The History Of NASA/NOAA Temperature Corruption

In 1974, The National Center For Atmospheric Research (NCAR) generated this graph of global temperatures, showing a large spike in the 1940’s, rapid cooling to 1970 and net cooling  from 1900 to 1970.

CTdUc4vWEAAxgDt

denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf

In 1975, the National Academy of Sciences published a very similar graph for Northern hemisphere temperatures, which also showed net cooling from 1900 to 1970.

CVtF82NU8AAcUb7-1

Page 148 : understandingcli00unit.pdf

By 1981, the graph had started to tilt to the left. Temperatures in 1970 were now about 0.1C warmer than 1900.

2016-01-13-05-51-45

Not surprisingly, this change coincided with James Hansen’s interest in demonstrating a CO2 driven warming trend.

2016-01-13-06-31-15

Challenge_chapter2.pdf

This pattern of NASA making the past cooler and the present warmer has occurred repeatedly since NASA became chartered with proving global warming. The past keeps getting colder.

2015-12-07-08-37-47-1024x584-1024x584

1981: Challenge_chapter2.pdf
2001: Fig.A.ps
current: Fig.A.gif 

The next graph shows how 1880-2000 global warming has been doubled since 2001, simply by altering the data. This graph is normalized to the most recent common years of the 1990’s.

2016-01-12-06-41-10

The NASA temperature data is based on NOAA GHCN (Global Historical Climatology Network) data.  The map below shows where their stations are located, with gray representing no data. They are missing data for about half of the Earth’s surface including most of Africa, Antarctica and Greenland.  The only places with complete coverage are the US and Western Europe.  The gray areas are filled in with computer modeled temperatures, meaning that about 50% of the global data used by NASA and NOAA is fake.

201511201511.gif (990×765)

The US temperature record has been similarly altered. In 1999, James Hansen reported 0.5C US cooling since the 1930’s.

GISS_US_2016

pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1999/1999_Hansen_etal_1.pdf

Whither U.S. Climate?

By James Hansen, Reto Ruedy, Jay Glascoe and Makiko Sato — August 1999

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)

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

In 1989 NOAA also reported no warming in the US over the past century.

2015-12-18-12-01-35

U.S. Data Since 1895 Fail To Show Warming Trend – NYTimes.com

The current NASA graph has eliminated the 1930-1999 cooling.

GISS_US_1999

Fig.D.gif (525×438)

The animation below shows how NASA has altered their own data to make the post-1930’s cooling disappear.

GISS_US_1999-2016

The graph below overlays the 1999 and 2016 versions, normalized to the most recent common years in the 1990’s. It shows how the past has been cooled to create a fake warming trend.

2016-01-14-03-33-21

NASA US temperatures are based on NOAA USHCN (United States Historical Climatology Network) data. The graph below shows the average of their measured temperatures in blue, and the average of their “adjusted” temperatures in red. The entire US warming trend over the past century is due to data tampering by NOAA and NASA.

2016-01-12-06-46-13

The graph below shows the hockey stick of adjustments being made to US temperatures since 1980. This is calculated as the red line in the image above minus the blue line above.

Screenshot 2016-01-02 at 01.07.45 PM

The bulk of the data tampering is being done by simply making temperatures up. If NOAA is missing data for a particular station in a particular month, they use a computer model to calculate what they think the temperature should have been. In 1980 about 10% of the data was fake, but now almost half of it is fake.

2016-01-08-07-32-57

And here is the smoking gun of fraud. The adjustments being made correlate almost perfectly to the rise in atmospheric CO2. The data is being tampered with to match greenhouse gas warming theory.

2016-01-14-04-18-24

Evidence is overwhelming that the US used to be much hotter. Prior to 1960, the frequency of hot days in the US was much larger. The graphs below were generated from the same NOAA data sets used in the graphs above.

Screenshot 2015-12-31 at 07.26.55 PMScreenshot 2015-12-31 at 08.12.35 PM

The areal coverage of hot weather in the US was also much larger prior to 1960.

2016-01-08-07-12-41-1

The surface temperature record presented by NASA and NOAA have little or nothing to do with reality. They are tools used by the White House to push their political agenda.

About stevengoddard

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

169 Responses to The History Of NASA/NOAA Temperature Corruption

  1. Martin Smith says:

    Do you have any evidence that any adjustment to the data was incorrect? You didn’t include any evidence in your blog post, but you made a serious charge, so, ethically, you should include your evidence. I assume you must have some, but it’s not in your blog post.

    • gator69 says:

      The fact that the adjustments do not agree with observations is evidence of fraud. The fact that adjustments are made to keep a trillion dollar industry alive is evidence of fraud. The fact that trends are reversed by adjustments is evidence of fraud. The fact that many scientists have said that the adjustments are incorrect is evidence of fraud.

      Tony’s posts are loaded with evidence. What you seek is called “proof”. I also seek proof.

      1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

      2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

      There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

      • Martin Smith says:

        “The fact that the adjustments do not agree with observations is evidence of fraud.”

        The adjustments agree with the observations.

        • gator69 says:

          No they don’t. Satellites show a different story, as do measurements of the troposphere, where warming is supposed to occur first. Then there is this…

          Iceland officials said this is fraud.

        • Martin Smith says:

          Impressive dancing graph, but it’s not evidence supporting your claim.

        • gator69 says:

          I don’t need evidence. I am simply stating that what we are seeing happen on Earth is natural. What the alarmists do with data is an unnatural act. You deny nature and evidence.

          1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

          2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

          There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

        • Andy DC says:

          The fact that most adjustments are on the side of the predetermined conclusion and in concert with a huge rip off of taxpayer money on the part of alarmists smacks of of fraud.

          Again, we get back to the ref who had bet heavily on the game who is “adjusting” his calls to favor one team. When there is a huge financial interest, normally huge corruption follows. That is simply the nature of the beast when it comes to human nature.

          Maybe Martin Smith is that rare saint that is immune to being corrupted, but unfortunately most humans are not quite that saintly. That, in combination with the fear of being being shunned and ostracized, basically having your career ruined by not going along (the carrot plus the stick) are very powerful forces.

        • Jason Calley says:

          If the adjustments agreed with the observations, then the adjustments would be zero.

          If I look in my wallet and count 17 dollars, but then adjust the observed count to be 19 dollars, then no, the adjustments do not agree with the observations.

          If I measure a series of temperatures that averages out to 17 degrees, but then adjust the average to say 19 degrees, then no, the adjustments do not match the observations.

    • Winston thinks making up fake data is ethical.

      • Martin Smith says:

        There is no fake data, Steven. If you have some evidence that homogenization doesn’t work, post your evidence. But we are making progress, if you now only dislike homogenization. Can we mark you down as accepting the other adjustments then? Thanks.

        • So the fake data that NOAA makes up isn’t fake? Fascinating.

        • Martin Smith says:

          There is no fake data, Steven. NOAA doesn’t make up data. The homogenization process is known to work correctly. They actually test these algorithms. Tell me then, why do you accept the made up satellite temperature data? ALL the satellite data is made up.

          Here is an explanation of the homogenization process. Obviously you have never studied it, or you wouldn’t be claiming the data is made up:

          Homogenization of Temperature Data: An Assessment
          http://www.skepticalscience.com/homogenization_of_temperature_data.html

        • Menicholas says:

          Martin, why do you insist on being so gullibley credulous?
          Is it some need to believe that our children are doomed?
          Is this need of yours, to believe in immanent and unstoppable calamity, so powerful that no amount of prevarication and duplicity is too much?
          Do you hate yourself that much?
          Why?

