Finally. Punching Back.

GOP AGs warn Dems that if climate skeptics can be prosecuted for ‘fraud,’ so can alarmists

Correlation is not causation. Computer programs don't explain, especially when they don't even correctly describe.

Totalitarian Science: The Victimhood of the Government Charlatans

Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics

"The science on global warming is settled, so settled that 20 climate scientists are asking President Barack Obama to prosecute people who disagree with them on the science behind man-made global warming.

Scientists from several universities and research centers even asked Obama to use the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) to prosecute groups that “have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America’s response to climate change.”

RICO was a law designed to take down organized crime syndicates, but scientists now want it to be used against scientists, activists and organizations that voice their disagreement with the so-called “consensus” on global warming. The scientists repeated claims made by environmentalists that groups, especially those with ties to fossil fuels, have engaged in a misinformation campaign to confuse the public on global warming.
Special: New Probiotic Fat Burner Takes GNC by Storm

“The actions of these organizations have been extensively documented in peer-reviewed academic research and in recent books,” the scientists wrote."

These people are scared. They need protection. Their "science", which is nothing more than computer output, is failing them. So they really, really, need legal protection for their exponential projections of death and destruction.

And it is within the realm of possibility these days, that under "thought crime" law, free discussion of their "science" might be deemed as "hate speech", maybe under another frivolous executive order. The totalitarians of government-funded science are appealing to the Totalitarian In Chief. If this can be spun as a "class" issue, with the Victimhood of the poor-but-funded scientists AND the fate of the entire world, then the Messiah must be inclined to save them from their oppressors.

Free speech is of value only when exercised by Messiahs; otherwise it is evil. Even in a universe which is morally cold and contains no evil.

And this might be the reason: What they want protected is their new program of outright FRAUD:

NOAA Massively Ramps Up Their Temperature Fraud Ahead Of Paris

Please go to the SITE and immerse yourself in the graphs of the new fabrications vs. the old data.

Ever since Darwin, much science has been the art of finding or creating data to fit the desired conclusion. This is especially true in those endeavors where the validity of the data cannot be checked by outsiders. When government-funded insiders control the data, they can protect their incomes with a mere "re-evaluation"... and perhaps the government silencing of opposition.

Of Course They Do: Leftist Science Becomes Marxist Lever

The natural consequences of AGW are now in place:

Poor nations want U.S. to pay reparations for extreme weather

Poorer nations suffering from extreme weather disasters, so much so that their citizens are seeking refuge in safer terrains outside their borders, want rich nations like the United States to pay for reparations and to relocate populations.

Preparatory talks ahead of the United Nations Conference on Climate Change to be held in Paris in December has representatives from developing nations asking for more than an already agreed upon $100 billion per year for climate change mitigation measures. They want additional compensation for weather-related disasters as well as a "displacement coordination facility" for refugees. And they want all this to be legally binding as part of the larger anticipated Paris accord.

When a "science" has a decidedly Leftist political leaning, it is inevitable that it will culminate in Marxist redistribution of wealth on grand scales. After all, these nations are "Victims", and Leftist "science" is the Messianic lever to enable plundering the Oppressors. It's always a great set-up for grabbing some significant graft right off the top, too.

And of course, it is NOT "just weather" for these Leftists: it is climate change due to the USA. They will not send a bill to China, or Russia, or to the faceless, stressed EU.

The fact is that most poor nations have plenty of money; it's just concentrated in the ruling class. Additional infused funds go to the already wealthy dictators and their cronies. Trickle down doesn't exist in these places.

EPA + "Science" = Corruption

What sort of science does $45 Million buy? Guaranteed to buy you just what you want.

Scientists May Have Lied To Promote EPA’s Global Warming Agenda

"Scientists may have lied about the EPA’s involvement in a recent study put out earlier this year claiming Obama administration regulations on carbon dioxide emissions will save thousands of lives every year.

Emails obtained by the blog JunkScience.com’s Steve Milloy show Harvard University and Syracuse University researchers involved in the study consulted with the EPA while conducting their study, contradicting their previous statements the study was done independently of the agency.

“Emails obtained from EPA through the Freedom of Information Act show that Harvard University, Syracuse University and two researchers falsely claimed a study supporting EPA’s upcoming global warming rules was conducted ‘independent’ of the agency,” Milloy wrote.

