The scandal of fiddled global warming data (US actually cooling since 1930s)

[green73]

When future generations try to understand how the world got carried away around the end of the 20th century by the panic over global warming, few things will amaze them more than the part played in stoking up the scare by the fiddling of official temperature data. There was already much evidence of this seven years ago, when I was writing my history of the scare, The Real Global Warming Disaster. But now another damning example has been uncovered by Steven Goddard’s US blog Real Science, showing how shamelessly manipulated has been one of the world’s most influential climate records, the graph of US surface temperature records published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Goddard shows how, in recent years, NOAA’s US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been “adjusting” its record by replacing real temperatures with data “fabricated” by computer models. The effect of this has been to downgrade earlier temperatures and to exaggerate those from recent decades, to give the impression that the Earth has been warming up much more than is justified by the actual data. In several posts headed “Data tampering at USHCN/GISS”, Goddard compares the currently published temperature graphs with those based only on temperatures measured at the time. These show that the US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record; whereas the latest graph, nearly half of it based on “fabricated” data, shows it to have been warming at a rate equivalent to more than 3 degrees centigrade per century.

When I first began examining the global-warming scare, I found nothing more puzzling than the way officially approved scientists kept on being shown to have finagled their data, as in that ludicrous “hockey stick” graph, pretending to prove that the world had suddenly become much hotter than at any time in 1,000 years. Any theory needing to rely so consistently on fudging the evidence, I concluded, must be looked on not as science at all, but as simply a rather alarming case study in the aberrations of group psychology.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/10916086/The-scandal-of-fiddled-global-warming-data.html

[libertyjam]

Unexpected June snowfall surprises Utahns
http://www.ksl.com/?sid=30357119&nid=148

What’s to Be Done With 15 Feet of Snow in June? Utah Knows
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/11/sports/skiing/whats-to-be-done-with-15-feet-of-snow-in-june-utah-knows.html?_r=0

[green73]

Unexpected June snowfall surprises Utahns
http://www.ksl.com/?sid=30357119&nid=148

What’s to Be Done With 15 Feet of Snow in June? Utah Knows
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/11/sports/skiing/whats-to-be-done-with-15-feet-of-snow-in-june-utah-knows.html?_r=0


But, but, don't you understand? A warming planet means soon summer will be winter.

But it's summer! Bizarre scenes as ICEBERGS are spotted still floating in Lake Superior in the middle of June (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2654119/But-summer-Icebergs-spotted-floating-Lake-Superior-despite-Great-Lakes-declared-ice-free.html)

[Danke]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?454466-Professor-Axed-for-Calling-Climate-Change-Unproved-Science&highlight=

Professor's fellowship 'terminated' after WSJ OpEd declaring ‘the left wants to stop industrialization—even if the hypothesis of catastrophic, man-made global warming is false’
Climate Statistics Prof. Caleb Rossiter: 'If people ever say that fears of censorship for ‘climate change’ views are overblown, have them take a look at this. Just two days after I published a piece in the Wall Street Journal calling for Africa to be allowed the ‘all of the above’ energy strategy we have in the U.S., the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) terminated my 23-year relationship with them...because my analysis and theirs ‘diverge.’
IPS email of 'termination' to Rossiter: 'We would like to inform you that we are terminating your position as an Associate Fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies...Unfortunately, we now feel that your views on key issues, including climate science, climate justice, and many aspects of U.S. policy to Africa, diverge so significantly from ours'

[pcosmar]

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/06/10/article-2654119-1EA29C2E00000578-606_964x537.jpg

And I used to swim in that shit,, before I knew any better.

I got spoiled swimming in warmer waters.

And yes,, That is a Foosball Table.

[56ktarget]

Movie idea- a conspiracy of 97% of the world's scientists is cooked up for thirty-plus years. Only a gallant alliance composed of oil executives and billionaires can stop their apocalyptic plot.