        • lectrikdog says:

          Yet, it seems to all boil down to this: “The most I can say is that the GHCN correction looks plausible.” A whole lot of mucking about over fractions of a degree.😉
          Wouldn’t properly interpreted Tree ring data, sediment records, and Ice core data provide a much more accurate picture of climate, and over a longer timeframe than fallible human created instrument records?
          Fakery: http://nov79.com/gbwm/trees.html

        • Menicholas says:

          No, because trees grow at different rates at different times for numerous reasons, not just due to variation in temperature. In fact, temperature is not even the principle cause of variation in growth rates. Other proxies are similarly fallible.
          Careful gathered temperature data via thermometry is, however, highly accurate, precise, and measures the parameter being discussed directly. Thermometers are carefully designed for one purpose, and they do it well, and properly sited recording stations used to be equipped with multiple independent and redundant such recording devices to ensure reliability.
          Plus, back then people were not in the habit of lying about what the temperature was.
          Like now.

        • lectrikdog says:

          That’s why I included ‘properly interpreted’ and, sediment, ice core,and an addendum: coral, records.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Marty says “…If you have some evidence that homogenization doesn’t work….”

          OH WOW!
          Marty thinks computer barf is DATA!

          Scientific data is defined as information collected using specific methods for a specific purpose of studying or analyzing.

          Data collected in a lab experiment done under controlled conditions is an example of scientific data.

          He is confusing the use of the word as computer jargon vs SCIENTIFIC data.

          HEY MARTY reality doe NOT reside within a computer… or do you live in the MATRIX?

          That is Marty in the back left corner I think.

    • Bob123 says:

      Martin is still asking for evidence after this post. Perhaps he should be asking for remedial instruction in reading comprehension.

    • Menicholas says:

      Marty, in any other discipline besides this one, distorting data is called fraud, and is generally a punishable offense. People go to jail for doing it. Do you know why?
      I will tell you, since you seem too dim of a bulb to comprehend such things: Because when someone with a vested interest in a particular outcome attempts to deceive people via an intentional perversion of the truth, in order to extract something of value or to induce them to surrender one or another of their rights, then a purposeful crime has been deemed to have been committed.
      I suggest that, in addition to studying up on this thing called the scientific method, you review some legal definitions as a follow up.
      You may still be in a bad spot intellectually however, as it may be impossible to learn traits such as common sense, astuteness, or wisdom, by simply reading about them. If you have lived your whole life up to now and somehow failed to grasp the concept of deception, then you are likely to naive to be trusted with any sort of raal world decision making.
      Of course, the alternative to the above, that you yourself are a duplicitous liar, who has some vested interest in this transparent obfuscation of the truth being foisted upon the world, may be by far the more reasonable conclusion than the occurance of a hopelessly naive man-child who somehow appears to be literate.

    • Menicholas says:

      Marty, there was never any reason to think that the original data was incorrect. That is why it is called fraud, and why you should be concerned rather than defensive.
      Grow up!
      How many times must it be explained to you?

    • sunsettommy says:

      11 links in his post was not enough for you,Martin?

      Meanwhile you have provided no counterpoint to his post.Just the usual trolling commenting style I have come to expect from you.

      You are showing to the rational, that you are an idiot.

      • Jason Calley says:

        Ah, but all of Tony’s graphs have been shown to be wrong! How were they shown wrong? By Martin claiming that the graphs are not evidence. Martin claims it to be so, therefore it must be so. The only thing that would make the lack of evidence more obvious would be a steady scream of “La la la la la la la! I’m not listening!”

        sarc off

    • Gail Combs says:

      EVERYONE – Please note the Trolls have completely diverted the thread — THAT MEANS STEVEN GODDARD’S INFO IS ON TARGET!

      • Latitude says:

        LOL…… +1

      • gator69 says:

        You know you’re over the target when you start taking flak.

      • Menicholas says:

        Yes, they are out in larger than normal numbers here today.
        Because Tony Heller provided what they fear most…the truth.
        The truth, being just like bug spray to warmistas, causes a similar reaction to that of actual bugs to actual bug spray…general panic. The difference seems to be that warmistas are too dumb to know when they are licked.

        • Gail Combs says:

          These are the blind foot troops.

          The Globalist Elite who want a Totalitarian world government have what they want in the ‘toothless’ Climate Accord. However the Trans-Pacific Pact has the TEETH to implement ALL other treaties.

          Unlike some other treaties the TPP has enforcement. Worse, as can be seen if you read between the lines it has ENFORCEMENT FOR OTHER TREATIES! The Groniad says this about the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement:

          Leading arbitration lawyer, George Kahale (chairman of Curtis, Mallet-Provost, Colt & Mosie LLP, an international law firm) says there are critical loopholes in the Trans-Pacific Partnership’s investment chapter that leave Australia wide open:

          ….an MFN clause is tantamount to a classic wipeout move. It would enable foreign corporations from TPP states to make a claim against Australia based on the ISDS provisions in any other trade deal Australia has signed, no matter which country it was signed with. That means it does not matter how carefully the TPP is drafted: foreign investors can cherrypick another treaty Australia has signed, and sue the Australian government based on the provisions included in that treaty…..”
          http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/nov/10/tpps-clauses-that-let-australia-be-sued-are-weapons-of-legal-destruction-says-lawyer

          Back to the US Government synopsis we find:

          DISPUTE SETTLEMENT
          The Dispute Settlement chapter is intended to allow Parties to expeditiously address disputes between them over implementation of the TPP. ….TPP Parties aim to have these disputes resolved through impartial, unbiased panels. … hearings will be open to the public unless the disputing Parties otherwise agree, and the final report presented by panels will also be made available to the public. Panels will consider requests from non-governmental entities located in the territory of any disputing Party to provide written views regarding the dispute to panels during dispute settlement proceedings.

          Should consultations fail to resolve an issue, Parties may request establishment of a panel, which would be established within 60 days after the date of receipt of a request for consultations or 30 days after the date of receipt of a request related to perishable goods. Panels will be composed of three international trade and subject matter experts independent of the disputing Parties, with procedures available to ensure that a panel can be composed even if a Party fails to appoint a panelist within a set period of time. These panelists will be subject to a code of conduct to ensure the integrity of the dispute settlement mechanism. … The final report must be presented no later than 30 days after the presentation of the initial report and must be made public within 15 days, subject to the protection of any confidential information in the report.

          To maximize compliance, the Dispute Settlement chapter allows for the use of trade retaliation (e.g., suspension of benefits), if a Party found not to have complied with its obligations fails to bring itself into compliance with its obligations. Before use of trade retaliation, a Party found in violation can negotiate or arbitrate a reasonable period of time in which to remedy the breach….

          How about Immigration? And the adding of other countries without the approval of Congress?

          …. The TPP facilitates the development of production and supply chains, and seamless trade, enhancing efficiency and supporting our goal of creating and supporting jobs, raising living standards, enhancing conservation efforts, and facilitating cross-border integration, as well as opening domestic markets.

          Platform for regional integration. The TPP is intended as a platform for regional economic integration and designed to include additional economies across the Asia-Pacific region.

          CROSS-BORDER TRADE IN SERVICES
          Given the growing importance of services trade to TPP Parties, the 12 countries share an interest in liberalized trade in this area….market access, which provides that no TPP country may impose quantitative restrictions on the supply of services (e.g., a limit on the number of suppliers or number of transactions) ….TPP Parties accept these obligations on a “negative-list basis,” meaning that their markets are fully open to services suppliers from TPP countries….TPP Parties agree to permit free transfer of funds related to the cross-border supply of a service. In addition, the chapter includes a professional services annex encouraging cooperative work on licensing recognition and other regulatory issues, and an annex on express delivery services.

          TEMPORARY ENTRY FOR BUSINESS PERSONS
          The Temporary Entry for Business Persons chapter encourages authorities of TPP Parties to provide information on applications for temporary entry, to ensure that application fees are reasonable, and to make decisions on applications and inform applicants of decisions as quickly as possible. TPP Parties agree to ensure that information on requirements for temporary entry are readily available to the public, including by publishing information promptly and online if possible, and providing explanatory materials. The Parties agree to ongoing cooperation on temporary entry issues such as visa processing. Almost all TPP Parties have made commitments on access for each other’s business persons, which are in country-specific annexes.