In May, scientists released a study finding the EPA’s so-called “Clean Power Plan” — which aims to reduce CO2 emissions 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030 — would prevent 3,500 premature deaths every year because cutting CO2 emissions will also lower traditional air pollutants and allegedly save lives.

The Clean Power Plan is the linchpin of President Barack Obama’s climate agenda, so positive study’s like the Harvard-Syracuse one are welcomed by the White House and the EPA. Indeed, the EPA sent out favorable statements on the study’s release.

EPA spokeswoman Liz Purchia told The Washington Post the study showed the Clean Power Plan “is on the right track.” She said the “benefits are in addition to the benefits that will be realized by addressing a changing climate.”

The study claimed to be done independently of EPA influence, and researchers declared there was no conflict of interest in their study. Harvard University and media reports stressed the study as “independent.”

Study co-author Jonathan Buonocore of Harvard told U.S. News and World Report the EPA “did not participate in the study or interact with its authors” adding that “[w]ork on the paper began even before the EPA unveiled the Clean Power Plan.”

Lead author Charles Driscoll of Syracuse also said work on their study began before the Clean Power Plan was proposed and told The New York Times it “was a coincidence that one of the researchers’ models so closely resembled the federal proposal.”

Milloy, however, uncovered emails showing the study’s authors were in fact communicating with the EPA during the course of their study, setting up meetings to learn about the Clean Power Plan and meeting with key agency staffers to go over data.

On July 8, 2014 Harvard-Syracuse study author Kathy Lambert sent an email to EPA staffers Bryan Hubbell and Linda Chappell, the agency’s contact person for the Clean Power Plan’s cost-benefit analysis. Also copied on the email were Driscoll and Buonocore.

In the email, Lamberth works with EPA officials to set up an a conference call with the research team to “discuss methods for our next set of analyses.” Lamberth also asks the EPA for “IPM results for illustrative cases of [the] proposed carbon standard.”

In a follow-up email, EPA’s Chappell responded, saying she would loop in Amanda Curry-Brown who was responsible for the regulatory impact analysis “for the CPP final rule.”

Another email from Harvard’s Driscoll to EPA staffer Ellen Kurlansky sent on July 15, 2014, talks about how the study had been well-received by other groups (they aren’t specified) and even asks for help fundraising for the International Conference on Mercury as a Global Pollutant.

Milloy also found that authors involved in the Harvard-Syracuse study received or were involved with $45 million in EPA research grants. Driscoll has received or been involved with $3,654,608 in EPA grants and Buonocore has gotten $9,588 in grants. One of the study’s co-authors Joel Schwartz has received or been involved in $31,176,575 in EPA grants.

“Now how could Schwartz’s $31,176,575 or Levy’s $9,514,361 or Driscoll’s $3,654,608 from EPA possibly be considered as a ‘competing financial interest’ in an article they wrote in support of EPA’s flagship regulatory effort?” Milloy asked in a blog post.

Study co-author Jonathan Levy told The Daily Caller News Foundation that the definition of what constitutes a competing financial interest is set by the journal the study gets published in. Levy said “competitive grants awarded by EPA or other federal funders meet none of these criteria and therefore do not qualify as a competing interest.”

Levy, nor any of the study’s other authors, responded to TheDCNF’s questions about the emails uncovered by Milloy."

The EPA should be totally repurposed, with all EPA employees, top to bottom, doing nothing except mopping up spills. When they are not doing that, then they are laid off.

AGW Update

NOAA: USA July Temps Below Normal For 3rd Year in a Row

"According to the NOAA , Maximum temperatures in the USA were -0.77F colder than the 1901-2000 average.

1936 was ranked 121 (121 is hottest) and was 4.93F hotter than 2015.

2015 was only ranked 34."

Also,

"A new record ‘Pause’ length: No global warming for 18 years 7 months – Temperature standstill extends to 223 months"

New Charge of NOAA Data Fraud

A new accusation from Steve Goddard:

Mind-Blowing Temperature Fraud At NOAA

"The measured US temperature data from USHCN shows that the US is on a long-term cooling trend. But the reported temperatures from NOAA show a strong warming trend.

They accomplish this through a spectacular hockey stick of data tampering, which corrupts the US temperature trend by almost two degrees.

The biggest component of this fraud is making up data. Almost half of all reported US temperature data is now fake. They fill in missing rural data with urban data to create the appearance of non-existent US warming.

