The doctored science of global warming

obamaPure science undertaken for science’s own sake is as rare as a rainbow. It’s certainly scarce in Washington, where the quest for knowledge is vulnerable to the bias of politics. Skeptics of President Obama’s climate change agenda say they see new evidence of fraud. If administration officials are colluding with scientists to cook the evidence, such as it might be, to demonstrate that the planet is warming, the skeptics deserve everyone’s thanks.

Whistleblowers within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) complained last year that a major study by agency researcher Thomas Karl, refuting evidence of a pause in global warming, had been rushed to publication. The implication was that the study was coordinated with Obama administration officials to add to the urgency of the president’s climate change agenda in advance of the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris. Republicans on the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology issued a subpoena of records of NOAA communications dealing with the study.

The inquiry began afresh last month when Rep. Lamar Smith, wrote to NOAA expressing disappointment “with the slow pace and limited scope of the agency’s production [of such records],” which had yielded only 301 pages. Mr. Smith directed officials to broaden their search for relevant documents. He said the committee had received a letter signed by 325 scientists, engineers, economists and other scholars questioning whether the agency had properly peer-reviewed the “quality, objectivity, utility and integrity” of the data used in the Karl study.

Data consist of facts, and facts can be cherry-picked to yield a desired effect. In the NOAA study, researchers found that ocean temperatures measured by ships were warmer than those recorded by buoys anchored in place, and scientists “developed a method to correct the difference between ship and buoy measurements.” Ship’s engines, however, can heat nearby water and produce false readings. By including those values, critics contend, the agency may have effectively erased evidence of the global warming pause.

Read rest…

Leave a comment (newest first):

Comments (22)

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    Well well the Washington Times is finally cracking the door open on one of the biggest frauds in history . It is about time .
    More books and movies will be made about this global scam than all the junk science ,and
    outright wire fraud than the propaganda machine of the scary global warming industry has ever produced .

    What a staggering waste of energy and money .

    Climate changes , it’s currently in a long term gradual warm phase and we should be extremely grateful .

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    Whoa ,looks like Obama will get out of Dodge just before the full extent of the scary global warming balloon pops leaving government bureaucrats to wear it .

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    Amber
    I wouldn’t be so sure O’Bama’s going to leave.

    He has been doing everything to provoke international friction and even war.

    Actual commencement of intense even nuclear hostilities will be used as his already ultra vires, unconstitutional, and criminally illegal policy of unilaterally declaring law.

    I expect he will declare ” martial law ” namely he as unilateral ruling despot, suspending the elections until further notice, and he might even decide to burn down the Capitol ( Reichstag ) and blame it on the ” Trumpsters ” or even ” W “.

    And why not ?
    He’s gotten away with that rhetoric for eight years !

  • Avatar

    James McGinn

    |

    The academics have created a theory that always requires an “expert”, themselves to interpret it. Thus they don’t really want a concise, well-understood theory. They want something that is vague, arcane. It’s job security to them. We see the same thing with Meteorology’s convection theory of storms. The theory is actually nonsense. It provide zero predictive or descriptive power. So if you want to predict or describe storms you need to hire a meteorologist. The meteorologist will completely ignore this theory and use synoptic methods, which do a pretty good job of predicting the weather. Thus, for meteorology, convection model is just a means of getting a foot in the door. The same is true for climatology. Their theory is just marketing. It’s not something they take seriously.

    Climatologists can’t figure out climate because meteorologists can’t figure out clouds.
    Meteorologists can’t figure out clouds because physicists can’t figure out water.
    Physicists can’t figure out water because they can’t figure out H2O polarity

    BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity
    https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/Cin1MQ4ZyFU/QmNEM9mnDgAJ
    https://zenodo.org/record/37224

    James McGinn
    Solving Tornadoes

    Convection Versus Plasma
    https://youtu.be/LwSyalcoRAk

    Alternative to Spiritualistic Thinking in the Atmospheric Sciences

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    Yes McGinn

    I don’t necessarily agree with your thesis, but
    the degree of improbability of the question is obvious and proven.

    The so-called discipline of Climatology should probably be thought of not only being of the exact sciences but not of the social sciences either.

    I would suggest that OIJIA is more exact and disciplined.

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    Addendum

    Bonnie Prince Charlie ( the dauphin ) would think that

    ouiske

    is the key to understanding the supposed discipline called climatology.

