1907 : It Is Up To Bloggers To Call Out Climate Criminals Like NASA And NOAA

Climate data fraud, like that being done by NASA and NOAA, is not a new problem. It is up to the “Independent Press” to defend the truth.

it is the misuse of meteorological data …. that constitutes a crime against the community



About stevengoddard

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

43 Responses to 1907 : It Is Up To Bloggers To Call Out Climate Criminals Like NASA And NOAA

  1. trotter387 says:

    Hi I have read this blog with interest for the last few months now I need to ask you if it is the science you think is flawed or the rhetoric?

    In the EU Climate Change governs most the environmental programs and public spending has to drive down the negative environmental impact – it is one of the reasons the USA is finding exporting goods difficult because they pay little attention to this point.

    I saw this as a string of facts that were excellently exploited to create an economic advantage for the emerging economies and to prevent then catching up too quickly

    But the science is weak just as it is for so many things.

    • It is blatant scam, being perpetrated by corrupt scientists, journalists and government officials.

      • rah says:

        And as with most such scams perpetrated by a government it has the objective of gaining more control over the economy by the government and thus enhancing the ability of the politicians to pick the pockets of the citizenry. In shot it is about control and thus MONEY!

      • trotter387 says:

        It always smacks of the “emperors new clothes” no one having the courage just to say we don’t know but we should be thinking more of the planet before the next jump forward. Don’t give them too much credit for thinking they just don’t want egg on their collective faces.

      • omanuel says:

        Yes, blatant scam committed by NASA and NOAA scientists in order to get the US National Academy of Sciences to approve budget requests for even more federal funds next year.

        These crimes will continue until the seriously flawed system is fixed: A PRIVATE, SELF-PERPETUATING GROUP OF SCIENTISTS – THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES -REVIEWS BUDGETS AND SETS RESEARCH PRIORITIES FOR FEDERAL RESEARCH PROJECTS FOR CONGRESS, without checks and balances to keep federal research funds from being used to promote the selfish ends of NAS scientists.

    • Jason Calley says:

      Hey trotter! “I need to ask you if it is the science you think is flawed or the rhetoric?”

      Of course I cannot speak for all sceptics, but I am probably a common example. The important thing is that the science is flawed. As Tony says, “It is a blatant scam!”, but that judgement of “scam” is only possible after the science has been closely examined and the primary actors have been shown their error. When I first started looking in to Global Warming, my default assumption was that the scientists I read about in the news were probably correct. I had not studied the subject, but they had, and I had no reason to disbelieve them. The more I read, the more I came to the conclusion that the science was bad. I still thought that the scientists were honest; I just thought that they were wrong. I thought that as more and more of the scientists were shown their errors, their opinions would shift. Instead, they became even more dogmatic. There is a saying going around recently; “When an honest man is wrong and is given the facts that prove he is wrong, at that time he either ceases to be wrong or he stops being honest.”

      The most important thing is that the science is bad. The data has been inexplicably altered. Historical precedents of supposedly unique events are ignored. Linear trends are extrapolated from parts of known cyclic processes. Error bars are wrongly (or not at all) represented. Basic rules of logic are broken. Worst of all, failed predictions are ignored or denied.

      Everyone knows that you cannot reliably draw a trend from only a handful of points. Similarly, you cannot differentiate between mere honest error and fraud from only a small number of points — but the “climatologists” now have a decades long track record of spreading bad science, even when they shown their error. Their consistence in pushing known bad science over and over and over can lead me to only one conclusion. They are frauds.

      • Frank K. says:

        I think that the majority of the scientists in the field of climatology don’t feel they are being dishonest. They develop a model of some phenomena (e.g. ENSO, AMO, …), calculate some solutions, and report what they find in some esoteric meteorological journal. The problem is that they extrapolate the results of a specific model study to some grand conclusion, for example “…these results confirm that the gulf stream will eventually disappear in part from the effects of global warming.” They may in fact be totally wrong (and probably are) in this conclusion, but as long as the model and all of its inherent assumptions are made known, they can have a clear conscience about their work. The same is true for scientists who collect data and then massage it to reach a predetermined conclusion. As long as the “massaging” procedure/algorithm is published somewhere, they can feel good about themselves. So what that their conclusions don’t match reality? (This is why NASA publishes the GISS global temperature series with a clear conscience).