[RabbitMan]

I swear I am going to tear my hair out if I see another ridiculous thread on here confusing global warming with surface temperatures rising everywhere equally on the planet. Use the term Climate Change or Oceanic Warming and we will all be better off. When you can find evidence of accelerated glacial melting being a hoax, get back to me,

[Zippyjuan]

Author is certainly a scientific contrarian.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Booker


Christopher John Penrice Booker (born 7 October 1937) is an English journalist and author. In 1961, he was one of the founders of the magazine Private Eye, and has contributed to it since then. He has been a columnist for The Sunday Telegraph since 1990.[1] He has taken a stance which runs counter to the scientific consensus on a number of issues, including global warming, the link between passive smoking and cancer,[2] and the dangers posed by asbestos.[3] In 2009, he published The Real Global Warming Disaster.

[torchbearer]

I swear I am going to tear my hair out if I see another ridiculous thread on here confusing global warming with surface temperatures rising everywhere equally on the planet. Use the term Climate Change or Oceanic Warming and we will all be better off. When you can find evidence of accelerated glacial melting being a hoax, get back to me,


antarctica is melting because of an underwater volcano.
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/06/09/hidden-volcanoes-melt-antarctic-glaciers-from-below/ (article originated on Live Science, not fox news)

[ZENemy]

Author is certainly a scientific contrarian.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Booker

Yes because Al gore is much more credible.

[acptulsa]

Movie idea- a conspiracy of 97% of the world's scientists is cooked up for thirty-plus years. Only a gallant alliance composed of oil executives and billionaires can stop their apocalyptic plot.

Thirty-plus years ago the Chicken Littles were blathering about global dimming. And sixty years ago the medical researchers were telling us how much longer we'd live if we ate lots and lots of fatty red meat, too.

[Danke]

Movie idea- a conspiracy of 97% of the world's scientists is cooked up for thirty-plus years. Only a gallant alliance composed of oil executives and billionaires can stop their apocalyptic plot.

The 97% consensus myth – busted by a real survey

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/20/the-97-consensus-myth-busted-by-a-real-survey/

[green73]

Movie idea- a conspiracy of 97% of the world's scientists is cooked up for thirty-plus years. Only a gallant alliance composed of oil executives and billionaires can stop their apocalyptic plot.

:rolleyes:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUeL6pjpef0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUeL6pjpef0

[Zippyjuan]

The 97% consensus myth – busted by a real survey

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/20/the-97-consensus-myth-busted-by-a-real-survey/

According to the American Meterlogical Survey at that link, http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1 five percent said "global warming isn't happening". Seven percent said they "Don't know if it is happening". That leaves a pretty significant percent saying they believe it is happening. The real dispute is how much impact humans have. Only one percent said "Yes, don't know cause".

[brandon]

Author is certainly a scientific contrarian.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Booker

Yea in the past I tried to cite him in some climate change arguments I was making to liberals and they discredited him pretty quickly based on some of this stuff. Knowing more about his past now I don't think I'd cite this guy again. I don't think he's a full blown crackpot or anything, but he's at least of questionable merit.

[Lucille]

http://www.voxday.blogspot.com/2014/06/80-years-of-climate-cooling.html


I note, again, that we global warming skeptics - deniers, if you prefer - have been consistently correct all along. And the more the charlatans' Hot Earth models fail, going back to 1922, the more their frauds are uncovered and exposed, the more frantically they insist that this time, the Earth really is doomed.

The thing is, one didn't, and doesn't, have to know a single thing about climate or historical temperatures to recognize that they were lying. Because liars a) observably behave in a manner inconsistent with what they claim to believe, and b) are reliably wrong. We have not forgotten that we were told entire nations would be wiped off the face of Earth by rising sea levels if the global-warming trend was not reversed by the year 2000.

What nation was that, Atlantis? Global warming is nothing more than a pseudoscience concocted to justify global government. Which means that it is only a matter of time before all the lies and the fictitious data used as its foundation are revealed to be fabricated and fraudulent.

[acptulsa]

Movie idea- a conspiracy of 97% of the world's scientists is cooked up for thirty-plus years. Only a gallant alliance composed of oil executives and billionaires can stop their apocalyptic plot.

Executives and billionaires, is it? And who do you think funds the vast majority of university research, particularly in the U.S. today? You really think 'our' executives and billionaires will save us from your executives and billionaires--you know, the ones who are trying to get richer at the expense of the poor with higher water rates and carbon taxes?

