More Spectacular Fraud From The White House

In their fully fraudulent “National Climate Assessment” The White House discusses fire from 1916 to 2003, and then gives a statistic from 1970 to 2003

Between 1970 and 2003, warmer and drier conditions increased burned area in western U.S. mid-elevation conifer forests by 650%


Southwest | National Climate Assessment

So why did they ignore the years before 1970? The reason is simple – those years completely wreck their climate change propaganda. Fire decreased by 90% from 1930 to 2003.


Indicator 3.16: Area and percent of forest affected by abiotic agents

The large amount of burned area in the 1930s was due to the record heat and drought.


High and Low Temperatures | Climate Change | US EPA

193407-pmdi (1)193407-pmdi.gif (649×502)

A fire started every three minutes in 1937. Eleven percent of the open forest burned.


October 9, 1938 – NYTimes

So who is responsible for this wildly fraudulent report? Katherine Hayhoe – of course.



About stevengoddard

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

71 Responses to More Spectacular Fraud From The White House

  1. eliza says:

    This is really complete fraud. Get this to newspapers and to L Smith.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Yes Complete fraud.

      Two explanations for drought.
      Changes in climate patterns: PDO/AMO

      (Red is drought)



      TRUE temperature change.

      Warmer = Holocene Optimum Africa
      Note the only desert is in the extreme southwest. The Sahara was grasslands

      Colder = Glacial Maximum

      NOW (Africa present-potential vegetation) = headed towards cooler not warmer

      Above maps compiled by Jonathan Adams, Environmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN

    • Gail Combs says:

      Something rather interesting in the potential vegetation maps. It looks like present conditions are a good match to Africa at around beginning of interglacial-type conditions – 12,500-12,000 14C ya This would be a few hundred years before Dr. Richard B. Alley say the dramatic change in the Greenland Ice Cores.

      …”‘You did not need to be a trained ice core observer to see this,’ recalled Alley. ‘Ken Taylor is sitting there with the ECM and he’s running along and his green line is going wee, wee, wee, wee – Boing! Weep! Woop! And then it stays down.‘ Dust in the windy ice age atmosphere lowered the acidity of the core to a completely new state. ‘We’re just standing there and he just draws a picture of it,”‘Alley said.”….
      … and then it was Alley’s turn at the ice. “It slides across in front of me and I’m trying to identify years: ‘That’s a year, that’s a year and that’s a year, and – woops, that one’s only half as thick.’ And it’s sitting there just looking at you. And there’s a huge change in the appearance of the ice, it goes from being clear to being not clear, having a lot of dust.”

      John D. Cox, writing in Climate Crash: Abrupt Climate Change and What it Means for our Future (John Henry Press, an imprint of the National Academies Press, ISBN: 0-309-54565-X, 224 pages, 2005)

      Wisconsin Ice Age just prior to the start of the Holocene.

      Sudden initial warming and moistening before 12,5000 years ago initiates forest expansion, and northward movement of desert boundary.

      Around 12,500 14C y.a. there appears to have been a rapid further increase in temperature and in moisture availability throughout most of Africa. In central and west Africa, the amount of rainforest pollen at various sites begins to increase, indicating that the forest was returning from its glacial refugia (Hamilton 1988, Hamilton & Taylor 1991). Similarly, lake levels and river activity increase, suggesting increased moisture in the present forest zone. For example, in Cameroon the formation of stone lines and hill wash deposits that had formed under semi-arid grassland conditions of the last glacial stops at about this time (in Thomas & Thorp 1992, citing Kadomura & Huri 1990). The River Niger and other rivers with west African catchments show a burst of fluvial activity about 12,700 14C y.a., possibly due to a similar-to-present climate with higher runoff due to the lack of the water absorbing and evapotranspirative capacities of dense vegetation cover (due to a lag in the time taken for forest vegetation to recolonize) (Thomas & Thorp 1996). A phase of massive redeposition of valley sediments occurred around 12,700-12,400 14C y.a. in the middle Birim River of Ghana, and the Bafi-Sewa headwaters of Sierra Leone (Thomas & Thorpe 1996)….

      A thousand years later just before the Younger Dryas – 11,000 14C ya (about 12,000 ‘real’ years ago).