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    JayPee you think that coveted cash dispensing job at the UN will have to wait then ? Stranger things have happened I suppose .

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    Amber

    He wants more than that.

    There is no end to his ego.

    The entire universe is incapable of containing it.

  • Avatar

    Arlene

    |

    I’m in shock at how people today can’t see the big picture with all the data all over the world. The earth is warming and it does follow scientific principles. CO2 is a gas that traps heat as well as methan. Many people will die because of this. Species can not adapt. We do a simple lab in my classroom where we put alkacelser in a beaker and turn on a heat lamp. The beaker with alkacelser heats up faster and stays warmer longer. The kids get it, why is it so hard for others?

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    You can stay in shock.

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote] The beaker with alkacelser heats up faster and stays warmer longer. The kids get it, why is it so hard for others?[/quote]

    The alka seltzer creates heat via a chemical reaction. The “simple” Lab your doing is fraudulent and an affront to the Scientific Method. Basically your feeding children misinformation.

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    Oh! And this nugget?
    [quote]The earth is warming and it does follow scientific principles. [/quote]
    [img]https://informativestats.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/hayden_ipcc_arrow.jpg[/img]

    If it follows “scientific principals”, why are all of the models wrong?
    [quote] John Christy used the best and latest models, he used all the models available, he has graphed the period of the fastest warming and during the times humans have emitted the most CO2. This is also the best data we have. If ever any model was to show the smallest skill, this would be it. None do.[/quote]
    http://joannenova.com.au/2013/06/even-with-the-best-models-warmest-decades-most-co2-models-are-proven-failures/

    So clearly the CAGW “hypothesis” failed when compared to “experiment”. I wonder if you will show this to your students Arlene? Especially after you show them how utterly wrong all of the CAGW Models are when predicting the Co2 Warming Fingerprint. Somehow I doubt it.
    [img]http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/hot-spot/hot-spot-model-predicted.gif[/img]

    The Essence Of Science In 60 Seconds (Richard Feynman)

  • Avatar

    Arlene

    |

    Endothermic reactions reduces surrounding temperature without a heat lamp (sun). CO2 retains heat provided. Combustion of fossil fuels increases the worlds temperature. Check your average temperatures in your home town. Try not to be so angry and maybe try to solve the problems. I received that lab from the AP college board. I don’t think they want me to misinform my students. Please see the latest Global Food Security from Arizona Public Media to get an understanding of climate models and people at risk for starving to death because of climate change.

  • Avatar

    James B McGinn

    |

    Arlene:
    “I received that lab from the AP college board. I don’t think they want me to misinform my students.”

    I do.

    James McGinn
    Solving Tornadoes

  • Avatar

    Arlene

    |

    Maybe it would make more sense looking at 2016 data.

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote name=”Arlene”]Maybe it would make more sense looking at 2016 data.[/quote]
    [img]http://s19.postimg.org/uuy2ft3jn/Combined_USA_temperatures.png[/img]

    Or how about the Best surface station series NOAA has? The one that shows it is not warming?
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/national-temperature-index/time-series?datasets%5B%5D=uscrn&parameter=anom-tavg&time_scale=p12&begyear=2005&endyear=2015&month=12

    As for “understanding” climate models? Please provide a single example of a Co2 based model from your “Media” Company that has skillfully predicted climate. Just one…

    So Arlene, what control do you use to test your exothermic alka seltzer reaction? Do you also put another tablet into another test tube that is not exposed to the heat lamp for a control? Then compare the results?

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fail-files/gore-and-bill-nye-fail-at-doing-a-simple-co2-experiment/

  • Avatar

    GR82DRV

    |

    [quote name=”Arlene”]I’m in shock at how people today can’t see the big picture with all the data all over the world. The earth is warming and it does follow scientific principles. CO2 is a gas that traps heat as well as[i] methan[/i]. Many people will die because of this. [i]Species can not adapt[/i]. We do a simple lab in my classroom where we put [i]alkacelser[/i] in a beaker and turn on a heat lamp. The beaker with [i]alkacelser[/i] heats up faster and stays warmer longer. The kids get it, why is it so hard for others?[/quote]

    Arlene. I highlighted some your obvious spelling and grammatical errors. What else is not obvious to you as a teacher of our children?

    “The kids get it, why is it so hard for others?” I find this quote especially worrisome. You seem to exalt your student’s willingness to accept indoctrination by believing a silly and totally absurd and unscientific prop as proof for your own naive bias.

