Government Scientists Continue To Ramp Up Their Criminal Activity Ahead Of Paris

By SETH BORENSTEIN  Nov. 22, 2015 10:51 AM EST

federal ground-based data, which scientists said is more reliable than satellites

AP FACT CHECK: Most GOP candidates flunk climate science

Ground data is more reliable than satellites? Consider Greenland. Satellites used millions of temperature readings in Greenland last month. NOAA used zero actual readings in Greenland.

201510

Global warming theory is based on troposphere temperatures which satellites measure, not urban heat islands and data tampering by criminals at NASA and NOAA.

NASA has known for 25 years that satellites are more accurate than surface temperatures, and that surface temperature measurements should be replaced.

B8YV6d7CEAA57DR

01 Apr 1990 – EARTHWEEK: A DIARY OF THE PLANET Global Warming

The same criminals who claim (when convenient) that surface temperatures are more accurate, also feel the need to massively adjust them (when convenient) – because of their gross inaccuracies.

2015-11-09-02-27-39

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

They can’t claim that surface temperatures are accurate, and then justify massive adjustments of surface temperatures.

The people behind this scam will engage in whatever tampering and lying is necessary to keep the White House happy.

About stevengoddard

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

45 Responses to Government Scientists Continue To Ramp Up Their Criminal Activity Ahead Of Paris

  1. Robertv says:

    http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2015/11/the-netherlands-faces-code-orange-on-climate-change-weather-bureau/

    The first 10 days ( not months) of November are an illustration of climate change, Van der Steenhoven said. ‘There are signs of climate change all around us,’ he said. ‘We can only explain the exceptionally warm days in early November by including climate change in the equation. And that is new.’

    http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/24777302/___Code_Oranje_voor_klimaat___.html

    • So, now, ten days of unseasonably warm weather is evidence of global warming, climate change, or whatever? The gullible are getting more and more … gullible. It used to be that unseasonably warm weather in November would be greeted with appreciation … now, it’s proof that we are doomed!

      • Gail Combs says:

        It used to be called ‘Indian Summer’ back in the 50s thru 70s.

        It is now 25F in Sunny NC, I remember that type of weather (as cold) for this time of year in Upstate NY.

    • Robertv says:

      The Netherlands should close down all 11 coal-fired power stations in a clear signal of commitment to combating climate change, 64 professors say in an open letter in Monday’s Trouw.
      http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2015/11/shut-all-dutch-coal-fired-power-stations-say-professors/

      Shutting the coal-fired power stations and using gas instead would show leadership, the professors, from Delft, Leiden, Wageningen and other universities say.

      http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/24778631/__Hoogleraren__sluit_kolencentrales__.html

      ‘De hoogleraren zeggen daarbij dat het sluiten van de centrales niet hoeft te betekenen dat ze buiten werking worden gesteld. In extreme omstandigheden of bij calamiteiten kunnen de centrales weer worden ingezet.’
      ‘The professors say that while closing the plant does not mean that they are decommissioned. In extreme circumstances or emergencies the plant can be used again.’

      Who needs Jihadis if you have people like this.

    • soulsurfer says:

      All of October 2015 was in the Netherlands between -1.2C and -0.1C below long term average depending on location… What’s that then supposed to be!? Evidence of massive global cooling and all CFPPs should be cranking at 100% capacity to mitigate the cooling!?!

        • soulsurfer says:

          40 heat waves since 1911: 104 year data set. if all things equal than 20 should have occurred before 1963 and 20 after 1963. However, 23 occurred between 1911-1967 and 17 occurred between 1967-2015. that’s not indicative of global warming, rather the opposite.

          if one plots the max temp and date the max temp occurred, the slope is -0.014C/yr (not stat. sign.) hence not indicative of global warming either.

          secondary evidence is length of each heatwave and number of tropical days. both increased (not stat. sign.) by 0.033 and 0.013 days/yr.)

          Hence, there’s no sign at all that heatwaves have gotten more frequent, warmer, or longer in the Netherlands.

  2. AndyG55 says:

    As I showed yesterday, surface temperature reading in Nuuk were BELOW average in October.

    The top black line is the maximums, and the area below the red average curve is obviously greater than that above.

    Ditto with the lower black line, which is the minimums.

  3. markstoval says:

    This site has exposed government wrongdoing on countless occasions. We have seen factual evidence that you can not believe anything claimed by government minions in regards to climate or climate measurements.