The depths of this fraud is breathtaking, but completely consistent with the fraudulent profession which has become known as “climate science”"

I don't recall ever seeing a graph of percentage of fake data before. Interesting. On the surface it sounds like a whistleblower has surfaced with inside views into their processes. Without that, their data is unfalsifiable and is therefore dogma.

Global Warming in the News

Satellites: Earth Is Nearly In Its 21st Year Without Global Warming

go to the LINK for info and graph.

"But what Michaels and others say is more problematic is the growing divergence between NOAA’s new temperature data versus satellite data and records from the UK Met Office. NOAA’s data shows significantly more warming than Met Office or satellite records.

“It’s a major problem because outside of the north polar region, the upper troposphere is supposed to warm faster than the surface,” Michaels said.

“Pretty much every projection made by our climate models for sensible weather is simply not at all trustworthy,” Michaels said."

Perhaps NOAA will need to modify the satellite data too? In today's unfalsifiable AGW "science", nothing that happens is surprising any more.

Probably Caused By More Anthropo...genic Global Warming

Scientists warn the sun will 'go to sleep' in 2030 and could cause temperatures to plummet

New study claims to have cracked predicting solar cycles

Says that between 2030 and 2040 solar cycles will cancel each other out

Could lead to 'Maunder minimum' effect that saw River Thames freeze over

"The new model of the Sun's solar cycle is producing unprecedentedly accurate predictions of irregularities within the Sun's 11-year heartbeat.

It draws on dynamo effects in two layers of the Sun, one close to the surface and one deep within its convection zone.

Predictions from the model suggest that solar activity will fall by 60 per cent during the 2030s to conditions last seen during the 'mini ice age' that began in 1645, according to the results presented by Prof Valentina Zharkova at the National Astronomy Meeting in Llandudno.

The model predicts that the pair of waves become increasingly offset during Cycle 25, which peaks in 2022.

During Cycle 26, which covers the decade from 2030-2040, the two waves will become exactly out of synch and this will cause a significant reduction in solar activity.

'In cycle 26, the two waves exactly mirror each other – peaking at the same time but in opposite hemispheres of the Sun,' said Zharkova.

'Their interaction will be disruptive, or they will nearly cancel each other.

'We predict that this will lead to the properties of a 'Maunder minimum''"

We know that this cannot be wrong, because (a) it is a computer program, and (b) these guys are Experts, and therefore: nobody - NOBODY - had better question them.

Oh wait. I forgot. The sun has nothing to do with AGW, only CO2, and why? It has to be the fault of humans, that nasty infestation of Goddess Gaia. So of course the feedback will cause Gaia's sun to react in order to compensate, and Hell will freeze over. I'm beginning to see how it all fits together...

Tales Of Climate Science As A Protected Species

The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science

"At first, the science establishment reacted sceptically and a diversity of views was aired. It’s hard to recall now just how much you were allowed to question the claims in those days. As Bernie Lewin reminds us in one chapter of a fascinating new book of essays called Climate Change: The Facts (hereafter The Facts), as late as 1995 when the second assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) came out with its last-minute additional claim of a “discernible human influence” on climate, Nature magazine warned scientists against overheating the debate.

Since then, however, inch by inch, the huge green pressure groups have grown fat on a diet of constant but ever-changing alarm about the future. That these alarms—over population growth, pesticides, rain forests, acid rain, ozone holes, sperm counts, genetically modified crops—have often proved wildly exaggerated does not matter: the organisations that did the most exaggeration trousered the most money. In the case of climate, the alarm is always in the distant future, so can never be debunked.

These huge green multinationals, with budgets in the hundreds of millions of dollars, have now systematically infiltrated science, as well as industry and media, with the result that many high-profile climate scientists and the journalists who cover them have become one-sided cheerleaders for alarm, while a hit squad of increasingly vicious bloggers polices the debate to ensure that anybody who steps out of line is punished. They insist on stamping out all mention of the heresy that climate change might not be lethally dangerous.

Today’s climate science, as Ian Plimer points out in his chapter in The Facts, is based on a “pre-ordained conclusion, huge bodies of evidence are ignored and analytical procedures are treated as evidence”. Funds are not available to investigate alternative theories. Those who express even the mildest doubts about dangerous climate change are ostracised, accused of being in the pay of fossil-fuel interests or starved of funds; those who take money from green pressure groups and make wildly exaggerated statements are showered with rewards and treated by the media as neutral.