      Pollen indicators from central Africa suggest that temperatures similar to the present had been reached by about 11,000 14C y.a. (Hamilton 1988). Forest cover remained incomplete, possibly due to the slow spread of tree populations in recolonizing savanna landscapes.
      …Climatic conditions may have been particulartly unstable during the general period between 12,000 and 11,000 14C y.a.; cores indicating monsoon strength off the coast of Somalia (Zonneveld et al. 1997) suggest large and rapid variations in monsoon strength that may well have given rise to intensly wet and arid phases in short succession across much of Africa. The instability culminated in the ‘Younger Dryas’ monsoon failiure discussed below.

      (There is that interglacial/glacial threshold instability I keep mentioning)

      Present-potential vegetation – Africa

    • Gail Combs says:

      And just to nail this idiot warm equals drought fraud but good:

      From Berkeley University of California

      The Holocene is the name given to the last 11,700 years* of the Earth’s history
      * Date from the International Commission on Stratigraphy’s International Stratigraphic Chart, 2009.

      Got that date little Gorebot?
      I will repeat it: 11,700 years before present is when the Holocene, this interglacial, this warm interval within an ice age, started.

      This is the Wisconsin Ice age. It was COLD and it was DRY

      Dry phases across the Northern Monsoon belt
      During the period between about 110,000 and 11,000 14C y.a., there was a great deal of variability in climate across the North African region, though conditions were generally drier and cooler than at present.

      The most intensely dry and cool phases across Northern Africa and Arabia are thought to correspond to cold, ice-rafting phases in the North Atlantic. Given the sparsity of the record from the continent, only a few of these ‘Heinrich events’ have been shown to correlate with dry phases across the Sahara-Arabia belt, though it is generally thought likely that all or most of them affected the region. Table 1 below shows some major Heinrich events that probably also resulted in particularly extensive aridity and cooler temperatures across the northern monsoon belt.

      Table 1 Timing of major Heinrich events during the last 130,000 years (ages in calender years after Bond et al., 1997 for H0- H3; after Bond et al., 1993 for H4- H6). These cold, dry phases in the North Atlantic probably each affected the northern monsoon belt too.

      YD or H0 12.2 ka (calendar age)

      H1 16.8

      H2 24.1

      H3 30.1

      H4 35.9

      H5 50.0

      H6 66.0

      YD: Younger Dryas

      H: Heinrich event

      Only the brain washed would expect a warm earth to be dry in the face of the thousands of years of data disclosed by quaternary science.

  2. eliza says:

    OT but related… Apparently this is what NOAA is hiding (my speculation only) from a comment at WP
    “The evidence is quite clear. Published bias adjustment guidelines state that you would apply one bias adjustment to the less certain data, in this case the ship log estimate. In no case is it recommended to adjust for bias in one data series, the ship log estimate, and then claim this induced a bias in the series that the ship log estimate was adjusted to, the buoy data.

    Adjusting both series up in a two series bias adjustment is not normal science, and the result here adds 0.06 C per decade warming from a statistical artifact induced by the method”

    • Gail Combs says:

      Elisa do you have the link? Google completely ignores anything I put in (No results found ) and then brings up nonsense.

      And yes I imagine that is the point they are trying to hide. The FRAUD is in the ‘adjustments’ and always has been as Tony and others have repeatedly shown.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Thanks Elisa
        So it was in one of the comments. The article itself was stomach turning.
        The comments by Dalyplanet are great.

  3. Martin Smith says:

    Steven, nobody removed or ignored anything. You have misrepresented the data. The graph as you show it is available at the USDA website. You, however, as usual, did not include the text that explains the graph. Here is that text. It shows you are wilfully misrepresenting the facts:

    “Fire is the most dominant abiotic agent in terms of area affected across the landscape, but is also an integral part of many forested ecosystems. Between 1945 and 2000, fire suppression substantially reduced annual acreage burned. Since 2000, an increase in area burned has occurred, although it has not yet reached the levels recorded between 1925 and 1960. Figure 16-1 summarizes acreage burned for all land cover types. Estimates of total affected area indicate a significant increase in fire damage in recent years, with the cumulative area affected for the 2003-to-2007 (40 million acres) period representing an increase of 1.5 times the area affected in the 1998-to-2002 period (25 million acres).