        And make no mistake, for those in academia, life can be very difficult if you don’t have tenure. Most scientists have to justify their existence at a college or university, and it used to be that teaching was the central focus and research secondary. Today, if you don’t have at least 50 journal publications to your name before you’re up for tenure, you can start looking for another job! Hence, there is no motivation to go against the consensus thinking for your academic discipline. This is the reason, I believe, that there cannot be an honest look at the facts about climate change, and why publication in “peer-reviewed” journals is so flawed.

    • wizzum says:

      Well that has to be bullshit. How do the chinese or indians ever export a single thing to the EU if the effects on the environment are a major deciding factor?

      • Gail Combs says:

        Dr. Happer: Slide 22: Lorentzian line shape nor Voigt line shapes are correct in the far wings!

        This was the point of the lecture. Why was the theory wrong?

        Since the experimental data shows less broadening this flattens the log curve and essentially lowers the ‘Climate Sensitivity’ of CO2 for a doubling to 800 ppm to less than 1C===> 0C

        So this curve gets even closer to zero at 400 ppm and further to the right.

        And the right side of this curve gets squashed flat.

        David Burton put up an audio video and slides of Dr Happer’s presentation at this. link

        SLIDES: link
        Slides 16, 22, 42, 43 and 44 are the critical slides.

        You can get useful background for the physics in these comments from WIKI .
        Mössbauer effect (recoil energy lost during absorption <===CRITICAL)

        The Pound–Rebka experiment (VERY IMPORTANT because gases are moving randomly and in random directions)

        …The test is based on the following principle: When an atom transits from an excited state to a base state, it emits a photon with a specific frequency and energy. When an atom of the same species in its base state encounters a photon with that same frequency and energy, it will absorb that photon and transit to the excited state. If the photon’s frequency and energy is different by even a little, the atom cannot absorb it (this is the basis of quantum theory). When the photon travels through a gravitational field, its frequency and therefore its energy will change due to the gravitational redshift. As a result, the receiving atom cannot absorb it. But if the emitting atom moves with just the right speed relative to the receiving atom the resulting doppler shift cancels out the gravitational shift and the receiving atom can absorb the photon….

        Motional narrowing

        Voigt effect

    • Gail Combs says:

      The Science is weak: not only O3 but CO2 radiates in the stratosphere per Dr. Happer backed up by Dr Brown (both Physicists)
      See my old comments: Dr Robert Brown and Gallopingcamel (also a physicist) and Dr. Happer The take home from all three is the fact that in the troposphere CO2 works just like convection except it heats up the surrounding gases via collision.

      Absorption wings:

      Paraphrasing Dr. Brown.
      What is the absorption cross-section for a 15 micron photon?
      That’s the effective surface area intercepted by each CO_2 molecule. It is large enough that the mean free path of LWIR photons in the pressure-broadened absorption bands of CO_2 in the lower atmosphere is in the order of a meter. That means that LWIR photons — whatever their “size” — with frequencies in the band go no more than a meter or few before they are absorbed by a CO_2 molecule.

      When CO2 near the earth’s surface absorbs back radiation, the lifetime of the excited state caused by the absorption of the photon is much longer than the mean free time between molecular collisions between the CO_2 molecule and other molecules in the surrounding gas. That means that the radiative energy absorbed by the molecule is almost never resonantly re-emitted, it is transferred to the surrounding gas, warming not just the CO_2 but the oxygen, nitrogen, water vapor, argon as well as the other CO_2 molecules around.

      In other words near the surface back radiation, aka a ‘resonantly re-emitted’ photon is a RARE EVENT.

      Dr Happer in his lecture agreed and further stated that the time to radiate is about ten times slower than the time to the next collision in the troposphere. Dr Happer in his lecture also answered my question about where CO2 energy is radiated instead of being handed off via collision. Experimental data shows barely any radiation at 11 KM and that radiating is in the stratosphere ~ 47 KM above the surface.