Look what happened to a butterfly ecologist named Camille Parmesan when she published a paper on “Climate and Species Range” that blamed climate change for threatening the Edith checkerspot butterfly with extinction in California by driving its range northward. The paper was cited more than 500 times, she was invited to speak at the White House and she was asked to contribute to the IPCC’s third assessment report.

Unfortunately, a distinguished ecologist called Jim Steele found fault with her conclusion: there had been more local extinctions in the southern part of the butterfly’s range due to urban development than in the north, so only the statistical averages moved north, not the butterflies. There was no correlated local change in temperature anyway, and the butterflies have since recovered throughout their range. When Steele asked Parmesan for her data, she refused. Parmesan’s paper continues to be cited as evidence of climate change. Steele meanwhile is derided as a “denier”. No wonder a highly sceptical ecologist I know is very reluctant to break cover."

Of course it's not just climate science that is not science in the "self-correcting" sense. The very definition of science as the objective, empirical, testable hypotheses with test data for non-falsification, went by the wayside in the Atheist rush to declare evolution to be scientific truth. The overarching need was for a narrative, not knowledge. So wildly fantastic inference stood in for testable hypotheses and non-falsification, and that malpractice rapidly got transferred to other sciences, especially the soft sciences, where no amount of testing can generate consistent data (psychology comes to mind, as does anthropology, which now eschews the title of being a science).

Unfortunately for reputable science, evolution has a heavy demand from the ideology of Atheism. And climate science has a heavy demand from SJWs and One-world Messiahs. So the defense of these two hinges not on actual outcome data, rather it depends purely on inferential conclusions which are projected from certain observations - observations which are not of the actual effect, and possibly not even related to the stated causes.

Much modern science is not even a shadow of its former self; it is an inversion, going directly away from objective knowledge generation by observing the effect as a final product of an hypothesized cause. And much other science is bogus, being self-referencing fraud. The remaining, actual objective science is stained by all the scientific malpractice - started by Darwin.

Pushback On The Hiatus Cancellation

Satellite Data Shows No Global Warming For Nearly 19 Years

Scientists with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration released a study Thursday claiming there’s no hiatus in global warming. But new satellite-derived temperature measurements show there’s been no global warming for 18 years and six months.

“For 222 months, since December 1996, there has been no global warming at all,” writes climate expert Lord Christopher Monckton, the third viscount Monckton of Brenchley

“This month’s [satellite] temperature – still unaffected by a slowly strengthening el Niño, which will eventually cause temporary warming – passes another six-month milestone, and establishes a new record length for the Pause: 18 years 6 months,” Monckton adds.

Monckton’s data comes as NOAA scientists release updated data purporting to show there’s actually been no hiatus in global warming. NOAA scientists made adjustments to temperature records to show more than twice as much warming as the old analysis at the global scale from 1998 to 2012.

“Newly corrected and updated global surface temperature data from NOAA’s [National Centers for Environmental Information] do not support the notion of a global warming ‘hiatus,’” wrote NOAA scientists in a new study.

The difference between Monckton’s data and NOAA’s data is that satellites measure the lowest few miles of the atmosphere, temperature measurements from government scientists rely on thousands of weather stations, buoys and ships across the world’s surface.

Both satellites and surface temperature readings, however, showed prolonged periods without statistically significant warming trends — 15 years for surface temperatures and more than 18 years for satellites.

Scientists have already pushed back against NOAA’s new study. The news site Mashable interviewed about a dozen climate scientists not involved in the study, and nearly all of them said “the study does not support the authors’ conclusion that the so-called warming pause never happened.”[See below]

“Instead, they said it simply proves that changing the start and end dates used for analyzing temperature trends has a big influence on those measurements, a fact that was already widely known,” Mashable reported.

“The main claim by the authors that they have uncovered a significant recent warming trend is dubious,” scientists with the libertarian Cato Institute wrote in an open letter on the NOAA study.

“The significance level they report on their findings (.10) is hardly normative, and the use of it should prompt members of the scientific community to question the reasoning behind the use of such a lax standard,” they wrote.

And there's this:

"Pushback from other researchers

Scientists who have investigated the warming hiatus or are otherwise involved in assessing climate change on various timescales said the study's key shortcoming is that it does what mainstream climate scientists have long criticized climate contrarians — often now referred to as "climate denialists" — of doing: cherry-picking start and end dates to arrive at a particular conclusion.