[Zippyjuan]

Curious why the chart in the blog link only looks at temperatures for three weeks out of the year- June 1st thorugh June 21st- and ignores what are typically the hottest months of the year.

"Percentage of US June Temperatures Above 100 Degrees Thourgh June 21st".

Not even the entire month of June at that. Very selective data. Probably because more data would have disproved the point they were trying to make.

https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/screenhunter_628-jun-23-07-02.gif?w=640&h=538

This chart shows more info for the entire years instead of just three weeks:
https://www2.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/news/2014/us_temperature_thru_2013.jpg

https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/how-much-has-global-temperature-risen-last-100-years

[Lucille]

Executives and billionaires, is it? And who do you think funds the vast majority of university research, particularly in the U.S. today? You really think 'our' executives and billionaires will save us from your executives and billionaires--you know, the ones who are trying to get richer at the expense of the poor with higher water rates and carbon taxes?

Progs (http://www.wendymcelroy.com/news.php?extend.4833.7) don't even know they're fascists (http://blog.independent.org/2010/03/16/nothing-outside-the-state/)! From the Fed, to taxes, fees, regs, and mandates, to the global warming-green energy scam, to Barry's Big Fascist Medical System, to TBTF everything, it's all right in front of their faces, but they can't see it. They still insist they're looking out for the little guy, when all they have done for the past 100 years is destroy jobs and opportunity and create more poor people through their fascist central planning. And then they further embarrass themselves by blaming the "free market (http://blog.independent.org/2012/10/30/once-more-with-feeling-our-system-is-not-socialism-but-participatory-fascism/)," which we don't even have since they destroyed that long ago. Left is the only direction this country has ever moved. They already won and they don't even know it! That's how f'n dumb they are.

I want a divorce (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/what-keeps-the-states-united/)!

[Zippyjuan]

Thank you for the rep!

[Anti Federalist]

And I used to swim in that shit,, before I knew any better.

I got spoiled swimming in warmer waters.

And yes,, That is a Foosball Table.

Looks like Wisconsin numbers on that boat.

Is that one of the icebergs that were floating around just up to a couple weeks ago in Green Bay?

[libertyjam]

Curious why the chart in the blog link only looks at temperatures for three weeks out of the year- June 1st thorugh June 21st- and ignores what are typically the hottest months of the year.


https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/how-much-has-global-temperature-risen-last-100-years


Trying to rebut showing the fraud in NOAA data with more discredited and fraudulent NOAA data, how does that work?

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/noaa-and-nasa-data-alterations-are-global/
NOAA And NASA Data Alterations Are Global


https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/noaanasa-dramatically-altered-us-temperatures-after-the-year-2000/

Right after the year 2000, NASA and NOAA dramatically altered US climate history, making the past much colder and the present much warmer. The animation below shows how NASA cooled 1934 and warmed 1998, to make 1998 the hottest year in US history instead of 1934. This alteration turned a long term cooling trend since 1930 into a warming trend.

https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/1998changesannotated.gif?w=500&h=355

[Zippyjuan]

What is the source of data for the Gif? (nothing at the link)

[Lucille]

What is the source of data for the Gif? (nothing at the link)

You'd have to actually click the link to see it. RTFA for once.

[Zippyjuan]

I don't see it. Perhaps you can share it with us? Thanks!

[libertyjam]

In the comments, and found elsewhere in other posts at S. Goddard's site,

Source link for NASA graph B of US temps?
Reply

stevengoddard says:
June 23, 2014 at 1:57 am

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.D.gif

More data:
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/data-tampering-at-ushcngiss/
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/05/10/einstein-if-the-data-doesnt-match-the-theory-change-the-data/
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/11/03/nasa-hiding-the-decline-in-us-temperatures/
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/08/14/when-did-noaa-get-taken-over-by-a-crime-syndicate/

[erowe1]

Movie idea- a conspiracy of 97% of the world's scientists is cooked up for thirty-plus years. Only a gallant alliance composed of oil executives and billionaires can stop their apocalyptic plot.

Source for "97%"?