          RAH and Colorado will love this one. Lets let China make our Army equipment and North Korea our government Computers!

          GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT
          TPP Parties share an interest in accessing each other’s large government procurement markets through transparent, predictable, and non-discriminatory rules….

          And what about our government services like the Post Office, drivers license bureau… Can’t leave those out.

          …In addition to updating traditional approaches to issues covered by previous free trade agreements (FTAs), the TPP incorporates new and emerging trade issues and cross-cutting issues. These include issues related to the Internet and the digital economy, the participation of state-owned enterprises in international trade and investment…

  2. It’s all fine and dandy to post a string of graphs to make your assertion – I haven’t the energy at this late hour to properly address my ire over lack of contextual credibility. That said (and until tomorrow ) I leave you with this – show me credible (with sources) data on ocean temperature to back up your claim.You of all people understands surface temperatures don’t tell the climate story.

    • Someone wants to ignore the topic of the post and change the subject. What a surprise!

    • Gail Combs says:

      OH, WOW
      Nice Strawman you just set-up there!

      Anyone who has followed the temperature data base fiasco knows the SST data set started with Ben Franklin.

      The idea was to stay in the Gulf Stream while sailing on a wind driven ship to England. The temperature of the water in the Gulf Stream is ~ 2 to 3 degrees warmer than the normal north Atlantic temperature. So ship captains had sailors tossed buckets over the side and stick a thermometer in the water in the bucket. Accuracy? Who gives a hoot. All you want is to stay in the warm water and out of the cold water. No need for calibration or to stand their in the wind freezing your rump off waiting for the thermometer to come to equilibrium. (We won’t talk of the differences between a canvas vs a wooden bucket.)

      When sailing ships became obsolete, the temperature measurements were taken at the intakes for the engines in the engine room. Accuracy? Who gives a hoot. All you want is to stay in the warm and out of the cold water or what ever to take advantage of the ocean surface currents.

      In other words SST is a BIG BLACK HOLE covering 70% of the world until satellite measurements.

      Enter Argo Adjustments.

      At first Argo showed a cooling trend

      Loehle, C. 2009. Cooling of the Global Ocean Since 2003. Energy & Environment 20:99-102)
      http://www.ncasi.org//Publications/Detail.aspx?id=3152

      But this would never do so when ARGO didn’t give the expected warming, NOAA ClimAstrologists implemented ‘adjustments’ to the ARGO data ….

      A MIRACLE! Now ARGO shows warming. Our grant money is SAVED!

      So yeah we have a really really GREAT precise and accurate and error free ocean temperature record NOT!

    • sunsettommy says:

      To NTP,

      Translation: I have no counterpoint to make,because I am an idiot.

    • DD More says:

      Notes didn’t take long with an intelligent Google filter.
      From 12/15/14
      Adjustments galore. Went looking for accuracy and just what they are able to measure after a post of Bob’s Dec, 2014 and had a real awakening. Seems that overall measuring of ‘sea surface’ has problems. Original bucket & thermometer (no depth control), ship intake (well below surface and varied depth due to load +/-20 feet), buoys (seem to rock in the wave with depth resolution of a meter), then IR satellite (cannot get thru the clouds) to microwave (get thru the clouds, but not the rain & surface mist). Oh and did I mention one of the satellites was doing reasonable until they had to boost the altitude, then had problems with pitch, yaw and just had no idea the height it was flying. The number of adjustments to correct is staggering. Includes (but not limited to); wind speed, rain, cloud amount/percent and cloud water vapor, daytime diurnal warming, high latitudes, aerosols, SSTs <10C, columnar water vapor, higher latitudes show a slight warm bias, seasonal cycle wind direction for SST retrieval, fast moving storms and fronts, wind direction error and instrument degradation.
      http://images.remss.com/papers/rsspubs/gentemann_jgr_2014.pdf

      Still their abstract reads –
      Errors were identified in both the MW and IR SST data sets: (1) at low atmospheric water vapor a posthoc correction added to AMSR-E was incorrectly applied and (2) there is significant cloud contamination of nighttime MODIS retrievals at SST <10C. A correction is suggested for AMSR-E SSTs that will remove the vapor dependency. For MODIS, once the cloud contaminated data were excluded, errors were reduced but not eliminated. Biases were found to be 20.05C and 20.13C and standard deviations to be 0.48C and 0.58C for AMSR-E and MODIS, respectively. Using a three-way error analysis, individual standard deviations were determined to be 0.20C (in situ), 0.28C (AMSR-E), and 0.38C (MODIS).

      And before anyone criticizes AHU and RSS for using satellites, remember.
      Input Elements:
      Data Sources: Ocean
      None: NO ocean temperature data are used
      ERSST_v3b: NOAA/NCEI’s Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature (ERSST) v. 3b
      ERSST_v4: NOAA/NCEI’s Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature (ERSST) v. 4
      Hadl/Reyn_v2: SST 1880-present — 1880-11/1981: Hadley HadISST1, ship and buoy data (Rayner 2000); 12/1981-present: OISST v. 2, satellite data (Reynolds-Rayner-Smith 2001)

      http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/

      GISS uses satellites for over the oceans, or 70% of the graph is satellites.

      • Gail Combs says:

        The whole Global Warming scam is based on that data and surface data good to between 2C and 5C. In other words the entire ‘warming’ is noise within the error bars. And that is on a good day.

        • David A, says:

          True but at least the satellites are verified by weather balloon data instead of theretical (confirmation bias at best, fraud by any other name)TOB, station eliminated, homogenized TOB F.U.B.A.R. surface record.

  3. I’m giving you a homework project – kindly list corporations funding climate denial vs money funding reality of climate change, then we’ll talk.

    • gator69 says:

      Climate Change Business Journal estimates the Climate Change Industry is a $1.5 Trillion dollar escapade, which means four billion dollars a day is spent on our quest to change the climate. That includes everything from carbon markets to carbon consulting, carbon sequestration, renewables, biofuels, green buildings and insipid cars. For comparison global retail sales online are worth around $1.5 trillion. So all the money wasted on the climate is equivalent to all the goods bought online.

      Your turn.

      • Assignment incomplete – money spent on denial please.

        • gator69 says:

          There is no money spent on denial. Nobody denies climates change.

          Nice try idiot.

        • Wow, now aren’t you the smug smarty pants. Did it make you feel superior to call me an idiot? Oh man, you must be having a good laugh right about now.
          http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/20/conservative-groups-1bn-against-climate-change

        • gator69 says:

          Wow, now aren’t you the smug smarty pants. Did it make you feel superior to find “up to 1 billion”? Oh man, you must be having a good laugh right about now, that is soooo close to 1.5 trillion.😆

          Homework assignment for you. Look up “math”.

        • Jason Calley says:

          Hey Notes! If you don’t want to be treated like a jerk, don’t act like a pedagogue.
          “I’m giving you a homework project …”
          “Assignment incomplete…”

        • This “jerk” is tired of pedagogues incapable of, or unwilling to debate without malice or contempt. There are two sides to every story –

        • David A says:

          Ponder, your opening was inane condecension.

          That the ladder came back to you should not surprise. That pro CAGW funding is several magnitudes larger then skeptics, (composed of mostly grass roots non govermental scientists and researchers) simply shows that your arrogance was well mixed with ignorance.

        • I’ll eat assertions of “inane condescension” with arrogant ignorance the moment both sides are given intelligent debate.

        • gator69 says:

          Notes To Ponder says:

          Up to 1 billion is a larger number than 1.5 trillion.

          Brilliant debater!😆

        • No – a tired debater. One more than happy to elaborate in the light of a new day.Check back in a few hours, until then have a nice day.

        • gator69 says:

          A wrong debater. Math will not change in a few hours.

