NYT Decries NOAA Staffing Cuts While Ignoring Altered Temperature Records

New York Times On Climate Change: Two Candidates For Quote Of The Day

In the print edition of the New York Times today, there is a big front-page article documenting how their side is losing the latest battle in the climate wars. The headline is “U.S. Embraces Climate Denial In Science Cuts” (online headline somewhat different). [emphasis, links added]

Also, in the Times today (online version), there is a feature called “Quote of the Day.” Today’s “quote of the day,” as selected by the Times, is taken from the “climate denial” article just previously linked.

Here it is:

“It’s as if we’re in the Dark Ages.”

This quote is attributed to one Rachel Cleetus, identified as senior policy director with the climate and energy program at the Union of Concerned Scientists.

But then, if you take some time to read the article, you come to what I would propose as another excellent candidate for quote of the day. It’s from Brooke Rollins, recently confirmed as the new Secretary of Agriculture in the Trump administration.

Here it is:

“We’re not doing that climate change, you know, crud, anymore.”

The focus of the article is what the Times calls “getting rid of data.”

In Times’ spin, the purpose is to “halt the national discussion about how to deal with global warming.”

But what kind of “data” are we talking about here?

The article is short on specifics as to which exact data series are being cut back or eliminated, let alone whether those series are accurate or useful.

But there is enough to give you a general idea:

In recent weeks, more than 500 people have left the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the government’s premier agency for climate and weather science. … NOAA also stopped monthly briefing calls on climate change, and the president’s proposed budget would eliminate funding for the agency’s weather and climate research. The administration has purged the phrases “climate crisis” and “climate science” from government websites.

Ah, NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration).

They’re the people who, via their branch called NCEI, put out the so-called “surface temperature” series that have been systematically altered to create a falsely-enhanced warming trend to support regular claims of “warmest day/month/year ever.”

This is the subject of my now 33-part series “The Greatest Scientific Fraud Of All Time.”

Let me remind you of the basics of the temperature-alteration scam:

(1) The surface temperature records as presented by NOAA/NCEI are not raw instrumental data, but rather have been altered;

(2) NOAA admits that it alters the records;

(3) NOAA gives seemingly plausible reasons for altering the records (e.g., to account for station moves and instrument changes);

(4) However, the alterations as implemented are not associated with any specific issues like station moves and instrument changes; and

(5) The alterations systematically enhance the reported warming trend and are used to support the “climate crisis” narrative.

For more details, go to Part XXXIII of the “Greatest Scientific Fraud” series. Here are just a couple of backup points in case you are skeptical:

• As to whether NOAA alters the raw data, from ABC News, February 25, 2025, “Yes, NOAA adjusts its historical weather data: Here’s why.” Excerpt: “When digging into conspiracies claiming that the federal agency ‘manipulates’ its historical weather data, ABC News chief meteorologist and chief climate correspondent Ginger Zee was able to confirm that it was true — but that the routine, public adjustments to records happen for good reason. … NCEI [a branch of NOAA] adjusts weather data to account for factors like instrument changes, station relocation, and urbanization, and it does so through peer-reviewed studies that are published through its federal website.”
• As to whether the data alterations implemented by NOAA/NCEI can be tied to any specific legitimate bases like station moves or instrumentation changes, I cite a 2022 article by O’Neill, et al. (17 co-authors) from the journal Atmosphere, title “Evaluation of the Homogenization Adjustments Applied to European Temperature Records in the Global Historical Climatology Network Dataset.” I couldn’t get a pithy quote from the article, but here is my summary: “[The authors attempt] to reverse-engineer the adjustments to figure out what NCEI is doing, and particularly whether NCEI is validly identifying station discontinuities, such as moves or instrumentation changes, that might give rise to valid adjustments. The bottom line is that the adjusters make no attempt to tie adjustments to any specific event that would give rise to legitimate homogenization, and that many of the alterations appear ridiculous and completely beyond justification…” There is much, much more detail if you follow the links.

It is not clear from the Times article whether the 500 recent departures from NOAA include the people who have been carrying out this temperature alteration scam.

If those people aren’t gone yet, with any luck, they will be soon, and maybe we’ll even get some details of how they have been practicing their dark arts.

Meanwhile, back in the world of climate reality, the Real Clear Foundation on Monday (May 19) held something they called the “Energy Future Forum.”

Conference co-chairs David DesRosiers and Mark Mills gave the opening keynote. Kevin Killough of Just the News published a summary of the conference on May 20. From DesRosiers’ remarks:

“I think we’ve gone from scarcity to abundance — from the green gospel of scarcity and its Trinitarian ESG god — to the promised land of abundance guided by the values of affordability and reliability,” David DesRosiers, conference co-chair and founder of the RealClear Foundation, said.

And from Mills:

While many tech companies, such as Microsoft, embraced net-zero goals, Mills explained that the energy demands of data centers forced companies to contend with the reality that although fashionable in some circles, intermittent wind and solar power are not adequate. “Eventually, reality rears its ugly head, and we recalibrate around what reality permits,” Mills said.

Bottom line: the Times can scream all it wants, but the world is moving on. From my point of view, it can’t happen too fast.

Read more at Manhattan Contrarian