.

          Climate-gate started the wheels of doubt into motion. It would be true poetic justice if it’s Michael Mann’s legal antics that kill CAGW.

        • matayaya says:

          Shazaam, your intellectual integrity is pathetic. Relax your monkey brain and do some unbiased reading. Leave your opinions at the door and learn something new.

        • kim2ooo says:

          matayaya says:

          August 17, 2014 at 5:16 pm

          Shazaam, your intellectual integrity is pathetic.

          Geeessseses Peeeesseses matayaya you learned some big words. You might outa break it down for us common folks.

          Relax your monkey brain and do some unbiased reading.

          Would that ‘unbiased reading’ be the “adjusted data sets”?

          Leave your opinions at the door and learn something new.

          Ha ha ha ha!

        • philjourdan says:

          A monkey brain would be a step up to him because he does not leave his opinions at the door – just his brain.

        • Shazaam says:

          @kim2000 – Matayayayaya has nothing. Thus the mindless blather.

          Under the department of amazing coincidences , have you noticed that right after Matayayayaya posts it’s little steamers here and there, that Pesce9991 miraculously appears. And it’s the same style and verbiage of tripe from that one….

          You just can’t fix stupid.

        • kim2ooo says:

          “you can’t fix stupid”

          For where stupidity is involved, they are quite the experts – 🙂

      • rah says:

        Ah yes, everybody knows that Madison and Hamilton were required by the British to buy health insurance under penalty of law. They willingly paid all the various taxes levied upon them without protest. That the Boston mob still gathers at the liberty tree, hangs the effigies of those they deem to be their oppressors and roams the streets of that city today raiding the homes of those that would impose those taxes upon them. That the colonial governments attempted controls over the economy had nothing to do with the Revolution. Had no problem with the Church of England being the only approved state church in some colonies. And John Hancock never smuggled goods to avoid the taxes back then. That the Madison, and Hamilton, Jefferson, and the majority of the founders would approve of a central government which runs rough shod over the Constitutional protections and prerogatives of the states and didn’t really mean it when the Bill of Rights and the 10th amendment was ratified. Would think that the 2nd amendment has not been infringed because after all it wasn’t an individual right in the first place and there is no need for armed civilians when we have the standing Army that every knows they wanted and did not fear. Would approve of the Federal Reserve system. Would think the Federal government spying on the citizens is just fine and not repugnant to the 4th amendment. etc, etc, etc………..

        yea, right!

        • Gail Combs says:

          Do not forget the Obama Government considers all those men, Washington et al to be EXTREMISTS.

          Unfortunately I kid you not.

          From the 133 page FOIA document obtained from the Department of Defence entitled: AFSS 0910 EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AND TREATMENT INCIDENTS (EOTI) LESSON PLAN

          The whole document was obtained by Judicial Watch.
          http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-defense-department-teaching-documents-suggest-mainstream-conservative-views-extremist/

          LESSON EMPHASIS
          This lesson will focus on awareness and current issues requiring the attention of future Equal Opportunity Advisors. It will also provide information that describes sources of extremism information, definitions, recruitment of DoD personnel, common themes in extremist ideologies, common characteristics of extremist organizations, DoD policies, and command functions regarding extremist activities. ……

          D. Extremist Ideologies
          1. Introduction
          • As noted, an ideology is a set of political beliefs about the nature of people and society. People who are committed to an ideology seek not only to persuade but to recruit others to their belief. In U.S. history, there are many examples of extremist ideologies and movements. The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule and the Confederate states who sought to secede from the Northern states are just two examples.

          2. Ideologies
          a. Nationalism – The policy of asserting that the interests of one’s own nation are separate from the interests of other nations or the common interest of all nations. Many nationalist groups take it a step further and believe that their national culture and interests are superior to any other national group. [So now a love of one’s country -patriotism – is seen as extremist and undesirable by the Military? WTF!]

          b. Supremacy – The belief that one’s race or ethnicity is superior to all others and should dominate society. Supremacy, as with racial supremacies in general, has frequently resulted in anti-Black and anti-Semitic violence.

          c. Separatism – Setting oneself or others apart based on culture, ethnicity, race, or religion.

          e. Religion – Extremist ideology based on intolerance toward other religions. Anti- Semitism is a prime example of this ideology…. [Note they do not mention the other religion]

        • matayaya says:

          rah, however, when all was said and done, we ended up with a federalist and state’s rights system designed to jockey against each other, just as the founders intended. Your hyper partisan perspective can’t see it, but that is exactly what we have today. The extreme rhetoric of right and has driven the rhetoric of the left to sound extreme. I am optimistic the center will hold.

        • philjourdan says:

          That is what they founded. That is not what we have today. Double jeopardy? Yep, when the feds do not like it. Right to opt out of federal programs? now when the feds do not like it.

        • rah says:

          No the continued march of Federal power over the state and the people is far beyond anything the founders could have accepted. There is nothing “partisan” about it. It’s history. All the judicial activism and attempted revision of history to justify and promote it cannot change the history, the words of the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, or the letters and broadsides from the founders. The country we have now is nothing like what the founders envisioned. Granted in some cases the changes made were a legitimate reaction to a changing world and technology. But what I am arguing is that the basic principles upon which this country was founded, what was fought and won, have been infringed upon in a gross manner over time far beyond what is justified or necessary to the point now where only a shadow of the power the founders intended be retained by the states and the people remains.

          For example. It takes a special kind of stupid to believe that the meaning of the phrase “the right of the people” changes depending upon which amendment of the Bill of Rights it appears in.

  32. kim2ooo says:

    7000 currently practicing climate scientist world wide

    matayaya, could you please define climate scientist, for me.

    • Shazaam says:

      Gee, has Mata has tucked tail and gone off to hide at troll central?

    • matayaya says:

      kim 2000, A climate scientist is someone currently active in doing research in one of the many branches related to climate science that produces research papers that are submitted for peer review. They add to the massive body of climate science inch by inch. Their research is discussed, debated, revised, added to, and generally improved thru the peer reviewed process that includes any other active researching climate scientist.

      • kim2ooo says:

        matayaya says:

        August 16, 2014 at 4:04 pm

        Funny – That!
        You’ve just described pseudoscience… or in short – a ‘publicist’.

        Albeit, it is important to be published – and peer reviewed… those come after the search for observational empirical evidence or truth.

        When one has to manipulate the observational empirical evidence , to fit an un-working hypothesis…. they deviate from the search of truth.

        Can you name an unaltered data set – that fits their hypothesis?

        BUY this rule of thumb / criteria : I don’t think there are 7000 working “climate scientists’ – stop kidding yourself and BS’ing us. 🙂

      • philjourdan says:

        Proof please.

        What we do know is that the people YOU call climate scientists use threats, intimidation, coercion, innuendos, ad hominems and insults to PREVENT research on the subject that they do not like.

        And the proof is in the Emails. So that makes your statement an opinion (opinion is NOT science) and my statement a fact.

      • David A says:

        BS, the vast majority of climate alarmist studies have nothing to do with causation. They are attrition studies stating “hey we found a drought here, and some wildlife died, and plants grew poorly, and the models say this will increase in the future and cost the world trillions Thank you very much and give me some more money to go study a flood over there.”

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