    “Forested lands accounted for 13.1 million acres of the burned area, equaling approximately 1.7 percent of all forest land. Although a significant increase in the extent of forest fires has occurred, concern over burn severity has prompted efforts to map the severity of large fires. Although complete data for the reference period is currently being developed, table 16-1 summarizes the total acreage burned for all forested lands for the current period.”

    Forest fire suppression began during that high burn rate period you claim they left out. Forest management then stabilised the burn rate at a very low level, until recently, when AGW has caused droughts that have increased the burn rate again.

    [SG: One can only assume that Martin is being paid to write this crap, because no human being could possibly be this stupid. It says right in the report “Climate outweighed other factors in determining burned area in the western U.S. from 1916 to 2003”]

    • Bob123 says:

      So it’s “misrepresentation” for Tony to omit their comments on the data, but the whitehouse omitting 30 + years of data is OK?

      Liberalism is a mental disorder.

      • Martin Smith says:

        You are missing the point, Bob. Do you understand the cause(s) of the high burn rate in the mid 1900s? Do you understand the cause of the low burn rate until recent years? Do you understand the cause of the recent increase in burn rate? It is that cause that is the problem, Bob. We solved the problem(s) that caused the high burn rate in the mid 1900s. We lowered the burn rate; we kept it down; we are still using those procedures to keep the burn rate down, but despite our best efforts, the burn rate is increasing. That problem is what the graph is meant to show. So yes, omitting 30+ years of data that has nothing to do with the problem is OK.

        [SG : The high burn rate in the 1930s was because it was incredibly hot and dry. Martin is a classic government funded fraudster]

        • Martin Smith says:

          Steven, the explanation for the extremely high burn rate during the 1930’s must include the fact that we didn’t have much in the way of forest management until after WWII, which the text you didn’t provide explains. That’s when we began forest fire suppression, which reduced the burn rate dramatically and kept it low until recently, when AGW increased drought and the burn rate, despite our continued effort at fire suppression. That’s why your claim of fraud is false.

          [SG : Martin appears to be illiterate. The White House report says “Climate outweighed other factors in determining burned area in the western U.S. from 1916 to 2003”]

        • catweazle666 says:

          “You are missing the point, Bob”

          Nobody could possibly miss your point Marty, because you don’t have one.

          In fact, you have never had one.

          As with all your posts, you are entirely pointless.

    • Martin Smith says:

      What you are calling crap is the text that accompanies the graph you selected. It explains what you deliberately did not explain about the graph. You chose not to include the explanation, because it shows why your claim of fraud is false.

      [SG : Martin appears to be illiterate. The White House report says “Climate outweighed other factors in determining burned area in the western U.S. from 1916 to 2003”]

      • David A says:

        MS, actually fires do not cause drought. The drought chars and the fire charts and not shown here but stream and river flow charts match fairly well, so you are bloviating nonsense. Also the upswing since the 1970s is caused by fire suppression, and more people living in and travelling through Forrest areas.

        • Martin Smith says:

          David, I can’t make sense of your comment. I don’t believe for a second that fires cause drought.

        • AndyG55 says:

          ” I can’t make sense of your comment”

          Yes.. most things are beyond you. You don’t need to tell us.

        • David A says:

          Marin, Tony H told you that climate was the largest factor in fire rates. Droughts were worse when fires were worse, Stream flow charts, and drought charts back this up. CO2 does not cause drought and several peer reviewed publications show no correlation.

          Gail and Tony have posted links showing that decades of suppression have led to worse fires in certain areas. Also people are the primary cause of many fires, and more people and houses cause fires. Many of the largest California fires are people caused, having zero to do with CO2.

        • Martin Smith says:

          David, please. Nobody has said or implied that CO2 cause forest fires. CO2 actually puts out fires. The effect of AGW on forest fires is that it causes increased dryness. The increased dryness makes forest fires more likely to get started and to be more difficult to put out once they are started. This should be obvious. Yes, unfortunately, our success at preventing forest fires has also meant increased dead vegetation in many areas, which means the increased dryness caused directly by AGW becomes even more dangerous. I hope you aren’t implying that we should end our management of our remaining forests and let nature have a free hand. I think the world will be a better place once we convert our economy to minimize the burning of fossil fuels.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “The effect of AGW on forest fires is that it causes increased dryness”

          Total and absolute garbage from the ignorant little Gore bot.

