More Mind-Blowing Fraud From The Guardian

Every day, The Guardian pushes fraud to spectacular new levels. Today they claim that warming oceans are melting Greenland “fast”

ScreenHunter_10062 Aug. 09 15.08

OMG… Greenland’s ice sheets are melting fast | Environment | The Guardian 

In fact, Greenland’s surface has gained 300 billion tons of ice this year.

ScreenHunter_10061 Aug. 09 15.06

Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Mass Budget: DMI

Eighty-five percent of the ice sheet has gained mass this year.

ScreenHunter_10066 Aug. 09 15.18

Sea surface temperatures in the North Atlantic are about the same as they were in 1870.

ScreenHunter_10063 Aug. 09 15.14

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

Temperatures in the interior of Greenland have gotten nowhere near the melting point this summer.

ScreenHunter_10064 Aug. 09 15.15


Scientists on the Greenland ice sheet are getting buried under the ice.

ScreenHunter_10065 Aug. 09 15.17


Every single claim made by the Guardian is patently false. It is difficult debating criminals who lie, cheat and censor.


About stevengoddard

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

19 Responses to More Mind-Blowing Fraud From The Guardian

  1. And many of those graphs — such as the presentation of the portions of Greenland’s surface that are losing mass — are being accepted verbatim, even though experience shows that the teams involved tend to fudge the numbers where they can.

    You and I have caught them at this with regard to sea ice extent and so on, where they develop a “new model” of interpreting the data and “recalculate” recent presentations … which of course always make things look worse.

    An actual full-on audit of ice calculations would be very interesting indeed … and fought fiercely, of course.

    ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

  2. omanuel says:

    Another day, another falsehood from Big Brother!.

    We are only now awakening to the reality of Stalin’s emerging from the ruins of WWII in possession of Japan’s successful atomic bomb plant at Konan, Korea and the crew of an American B29 bomber that Stalin held for negotiations in Aug-Sept 1945 to unite nations and national academies of science into a giant, worldwide Orwellian Ministry of Consensus Science (UN)Truths on 24 Oct 1945.

    Now we know why George Orwell moved from London to the Scottish Isle of Jura in 1946 to start writing the futuristic novel, “Nineteen Eighty Four.”

    On 24 Oct 1945 frightened world leaders secretly agreed to unite nations (UN) and national academies of science (NAS) into a worldwide “Orwellian Ministry of Consensus Science (UN)Truths” to prevent public knowledge of the source of energy in cores of:

    1. Heavy atoms like Uranium
    2. Some planet like Jupiter
    3. Ordinary stars like the Sun
    4. Galaxies like the Milky Way
    5. The now expanding Cosmos

    But standing in Hiroshima’s ruins in August 1945, Kuroda had already realized that the same source of energy in the core of the Sun made our elements and sustains our lives:

    Thanks to Max Planck’s 1944 speech in Florence, Italy on the nature of matter, we now have assurance humanity will survive this seventy-year (1945-2015) effort to take totalitarian control of the world.

    This is our assurance Big Brother’s UN, EU, etc. are all going down !

  3. Andy DC says:

    It is sickening to read that drivel.

  4. AndyG55 says:

    Two questions for all, particularly the alarmista trolls…

    1. What SHOULD the average global temperature be, and why?

    2. What level of summer Arctic sea ice SHOULD there be, and why?

    • AndyG55 says:

      And an extra one…

      3. What SHOULD the level of atmospheric CO2, and why?

      • Gail Combs says:

        For the last, CO2 should be 1500 ppm to 2000 ppm.

        For temperatures ~ 2 to 3 C higher

        For Ice, little or none in the Arctic during the summer, the usual in the Antarctic.
        (The climate of about 5000 to 6000 years ago.)

        Do I really care if the seacoast cities full of Progressives were suddenly under 6 feet or more of water? — No, After all Obummer and his buddies want to destroy those cities anyway.

  5. It’s the Guardian’s style of journalism,
    (There’s any oxymoron in there),
    Heaping on the lies,
    Stoking up the fear!

  6. Chris Barron says:

    While it is incorrect, technically it isn’t fraud. Calling it a fraud is to also take part in the delivery of misinformation with the purpose of raising a strong emotional reaction.

    Fraud requires there to be deliberate and unlawful gain – how does the Guardian get gain out of this ?

    Escalating ‘An ordinary day at the newstands’ to ‘OH MY GOD ITS FRAUD’ when actually it’s just ordinary reporting tells me that there are still some people who have a warm glow inside them when they read their own favourite newspapers… sweet 😉

    • AndyG55 says:

      “how does the Guardian get gain out of this ?”

      the FEEEEEEEL Good !!