      The take away from his UNC lecture (9/2014) was the CO2 ‘modeling’ is a mish-mash of theoretical equations and experimentally derived data. Where the Climate alarmists missed the boat is in using equations for ‘line broadening’ aka the ‘wings’ where the additional CO2 absorption ( at 400 ppm) is supposedly taking place. These equations produce results that do not match up to the experimental data. The lines are not as broad as theory would have it. This means you take the exponential curve Steve showed a few days ago (CO2 Greenhouse Effect Is Very Small) and squash it even flatter at 400 ppm and above. This means the CO2 sensitivity is much smaller than calculated by the IPCC.

      Dr Happer’s information is illustrated by this image the Warmists use to say ozone is a greenhouse gas. The Figure is from Uherek, 2006. They even say it “show how carbon dioxide is cooling the stratosphere.” The black dotted line is the tropopause and you can see water is dumping energy just under the tropopause (the pink splotches surrounded by dark blue) while CO2 is dumping energy from just above the tropopause and up (the big yellow streak on the left) just as Dr. Happer, Dr Brown and the Camel stated. Ozone is the smaller yellow streak on the right.

      The legend with the illustration:

      Figure 2.15: Stratospheric cooling rates: The picture shows how water, carbon dioxide and ozone contribute to longwave cooling in the stratosphere. Colors from blue through red, yellow and to green show increasing cooling, grey areas show warming of the stratosphere. The tropopause is shown as dotted line (the troposphere below and the stratosphere above). For CO2 it is obvious that there is no cooling in the troposphere, but a strong cooling effect in the stratosphere. Ozone, on the other hand, cools the upper stratosphere but warms the lower stratosphere. (ibid)

      What is NOT mentions is the stratosphere is where CO2 is active and NOT in the troposphere at least not below 11 KM where it barely starts radiating.

    • Gail Combs says:

      The second point is CO2 all by its lonesome just doesn’t have the power to be ‘catastrophic’ So the Climastrologists dragged water in as a FEEDBACK instead of as a major factor in its own right.

      As shown above CO2 emits IR photons 47 kilometers up in the stratosphere. Therefore any IR photons has to make it past all that water and CO2 in the troposphere without re-absorption before it ever gets close to the ground.

      Second the oceans are 70% of the earth and IR photons in the CO2 waveband are a very minor bit player compared to the sun.

      Here is the water feedback nonsense straight from NASA (2008):

      ….Everyone agrees that if you add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, then warming will result,” Dessler said. “So the real question is, how much warming?”

      The answer can be found by estimating the magnitude of water vapor feedback. Increasing water vapor leads to warmer temperatures, which causes more water vapor to be absorbed into the air. Warming and water absorption increase in a spiraling cycle…. [Is this NASA or National Enquirer?]

      “The difference in an atmosphere with a strong water vapor feedback and one with a weak feedback is enormous,”

      Given the chart above, the solar energy plus “a strong water vapor feedback… increas[ing] in a spiraling cycle…” should have vaporized the oceans. I mean really how idiotic.

      Feb 2014: New paper finds negative-feedback cooling from water vapor could almost completely offset warming from CO2

      In the last 15 years the humidity has declined.

      Much more here:

  2. omanuel says:

    Thank you, Steven aka Tony Heller, for candidly addressing a problem that threatens the very survival of humanity.

    The basic problem is FEAR OF REALITY:

    The best available and most precise scientific measurements and observations indicate the Sun’s pulsar core is the Creator & Sustainer of every atom, life and planet in the Solar System:

    Click to access Solar_Energy.pdf

    The 1776 Declaration of Independence says we humans are each “endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights to enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

    There is no role for religious and political tyrants to play in the big scheme of things, except to be servants of the people to ensure they receive their God-given rights.

    That is why arrogant religious and political leaders tried to hide the truth from the public for the past ~500 years, since Copernicus reported in 1543 the Sun controls the Earth and other planets in the solar system.

  3. cfgjd says:

    Where are the peer-reviewed publications on the matter? Venting on blogs does not change the science.

  4. omanuel says:

    “Why doesn’t the mafia police itself?”

    1. Decendents of the private, self-perpetuating group of once-distinguished scholars that President Linclon appointed to the National Academy of Sciences in 1863, . . .