          Warming that hasn’t happened for 18 years cannot cause anything.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “I think the world will be a better place once we convert our economy to minimize the burning of fossil fuels.”

          OMG… our whole society was built using fossil fuels.

          Let’s face it, as an anti-CO2 scam , AGW has FAILED MONUMENTALLY.

          Germany just opens another coal fired power plant..

          China , India and many other countries just starting to expand their economic base.

          The world emissions of CO2 will continue to climb steadily, probably even accelerate, over the next several decades.

          The tiny amounts that have, maybe, been replaced by pointless so-called renewable energy, will also come back once subsidies are removed.

          The real beauty is that there is absolutely nothing the AGW scammers can do about this continued rise of CO2 emissions.🙂

          The world is safe in that regard for a long time to come.🙂

          Plenty of CO2 for all the world’s plant life.🙂

        • David A says:

          Martin, there is no increase in global drought.

      • Martin Smith says:

        I haven’t disagreed with that, Steven. The difference is that in the 1930’s, we didn’t have the fire suppression systems we have now, and now, the burn rate is increasing despite our having those fire suppression systems. Both periods were caused by “climate,” but we stopped the first one with fire suppression techniques, yet now we are fighting a losing battle because AGW is making droughts larger, drier, and more frequent.

        • A fire started every three minutes in 1937. This would completely overwhelm our capabilities now.

        • Martin Smith says:

          Part of fire suppression is fire prevention.

        • rah says:

          First it was suppression and then when that didn’t work then it was prevention. Martin, the so called environmentalists have combated prevention allowing dead fall to accumulate where they shouldn’t but demanding it shouldn’t be cleared. Not properly using suppression to allow fires to burn to get rid of the dead fall and that is why even the giant Sequoias were threatened this year. Sequoias with their fire scared trunks, some of which are over 3,000 years old and who’s small cones require fire to open were threatened because the fires were so hot due to poor management. Yea, I got your superior prevention right here!

        • PeterK says:

          My God Martin, how stupid can you be? You continually show how idiotic you are by posting complete rubbish! If I posted a black image, you would probably swear that I misinterpreted what I posted because all you could see is white. You are a complete moron. Common sense passed you by when it was handed out!!!

      • Martin Smith says:

        Steven, attacking my character and intelligence does not belong on a serious blog. But if you really are “Just having fun,” then knock yourself out.

        • Your entire scam is based on making idiotic statements in an effort to attack my character.

        • Martin Smith says:

          No, Steven, I attack your logic every time. Regarding your character, your blog posts, and especially your comments about me personally, speak for themselves.

        • AndyG55 says:

          You haven’t attack anyone’s logic.

          You don’t have that capability.

        • David A says:

          No Martin, you accused Steven of dishonestly, of altering graphics he did not alter, as well as many other false accusations.

          And you continue to ignore Forrest studies that show fire suppression has led to recent increases in the severity of fires. This is a simple thought, and well accepted. For instance, I live in the Sierras above Yosemite. The local Indians used to regularly set fires during the seasons when not in summer or drought to keep fires small through regular burning of the underbrush. In many local areas the growth of small chaparral and trees is now horrendous, and a severe fire danger.

        • Martin Smith says:

          David, I have never accused Steven of altering graphics. I have called him to task several times for deliberately using the wrong graph, and for deliberately excluding explanatory text from his graph. He does both of those quite often.

        • Martin Smith wrote:

          “Steven, you are still using the wrong graph. By now you know that the wrong graph is deceptive. This is the correct graph.”

          “The Danish Meteorological Institute says this is the correct graph and the one Steven doctored and then posted is incorrect.”

          “Read the comment at the bottom of the correct graph. Then follow the link to the graph Steven used, and read the comment at the bottom of that graph, which Steven removed.