[Zippyjuan]

In the comments, and found elsewhere in other posts at S. Goddard's site,

Source link for NASA graph B of US temps?
Reply

stevengoddard says:
June 23, 2014 at 1:57 am

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.D.gif

More data:
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/data-tampering-at-ushcngiss/
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/05/10/einstein-if-the-data-doesnt-match-the-theory-change-the-data/
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/11/03/nasa-hiding-the-decline-in-us-temperatures/
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/08/14/when-did-noaa-get-taken-over-by-a-crime-syndicate/

Thanks. Didn't dig though all of the comments- link should have been with the GIF. NOAA on the data:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources/gistemp.html


GHCN contains reports from several sources, so there often are multiple records for the same location. Occasionally, a single record was divided up by NOAA into several pieces, e.g. if suspicious discontinuities were discovered. USHCN and SCAR contain single source reports but in different formats/units and with different or no identification numbers. For USHCN, the table "ushcn2.tbl" gives a translation key, for SCAR we extended the WMO number if it existed or created a new ID if it did not (2 cases). SCAR stations are treated as new sources. Adding SCAR data to GHCN: The tables were reformatted and the data rescaled to fit the GHCN format; the new stations were added to the inventory file. The site temperature.html has not been updated for several years; we found and corrected a few typos in that file. (Any SCAR data marked "preliminary" are skipped) Replacing USHCN-unmodified by USHCN-corrected data: The reports were converted from F to C and reformatted; data marked as being filled in using interpolation methods were removed. USHCN-IDs were replaced by the corresponding GHCN-ID. The latest common 10 years for each station were used to compare corrected and uncorrected data. The offset so obtained was subtracted from the corrected USHCN reports to match any new incoming GHCN reports for that station (GHCN reports are updated monthly; in the past, USHCN data used to lag by 1-5 years). Filling in missing data for Hohenpeissenberg: This is a version of a GHCN report with missing data filled in, so it is used to fill the gaps of the corresponding GHCN series. Result: v2.mean_comb Step 1 : Simplifications, elimination of dubious records, 2 adjustments (do_comb_step1.sh) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The various sources at a single location are combined into one record, if possible, using a version of the reference station method. The adjustments are determined in this case using series of estimated annual means. Non-overlapping records are viewed as a single record, unless this would result introducing a discontinuity; in the documented case of St.Helena the discontinuity is eliminated by adding 1C to the early part. After noticing an unusual warming trend in Hawaii, closer investigation showed its origin to be in the Lihue record; it had a discontinuity around 1950 not present in any neighboring station. Based on those data, we added 0.8C to the part before the discontinuity. Some unphysical looking segments were eliminated after manual inspection of unusual looking annual mean graphs and comparing them to the corresponding graphs of all neighboring stations. See CLEANING NOTES for further details. Result: Ts.txt Step 2 : Splitting into zonal sections and homogenization

More a link (which is a mess to try to read through)

[PRB]

US = not global.

[Danke]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMqc7PCJ-nc

[PRB]

Source for "97%"?

not 97% of scientists, as people can have opinions, but 97% of all applicable published literature.

Of course, they could all be looking at a common source data, but dissenting papers are free to point to a better set of data.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-advanced.htm

[Zippyjuan]

US = not global.

From my USGS link:

whereas the corrections have little impact on the GLOBAL temperature trend, the US covering less than 2% of the globe.

[libertyjam]

Thanks. Didn't dig though all of the comments- link should have been with the GIF. NOAA on the data:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources/gistemp.html



More a link (which is a mess to try to read through)

stevengoddard says:
June 23, 2014 at 3:37 am

The fact that have documented some issues which can influence temperature readings, is light years away from demonstrating that what they are doing with their software is legitimate.

You do understand that they are turning a measured cooling trend into a warming trend?

[erowe1]

not 97% of scientists, as people can have opinions, but 97% of all applicable published literature.

That's a totally different thing.

[PRB]

Trying to rebut showing the fraud in NOAA data with more discredited and fraudulent NOAA data, how does that work?


Tell us whose data we should actually trust.

I'm listening.

[PRB]

That's a totally different thing.

It is. Which is why it's important to know what the claim actually says.

Now, does anybody care to challenge the validity of the claim?

Or more importantly, if it wasn't 97%, and in fact 70%. What does the remaining papers ACTUALLY SAY?

