The Overwhelming Case For Climate Racketeering By Government Agencies

Jimmy Carter’s leading expert on glaciers knew that the “collapse” of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet “has nothing to do with climate”  

2015-11-10-04-46-54

23 Jan 1977, Page 13 – at Newspapers.com

Now the White House claims that US greenhouse gas reductions are needed to stop this from occurring.

In 1971, the government’s two leading atmospheric experts knew that CO2 was not a threat to the climate.

2015-11-07-12-30-092015-11-08-05-03-14

vademecum.brandenberger.eu/pdf/klima/rasool_schneider_1971.pdf

The lack of warming was a political problem, so NASA altered the data.

2015-11-09-02-27-39

2001 version: Fig.A.ps
2015 version: Fig.A.gif

Earlier this year, the “hiatus” was a huge problem, so NOAA erased it.

NOAA-Jan-Sep-2015

January : Global Temperature | NOAA Climate.gov
September : Climate at a Glance (NCEI)

In 1999, the leading expert on global warming knew that the US was cooling during “the time of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases

2015-11-10-05-23-57

Science Briefs
Whither U.S. Climate?
By James Hansen, Reto Ruedy, Jay Glascoe and Makiko Sato — August 1999

What’s happening to our climate? Was the heat wave and drought in the Eastern United States in 1999 a sign of global warming?

Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat and drought.

Yet in the U.S. there has been little temperature change in the past 50 years, the time of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases — in fact, there was a slight cooling throughout much of the country (Figure 2).

2015-11-10-05-22-57

NASA GISS: Science Briefs: Whither U.S. Climate?

This cooling was a political problem for them, so they erased it.

NASA1999-2015USTampering

In 1982 and 1983, NASA’s leading experts knew that sea level was rising very slowly

ScreenHunter_2132 May. 31 12.25

2015-11-02-09-32-01   

pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1982/1982_Gornitz_etal_1.pdf

ScreenHunter_3121 Sep. 21 08.53 

pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1983/1983_Hansen_etal_2.pdf

Again, they responded to this by dramatically altering the data.

2015-11-02-10-22-17

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Sea Level

And even now, the EPA knows that White House claims about heat waves getting worse are false.

2015-11-10-05-38-54

High and Low Temperatures | Climate Change | US EPA

Over the past seven years, we have been bombarded with endless dishonest claims from government agencies – which they have known are not true since the 1970’s. There needs to be a RICO investigation into climate racketeering by the White House and government agencies who work for the White House. The evidence for racketeering is overwhelming.

About stevengoddard

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

18 Responses to The Overwhelming Case For Climate Racketeering By Government Agencies

  1. Steve Case says:

    This chart

    shows the changes made so far this year. It’s interesting because there are up or down adjustments made for nearly every single year since 1880, but all the down adjustments were made prior to 1975. How do things like that happen?

  2. gator69 says:

    You forgot about this.

    According to the NOAA State of the Climate 2008 report, climate computer model simulations show that if observations find that the globe has not warmed for periods of 15 years or more, the climate models predicting man-made warming from CO2 will be falsified at a confidence level of 95%:

    “Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”

    http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf

    Page 24, Middle column

    According to Phil Jones, there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995 [16 years, 3 months ago]. Ergo, the climate models have already been falsified at the 95% confidence level and it’s time to revert to the null hypothesis that man made CO2 is not causing global warming.

    He further admitted that in the last 15 years there had been no ‘statistically significant’ warming, although he argued this was a blip rather than the long-term trend.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

    We are now past 18 years and counting. No wonder the team falsified temp data in an attempt to erase the pause.

    • darrylb says:

      Gator, you are soo wrong. It was 17 years, not 15 years 🙂
      Just having a little fun.
      Either way, it is not a popular item among the AGW crowd.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Depends….
      1. Prof. Phil Jones saying in the Climategate emails – “Bottom line: the “no upward trend” has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.” Also see: interview with Judith Curry and Phil Jones

      2. Ben Santer in a 2011 paper “Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature.” link

      3. The NOAA falsification criterion is on page S23 of its 2008 report titled The State Of The Climate

      ENSO-adjusted warming in the three surface temperature datasets over the last 2–25 yr continually lies within the 90% range of all similar-length ENSO-adjusted temperature changes in these simulations (Fig. 2.8b). Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, [Maybe THAT is the 95% the IPCC is now talking about.] suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.