          “Steven used the wrong graph, and he doctored it. …”

          “Oh, come on. If you use the link to the graph Steven used, instead of the doctored copy he posted, …”

          “Steven doctored it by removing the qualifying comment at the bottom, written by DMI …”

          “I have never accused Steven of altering graphics.”

          Martin Smith, I hear dryness and chafing like yours can be very painful. Some sufferers become confused and turn into irrational serial liars. Take care of you condition before you post again.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Steven has never used the wrong graphic.

          Just ones that your feeble mind can’t cope with.

          You have expressed your erroneous and worthless opinion, is all.

        • wizzum says:

          Martin you are lying again.

        • catweazle666 says:

          wizzum says: “Martin you are lying again.”

          Of course he is, that’s all he ever does, along with insulting, abusing, smearing and patronising.

          Because that’s what he is paid to do, of course.

    • Latitude says:

      “”Forest management then stabilised the burn rate at a very low level, until recently, when AGW has caused droughts that have increased the burn rate again”

      Obama de-funding the planes and firefighters had nothing to do with it.

  4. eliza says:

    As SG says, MS is just paid to do this. I’m pretty convinced by now that he doesn’t believe a word of what he is paid to say. He is however, highly entertaining LOL.

    • Gail Combs says:

      So that makes MS a paid traitor to the human race and an accomplice before the fact of murder by fuel poverty/starvation instead of a mind dead Useful Idiot.

      Got it.

    • Martin Smith says:

      No eliza, I am not paid to do this. I am paid as a software engineer and sometimes as a technical writer. If you expect to be taken seriously, behave in a different way.

      • AndyG55 says:

        Who knows absolutely nothing about climate.. we knew that.

        That is why you will never be taken seriously… you have nothing to offer except empty rhetoric.

        That and your love affair with the decrepit SKS propaganda site.

        Notice how you now tell others to behave.

        Look in the mirror first dipsh*t, you moronic egotistical cretin.

      • catweazle666 says:

        ” I am paid as a software engineer and sometimes as a technical writer.”

        Another pair of lies.

      • Billy Liar says:

        Martin is trying to prove the corollary of the Turing test:

        The corollary of the Turing test is a test of a human’s ability to exhibit unintelligent behavior equivalent to, or indistinguishable from, that of a machine.

  5. AndyG55 says:

    Always the DENIAL of real history and facts.

    Its the ONLY way they can sustain the LIES.

  6. Bob123 says:

    So to sum up Martin’s position, Climate is the biggest influence on forrest fires NOW when it’s convenient; however, forrest management is a bigger influence when it’s inconvenient, such as during the dust bowl and what was one of the hottest decades ever.


    • Martin Smith says:

      Bob, that’s not my position. My position is that AGW increases dryness, which in turn increases both the likelihood of fires and the difficulty in putting them out.

      • AndyG55 says:

        “My position is that AGW increases dryness”

        roflmao.. your “stupid” precedes you. !

        Which is a totally unproven conjecture,

        To base any argument on that, would be the work of a total moron.. ie Martin.

      • pmc47025 says:

        Is this the same CO2 induced AGW that’s supposed to cause an unstoppable positive feedback loop with increasing water vapor? There is no “increase in dryness”.

      • rah says:

        Perhaps a little boning up on the ice ages is in order Martin. The driest times are the coldest times because so much of the earths water is locked up in ice during those times.

      • “”My position … increases dryness …”

        We understand. Give it a rest until your chafing heals and next time use a personal lubricant. No need to bother everyone else with it.

  7. AndyG55 says:

    Let’s face it, as an anti-CO2 scam , AGW has FAILED MONUMENTALLY.

    Germany just opens another coal fired power plant..

    China , India and many other countries just starting to expand their economic base.

    The world emissions of CO2 will continue to climb steadily, probably even accelerate, over the next several decades.

    The tiny amounts that have, maybe, been replaced by pointless so-called renewable energy, will also come back as subsidies are removed.

    The real beauty is that there is absolutely nothing the AGW scammers can do about this continued rise of CO2 emissions. 🙂 The world is safe in that regard for a long time to come.🙂

    They may still succeed in their main totalitarian socialist agenda in a very small way.

    ….but once people wake up.. it will not last.

  8. Alf says:

    And my position is; that cold produces dryness.There; my position against yours.