    I hope my friends here understand that governments are not more trustworthy on other issues and only lie about climate. The government is a gang of thieves writ large. Don’t believe a government employee if he tells you the sun rises in the east —- check for yourself!

    • I would turn that around.

      My experience is that government is no more honest regarding climate than they are about anything else. If they are not trustworthy about other issues, why would we trust them about climate?

    • Gail Combs says:

      I have yet to find any government agency that is honest and reliable.

      SHIELDING THE GIANT: USDA’s “Don’t Look, Don’t Know” Policy

      The Clinton administration dismissed to the non-reporting netherworld about five million discouraged workers. That is why the ‘unemployment’ figures are big fat lies. If you are out of work for a year you get tossed off the ‘unemployment stats’ so only the newly unemployed are actually reported.

      This one is another great example.
      Consumer Price Index: “GOVERNMENT ECONOMIC REPORTS: THINGS YOU’VE SUSPECTED BUT WERE AFRAID TO ASK!”
      Let Them Eat Dog Food!

      …..Up until the Boskin/Greenspan agendum surfaced, the CPI was measured using the costs of a fixed basket of goods, a fairly simple and straightforward concept. The identical basket of goods would be priced at prevailing market costs for each period, and the period-to-period change in the cost of that market basket represented the rate of inflation in terms of maintaining a constant standard of living.

      The Boskin/Greenspan argument was that when steak got too expensive, the consumer would substitute hamburger for the steak, and that the inflation measure should reflect the costs tied to buying hamburger versus steak, instead of steak versus steak. Of course, replacing hamburger for steak in the calculations would reduce the inflation rate, but it represented the rate of inflation in terms of maintaining a declining standard of living. Cost of living was being replaced by the cost of survival. The old system told you how much you had to increase your income in order to keep buying steak. The new system promised you hamburger, and then dog food, perhaps, after that.….

      Of course now with the revamped USDA dietary guidlines we would not even get dog food (contains meat) instead we get POISONOUS SOY BEANS!

      Unfortunately I am not kidding. Here is ONE of the toxins
      Journal of Nutrition SOYIN, ATOXIC PROTEIN FROM THE SOYBEAN

      Soy foods contain a variety of bioactive components that effect females especially. These including saponins, protease inhibitors, phytic acid, and isoflavones. Isoflavones belong to a class of compounds generally known as phytoestrogens, plant compounds that have estrogen-like structures. Soy contains the isoflavones such as genistein and daidzein that can cause impaired fertility and reproductive tract disorders.

      Genistein for example disrupts the developing female reproductive system and doesn’t do the male reproductive system any good either. Think of all that soymilk formula fed to babies and the drive by the Malthusians to curb human reproduction…..

      Disruption of the developing female reproductive system by phytoestrogens: genistein as an example

      Abstract

      Studies in our laboratory have shown that exposure to genistein causes deleterious effects on the developing female reproductive system. Mice treated neonatally on days 1-5 by subcutaneous injection of genistein (0.5-50 mg/kg) exhibited altered ovarian differentiation leading to multioocyte follicles (MOFs) at 2 months of age. Ovarian function and estrous cyclicity were also disrupted by neonatal exposure to genistein with increasing severity observed over time. Reduced fertility was observed in mice treated with genistein (0.5, 5, or 25 mg/kg) and infertility was observed at 50 mg/kg. Mammary gland and behavioral endpoints were also affected by neonatal genistein treatment. Further, transgenerational effects were observed; female offspring obtained from breeding genistein treated females (25 mg/kg) to control males had increased MOFs. Thus, neonatal treatment with genistein at environmentally relevant doses caused adverse consequences on female development which is manifested in adulthood….

      we have shown that many effects obtained from feeding genistin, the glycosolated form of genistein found in soy formula, are similar to those obtained from injecting genistein.

  4. August 21, 2015 Study: German Scientists Conclude 20th Century Warming “Nothing Unusual” …Foresee “Global Cooling Until 2080″!

    The Die kalte Sonne site here features a worrisome essay by German climate scientists Horst-Joachim Lüdecke, Dr. Alexander Hempelmann and Carl Otto Weiss. They carefully examined climate changes of the past and have found that the recent changes (of the last 40 years are nothing out of the ordinary and that we need to worry about a global cooling that will persist until 2080.

    http://notrickszone.com/2015/08/21/study-german-scientists-conclude-20th-century-warming-nothing-unusual-foresee-global-cooling-until-2080/#sthash.0mEShi9R.dpuf

  5. sfx2020 says:

    If the satellite data is considered “no good”, then why isn’t a new one being put up? This is the most important issue facing mankind. Right?