      4. we are looking at no changes in temperature over a period longer than the 10 years that James Hansen once said would show the models wrong;

      So the falsification criteria is 15 years to 17 years. That is why we start at the present and count backwards. Once we hit 17 years The Goose is Cooked. Unfortunately the Goose seems to be a zombie and keeps rising from the dead.

      Anyone have silver bullets, garlic and a wooden stake?

      H/T to Richard S Courtney who I stole this from.

  3. gofer says:

    “Part of the solution to this problem or this set of problems associated with climate change is getting the deniers out of our discourse. You know, we can’t have these people — they’re absolutely toxic.” —Bill Nye the Science Lie

    • Billy Liar says:

      Bill Nye – The Anti-Science Guy

    • OK, guys, it’s time for a classic rerun:

      Bill Nye the Science Guy: “The main thing is, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change got a Nobel Prize! They got a scientific prize for making a discovery! They didn’t get a minor award. This is a big deal! They discovered climate change, through all kinds of evidence!”

      • AndyG55 says:

        Poor Bill, his end is Nye (mentally)

        Doesn’t know the difference between the politically motivated “Peace” prize,

        and a Nobel Science award.

  4. Ed19 says:

    My wife believes “the experts” she sees on TV (CNN, ABC News, PBS…). Her reply to news like the one in Steven’s post today would be along the lines of, “well, the science has improved a lot since 1971 or ’77 and so they’ve reached a different conclusion now.”

    How would you suggest I answer that type of argument, without risking a divorce?😉

    • Let’s not talk about divorce right away but before we get into any scientific details:

      Can you cook?
      Do you have young children?
      Is there a decent couch somewhere in the house?
      Can you get into the garage if the house locks get changed?
      Is your car in your name? Do you have a change of clothes in the trunk?

  5. Ed19 says:

    My wife believes “the experts” she sees on TV (CNN, ABC News, PBS…). Her response to news such as Steven posted here would run along the lines of, “Well, no doubt they’ve improved the science since 1971 or ’77 and so that’s they they’ve reached a different conclusion now.”

    How would you suggest I deal with that kind of argument — without risking a divorce? 😉

  6. Ed19 says:

    My wife believes “the experts” (CNN, ABC News, PBS…) and so her reply to news such as Steven posted here would run along the lines of, “Well, the science has improved a lot since 1971 or ’77 and so they’ve reached different conclusions now.”

    How would you suggest I respond to that kind of argument — without risking divorce? 😉

    • Gail Combs says:

      Well you could introduce her to the newest science from three top of the line scientists.

      For models: http://sciencespeak.com/climate-basic.html
      The papers are written and in the publication process. The blog posts walk the non-Phd mathematician through the new model. Also the blog lets Dr Evans model get a though vetting by a sometimes hostile group of scientists, engineers and mathematicians. This is the second iteration with changes based on the blog feed back on the first.

      Who is Dr Evans?

      Dr. David Evans is an electrical engineer and mathematician, who earned six university degrees in mathematics and electrical engineering over ten years, including a PhD from Stanford University in electrical engineering (digital signal processing): PhD. (E.E), M.S. (E.E.), M.S. (Stats) from Stanford University, B.E. (Hons, University Medal), M.A. (Applied Math), B.Sc. from the University of Sydney. He is an expert in Fourier analysis and signal processing, and trained with Professor Ronald Bracewell late of Stanford University…..
      Notably, David consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005, and part-time for the Department of Climate Change from 2008 to 2010, and was the lead modeler in developing FullCAM, the world-leading carbon accounting model that Australia uses for analyzing the carbon in Australia’s biosphere for the Kyoto Protocol.
      http://sciencespeak.com/about.html

      The second set of scientists who have made a recent breakthrough are Dr Happer (physicist Princeton University who won the Thomas Edison patent award and many others) and Dr. Freeman Dyson ( physicist and mathematician who won the Max Planck Medal and many other honors.)

      Dr Happer makes the presentations but he is writing the paper with Dr Dyson. (Should be in publication by now)

      audio and slides of the physics lecture
      http://www.sealevel.info/Happer_UNC_2014-09-08/

      SLIDES:
      http://www.sealevel.info/Happer_UNC_2014-09-08/UNC-9-8-2014.pptx
      Slides 16, 22, 42, 43 and 44 are the critical slides.

      A less-technical lecture for the lay person:
      [video src="http://jlf.streamhammer.com/speakers/williamhapper090814.mp4" /]

  7. Ed19 says:

    Sorry about the multiple posts! This was my first time posting here, and posts evidently don’t show up immediately.

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