  9. Alf says:

    sorry; I did not notice that you said AG warming.Does non AG warming cause dryness as well?

  10. JPinBalt says:

    These people working at the White House putting out this continuous ooze of misinformation and lies are pure propagandists not even close to science, likely see more short end before Paris CC meeting. Bad enough for the hoard of media manipulators to be on government payroll lying to convince public of nonexistent problems to fix, idiot press picks up and multiplies out the lies, so much a never ending flow of crap on droughts, sea level, hurricanes, sea ice, manipulated temperature ignoring accurate RSS data, and now fires again, crap – and worse is some believe. The refugee/migrant crisis in EU, articles blaming on climate change, 0.2 degree rise in temp in Syria over several generations causes an exodus of climate refugees and UN is savior wanting compensation from emitter countries, galls me to look at such garbage and misinformation on a daily basis. All from the same people who directed high state department people before an election to tell world Benghazi massacre of our ambassador was because of cartoon and protest out of control when well documented flat out knew otherwise was planned terrorist attach. There is an army of media propagandists working for POTUS, well paid former media people, designing talking points, but not to leave out others like Cook the data 97% down under, whole federal agencies ruled by appointees directing underlings to churn out unsubstantiated propaganda for the masses. These propagandists know little about climate science, just have a goal, tell a lie, manipulate data, keep Newspeak charade going since jobs depend on it, on a higher level we have massive subsidies at stake going to corporations like Telsa or Solyndra, et al, who churn over political donations, and a manipulated public opinion of those generally ignorant wanting to save earth and be environmentally conscious with a scapegoat and vilified trace gas which is actually green and beneficial. Do not worry, next will be climate change and global warming causing terrorist suicide belts to go off. Bataclan? – we did have papers saying murder rate rises because of climate change based on seasonal variation worked into forecasts or kidney stones same. There is only a limited amount of time before accurate RSS satellite data deviation from manipulated BS times series temp data becomes too big to ignore.

    If it was summer or 1814 and White House burning, if they were around, they would have been busy covering it up not to make administration look bad in press, and blame the whole fire on climate change and the terrorist CO2 molecules. These people have no shame, every fire, hurricane, volcano, drought, storm, or flood, it will all be blamed on relatively scarce or minority CO2 molecules. Can we call it a racist hate crime and nonaggression on helpless CO2?, an attempted genocide on their population growth in atmosphere out of fear and hate. Free border movement should be a right. DOJ should move since gov. lawyers can prevent the this injustice. The atmospheric half life of the minority community of CO2 molecules is relatively short at five years, maybe protesting short half lives matter and the racial injustice against CO2 would fix things against the millenniums of Nitrogen and Oxygen privilege unfairly dominating the atmosphere and abuse, or even H2O’s unfair and unmatched manipulative power. Yet, maybe we should balance the rights of straight O2 to a degree which has been unfairly slowly converted into CO2, but let us not forget the not too long ago genocide against the transgender O3 molecule community with an even shorter half life than CO2 persecuted by the chlorofluorocarbons driving it from the stratosphere into poor urban troposphere refugee camps engulfing large cities, slums, heat Island effect, yet it was more like Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda for that recent genocidal stratospheric conflict than a forced downward migration to major cities. The sun and cosmic radiation can help if we can by government decree regulate the sun or force it by revolution if need be to save the climate and be fair to all molecules and subsidize O3 in repopulated stratospheric settlements. We need to help the especially persecuted minorities and clearly should regulate the sun. The free border movement for the atmosphere is needed to be fair to all molecules, all half lives matter. We can start with a H2O tax on the the sun’s unfair warming power for a beautiful rainbow of all colors, and then clearly that in itself will provide us with feeling good about ourselves by helping solve the problems of nature’s injustices for atmospheric society.