[libertyjam]

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/tracking-us-temperature-fraud/

[libertyjam]

From my USGS link:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/

[erowe1]

It is. Which is why it's important to know what the claim actually says.

Now, does anybody care to challenge the validity of the claim?

Or more importantly, if it wasn't 97%, and in fact 70%. What does the remaining papers ACTUALLY SAY?

The thing is, these are journal articles reporting on the results of research, most of which is funded by government grants are only awarded to research designed to support anthropogenic global warming and not oppose it.

They mention how global warming skepticism is pushed by money connected to the fossil fuel industry (without actually backing up that claim), as though that mitigates what they say. But they don't seem to recognize any conflict of interest in the connection between their side and the very governments whose power they want to increase.

I notice that the link you gave starts right out by mentioning the 31,000 scientists in the petition project, and nowhere in it does it actually address that. Nor does it actually back up its claim that there is a consensus among scientists.

[HVACTech]

temperature and heat (enthalpy) are not the same thing. (trust me)

if one believes that "ice ages" are real, true and have happened. then, it can clearly be seen that we are not in one.
and, if that is real, true and correct. then it follows that both "climate change" as well as "global warming"
are real, true, and correct.

[libertyjam]

Tell us whose data we should actually trust.

I'm listening.


stevengoddard says:
June 23, 2014 at 9:51 am

There are several things which can affect temperature readings, including UHI affects which cause recent readings to be too warm. Once they start altering data based on subjective judgements, they data is corrupted by confirmation bias, or worse.

The raw data should be presented as well as the adjusted data. Adjusted data should be presented as adjusted data, not "actual" temps. Then methodology and how software adjustments were done should be fully disclosed. They pretend they are but they are not.

As PRB is on ignore this will be my only and last response to him.

[ravedown]

Unfortunately, we now feel that your views on key issues, including climate science, climate justice, and many aspects of U.S. policy to Africa, diverge so significantly from ours'


"climate justice?" im still trying to figure out what the Orwellian horseshit this is? not sure if i should laugh or be worried.

[Zippyjuan]

Goddard did admit he was wrong about Arctic Ice not melting: http://www.desmogblog.com/steven-goddard


Goddard is known for a 2008 article in The Register where he posited that Arctic Sea ice is not receding and claimed that data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) showing the opposite was incorrect. Goddard later issued a retraction on his statement.


Steven Goddard Published an article titled “Arctic ice refuses to melt as ordered” in The Register. Goddard claimed that the National Snow and Ice Data Center plot of the extent of Arctic Sea Ice was wrong. However, on August 25, Goddard retracted his claim, saying that “… it is clear that the NSIDC graph is correct, and that 2008 Arctic ice is barely 10% above last year - just as NSIDC had stated.”

Joe Romm at ClimateProgress reported that the retraction may have been too late, as Goddard’s article had already received over 70 references by blogs and websites skeptical of man-made climate change.

Not sure if we can trust his data any better.

I was doing some more reading on the USGS site and one of the "adjustments" made to temperatures was to correct for the time of day. Modern readings are taken in mid- morning and earlier ones (like the ones in the 1930's) were made in mid- afternoon- when they were at their highest so either the modern temps had to be increased or older temps decreased.

(Irrelevant but Steven Goddard isn't even his real name but a pseudonym)

[pcosmar]

Not sure if we can trust his data any better.

http://a57.foxnews.com/global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/img/U.S./660/371/Antarctica%20Icebound%20Ship.jpg?ve=1&tl=1

[pcosmar]

Looks like Wisconsin numbers on that boat.

Is that one of the icebergs that were floating around just up to a couple weeks ago in Green Bay?

That area.. and yes. Eastern Wisconsin is considered Yooper.

There was late ice in the waters widely reported.

it was a long cold winter.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2654119/But-summer-Icebergs-spotted-floating-Lake-Superior-despite-Great-Lakes-declared-ice-free.html

[Lucille]

http://a57.foxnews.com/global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/img/U.S./660/371/Antarctica%20Icebound%20Ship.jpg?ve=1&tl=1

The only thing thicker than the ice is the irony.

[PRB]

The thing is, these are journal articles reporting on the results of research, most of which is funded by government grants are only awarded to research designed to support anthropogenic global warming and not oppose it.