Gerald Meehl, a climate researcher at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colorado, told Mashable in an email that while he finds the new study laudable for improving temperature measurements, there are flaws in how the researchers interpreted the data. For example, Meehl said there is still a lower warming trend from 1998 to 2012, compared to the previous base period of 1950 to 1999, "thus there is still a hiatus defined in that way."

Meehl said adding two years to the time period by including 2013 and 2014, which was a record-warm year, makes the warming trend appear to be 38% larger than previous studies that did not include them.

"My conclusion is that even with the new data adjustments, there still was a nominal hiatus period that lasted until 2013 with a lower rate of global warming than the warming rate of the last 50 years of the 20th century," he said, "and a factor of two slower warming than the previous 20 years from the 1970s to 1990s."

Lisa Goddard, director of the International Research Institute for Climate and Society (IRI) at Columbia University, told Mashable that the study does not support the conclusion that global warming didn't slow down for a relatively short time period.

"It is clear that Karl et al. have put a lot of careful work into updating these global products," Goddard said in an email.

"However, they go too far when they conclude that there was no decadal-scale slowdown in the rate of warming globally.

"However, they go too far when they conclude that there was no decadal-scale slowdown in the rate of warming globally. This argument seems to rely on choosing the right period — such as including the recent record-breaking 2014."

Another senior climate researcher, Kevin Trenberth of NCAR, said the hiatus depends on your definition of the term. To him, global warming never stopped, as climate skeptics argue, because most of the extra heat from manmade greenhouse gases (e.g. carbon dioxide) was redirected deep into the oceans from 1998 to 2012. However, surface temperatures did warm more slowly during this time.

"I think the article does emphasize that the kind of variation is now much more within the realm of expectations from natural variability, but it is a bit misleading in trying to say there is no hiatus," he said in an email.

In response to such criticisms, Karl said even the 1998-to-2012 period that climate skeptics have long focused on looks twice as warm with the revised data set — at 0.086 degrees Celsius of warming, compared to the previously calculated rate of just 0.039 degrees Celsius.

Using the new data, the 1998-to-2014 period shows warming that is "significantly positive," Karl said, of 0.106 degrees Celsius, up from 0.059 degrees Celsius using an older data set for the same period.

In light of the new data, other researchers recommend discounting the short-term fluctuations in favor of focusing on longterm warming.

Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, said the study helps drive home the point that "global warming continues unabated, as we continue to burn fossil fuels and warm the planet."

"Cherry-picking a warm start date like 1998, as contrarians are fond of doing in an attempt to downplay global warming, was never scientifically defensible to start with, and this article once again confirms that," Mann said in an email.
Why focus on a 15-year period anyway?

Regardless of whether the hiatus was really a hiatus, two things are clear. First, that slowdown is over anyway, given the record-warm 2014 and indications that 2015 may be a repeat of that. Second, focusing on relatively short timescales may be distracting from longterm global warming; however, it is important, since governments and businesses make decisions on shorter timescales. Decade-to-decade fluctuations in warming can affect everything from the productivity of agriculture in India to the likelihood that a U.N. climate treaty will be enacted, as a record-warm year can put pressure on politicians to act.

The IRI's Goddard, who has published extensively on the challenge of improving predictions of climate on decadal timescales, said she is puzzled as to why the new study discounts the importance of such short-term climate zigs and zags.

"All one has to do is to look at the time series to appreciate that the climate varies on all timescales, even when averaged over the whole globe. Global temperatures do NOT present a monotonic time series in which each year is warmer than the year before," she said. "I think that societally, it is important to realize that there will be periods of slowdown, as well as periods of acceleration."
Moving toward 'more sane' observing networks

One uncomfortable truth in climate science is that even at a time when we can wear computers on our wrists, we still don't have a truly global, extremely reliable network of climate-observing stations, which will prevent the need for additional data corrections in the future.

The new study reveals yet again that surface-temperature data has many flaws, according to Peter Thorne, a climate researcher at Maynooth University in Ireland. In an interview, Thorne said critics of climate science are incorrect in charging that global warming is an artifact of urban heat islands and other influences on thermometers; but at the same time, our approach to taking the Earth's temperature needs to be rethought.

Thorne said more investments should go toward establishing redundant, carefully calibrated temperature-observing networks where data is currently sparse, such as the Arctic, much of Africa and especially the oceans.

"The uncertainty in the marine records is far greater than in the land records," he said. "If we put enough good quality, traceable, redundant observations around the globe, we can make sense of all the other observations that aren’t so good."