    My daughter teaches AP Biology and attempts regularly to provide examples of sound scientific methodology for her students. I would be profoundly embarrassed to see such a post from her.

  • Avatar

    James B McGinn

    |

    CO2 is a gas that traps heat as well as methane.

    Actually, that is not true. Gases don’t trap heat. Some gasses are more reactive to some wave lengths than others. CO2 and H2O are more reative to infrared. But that is trivial. N2 and O2 are more reactive to ultraviolet.

    Con artists selling global warming will always show up with an infrared lamp.

    There is no real emergency. It’s just a funding thing to keep the public scared.

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    One of the more deceptive Co2 “demonstrations, began with the instruction to heat up an air filled using a heat lamp.
    [quote] The vessel will be covered and heated by the “sun” (the heat lamp) until the temperature rises to 15 degrees C above the ambient (surrounding) temperature. The heat lamp is then turned off (“nighttime”), and the air allowed to cool naturally. Temperature readings are taken at definite time intervals and plotted on graph paper. This will show the rate of heat loss from “normal” air. Then, the CO2 concentration of the air will be increased and the experiment repeated. The results will demonstrate the effects of increased CO2 on the rate of heat loss from air. You will then evaluate claims that increasing carbon dioxide will significantly increase the temperature of the atmosphere, and thus lead to climate change, in your lifetime.[/quote]

    https://www.beloit.edu/sepm/Geology_and_the_enviro/Earth_warming.html

    What the “experiment” never records is the time it takes for the vessel to heat up. Only the rate at which it “cools”.

    So it seems Co2 causes warming when it is only moderating temperature.

    https://www.beloit.edu/sepm/Geology_and_the_enviro/Earth_warming.html

    We know that deserts warm faster and also cool faster, mainly due to the amount of “greenhouse” gas Water Vapor.
    [quote]Here, maximum temperatures of 40 to 45ºC are common, although during colder periods of the year, night-time temperatures can drop to freezing or below due to the exceptional radiation loss under the skies.[/quote]

    Tropical Rainforests “with higher levels of Water Vapor. The tropics rarely exceed 35ºC; a daytime maximum of 32ºC is more common. At night the abundant cloud cover restricts radiation loss, and minimum temperatures fall no lower than about 22ºC.”

    By covering up the fact that the two jars heat at different rates, while showcasing that they cool at different rates, a very deceptive and unscientific result is passed off as fact.

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    Don’t expect Arlene to “get it.”
    All anyone has to do is read her first post.

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]Please see the latest Global Food Security from Arizona Public Media to get an understanding of climate models and people at risk for starving to death because of climate change.[/quote]

    Imagine if we put all the resources wasted on the Trillion Dollar Climate Change Industry into curing diseases and feeding people who struggle to survive day to day right now.

    [i]About 21,000 people die every day of hunger or hunger-related causes, according to the United Nations. This is one person every four seconds, as you can see on this display. Sadly, it is children who die most often.

    Yet there is plenty of food in the world for everyone. The problem is that hungry people are trapped in severe poverty. They lack the money to buy enough food to nourish themselves. Being constantly malnourished, they become weaker and often sick. This makes them increasingly less able to work, which then makes them even poorer and hungrier. This downward spiral often continues until death for them and their families.[/i]

    http://www.poverty.com/

    That works out to 7,665,000 every year.

    The IPCC is starving millions every year, for a political agenda.

  • Avatar

    GR82DRV

    |

    [quote name=”Gator”]
    Imagine if we put all the resources wasted on the Trillion Dollar Climate Change Industry into curing diseases and feeding people who struggle to survive day to day right now.

    [i]About 21,000 people die every day of hunger or hunger-related causes, according to the United Nations. This is one person every four seconds, as you can see on this display. Sadly, it is children who die most often.

    Yet there is plenty of food in the world for everyone. The problem is that hungry people are trapped in severe poverty. They lack the money to buy enough food to nourish themselves. Being constantly malnourished, they become weaker and often sick. This makes them increasingly less able to work, which then makes them even poorer and hungrier. This downward spiral often continues until death for them and their families.[/i]

    The IPCC is starving millions every year, for a political agenda.[/quote]
    [b]This point cannot be overstated.[/b] Thank you Gator.

    Remember that the very people pushing the climate change agenda are constantly claiming that they hold the moral high ground of compassion. Hardly.

Comments are closed

No Trackbacks.