    • Fraud requires there to be deliberate and unlawful gain – how does the Guardian get gain out of this ?

      That’s not quite the right definition. Fraud is deliberate deception with the intent to achieve some gain or purpose, but the actual gain is not a required element. Fraud discovered before the gain occurs, for example, is still fraud.

      In the case of the Guardian, I expect that their staff involved in these stories would fall into a few categories:

      1. True believers who genuinely feel that any contrary fact or observation is a deception of some kind, and the stories the Guardian publishes are all true.

      2. True believers in the higher cause who realize that there are many false statements and gross exaggerations in their stories, but that the cause is so important that such statements can and should be overlooked.

      3. Cynics whose “cause” is to accomplish larger social/political purposes, ranging from depopulating the planet to simply securing themselves stronger positions. They know the score, but it doesn’t matter.

      4. “Go along” types, probably the majority, who fill the ranks and are just doing their jobs and don’t know or care much about the topic. These passive participants may be vaguely aware of problems, but are also aware that saying something about them would cost them their chance for advancement or their careers.

      The middle two, categories 2 and 3, really are committing fraud. Category 4 is guilty of negligence. But I do not know what proportion these categories hold in terms of media staff and journalists, or climate scientists for that matter. It does seem to me that most of the whistleblowers from the catastrophists come from category 4, though the occasional disillusioned Category 2 true believer always produces an uproar at defection.

      In short, there is good evidence that at least one key person in a decision-making capacity at the Guardian is in category 2 or 3, and thus the charge of fraud is fairly alleged. If it were false, you would see them go through an internal investigation to see whether or not they need to address it (for this charge has been alleged on this topic quite credibly for years). Instead, they close ranks, circle the wagons, and keep sending out their blatantly misleading missives.

      Tony Heller’s accusation is inflammatory, but not unfair in my opinion.

      ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

    • Gail Combs says:

      “…Fraud requires there to be deliberate and unlawful gain – how does the Guardian get gain out of this ?…”

      The Guardian Media Group (GMG) is to sell all the fossil fuel assets in its investment fund of over £800m,… the core purpose of GMG’s investment funds: to generate long-term returns that guarantee the financial future and editorial independence of the Guardian in perpetuity,”

      The BBC and Guardian pension funds are also in oil and coal. Of course if you sell now ahead of the stampede and then convince others to sell off too you can buy back at very cheap prices. Those in the know used the same scam during the 1933 stock market crash and made mega-boodles.

  7. Climatism says:

    Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    “Every single claim made by the Guardian is patently false. It is difficult debating criminals who lie, cheat and censor.”

    But in the age of eco-worship and “saving the planet”, no lie or alarmist distortion of reality is too much, rather, welcomed by the eco-brainwashed – high on ideology and religious zeal.

    Climate Change, Global Warming, Climate disruption or whatever name they come up with next to suit the current ‘climate’, was and never will be about science, discovery or the truth.

    Scary times we live in. Really.

  8. hskiprob says:

    Just my opinion but the Guardian and NY Times are perhaps the worst newspapers on the entire planet. Perhaps they’re worse newspapers in some of the more authoritarian counties, but one might not be able to back that up with evidence. A truthful authoritarian is better than a lying fascist. I use to say in the old cold war days, that the Soviets at least knew their system was corrupt. Here we do to, but most still pretend it’s working. Keep voting for the lesser of two evils.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Why do you think the MSM (‘right’ and ‘left’) is having such conniption fits over Donald Trump? TPTB managed to scare Ron Paul into getting out of the race. They smeared Caine until he gave up. However Trump is a bit more than they are used to handling.

      • hskiprob says:

        Fact 1: Much of the main stream media and the banksters that monetarily control it, are predominately Jewish and I don’t specifically know their true rationale. So Guess 1: They probably don’t really care, but find Trump entertaining. 3. The idea that they can manipulate and gain a plurality consensus using the main stream media must be both entertaining and satisfying to them.

  9. Perhaps we ought to rename them, “The FRAUDIAN”?

  10. Roy Hartwell says:

    Interesting that last night the BBC reported on the unprecedented levels of snow still on the Scottish Mountains. They filmed in Glen Coe where someone was sking on a sizeable stretch of good solid snow. No mention of ‘global warming’ (dare they ?) though the jet stream was mentioned as a causitive agent.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s