That is true of almost ALL scientific research, somehow I don't see you automatically doubting ALL scientific research on those grounds alone. Why the singling out?



They mention how global warming skepticism is pushed by money connected to the fossil fuel industry (without actually backing up that claim), as though that mitigates what they say. But they don't seem to recognize any conflict of interest in the connection between their side and the very governments whose power they want to increase.


The difference is, you can't prove that governments directly benefit or profit by getting AGW results.

If what you say is true (and it largely is), that government funds most climate research, logically it means either some of it is non-AGW results, or somebody else would be funding 'skeptical' results, or else you'd have to discount that too.





I notice that the link you gave starts right out by mentioning the 31,000 scientists in the petition project, and nowhere in it does it actually address that. Nor does it actually back up its claim that there is a consensus among scientists.

Here you go.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/OISM-Petition-Project.htm

[PRB]

The raw data should be presented as well as the adjusted data. Adjusted data should be presented as adjusted data, not "actual" temps. Then methodology and how software adjustments were done should be fully disclosed. They pretend they are but they are not.

As PRB is on ignore this will be my only and last response to him.

who collects raw data and why do you trust them?

[Zippyjuan]

http://a57.foxnews.com/global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/img/U.S./660/371/Antarctica%20Icebound%20Ship.jpg?ve=1&tl=1

How quickly we forget.
http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/a-breakdown-of-record-summer-temperatures/

http://www.climatecentral.org/images/sized/images/sized/remote/assets-climatecentral-org-images-uploads-blogs-7-20-12_andrew_junerecordtemps_fromtracker-450x332.jpg

Each dot on this map represents a temperature record set during June of 2012. Click on the image for a larger version. Credit: Climate Central.

[LibForestPaul]

According to the American Meterlogical Survey at that link, http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1 five percent said "global warming isn't happening". Seven percent said they "Don't know if it is happening". That leaves a pretty significant percent saying they believe it is happening. The real dispute is how much impact humans have. Only one percent said "Yes, don't know cause".

So you saying 25% are Free Masons following the money? Thought it would be higher.

[ChristianAnarchist]

I've become very jaded over the years towards "scientists". I've learned that those men and woman are just like the rest of us. They will bend the truth to promote an agenda. We little guys don't have access to laboratories and reams of data from expensive experiments so we have become complacent and just started believing any kind of BS they send our way. When I was growing up in the 60's we were told that because of our dependence on "fossil" fuels we were creating a climate nightmare that was ushering in a "new ice age". We were going to be covered by growing ice caps and they even had "data" showing how quickly the caps were growing (no doubt fudged). At our rate of consumption (we were told) we would exhaust the worlds oil reserves by the 1990's!! Well here we are in 2014 and getting a sick reversal of that propaganda and you know what?? We're not out of oil... In fact we're swimming in the stuff. Every couple of years we hear of another HUGE deposit discovered somewhere (Australia is the latest).

I'm through with the "scientists" (if they can claim to really be scientists). I don't believe word one from them. Just leave me be...

[osan]

Curious why the chart in the blog link only looks at temperatures for three weeks out of the year- June 1st thorugh June 21st- and ignores what are typically the hottest months of the year.


Not even the entire month of June at that. Very selective data. Probably because more data would have disproved the point they were trying to make.

https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/screenhunter_628-jun-23-07-02.gif?w=640&h=538

This chart shows more info for the entire years instead of just three weeks:
https://www2.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/news/2014/us_temperature_thru_2013.jpg

https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/how-much-has-global-temperature-risen-last-100-years

This proves nothing in the absence of knowledge of the long-term nature of planetary climate. A mere 110 years tells us nothing beyond those 110 years.

FAIL.

[PRB]

This proves nothing in the absence of knowledge of the long-term nature of planetary climate. A mere 110 years tells us nothing beyond those 110 years.

FAIL.

hypocrisy, when somebody wants to talk about cooling, he'll say the past 15, 30, 80 years, as soon as somebody shows he's wrong or a longer trend, he complains the data isn't going back long enough.

[jmdrake]

According to the American Meterlogical Survey at that link, http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1 five percent said "global warming isn't happening". Seven percent said they "Don't know if it is happening". That leaves a pretty significant percent saying they believe it is happening. The real dispute is how much impact humans have. Only one percent said "Yes, don't know cause".