        • Gail Combs says:

          HEARTLAND:

          Ironically and importantly, the left’s attacks on ExxonMobil and other oil companies saved us from being co-opted by the oil industry and other corporate interests. In 2007, ExxonMobil said it would continue funding us only if we agreed to admit that man-made global warming “may” be causing a climate crisis. Had I said yes to that, the debate today would be much different…
          Joe Bast August 31, 2015

          The blogs are self-financed and get pennies tossed at then from commenters occasionally.

          On the other hand
          BRITISH PETROLEUM
          Enron, joined by BP, invented the global warming industry. I know because I was in the room..

          Climategate e-mail:

          Subject: Re:Your msg about climate/energy policy
          Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2000 11:55:23 -0400
          Cc: mann@virginiaXXXX

          Dear Ray

          You sent me this op-ed (?) (Letter to editor?) about the need to convert the US from a carbon-based economy to a hydrogen-based economy. I can’t guess why you wanted me to know your views, but it does help me to better understand what motivates your scientific work and judgment. It also throws some doubt about your impartiality in promoting the “hockey stick’ temperature curve that a number of us have been critical of.

          In any case, I doubt if espousal of this energy policy will help BP and ARCO discover a source of hydrogen somewhere.

          You quote the “progressive” Business Council approvingly: “We accept the views of most scientists that enough is known about the science and environmental impacts of climate change for us to take actions to address its consequences.” And from BP chairman : “the time to consider the policy dimensions of policy change is not when the link between greenhouse gases and climate change is conclusively proven, but when the possibility cannot be discounted and is taken seriously by the society of which we are part.”

          I note that BP and ARCO are still out there exploring for oil; they don’t seem to be quite ready yet to put real money where their mouth is….

        • Gail Combs says:

          STANDARD OIL
          (Rockefeller money)
          CRU it was founded in 1970’s by two Big Oil companies (Shell and BP) and the last I looked that hadn’t been removed from their Wikipedia page (yet):

          Initial sponsors included British Petroleum, the Nuffield Foundation and Royal Dutch Shell.[5] The Rockefeller Foundation was another early benefactor, and the Wolfson Foundation gave the Unit its current building in 1986.[4]

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit

          Grants Search:- The Rockefeller Brothers Fund

          http://www.rbf.org/content/grants-search

          Bill McKibben’s 350_dot_org: 6 grants from 2003 totaling US$875,000.00

          Bill McKibben’s 1Sky_dot_org: 7 grants between 2007-2011 totaling US$2,100,000.00
          (includes US$1 million ‘start-up’ grant)

          The Sierra Club: 12 grants from 2009 totaling US$1,665,000.00

          Friends of the Earth: 7 grants from 2009 totaling US$777,500.00

          The Pacific Institute (President; Peter Gleick): 5 grants between 2004-2008 totaling US$670,000.00.

          This small sample doesn’t even scratch the surface of grants awarded by the RBF to activists (e.g. Greenpeace Fund: US$550,000) and/or climate research units globally (e.g. Center for Climate Strategies: US$5,171,600.00).

          Oh…almost forgot;

          The Heartland Institute => Your search results: 0 Grants
          The Global Warming Policy Foundation => Your search results: 0 Grants

        • David A says:

          Gail,not cogent, your post has nothing to do with any funding and is racist.

          Martin, I thought I would save you a post.

        • BruceC says:

          Gail, that Rockefeller list looks like one of my early ‘lists’. Here’s an ‘updated’ version;

          2003 – present;

          Bill McKibben’s;
          Step It Up ($200,000)
          1Sky_dot_org ($2,100,000)
          350_dot_orgorg ($875,000)

          Total grants to Mckibben = $3,175,000

          Al Gore’s – Alliance for Climate Protection = $250,000
          David Suzuki Foundation = $185,000

          The Sierra Club = $1,665,000
          Friends of the Earth = $777,500
          Friends of the Earth International = $290,000
          The Pacific Institute (Founder and President; Peter Gleick) = $670,000
          Greenpeace Fund = $550,000
          Center for Climate Strategies = $5,171,600
          The Union of Concerned Scientists = $75,000
          Media Matters for America = $375,000
          Environmental Defense Fund = $550,000
          Natural Resources Defense Council = $1,660,000
          National Wildlife Federation = $1,025,000
          European Climate Foundation = $395,000

          Al Gore’s – Alliance for Climate Protection = $200,000
          The Sierra Club = $300,000
          Friends of the Earth = $100,000
          The Pacific Institute (Founder and President; Peter Gleick) = $849,451
          Center for Climate Strategies = $137,700
          Environmental Defense Fund = $1,100,000
          Natural Resources Defense Council = $3,793,350

          TOTAL = $23,294,601

          How much have the Rockefeller’s given to sceptic organizations?

          The Heartland Institute
          The Cato Institute
          The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)
          Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT)
          Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)

          = $0.00

          And even this updated list still hasn’t scratched the surface.

        • BruceC says:

          You can also add +$125million in funding to Stanford University’s Global Climate and Energy Project (GCEP) from Exxon/Mobile and Schlumberger.

        • pinroot says:

          I read the article. It says that groups collected about $7 billion over ten years, but can only account for the following amounts:

          AEI was by far the top recipient of such funds, receiving 16% of total funding over the eight years, or $86.7m. Heartland Institute, in contrast, received just 3% of the total, $16.7m. There was also generous support to Americans for Prosperity, the advocacy group affiliated with the conservative Koch billionaires, which received $22.7m.

          That totals out to $126 million over eight years (~$15.75 million/year). So, apparently out of nearly $7 billion (so they say), they can only trace $126 million going to ‘climate denial’ (do you honestly know anyone who “denies climate”?).

          That article also complains that none of that money goes to liberals. ROFLMAO. How much money does George Soros give to conservative groups? Do you hear them whining that none of his money goes to conservative groups?

          Meanwhile here’s this from the government:
          http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/112xx/doc11224/03-26-climatechange.pdf

          That’s out of date, but you can still see that about $2.5 billion are spent every year on ‘climate science’ among other things, vs the $15.75 million/year on a different point of view. (Here’s an assignment for you: find all sources of government money (globally) spend on the pro-global warming perspective). And then there’s Greenpeace and all the other green groups that rake in tens or hundreds of millions a year. There’s all the subsidies that go to ‘green’ anything, like Solyndra and the other failed companies. A least all those CEO’s managed to pocket their cash before running the businesses in the ground, but it’s ok, because they’re green and they’re not conservatives.

          If it wasn’t for the constant drum-beat of impending doom because of CAGW, NO money would be going to ‘green’ industries and green advocacy groups. I find it so funny that warmists will complain about skeptics getting $15 or $20 million/year while at the same time they’re receiving billions. And somehow those millions are able to do so much more than the billions greens receive.

        • gator69 says:

          This document shows a $21,408,000,000 budget for 2014 alone. I am sure there is more that this budget does not show, but 21.4 billion dollars is still at least 21 billion too much.

          The total is found on page 45, and page 5 explains figures are in millions of dollars.

          https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/fcce-report-to-congress.pdf

        • Gail Combs says:

          But the really fun one is

          SHELL OIL

          IPCC LEAD AUTHOR Ged Davis when VP of Shell Oil wrote scenarios for the IPCC. (Another Shell Oil exec Doug McKay was at the IPCC scenario meetings. McKay was also Senior Financial Analyst with the World Bank. Robert Watson worked for the World Bank while Chair of the IPCC.)

          Ged Davis E-mail

          This is part of one of the Scenarios Sustainable Development later called Agenda 21.