"There is no need to bequeath onto researchers in 50 years time a similar mess."

Climate Change Science: Lying Is A $45 Million Business?

Harvard, Syracuse Researchers Caught Lying to Boost Obama Climate Rules

E-mails obtained from the Environmental Protection Agency show that Harvard University, Syracuse University and two of their researchers appear to have falsely claimed a study supporting EPA’s upcoming global warming rules was conducted “independent(ly)” of the agency.

In early May, a study published in the journal Nature Climate Change purported to support a key EPA claim about its forthcoming global warming rules aimed at coal-fired power plants. The New York Times’ headline, “EPA Emissions Plan Will Save Thousands of Lives, Study Finds,” typified the media coverage.

Across the media, the authors were innocuously described as simply university-affiliated “researchers.” After all, the researchers had declared they had “no competing financial interests” in their study. Both universities had issued media releases heralding the study as the “first independent, peer-reviewed paper of its kind.”

Study co-author Charles Driscoll of Syracuse University told the Buffalo News, “I’m an academic, not a politician. I don’t have a dog in this fight.” The claim of independence was also emphatically asserted by study co-author Jonathan Buonocore of Harvard University. “The EPA, which did not participate in the study or interact with its authors, Buonocore says, roundly welcomed its findings.” [Emphasis added].

But a closer look at these claims of independence raises serious doubts.

An online search of EPA’s web site revealed that Syracuse’s Driscoll has previously involved as a principal investigator in studies that received over $3.6 million in research grants from EPA. Co-author Dallas Burtraw, a researcher at the think tank Resources for the Future, had been involved in previous EPA grants totaling almost $2 million. Harvard co-author Jonathan I. Levy had been involved in over $9.5 million worth of grants. Co-author Joel Schwartz, also of Harvard, had been previously involved in over $31 million worth of grants from EPA.

Are we to believe that a group of researchers who had previously received some $45 million in grants from EPA, no doubt hoping for more in the future, could possibly not have any dog in this fight? It’s probably not necessary to ask how this slipped past the incurious mainstream media.

How To "Settle" A "Science"

Don't get the "correct" answer? Change the data!

NOAA Fiddles With Climate Data To Erase The 15-Year Global Warming ‘Hiatus

"National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientists have found a solution to the 15-year “pause” in global warming: They “adjusted” the hiatus in warming out of the temperature record.

New climate data by NOAA scientists doubles the warming trend since the late 1990s by adjusting pre-hiatus temperatures downward and inflating temperatures in more recent years.

“Newly corrected and updated global surface temperature data from NOAA’s [National Centers for Environmental Information] do not support the notion of a global warming ‘hiatus,'” wrote NOAA scientists in their study presenting newly adjusted climate data.

To increase the rate in warming, NOAA scientists put more weight on certain ocean buoy arrays, adjusted ship-based temperature readings upward, and slightly raised land-based temperatures as well. Scientists said adjusted ship-based temperature data “had the largest impact on trends for the 2000-2014 time period, accounting for 0.030°C of the 0.064°C trend difference.” They added that the “buoy offset correction contributed 0.014°C… to the difference, and the additional weight given to the buoys because of their greater accuracy contributed 0.012°C."

Yessir. That's how settled science is done these days. Now if aeronautical engineers fudged their data to make it look better, would you ride in their aircraft? If civil engineers fudged their data, would you use their bridges? If anyone, ANYONE does that, why would anyone else believe them? EVER?

So how will they make the extra ice pack disappear, I wonder? Photoshop the satellite photos? Nothing is sacred in the wacky universe of climate mongering.

I wonder how much political pressure was asserted to get "more correct" data? I bet some day a whistle-blower will reveal the truth on his death bed...

Obama Wars on Climate Change But Not ISIS

Obama recently declared war on climate change; he wants us to believe that warming is more dangerous than borders which are open to the religion of peace. It can't be demonstrated conclusively that climate change has killed anyone, while Islamists kill more and more every day in more brutal ways. But there is a radical difference between the two, and a radical similarity.

The difference is that climate change is an easy messianic opportunity to save the world and punish the west, while messing with Islam is not easy when Leftists accept Islamists as congruent in their mutual hatred of the west and especially Christianity. Every western world citizen will be punished for producing the enemy, Climate Change; no Islamist is to be considered an enemy until after he has killed a western world citizen, and even then Islam will be exonerated. Christianity and Christians are the enemy, never Islam and Islamists.