    Continues to this day, reviewing the budgets of federal research agencies for Congress and directing their research programs, . . .

    With little or no protection against selfish abuse for personal profit or profit for former students, fellow NAS members, or cherished opinions.

    2. According to Dr. Marvin Herndon, the anonymous review of research proposals and research papers began when the National Science Foundation was established. This flawed system spred to all federal research agencies and most mainstream research journals.

  5. wayne says:

    Stick that old 1907 article scan as a permanent top item post, very appropriate and sure defines to boot what you are even doing here every day.

  6. transrp says:

    I was not going to post any more because — well It is like trying to have a conversation with an ignorant 5th grader about upper division physics, and their only response is to scream, yell and call names. But I came across this: http://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/documents/1982%20Exxon%20Primer%20on%20CO2%20Greenhouse%20Effect.pdf

    which is a link from

    I am terribly curious as to what combination of humpty dumpty speak and double think will be used to refute the rather obvious conclusion that Actual scientists at one of the largest fossil fuel extraction companies on the planet were using actual science to predict — what is happening now, and that when that became, shall we say, uncomfortable for corporate leaders, those leaders embarked on a campaign of denial and lying and obfuscation. Very much like the Tobacco Companies with regard to their disease causing product. And they stopped funding their own science research.

    This was a good plan because it made the company more profitable and less responsible for the damage that they caused. And they knew that they could make it work because almost all corporations operate on the accurate premise that the vast majority of people are stupid and can be sold fresh cow poop and made to believe that it is chocolate truffles. And they can buy off any “pro business” congressman that they wish to.

    I eagerly await responses

    • Gail Combs says:

      ” It is like trying to have a conversation with an ignorant 5th grader about upper division physics, and their only response is to scream, yell and call names.”

      What a great description of a conversation with an Climate Alarmist — Projection much?

  7. If you are so eager you had to break your abstinence, why did you hide your “discovery” at the bottom of a thread to a completely unrelated week-old post?

    • Gail Combs says:

      The pdf is from:

      Board of Directors
      Susan Kish Susan ….a senior executive with more than two decades of experience in financial servicesDirector of Knowledge Services at New Energy Finance, a subsidiary of Bloomberg. BNEF is the world’s independent provider of research in renewable energy, smart energy technologies, and the carbon markets…. most recently as Global Functional Head of Structured Finance and Private Banking, based in Zurich. Before moving to Europe in 1995, she held a variety of executive positions at UBS in New York, where she was responsible for their successful entry into several new financial markets and products…. graduated from Harvard University where she studied the History of Science, and lives with her family in Boston, USA.

      Michael Northrop directs the Sustainable Development grantmaking program at the Rockefeller Brothers Fund in New York City…..

      Rockefeller Brothers Fund
      Ford Foundation
      Grantham Foundation

      Independent? Not hardly, they have the same strings back to the Elite most NGOs do.

      To bad transrp can’t see he is a Bankster Slave.

  8. Ted says:


    If you’d like to have an intelligent conversation, I’d certainly like to join you in it. Perhaps you could help me to understand where I’m wrong.

    Gail, above, points out that the feedbacks are assumed to substantially outweigh the warming caused by CO2 on it’s own. My own research into the subject points to a general agreement on a 3:1 ratio. Each doubling of CO2 should cause 1 (C) degree of warming by itself, with feedbacks causing an additional 3 degrees. By all means, correct me if you disagree with those numbers, but they’re the ones I’ve seen most commonly listed. The biggest question I have with those feedbacks is, are they primarily caused directly by the CO2, or are they primarily caused by the increase in temperatures? I have not been able to find a mechanism for the former. As I could list several mechanisms for purely temperature driven feedbacks, and I’m sure you could as well, I work under the latter assumption. Would you agree with that assessment? Again, please correct me wherever you feel it’s appropriate.