          4. Sustainable Development (B1)

          The central elements of this scenario family include high levels of environmental and social consciousness, successful governance including major social innovation, and reductions in income and social inequality. Successful forms of governance allow many problems which are currently hard or difficult to resolve to fall within the competency of government and other organisations. Solutions reflect a wide stakeholder dialogue leading to consent on international environmental and social agreements. This is coupled with bottom-up solutions to problems, which reflect wide success in getting broad-based support within communities… [Got to gear up the propaganda to get that support don’t you]

          David Hone is not only SHELL OIL’S Senior Climate Change Adviser he is also Chairman of the International Emissions Trading Association.
          Besides lobbying the UK Parliament to strangle Shale Gas by insisting that CCS be deployed – in which venture he’s succeeded- he and his mentor James Smith. SHELL OIL’S previous UK Chairman took SHELL very deeply into Carbon Trading.

          Then there is Mueller of the BEST temperature dataset.
          Perhaps having a Shell Oil President, Marlan Downey, “Former President of the international subsidiary of Shell Oil” in his consulting company might have something to do with all of Mueller’s publicity shenanigans. Muller’s consulting firm, Muller & Assoc. has on its Advisory Board Marlan Downey — “Former President of the international subsidiary of Shell Oil, founder of Roxanna Oil; former President of Arco International”
          – A puppet attached to Shell Oil with money strings comes to mind. Privately held consulting firms are OH SOOOooooo nice for hiding money trails aren’t they?

          Back to the Money Strings and Shell Oil.

          The Dutch royal family (The House of Orange) is still reportedly the biggest shareholder in the Dutch part of the group, although the size of its stake has long been a source of debate. The Queen of England is also a major stockholder link and Scuttlebutt and more Scuttlebutt.

          Prince Bernhard of the Dutch Royal Family is the Founding President of World Wildlife Fund (WWF)

          HRH The Duke of Edinburgh served as International President of WWF for 16 years until his retirement at the end of 1996…

          John H. Loudon, Better known as “the Grand Old Man of Shell”, John H. Loudon, a Dutchman, headed Royal Dutch Shell from 1951 to 1965…. He was President of WWF from 1976 to 1981, and also a member of The 1001.

          Ruud Lubbers served three terms as Prime Minister of the Netherlands between 1982 and 1994, thus becoming the longest serving Dutch Prime Minister…. He continued in Parliament as Senior Deputy Leader, and later Parliamentary Leader of the Christian Democratic Alliance. He became President of WWF International on 1 January 2000, but only served for one year as he was appointed United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees from 2001-2005.

          World Wildlife Fund Presidents – past and present

          Another major stockholder is the Rothschilds. The Rothschild Investment Trust was formed in 1988 => RIT Capital Partners. Rockefellers and Rothschilds Unite

          Then we can look at the Shell Board of Directors.

          Peter Voser
          Chief Executive Officer
          … a member of the Swiss Federal Auditor Oversight Authority from 2006 to December 2010. In 2011…

          Josef Ackermann
          Non-executive Director
          … He is Chairman of the Board of Directors of Zurich Insurance Group Limited and of Zurich Insurance Company Limited, positions he has held since March 2012.

          … he held a variety of positions in corporate banking, foreign exchange/money markets, treasury and investment banking. In 1990, he was appointed to SKA’s Executive Board, on which he served as President between 1993 and 1996. He joined Deutsche Bank’s Management Board in 1996 with responsibility for the investment banking division and, from 2006 and 2002 respectively until May 2012, he was Chairman of the Management Board and of the Group Executive Committee of Deutsche Bank AG. He is a member of the Supervisory Board of Siemens AG, the Board of Directors of Investor AB and a number of advisory boards. He also has various roles in several foundations and academic institutions….

          Charles O. Holliday
          Non-executive Director
          … He served as Chief Executive Officer of DuPont from 1998 to January 2009, and as Chairman from 1999 to December 2009…. He previously served as Chairman of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, Chairman of The Business Council, Chairman of Catalyst, Chairman of the Society of Chemical Industry – American Section, and is a founding member of the International Business Council. He is Chairman of the Board of Directors of Bank of America Corporation and a Director of Deere & Company.

          Gerard Kleisterlee
          Non-executive Director
          …He is Chairman of Vodafone Group plc, a member of the Supervisory Board of Daimler AG, and a Director of Dell Inc.

          Christine Morin-Postel
          Non-executive Director
          …. she was Chief Executive of Société Générale de Belgique, Executive Vice-President and a member of the Executive Committee of Suez S.A., Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Crédisuez S.A. and a Non-executive Director of Pilkington plc, Alcan Inc. and EXOR S.p.A. She is a Non-executive Director of British American Tobacco plc.

          Sir Nigel Sheinwald GCMG
          Non-executive Director
          He was a senior British diplomat who served as British Ambassador to the USA from 2007 to 2012. He joined the Diplomatic Service in 1976 and served in Brussels (twice), Washington and Moscow and in a wide range of policy roles in London. He served as British Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the European Union in Brussels from 2000 to 2003. Prior to his appointment as British Ambassador to the USA, he served as Foreign Policy and Defence Adviser to the Prime Minister and Head of the Cabinet Office Defence and Overseas Secretariat. He retired from the Diplomatic Service in March 2012….

          Linda G. Stuntz
          Non-executive Director
          She is a founding partner of the law firm of Stuntz, Davis & Staffier, P.C., based in Washington, D.C. Her law practice includes energy and environmental regulation as well as matters relating to government support of technology development and transfer. From 1989 to 1993, she held senior policy positions at the U.S. Department of Energy, including Deputy Secretary. She played a principal role in the development and enactment of the Energy Policy Act of 1992.

          From 1981 to 1987, she was an Associate Minority Counsel and Minority Counsel to the Energy and Commerce Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives. She chaired the Electricity Advisory Committee to the U.S. Department of Energy from 2008 to 2009, and was a member of the Board of Directors of Schlumberger Limited from 1993 to 2010. She is a member of the Board of Directors of Raytheon Company. [Raytheon does mostly government contracts G.C.]

          Jeroen van der Veer
          Non-executive Director
          ….He was Vice-Chairman and Senior Independent Director of Unilever (which includes Unilever N.V. and Unilever plc) until May 2011 and is Chairman of the Supervisory Boards of Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. and of ING Group. He also has various roles in several foundations and charities.

          Gerrit Zalm
          Non-executive Director
          He is Chairman of the Board of Management of ABN AMRO Bank N.V., a position he has held since February 2009. Before joining ABN AMRO, he was the Minister of Finance of the Netherlands from 1994 until 2002, Chairman of the VVD Liberal Party in the Lower House (2002) and Minister of Finance from 2003 until 2007. During 2007 until 2009 he was an adviser to PricewaterhouseCoopers (2007), Chairman of the trustees of the International Accounting Standards Board (2007-2010), an adviser to Permira (private equity fund) (2007-2008) and Chief Financial Officer of DSB Bank (2008). Prior to 1994, he was head of the Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis, a professor at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam and held various positions at the Ministry of Finance and at the Ministry of Economic Affairs. ….

          That board is rather well connected to governments, NGOs and various banks are they not?

        • David A says:

          Congratulations or your success, but, although you are clearly already feasting. I am waiting for the intelligent debate from your end, as your few assertions are thus far debunked by informed counter points.

        • You’ll have to wait a little longer, I’m going to bed. As for informed debunking – “informed” is a matter of opinion. More tomorrow….

        • David A says:

          My comment is of course referring to ponder’s 1:15 comment.

          Seriousely ponder, read the above comments, and supply an articulate response to your assertion of corruption due to funding.

        • Seriously all – Notes has to work in a few hours. Will respond tomorrow.

        • BruceC says:

          Must be hard work organizing fabulous parties , hey Notes😉

        • David A says:

          Ponder, we await your clear articulation on why limited funding of skeptics is corrupting, and why much greater funding of CAGW proponents is not, as well as cogent response to the other arguments made against your supposition.

          Do not start with condecension and trigger words like deniers, and the conversation will be pleasant.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Speaking of MONEY and the Guardian, how about the Guardian’s OTHER Environmental Contributor?