    It makes no sense at all

    • Jason Calley says:

      One of the things that convinced me that the CAGW meme is based on fraud was the response to Watts’ study of the ground stations. Massive, massive, poor siting — and almost all of it tending to increase the thermometer readings. Official response? “Uh, we can correct for bad data.”

      • Gail Combs says:

        At which point they ADDED heat to correct for poor sites like next to the A/C heat exchanger or busy roads or airports.

  6. omanuel says:

    FEAR INDUCED INSANITY ?

    Are we now witnessing the results of seventy years (1945-2015) of deceit?

    1. Unreported events in Konan, Korea during a news blackout in Aug-Sept. 1945:

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281017812_STALIN'S_SCIENCE

    2. Failed efforts by frightened leaders of nuclear nations (which grew from 3 in 1945 to ~15 in 2015) to hide the energy source in atomic bombs and solar eruptions that might trigger a false, worldwide nuclear retaliation:

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280133563_Solar_Energy

    I regret that I was unable to get this message to the public before ResearchGate.

  7. Climatism says:

    Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    The #RoadToParis being paved lavishly with breathtaking misinformation and (obligatory) temperature data fraud.

    Are there any limits to the breathtaking levels of government climate propaganda and scientific malfeasance?

    Silly question.

  8. Martin Smith says:

    Steven Goddard wrote: “Global warming theory is based on troposphere temperatures which satellites measure, not urban heat islands and data tampering by criminals at NASA and NOAA.”

    That’s false, Steven. Global warming theory (AGW) is based on the physics of the greenhouse effect. That’s settled science. AGW then uses many other aspects of physics, chemistry, etc to model the earth’s climate systems. The observed temperature data at the surface and in the troposphere, and the paleoclimate data, either validate or invalidate the projections produced by the global climate models. So far, the observed and paleoclimate data basically agree with what AGW tells us we should expect.

    [SG: Martin’s comments are digressing into pure gibberish]

    • Martin Smith says:

      Steven, you said Global warming theory is based on troposphere temperatures which satellites measure. Both points are false. Fact: Global warming theory is based on the physics of the greenhouse effect. Fact: Satellites do not measure temperature.

      • sfx2020 says:

        Just typing out some words does not make them a fact,

        But it is likely a fact that trying to educate you, Martin, is waste of resources.

        • Martin Smith says:

          You can easily verify that both facts are correct. But both facts are basic knowledge in climate science, and no one should be commenting here without that basic knowledge, except to ask questions, of course. I take it you don’t know that global warming theory is based on physics, and that satellites measure radiance levels at different wavelengths. These facts really are basic climate science. You can’t discuss climate science without knowing the basics.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “You can’t discuss climate science without knowing the basics.”

          Then why do you try. ?

          I notice that you run and hide back under your rock, every time some real data and facts are posted.

          That’s because real data and facts are always going to destroy the AGW farce and the little Goreboy can’t handle that.

      • Latitude says:

        Satellites measure the reflected radiance….that is converted to a temp measurement

        Global warming theory is based on the troposphere warming…stratosphere cooling

        Global warming theory needs to be abandoned and a new theory created..
        …one that says CO2 controls the weather without changing the temp

        • Martin Smith says:

          Lat, global warming theory is based on the physics of the greenhouse effect. Global warming theory predicts that increasing CO2 will cause the troposphere to warm and the stratosphere to cool. Both predictions are occurring within the bounds projected by global warming theory as expressed in global climate models.

        • Latitude says:

          Martin Smith says:
          November 23, 2015 at 11:52 am
          Steven, you said Global warming theory is based on troposphere temperatures which satellites measure. Both points are false
          ====
          both points are correct

          Martin, you need to try and make your point…without looking like a fool

        • AndyG55 says:

          The so-called “Greenhouse effect related to CO2 assumes that CO2 re-emits in the low troposphere..

          Guess what …

          IT DOESN’T !!!

          And another article to read.

          http://lasersparkpluginc.com/uploads/CO2_Absorption_Data.pdf

          So you see, Martin

          CO2 absorbs its radiation in a narrow band , in the first 10m or so of the atmosphere, but does not re-emit as radiation below about 15km

          What it does is transfer that energy to the remaining 99.96% of the atmosphere where it is dealt with like any other energy, by convection and conduction transfer to the tropopause.