The similarity is that fighting climate change (wealth redistribution and world law), and not doing much about ISIS et. al. (anti-colonialism and anti-nationalism) both are steps toward world government, which is a Leftist utopian craving.

Dueling Pejoratives: The Climate Ad Hominem War

The Left has long called dissenters "climate deniers" and "science deniers", in an attempt to connect with the earlier charges of "holocaust denier" which is an obvious moral failure.

There's no denying this label packs a political punch

""The word "denial" -- meaning refusal or withholding -- entered the English language from Old French hundreds of years ago, but it gained linguistic muscle with A.A. Brill's translation of the Austrian father of psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud, in the early 20th century.

Denial, or Verneinung in Freud's German, came to mean refusing to acknowledge a painful or uncomfortable truth, despite overwhelming evidence.

In politics, there was "Holocaust denial," "moon-landing denial" and "evolution denial" -- all flowing from Freud, with its implications not only of untruth but of mental illness.

And now the word's in the center ring of the global warming fight: "climate denial."

"Climate change has always been a kind of a framing war," said George Marshall, founder of the Climate Outreach Information Network in Great Britain and the author of the book "Don't Even Think About It: Why Our Brains Are Wired to Ignore Climate Change." "If you can get out there and you can get your language inserted into the discourse, it's your ideas that dominate."

Marshall and co-author Mark Lynas published the first reference to "climate denier" in the English-language press in a 2003 op-ed they wrote for the left-leaning magazine The New Statesman.

They wanted those words to sting.

But now the skeptics can fight back in a similar fashion, using "climate jihadi" as a reference to the eliminationist, religious cultist fervor of the warmists.

At the mercy of the climate jihadists

"To satisfy the gentry’s urgent need to feel noble and better than others, we are embarked on an ever-more extreme jihad to battle global warming, with the state, pursuant to an executive order from Gov. Jerry Brown, committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 – and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 – versus the previous mandate of reaching 1990 levels by 2020. It seems clear that we are about to wage a war of increasing intensity on climate change, surely not at the expense of depriving Google executives and other oligarchs their private jets, but certainly down to the last affordable single-family house or decent factory job."

Punishment of Contrarians

Consider these two news items, juxtaposed just below:

Australian university pulls plug on climate skeptic’s center


Antarctic researchers ponder challenges posed by increasing sea ice

Whatever your view of the actual articles, they are merely symptoms of the larger issue: suppression of dissent by the promoters of the "truth"; Scientism at work.

Contrary to the article above, sea ice has increased in the Arctic, as well. It's all part of warming, just as it would be if the Arctic/Antarctic ice were actually receding, as are glaciers. Either way, it's the warming. Here in the center of the USA, we've had cooler summers lately, undoubtedly due to the warming of course. Winters for the past couple of years have been mild, undoubtedly due to the warming. Either way, it's always due to the warming. I wonder what the projections of Global Cooling would bring regarding the same actual data?

Actions, or Words: What to Believe?

Three headline vignettes regarding Leftist ideology mongering

Global Warming Fanatic Bill Nye Celebrating Earth Day With Flights on Airforce One

Reminder: Earth Day Co-Founder Killed and Composted His Girlfriend

National Mall Trashed After Global Citizen 2015 Earth Day Concert

Forget what they say: watch what they do.

Al Gore On Competitive Positions In Science

Carbon Hypocrite Al Gore:

Al Gore at SXSW: We Need to ‘Punish Climate-Change Deniers’ and ‘Put a Price on Carbon’

"The South by Southwest (SXSW) Festival is happening now in Austin, Texas. Running from March 9 to 22, it’s a massive film, interactive and music festival that is nearly 20 years old. The festival brings together designers, developers, investors, entrepreneurs and politicians for panels and discussions about technology and innovation.
algore“We need to put a price on carbon to accelerate these market trends,” said Gore. “And in order to do that, we need to put a price on denial in politics.” stocklight / Shutterstock.com

For the third time in the last few years, Al Gore, founder and chairman of the Climate Reality Project, spoke at the festival on Friday. Naturally, his interactive discussion focused on addressing the climate crisis. The former vice president focused on the need to “punish climate-change deniers, saying politicians should pay a price for rejecting ‘accepted science,'” said the Chicago Tribune.

Gore said forward-thinking investors are moving away from companies that invest in fossil fuels and towards companies investing in renewable energy. “We need to put a price on carbon to accelerate these market trends,” Gore told the Chicago Tribune, referring to a proposed federal cap-and-trade system that would penalize companies that exceeded their carbon-emission limits. “And in order to do that, we need to put a price on denial in politics.”