        Dana Nuccitelli is a Guardian environmental contributor and has worked for Tetra Tech oil and gas services company since June 2006. In June 2012 it was announced that Tetra Tech had acquired Rooney Engineering. “REI has worked on projects across the United States, including in Alaska and the Gulf Coast, but many of the firm’s current clients are strategically located in the Bakken and Niobrara shale oil regions.

        So back to Shell Oil VP Ged Davis’s Sustainablity B1 scenario emphasis on natural gas WHAT a coincidence NOT!

        So the “oil service industry” employing Nuticelli is fracking the Bakken and Niobrara shales.

        That frackin Nuticelli is a real piece of work isn’t he?

        Of course the connections between the CAGW scam and the Oil and Natural Gas Companies out to kill their Coal competition will go right over the head of the Useful Idiots.

        Look up “Bootleggers and Baptists”

        Same game different decade.

    • Steve Case says:

      Some homework for you. List by year how many billions of dollars the United States Government has spent on climate change research over the last several decades.

    • Jason Calley says:

      Hi, Notes! I’m giving you a homework project – kindly define what exactly you mean by “climate denial” and “reality of climate change”, then we’ll talk.

      • You know precisely what I mean – corporate money earmarked to discredit allegations of man made global warming.

        • DD More says:

          Corporate money or the Russian oil interests. http://freebeacon.com/issues/foreign-firm-funding-u-s-green-groups-tied-to-state-owned-russian-oil-company/

          The interest of Russian oil companies and American environmentalist financiers intersect at a Bermuda-based law firm called Wakefield Quin. The firm acts as a corporate registered agent, providing office space for clients, and, for some, “managing the day to day affairs,” according to its website. As many as 20 companies and investment funds with ties to the Russian government are Wakefield Quin clients. Many list the firm’s address on official documentation. Klein Ltd. also shares that address. Documents filed with Bermuda’s registrar of companies list just two individuals associated with the company: Hoskins, Wakefield Quin senior counsel and managing director, and Marlies Smith, a corporate administrator at the firm.
          The only publicly available documentation of any business conducted by Klein Ltd. were two Internal Revenue Service filings by the California-based Sea Change Foundation, which showed that Klein had contributed $23 million to the group in 2010 and 2011. Klein Ltd. was responsible for more than 40 percent of contributions to Sea Change during those years. The foundation passed those millions along to some of the nation’s most prominent and politically active environmentalist groups. The Sierra Club, the Natural Resource Defense Council, Food and Water Watch, the League of Conservation Voters, and the Center for American Progress were among the recipients of Sea Change’s $100 million in grants in 2010 and 2011. The Sierra Club, which received nearly $8.5 million from Sea Change in 2010 and 2011, launched its “Beyond Natural Gas” campaign the following year. The effort has become one of the largest and best-funded environmentalist campaigns combating fracking and the extraction of natural gas in general. Sea Change’s “skeletal staff quietly shovels tens of millions of dollars out the door annually to combat climate change. And that’s pretty much all it does,” noted Inside Philanthropy, which awarded the foundation its “sharpest laser focus in grantmaking” award last year.
          Nathaniel Simons and his wife run the foundation and are, except for Klein Ltd., its only donors. Simons, a hedge fund millionaire who commutes to work across San Francisco Bay aboard a 50-foot yacht, also runs a venture capital firm that invests in companies that benefit from environmental and energy policies that Sea Change grantees promote. Simons himself has ties to Klein Ltd. Several Wakefield Quin attorneys are listed as directors of hedge funds that his firm manages, and in which Sea Change has assets.

          Oh, sorry, all that was made FOR allegations of man made global warming.

    • $29 billion per year in government climate scam money to climate fraudsters vs. $0 in my funding. That is a ratio of infinity.

      • Jason Calley says:

        Plus you don’t get to burn up tons and tons of jet fuel while traveling to all the nice vacation spots of the world and claim to be “doing science” at conferences.

      • Not good enough.”government climate scam money” isn’t evidence of anything other than anti-government sentiment.

        • Only a complete idiot would believe that massive amounts of targeted government money hasn’t corrupted science. This is exactly what Eisenhower warned about in 1960.

        • Only a fool would conclude self serving corporate coffers haven’t corrupted science to protect their interests.

        • Martin Smith says:

          No, Steven, Eisenhower spoke about the military industrial complex, not climate science.

        • Doug says:

          Notes, do you assume that people in business are self serving but people in government are not?

        • Of course not – look no further than James Inhofe tossing a snowball across the Senate floor.

        • Doug says:

          Keep digging, Martin. You’re almost there:

          ” The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological elite. “

        • Martin Smith says:

          He was talking about the military industrial complex, Doug. Climate science wasn’t even a gleam in Al Gore’s eye. But, you are making a serious accusation, again without including a shred of evidence. Please back up your claim with evidence. You are claiming that, among others, Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann, and, say, Stefan Rahmstorf are guilty of corruption. Please prove your claim, just for those three scientists.

          You can’t, because you are full of the stuff that makes grass grow green. And Eisenhower would say the same thing.

        • Doug says:

          Martin, I’m sorry. I had no idea your reading comprehension was so poor. That explains a lot. How about you get someone to read and explain this book to you. Lots of evidence that Mann is a fraud from over a hundred actual scientists.
          http://www.amazon.com/22A-Disgrace-Profession-22-Steyn-editor/dp/0986398330

        • lectrikdog says:

          Hey Doug, you’re full of CO2!😉

        • Gail Combs says:

          Notes To Ponder says: “Only a fool would conclude self serving corporate coffers haven’t corrupted science to protect their interests.”
          ….

          OH, I AGREE, See my comments above on how Shell Oil, BP, Standard Oil (Rockefellers) and Enron used YOUR gullibility to drive the competition into bankruptcy.

          A nice aside is George Soros is busy buying up those defunked coal companies. — “Aug 19, 2015 … George Soros has recently bought shares in struggling coal giants Peabody Energy and Arch Coal.”

          And Al Gore has jumped off the sinking GREEN ENERGY SHIP

          But keep on shilling for the Oil Companies and International Banks. It is quite amusing.

      • Ben says:

        “steven goddard” Do you honestly think you should be “funded” by the government for the “facts” you post? . I’ve never seen any of your “facts” stand up to scientific scrutiny” Not once,

        • Ben doesn’t offer any rebuttal to any facts, he just spews a bunch of brainless progressive BS.

        • gator69 says:

          “ben” do you honestly think you should be “funded” by the alarmists for the “facts” you post? I’ve never seen any of your “facts” stand up to scientific scrutiny. In fact, no facts. Not once.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Seems the activists are STILL trying to dig out the funding of the HUGE Climate Denial Machine that they created out of their fevered imaginations.

      Since Greenpeace, WWF, Sierra Club, 350.org and all the rest are really Astroturf organizations with money strings to the global elite, they can not imagine there is actually a real grassroots effort like us skeptics.

      SO they keep making things up and tossing mud but they have NO REAL DATA because there ISN’T any money except pocket change.

      • Wow. Have a nice day🙂

      • Ted says:

        The WWF was involved, too? I had no idea Hulk Hogan was so active in climate science. Oh, yeah. They got the F out:

        Just another example of those mean, evil, republican rednecks stealing the name of a long standing humanitarian organization.

        Oh… Wait… IT WAS THE EXACT OPPOSITE.
        A liberal lobbying group tried to sue a 50 year old entertainment company, for continuing to use the same name they’d been using since long before the lobby group existed. And those mean, evil, republican wrestlers basically said, “sorry”, and changed their name. Just another case of the rich and powerful oppressing a poor, defenseless liberal group, by doing exactly as the liberal group demanded.

    • Bob Greene says:

      NTP: The Guardian is your source of truth? Glittering generalizations and the numbers don’t seem to add up to the magic $1billion. They also don’t seem to cover time periods. You choose to ignore the US Government’s contribution to climate change research, which is in the range of a ANNUAL $2.5 BILLION, not a billion dispersed over some unknown time period. Also, the government’s total climate change expenditures 2012-2014 is >$60 billion. Quite a trough for the warmists to feed at. Or does one suppose that government money comes totally without strings?
      https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/fcce-report-to-congress.pdf

    • Menicholas says:

      No one denies that there is climate.
      Read a book or something, since you are badly in need of things to ponder.
      And do your own homework from now on.
      Do you have the idea that readers here are your lackies?