    That leads me to my fundamental disagreement with current anthropogenic warming theories. If the afore mentioned feedbacks are primarily temperature driven, shouldn’t any temperature increase, for any cause, lead to a similar magnitude of warming feedback? The simple fact that we’re having this discussion proves that, to this point, the earth has never experienced unbounded, runaway warming. Unbounded is the key word there, because the glacial cycles do suggest at least the possibility of positive temperature feedbacks, potentially in both directions. But those cycles have a fairly consistent range, with apparently strong upper and lower boundaries. The previous interglacial is believed to have peaked at slightly warmer temperatures than we see today. (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/interglacial.html) If 75% of warming is caused by primarily temperature driven feedbacks, I don’t understand how the temperature could ever have rebounded. As it appears that CO2 was lower during the Eemian, CO2 would also have had more room to contribute to further warming.

    It appears to me that something entirely outside of our current understanding is limiting the range of possible temperatures. I understand that the Milankovitch are the presumptive cause of the glacial periodicity. But all sides agree that, by themselves, those cycles don’t provide anywhere near the necessary insolation to cause the magnitude of temperature changes between glacial and interglacial. Once again, under the current theories, feedbacks must dominate. But once again, we’re left with no known mechanism for the reversals.

    Above is the basis of my rejection of the current anthropogenic warming theory. I fully concede that the theory could be mostly right, and may well explain the vast majority of temperature variation over the past 3 million years. But something big is missing at the boundary conditions. By all accounts, we’re very close to the cyclical upper boundary. As I’m not aware of any theory explaining the existence of that boundary, I find it difficult to accept any projections that put us significantly above it.

    I generally left out cites, as I don’t believe most of my assertions are controversial. (the Eemian maximum temperature was the only claim I thought was debatable, which is why I added that cite) I welcome any factual refutations you’d like to make, and I’ll do my best to provide evidence for any claim you’d like to challenge. If you accept the above assertions, then the nature of our disagreement must be an error in logic. If you can show that it’s my logic that’s faulty, I’d be in your debt. I don’t want to be wrong any more than anyone else does.

    I look forward to future correspondence.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Steve has posted about the hot temperatures in the 1930s and 40s not only in the USA but Australia enough times. Look at the response of CO2

      Co2 is less soluble in warm water so the oceans outgassed. On all time scales CO2 LAGS temperature.

      Also no one has yet explained the ABRUPT 8 to 10C rise in temperature every ~1500 years called Dansgaard-Oeschger Events.

      • Ted says:

        There are definitely blips in the record that I, personally, haven’t seen any explanation for. But most of them come with a certain amount of controversy. I was trying to limit my objections to data that, as far as I know, aren’t the subject of any contention.

        But yes, I agree that we need far more research on stadials and interstadials. The deltas appear to get steeper with every increase in ice core resolution, and the magnitude dwarfs even the most catastrophic AGW projections.

        • transrp says:

          emails were getting put into a spam folder. Need to adjust it. But I just posted this elsewhere, and I can post it here
          I could not resist. You stupid ignorant morons!!! You want truth? You want science? Try this:

          Even the petro companies now conceed about the reality of AGW. the only people left on your side are the stupid conservatives, and their psychopathic political leaders plus a few scientists who can be bought off. And the Koch Brothers. But really, the pope is on the other side. The defense dept. The insurance companies. Every day you lose more supporters who give in to reality. The only purpose you serve is as a bad example,. and possible in a year or two, as the subject of some psychology papers on mental illness.

          One relevant excerpt:

          … As it turned out, of course, we got neither.

          For that we can thank congressional Republicans and their supporters, who continued to insist that climate change wasn’t real, wasn’t a problem, or wasn’t worth doing anything about. You see, unlike big oil companies, congressional Republicans aren’t required to understand science in order to do their jobs. And unlike big oil companies, their financial fortunes don’t necessarily depend on being right about the future. Bankrolled by Koch Industries, conservatives in Congress and the media have continued to oppose environmental regulations and downplay climate change even as companies like Coke and Nike are starting to feel its effects.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Another cut and paste drug fuelled rant from the trancer.

          You need some serious rehad, child-mind.

        • AndyG55 says:

          And as usual, not ONE SCRAP of science in your link, just another alarmista rant..

          Because its all they can do.

  9. Ted says:


    Are you still there? I was hoping we could have a polite discussion. Are you still interested?

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 )

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