He called on the tech-minded SXSW crowd, which is dominated by Millenials, to harness technology to launch a grassroots movement to tackle climate change and call out climate deniers. “We have this denial industry cranked up constantly,” Gore said. “In addition to 99 percent of the scientists and all the professional scientific organizations, now Mother Nature is weighing in.”

Years from now, Gore said the next generation will look back at us and ask: “How did you change?,” according to Macworld. “Part of the answer may well be that a group of people came to South by Southwest in Austin, Texas in 2015 and helped to make a revolution,” Gore said.

Gore wanted these young, tech-savvy attendees to start a grassroots movement using social media like they did when “net neutrality was threatened or when the Stop Online Piracy Act threatened to blacklist websites that offered so-called illegal content,” said Macworld. That means signing petitions to fight climate change, utilizing social media to call out climate deniers in Congress and streaming the Live Earth Road to Paris concert on June 18, an event designed to draw attention to the climate talks in Paris this December."

Carbon fuel freeloader Al is trivial in terms of influence. He must ramp up the rhetoric to get attention. His own carbon footprint is nearly the size of Obama's and Hillary's.

IPCC Chairman Pachauri Out Due to Sliminess

OK, that headline is just my (ongoing) personal opinion of the man. Now he is implicated in sexual harassment. He has profited in a large, financial way from the IPCC scares. Even India doesn't believe he is honest.

Climate Change Treaties & Theft

It's long been obvious that AGW/Climate Change has been a lever for global transfer of wealth out of producing nations and into the Victimhood nations, such as Costa Rica. The UN is the tool by which the lever is to be manipulated, if you are Christiana Figueres.

U.N. Official Reveals Real Reason Behind Warming Scare

"Economic Systems: The alarmists keep telling us their concern about global warming is all about man's stewardship of the environment. But we know that's not true. A United Nations official has now confirmed this.

At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.

"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution," she said.

Referring to a new international treaty environmentalists hope will be adopted at the Paris climate change conference later this year, she added: "This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history."

Figueres is a purely government-type person coming from a purely government-type family with no roots in the world's production and consumption mill, except as a privileged consumer who is paid by taxpayers. And she has no credentials in science or economics whatsoever although hers is a program claiming science which she is promoting as her preferred "fix" to the world's economy. Her fix is the standard one: steal it; get them to agree to the theft; guilt sometimes works so that they just give it to you; you deserve it because you (and the planet) are Victims.

HT: Steven Satak

Government Fudges Temperature Data

When the narrative gets creamed by the data, cream the data.

Hottest year ever? Skeptics question revisions to climate data

"A report released this week by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA) called it "the warmest year ever for the nation." Experts agree that 2012 was a hot year for the planet. But it’s that report -- and the agency itself -- that’s drawing the most heat today.

"2012 [wasn't] necessarily warmer than it was back in the 1930s ... NOAA has made so many adjustments to the data it's ridiculous," Roy Spencer, a climatologist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, told FoxNews.com.

A brutal combination of a widespread drought and a mostly absent winter pushed the average annual U.S. temperatures up last year, to 55.32 degrees Fahrenheit according to the government. That's a full degree warmer than the old record set in 1998 -- and breaking such records by a full degree is unprecedented, scientists say.

But NOAA has adjusted the historical climate data many times, skeptics point out, most recently last October. The result, says popular climate blogger Steve Goddard: The U.S. now appears to have warmed slightly more than it did before the adjustment.

"The adjusted data is meaningless garbage. It bears no resemblance to the thermometer data it starts out as," Goddard told FoxNews.com. He's not the only one to question NOAA's efforts.

"Every time NOAA makes adjustments, they make recent years [relatively] warmer. I am very suspicious, especially for how warm they have made 2012," Spencer said.

The newly adjusted data set is known as "version 2.5," while the less adjusted data is called "version 2.0."

NOAA defended its adjustments to FoxNews.com.

Government climate scientist Peter Thorne, speaking in his personal capacity, said that there was consensus for the adjustments.

"These have been shown through at least three papers that have appeared in the past 12 months to be an improvement,” he said."

Data "adjustment" for historical data is not science; it is fraud. Try to imagine "data adjustment" being made for the advantage of a conservative or religious project.

More here, with animated graphs.