  4. Doug says:

    Excellent post. I’ll be directing several of my fraud denier acquaintances here to check it out.

    Should the word cooling be changed to warming in the sentence below?
    “The entire US cooling trend over the past century is due to data tampering by NOAA and NASA.”

    • Martin Smith says:

      Thanks, Doug. Ask them to bring their evidence of fraud and post it here, since Steven didn’t include any.

      • David A says:

        Martin, just because you are an ostraoch it does mean sunsets are not real. You were given hours of page reading facts concerning the flaws in the adjustments, and logical reasons as to why they are also likely fradulant. To this you responded with nothing but broad denials and cries of racism.

      • Ted says:

        Martin-

        Feel free to post your evidence that the adjustments are correct.

        The correctness of the measurements, by definition, is the null hypothesis. Any change to the null hypothesis without evidence is, by definition, fraud. So if you can’t provide evidence to support the adjustments, you’re explicitly supporting fraud.

  5. Jason Calley says:

    Hey Tony! Let me just include a brief prologue here of how highly I rate all the effort you have put onto your site. Man! You do a LOT of investigation, and I am always impressed by how well you get to the fundamental scam nature of the CAGW hoax. Thank you!!

    But now a complaint… the quality of the trolls here seems to be dropping. Many of them used to have at least the pretext of understanding of basic scientific methods. Reggie and his fabulous Arctic Blowtorch was a real addition to the troll literature. Some of the recent trolls have been, if not scientifically literate, at least entertaining. But this new one…Is it possible that some WordPressTrollSupply module is malfunctioning or needs to be reset?

    Thanks!

    • Martin Smith says:

      I agree about the dismal quality of your trolling (sorry) posting, Jason. Shame on you.

    • Be fair to Tony, Jason. Some WordPress functionality has obscure and unpredictable features.

    • DD More says:

      Jason you have to forgive Marty and No Pond. It seems they both have gotten a ID# 10t input controller error on the computer keyboard.

      But did you do know that when Gruber said

      “It’s a very clever, you know, basic exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter,” Gruber said at the Honors Colloquium 2012 at the University of Rhode Island. And: “They proposed it and that passed, because the American people are too stupid to understand the difference,” he said at Washington University at St. Louis in 2013.

      http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/14/politics/obamacare-voters-stupid-explainer/

      he was talking about someone you now know?

      • Jason Calley says:

        Hey DD More! I have read that the average adult in the US cannot add or multiply two fractions together. I do not think that the average American can tell you the difference between a million, a billion and a trillion. (And I am not referring to the old school British names vs the current American names for numbers.) I suspect that a large fraction of people have not read a non-fiction book (or any book, for many) since they left high school. I have met (and worked!) with adults (in management!) who did not understand that the stars in the sky are actually other suns like our own. Many of these same people can tell you sports statistics going back decades, so I suppose that they are not stupid, just ignorant. And they vote. And they get their opinions from MSM for the most part.

        • DD More says:

          Jason, ” I suppose that they are not stupid, just ignorant. And they vote. And they get their opinions from MSM for the most part.”

          Little wonder this NBC/WSJ.polling is not getting any attention.

          Dec 14 2015
          This focus on national security and terrorism comes as the NBC/WSJ poll finds President Obama’s job-approval rating at 43 percent, which is down two points from late October. Indeed, it is Obama’s lowest overall standing since right before the 2014 midterm elections. Just 37 percent approve of the president’s handling of foreign policy, and only 34 percent approve of his handling of the terrorist militants known as ISIS in Iraq and Syria.
          In addition, only 20 percent [Record high – 2009 May 7-9 Satisfied — 35%] of the public believes the country is headed in the right direction, versus a whopping 70 percent who think it’s on the wrong track. And 73 percent say they want the next president to take a different approach from President Obama’s. “This will become a high hurdle for the Democrats at some stage of the 2016 election,” says Yang, the Democratic pollster.

          http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-th… [Hidden way down in the column]

          Any polling outfit not taking into account the 73% is push polling and not fit for consumption. There is a reason why one of the oldest polling outfits said this.

          But after a bruising 2012 cycle, in which its polls were farther off than most of its competitors, Gallup told POLITICO it isn’t planning any polls for the presidential primary horse race this cycle. And, even following an internal probe into what went wrong last time around, Gallup won’t commit to tracking the general election next year.
          Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/

          3. In general, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the way things are going in the United States at this time?

          Date———– 2009 May 7-9
          Satisfied — 35%
          Dissatisfied — 62%
          Unsure – 3%

          And this is the record lowest O-bama has been able to achieve for Dissatisfied on the direction of the country. all the rest were higher When every month of your Residency you have more than 62% of folks telling you are going the wrong way, it is a problem with leadership.

          http://www.gallup.com/file/poll/181964/MIP_Satisfaction_150311%20%20.pdf

        • Gail Combs says:

          Jason Calley says:
          “I have read that the average adult in the US cannot add or multiply two fractions together.”
          >>>>>>>>>>>>

          I am not at all surprised. We do kids events and my husband talks to the kids about what they want to do and what type of college they are aiming for. Most of the girls want to be a vet. He then has a quick way of sorting out the kids worth talking to.

          What is 6 X 9?

          If the girl can not answer that quickly she has zero chance of getting into vet school. Unfortunately most of these Jr High and High School students can not answer correctly or at least not quickly. — SAD

        • gator69 says:

          Proof that kids are getting smarter, or something…

          http://www.video.theblaze.com/video/v31621203/stu-reveals-why-everyone-is-getting-as

          When 91% graduate with honors, is it really honors?

        • Neal S says:

          Gail writes that 80% of NYC graduates cannot read (as of a few years ago). I find that mind-boggling. And some are complaining that they have to shell out extra to catch up with the 20% that CAN read. So what were they doing while that 20% was learning how to read? Whose fault is it that the 80% cannot?

          I think it comes down to both students and parents. Parents have to care, and they need to instill this into their children such that the students also care. I suppose if you have a couple of generations of people who live on entitlements and never have to actually work and wind up being rewarded for having children out of wedlock, then you can easily get parents and students that don’t care.

          And of course they will never vote to limit their own entitlements and the parasites will continue to grow and expand until the host organism dies. At that point, nearly everyone will die. Not something I look forward to.

        • Jason Calley says:

          80% of NYC high school graduates can’t read?! What have they been doing for twelve years?

          My grandkids have not finished first grade and they can read. They even write book reports on what they read. They taught themselves about negative numbers by watching Khan Academy.

          80%?! It is child abuse to keep a student that ignorant for twelve years. That does not happen by accident. Some one wants students kept stupid.

  6. ren says:

    For comparative purposes, the satellite perfectly shows what happens to the temperature.
    http://woodfortrees.org/graph/uah
    http://woodfortrees.org/graph/rss

  7. Edmonton Al says:

    Martin:
    Here is a homework assignment for you:
    Alarmists tell us that a doubling of CO2 from 400ppm to 800ppm wil result in a temperture rise of 2C degrees. [400ppm=1 part in 2500].
    Please figure out, and tell us how 1 molecule of CO2 in 2500 [the increase of CO2] can “trap” enough “heat” to raise the temperature of the other 2499 molecules of N2 and O2, 2C degrees.
    Also, please explain how CO2, a gas, can “trap” heat like a “blanket”. Gases expand when heated and rise.