          CO2 has absolutely no effect on tropospheric temperatures.. End of story.

          Furthermore…. the fact that the ONLY warming in whole 37 years of the satellite temperature data was caused by the large El Nino around 1998, means that there is absolutely no CO2 warming signature in the whole of the satellite temperature data.

          NONE WHAT-SO-EVER. !!

      • catweazle666 says:

        Utterly wrong, as usual.

        Martykins, you wouldn’t recognise a fact of it scuttled under your bridge, jumped up, and bit you on the snout.

    • lectrikdog says:

      “Greenhouse Effect” is a Logical Fallacy, a False Analogy, a Straw Man. Earth is not a terrarium, the atmosphere is open to outer space. ‘Greenhouse effect’ is only valid on a small scale level – like with atmospheric inversions; and limited to small areas – such as valleys or canyons; and is temporally limited. In other words GE is not ubiquitous.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Martin says: “…Global warming theory (AGW) is based on the physics of the greenhouse effect. That’s settled science. AGW then uses many other aspects of physics, chemistry, etc to model the earth’s climate systems….”
      ………………..
      Well Martin that ‘settled science’ of yours just got kicked into orbit by a scientist who earned six degrees related to modeling and applied mathematics over ten years, including a PhD from Stanford University.

      He was instrumental in building the model Australia uses to estimate carbon changes in its biosphere, for the Australian Greenhouse Office. He earned a 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.

      He has now taken a good hard looked at your ‘settled science’ and found the ClimAstrologists made not one but two mistakes.

      The basic climate model is the application of “basic physics” to climate… The man-made global warming scare is due to a simple modelling error made over a century ago when sensitivity to carbon dioxide was first estimated.

      The physicists got it right. The climate scientists got it wrong….

      He has rebuilt the climate model, found CO2 does not explain the warming out of the Little Ice Age and is now introducing a physical model, based on physical principles, not curve fitting. It uses standard analytical tools employed throughout the electronics industry.

      Few climate scientists were trained in these standard tool — they have probably never heard of most of them. But engineers have to get the maths and the feedbacks right, or the phone and the electricity don’t work…so these tools have been tested.

      And yeah, there are two papers dealing with his work.

      • AndyG55 says:

        “And yeah, there are two papers dealing with his work.”

        Plus a HUGE amount of on-line peer-review, which is far more fastidious than a couple of pals doing the quick read-through to pick up spelling mistakes, like in most ‘climate science™’

        • Gail Combs says:

          That too. However I see no reason to give the Little Gorebot a pointer so he hassles someone else. Let him work for it.

        • Gail Combs says:

          It is interesting that the good Doctor took the criticisms from the on-line peer-review last year and reworked his draft improving it substantially.

        • AndyG55 says:

          That’s how peer-review should work.

        • Gail Combs says:

          I very much agree Andy. The best company I worked for always had a peer-review session on new products. The R&D and pilot plant scientists presented their baby and then we tore it apart. That couple of hours saved the company millions.

          The company I worked for after that had the Chem Engineer present his new ‘baby’ It was the basis for an entire new plant. I attacked like I was used to doing and he went ballistic. Nothing I said was taken into consideration even though I had also worked on the project do the lab analysis of his trial runs.

          Turned out I was correct and they ended up with a multi-billion dollar flop. Unfortunately the chem engineer so to it I got fired as revenge.

  9. sfx2020 says:

    “So far, the observed and paleoclimate data basically agree with what AGW tells us we should expect.”

    Another false claim. I am telling you, just typing it out does not make it true.

  10. tannngl says:

    “federal ground-based data, which scientists said is more reliable than satellites”

    Only because surface temps are easier to fudge.

  11. Susan Lautz says:

    Dear Steven: What can I say to my friends and familiy who say you have no credibiity as you are not a “climate scientist”? They all say that we deniers are calling all the scientists liars and scammers. Thoughts?

  12. Alan Davidson says:

    A briefing today by Environment Canada staff to the new Liberal Canadian government at COP21 is here:- http://ec.gc.ca/sc-cs/Default.asp?lang=En&n=A5F83C26-1

    Claims that Canada is warming at “roughly double the global rate and Arctic is warming faster”! Slavishly based on IPCC.

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