So basically you just ignored Danke's survey and countered with one of your own that backed up your belief. How typically unscientific of you.

[jmdrake]

I swear I am going to tear my hair out if I see another ridiculous global argument using yet another goalpost to "prove" global warming. The argument used to be the retreat of arctic sea ice, until it was conclusively show that sea ice is expanding. So now it's glacial melting? Why can't you just pick and argument and stick with it?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/06/06/climate-change-is-getting-worse-so-why-is-antarcticas-ice-sheet-expanding/
This year could well see a new record set for the extent of Antarctic sea ice – hot on the heels of last year’s record, which in turn is part of a puzzling 33-year trend in increasing sea ice around Antarctica. Unsurprisingly, these records have provided fodder for those wishing to cast doubt or resist action on climate change.

[PRB]

I swear I am going to tear my hair out if I see another ridiculous global argument using yet another goalpost to "prove" global warming. The argument used to be the retreat of arctic sea ice, until it was conclusively show that sea ice is expanding. So now it's glacial melting? Why can't you just pick and argument and stick with it?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/06/06/climate-change-is-getting-worse-so-why-is-antarcticas-ice-sheet-expanding/
This year could well see a new record set for the extent of Antarctic sea ice – hot on the heels of last year’s record, which in turn is part of a puzzling 33-year trend in increasing sea ice around Antarctica. Unsurprisingly, these records have provided fodder for those wishing to cast doubt or resist action on climate change.

Overall measured temperature is the best indication, otherwise there probably is no one single phenomena alone to prove global warming.

[Zippyjuan]

So basically you just ignored Danke's survey and countered with one of your own that backed up your belief. How typically unscientific of you.

Actually the figures came FROM the same survey Danke cited.

[Zippyjuan]

This proves nothing in the absence of knowledge of the long-term nature of planetary climate. A mere 110 years tells us nothing beyond those 110 years.

FAIL.

And yet some want to take the fact (adjusted) that June 2012 was NOT the hottest month on record (only the SECOND hottest one) to try to say that it somehow disproves climate change.

[mad cow]

That well-known bastion of right wing nuttery - the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - has released data showing that US temps have not risen in the last decade and have, in fact, dropped.

Forbes:

Responding to widespread criticism that its temperature station readings were corrupted by poor siting issues and suspect adjustments, NOAA established a network of 114 pristinely sited temperature stations spread out fairly uniformly throughout the United States. Because the network, known as the U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN), is so uniformly and pristinely situated, the temperature data require no adjustments to provide an accurate nationwide temperature record. USCRN began compiling temperature data in January 2005. Now, nearly a decade later, NOAA has finally made the USCRN temperature readings available.

According to the USCRN temperature readings, U.S. temperatures are not rising at all – at least not since the network became operational 10 years ago. Instead, the United States has cooled by approximately 0.4 degrees Celsius, which is more than half of the claimed global warming of the twentieth century.

More at link: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/07/ooops_data_from_government_agency_shows_us_cooling _trend.html

[FindLiberty]

I've skimmed over the post data and noticed after some cooling back near the end of June with post #51, this thread appears to be heating up again!

[oyarde]

There is no warming in my area.

[Anti Federalist]

Thus endeth the thread.


I've become very jaded over the years towards "scientists". I've learned that those men and woman are just like the rest of us. They will bend the truth to promote an agenda. We little guys don't have access to laboratories and reams of data from expensive experiments so we have become complacent and just started believing any kind of BS they send our way. When I was growing up in the 60's we were told that because of our dependence on "fossil" fuels we were creating a climate nightmare that was ushering in a "new ice age". We were going to be covered by growing ice caps and they even had "data" showing how quickly the caps were growing (no doubt fudged). At our rate of consumption (we were told) we would exhaust the worlds oil reserves by the 1990's!! Well here we are in 2014 and getting a sick reversal of that propaganda and you know what?? We're not out of oil... In fact we're swimming in the stuff. Every couple of years we hear of another HUGE deposit discovered somewhere (Australia is the latest).

I'm through with the "scientists" (if they can claim to really be scientists). I don't believe word one from them. Just leave me be...