  8. Gail Combs says:

    Pinroot,
    Your comment had : “Heartland Institute, in contrast, received just 3% of the total, $16.7m. “

    How ever you have to watch out for that pea morphing under the shell. Heartland for example has many projects not just climate and to make the numbers larger the propagandists lump ALL the funding together for many different non-related projects and call it funding ‘Climate Denial’
    Merchants of Smear

    For about two decades we’ve been told the science behind human-caused global warming is settled, and to ignore skeptic scientists because they’ve been paid by industry to manufacture doubt about the issue.

    The truth, however, has every appearance of being exactly the opposite: A clumsy effort to manufacture doubt about the credibility of skeptical climate scientists arose in 1991 with roots in Al Gore’s Senate office; it gained effectiveness and media traction after Ozone Action took over the effort and drew attention to the “reposition global warming as theory rather than fact” memo phrase (which they never showed in its full context); and the effort achieved its highest success after being heavily promoted by the “Pulitzer-winning investigative reporter” Ross Gelbspan, who never won a Pulitzer, never displayed any investigative prowess in this matter, and never proved that any skeptic climate scientist had ever knowingly lied as a result of being paid illicit money…

    We are overdue for the biggest ideology collapse in history, begging for an investigation into why the mainstream media and influential politicians apparently never checked the veracity of claims about “settled science” and “corrupt skeptics.”

    I have been saving up feathers and learning to make pine tar while waiting for that moment.

  9. scott allen says:

    Michael Mann income from grants and speaking fees.
    His grants for 16 years total just under 6 million (and that was just to 2013) and he gets 10,000 for speaking fees (plus expenses) Plus his compensation for the several board of directors spots he holds. Plus book royalties and his 6 figure income from his university. Not a bad haul for a man who made up a hockey stick.

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2398822/posts

    http://mediatrackers.org/florida/2013/01/16/climate-alarmist-michael-mann-charges-10000-speaker-fee

    • Jason Calley says:

      Ah, but scott, Michael Mann only receives GOOD money. We sceptics are all being paid vaaaaaaaast sums of BAD money! Mwaaaaah ha ha ha ha! (Insert hand wringing here)
      🙂

    • Gail Combs says:

      While working at NASA, Hansen’s outside employment, which public financial disclosures and other documents reveal to have brought him at least $1.2 million in the four years prior to 2011. Most of this was counter to Government Ethics Regulation.

      A 2011 Freedom of Information Act request to NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which sought records detailing NASA’s and Hansen’s compliance with applicable federal ethics and financial disclosure laws and regulations and with NASA Rules of Behavior has been denied. The request was looking for Hansen’s Form 17-60 “Application for permission for outside employment and other activity”, and internal discussions about same.

      • Neal S says:

        Maybe these should also be sought for by congressional subpoenas. Not that I expect those would be answered either, but at least they would be hard pressed to claim these are private emails and revealing them would risk tainting scientific method.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Judith Curry is a dyed in the Wool Warmist who wants to be ready to jump to a soft landing if/when the fraud is exposed. Her business partner, Peter Webster is part of the CAGW propaganda machine.

      Their company, Climate Forecast Applications Network LLC, provides “early warnings for extreme events associated with climate variability” and “forecast information” for siting Wind Farms.

      They have taken the American Tax payer for one grant of $100,000.00, a second for $150,000.00 and a third for $980,932.00.

    • Gail Combs says:

      And the most recent egg on the face is Jagadish Shukla of RICO fame.

      As Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. Tweeted:

      I REALLY REALLY think it is very poor timing for Alarmist to be bringing up the question of funding….

      • Gail, this is a completely unfair attack on one of the luminaries of climate science and his family enterprise. You can see from their note that it was just an honest mistake that the RICO 20 letter was misposted on a website that was misdecommisisioned after IGES had been misdissolved.

        Such mistakes happen to good people all the time:

        Joe and Tom stopped for a Friday happy hour at a pub near their office.
        “Where are you going on vacation this year, Joe?” Tom asked, “How’s Pam?”
        “Oh, you didn’t hear?” Joe said, “She filed for divorce.”
        “What? What happened? What did you do?” Tom asked in astonishment.
        “I guess I misspoke.”
        “For Pete’s sake, what did you say?”
        “It got mixed up during last Sunday’s breakfast. I wanted to say sweetheart, would you pass the honey but I said instead you evil hag, you ruined my whole life!

  10. lectrikdog says:

    Earth has been cooling for Millions of years.

  11. Terry says:

    Steve, Awesome post. The genius is in keeping all the old data so that NASA and NOAA’s fraud can’t easily be denied. Your site is one of my favorites (I also like the entertainment value of the paid Obama trolls like Winston etal).

  12. mpcraig says:

    Martin Smith says:
    January 14, 2016 at 12:57 pm

    “The homogenization process is known to work correctly.”

    You’re wasting CO2 (that’s my new euphemism for “your breath”) if you argue with someone who claims the above. BTW, that’s one of my New Year’s resolutions. Give it a try.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Then the Troll wins by default. If he claims Steven Goddard is lying and no one corrects then the lie stands.

      That is how we got in this mess in the first place.

    • AndyG55 says:

      I’ve no doubt that the homogenisation process is working exactly as it was designed to be able to be used.😉

      • AndyG55 says:

        whoops, posted in the wrong place

        ps… note that it is giving EXACTLY the answers they wanted… ie…an exaggerated warming trend.

  13. AndyG55 says:

    ps… note that it is giving EXACTLY the answers they wanted… ie…an exaggerated warming trend.

  14. Ben says:

    Martin Smith is absolutely correct…Satellite data is by far the most “adjusted”. If there weren’t any “adjustments” none of the data would be usable. The fact remains, the planet is getting warmer and warmer and the sun is NOT the cause.

    • Ben spouting more brainless bull$hit

    • gator69 says:

      Satellite data is by far the most “adjusted”

      Well duh. Satellites have virtually infinitely more data than the limted surface staions, and satellites do not produce fake temperatures. You cannot adjust that wich is, and has never been, data.

      • Gail Combs says:

        The ClimAlarmists always forget to mention that satellite measurements are VALIDATED using Radiosonde measurements while the surface station temperatures are a bunch of crap when they aren’t made up out of whole cloth.
        The UNTrustworthy surface station data has a huge amount of data made up out of thin air.

        (black diamond is stations used.)
        1975 far north ground stations with over 600 individual temperature series and more than 540 combined series with records of more than 20 years.

        Dropped to less than 30 locations reporting stations by 2009

        Getting rid of stations, especially rural northern stations allows wholesale data tempering.

        In the USA, NOAA is now making up almost half the data.

        The UNTrustworthy surface station data has huge error.

        Because the data is contaminated by local heat sources.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Unlike humans plants don’t lie. Here is what the plants say for the decades during the 20th century in the USA. (bottom graph.)

        Movement of the Koppen Boundary

        NOAA has taken this obvious cyclical temperature record and squashed and twisted it into a somewhat straight line to match the MANNipulated Mauna Loa CO2 data. They did this by carefully using adjustments that match the Mauna Loa CO2 data.

        An R^2 = 1 is a perfect correlation and this plot of CO2 vs adjustment over time is pretty darn close to perfect!

        The adjustment to match CO2 looks just like Mikey Mann’s Hokey Schtick. WHAT A COINCIDENCE… NOT!

        So the Satellite data is Validated by another method while Koppen Boundaries say NOAA is lying.
        QED

    • AndyG55 says:

      “The fact remains, the planet is getting warmer and warmer and the sun is NOT the cause”

      BULLSHIT.

      The planet is starting to cool from the poles

  15. Ben says:

    Here’s some excellent reading—-https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/01/13/hottest-year-on-record/#more-8056

  16. “No, Steven, Eisenhower spoke about the military industrial complex, not climate science.”

    Little did he know it would evolve into the Climate Industrial Complex.

  17. Pops says:

    Wow, 0.98! That’s impressive. You would think the data manipulators would be more careful than that.

    • Gail Combs says:

      They are too arrogant to think a lowly denier would catch on. They are starting to believe their own propaganda.

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