  11. DavidS says:

    Canadian forest fire data can be seen here:

  12. OrganicFool says:

    “Massively Altered” …German Professor Examines NASA GISS Temperature Datasets
    “Using the NASA data from 2010 the surface temperature globally from 1940 until today has fallen by 1.110°C”

    “From the publicly available data, Ewert made an unbelievable discovery: Between the years 2010 and 2012 the data measured since 1881 were altered so that they showed a significant warming, especially after 1950. […] A comparison of the data from 2010 with the data of 2012 shows that NASA-GISS had altered its own datasets so that especially after WWII a clear warming appears – although it never existed…”

    “Ederer also brings up the analysis by American meteorologists Joseph D’Aleo and Anthony Watts who examined 6000 NASA measurement stations and found an abundance of measurement irregularities stemming in large part from serious siting issues. According to Ederer the findings by Professor Ewert are in close agreement with those of Watts and D’Aleo.

    “Ederer writes of the overall findings by Professor Ewert:

    “Using the NASA data from 2010 the surface temperature globally from 1940 until today has fallen by 1.110°C, and since 2000 it has fallen 0.4223°C […]. The cooling has hit every continent except for Australia, which warmed by 0.6339°C since 2000. The figures for Europe: From 1940 to 2010, using the data from 2010, there was a cooling of 0.5465°C and a cooling of 0.3739°C since 2000.”

    “Ederer summarizes that in view of the magnitude of the scandal, one would think that there would be in investigation. Yet he does not believe this will be the case because the global warming has turned into a trillion-dollar industry and that that too much is tied to it.”

  13. ntesdorf says:

    Just to reinforce the point, Martin, you appear to be illiterate. The White House report says “Climate outweighed other factors in determining burned area in the western U.S. from 1916 to 2003” Please wait until you understand things before commenting on them

  14. ntesdorf says:

    The photo of Katherine Hayhoe is interesting as it seems to reveal that she would be a complete Dork.

  15. OrganicFool says:

    Cold sun rising
    New studies flip climate-change notions upside down

    “In the 2009 “climategate scandal”, e-mails and documents from IPCC-affiliated scientists were leaked that indicated they had manipulated data and reports to jibe with the AGW theory. References were made to “hiding the decline” through the use of “tricks”. Then in 2012 Anthony Watts, a meteorologist and self-described whistle-blower, caught the NOAA changing temperature data from the 1930s to make the decade appear colder than it had been. Another whistle-blower, blogger Tony Heller, although clearly aligned with conservative groups like the Heartland Institute, has amassed impressive data. He claims that, since 1997, the world has actually been getting colder and Goddard and the NOAA are committing “climate fraud”. The NOAA has declined to respond.”

    NASA’s own report shows they believe what influenced the cold during the Maunder Minimum. And they are fully aware we are probably heading to a new grand solar minimum around 2030.

    “The model showed that the drop in temperature was related to ozone in the stratosphere,..The change to the planetary waves kicked the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO)—the balance between a permanent low-pressure system near Greenland and a permanent high-pressure system to its south—into a negative phase. When the NAO is negative, both pressure systems are relatively weak. Under these conditions, winter storms crossing the Atlantic generally head eastward toward Europe, which experiences a more severe winter.”

    Where was CO2 during the Little Ice Age?

    NASA and NOAA are also fully aware the CO2 only absorbs within a narrow band of infrared and once saturated won’t affect temperatures much.

    Instead AGW money could be injected into crumbling infrastructure, improving the Grid to better protect from a possible solar storm, researching/producing new forms of clean and safe nuclear energy, and creating real jobs that actually do something useful.

  16. OrganicFool says:

    How Global Warming Science Ate The NASA Budget

    “NASA’s obsession with global warming research is crowding out funding for planetary science and exploration, according to Lamar Smith, chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.

    “The Obama administration has consistently tried to cut NASA’s space exploration budgets in order to fund increases for Earth science programs,..Just this year, the president proposed drastically cutting NASA’s exploration systems by more than $440 million dollars while Earth Science accounts have increased by 63 percent over the last 8 years.”

    “These cuts would make it impossible to keep on track NASA’s programs that will take our astronauts to the moon and Mars. Thirteen agencies do climate research, but only one conducts space exploration.”

  17. kakatoa says:

    Dr. Bouldin’s discussion on the topic of fire in the Sierra’s covers the rather large
    impact the management of the forests has played out on/in the cause and effect question:
    ….Keep in mind also, that the build-up of fuels over the last 1-1.5 centuries is not natural, it’s entirely anthropogenic….

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 )

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