Guest post on Senate Hearing
By Dr. Gordon Fulks
The just concluded US Senate hearing on “Data or Dogma” concerning human influences on climate and chaired by Senator Ted Cruz was very successful at presenting the case for skepticism. Professors John Christy, Judith Curry, and Will Happer did a magnificent job. And writer Mark Stein added some of the less technical but more easily understood points that are so essential to public understanding of a complex subject. The one opposing witness, Professor David Titley did a good job of presenting the case for alarm and not too badly overstating that case, as the Democratic Senators repeatedly did.
The Democratic Senators were very smooth at presenting their case, but it mostly revolved around the usual propaganda about “Warmest Year Ever,” “Sea Level Rise,” “Hurricanes,” “Smoking and Lung Cancer,” and of course “97% Consensus.” Consensus was by far their major point.
Although our side did very well, some things could have been better. Senator Cruz had only one other Republican Senator speak to the issues, Senator Daines of Montana. He billed himself as the only chemical engineer in Congress and acquitted himself very well, pointing out, for instance, that China has been caught under-reporting its CO2 emissions by the equivalent of 70% of US emissions. But Democrats had five of their Senators participate to the two Republicans and they kept pushing the same propaganda and throwing question after question to the witness who would give them the answers they wanted, Professor Titley of Penn State. Eventually Mark Steyn, Professor Curry, and Professor Happer broke into the monopoly and were able to make some very sturdy points. But Professor Titley was the smoothest presenter, able to present the alarmist position from a national security because he is a retired Admiral. And Titley was able to expertly dodge the crucial scientific issues and avoid contradicting the obvious nonsense from the Democratic Senators.
The other issue that was obvious was age. The witnesses for our perspective were wonderful but beyond their prime, as many of us are. That is a problem where image is half the battle. We needed a vigorous younger scientist willing to back our perspective and willing to get more into the fray. Professor Curry was wonderful at going after the continuously claimed consensus, but she, Happer, and Christy were not as combative as I think the situation demanded. Mark Steyn’s vigor was very helpful, but his lack of scientific credentials made it easy for the Democratic Senators to degrade him as a “political commentator.”
The bottom line in my opinion was that the hearing was very successful, and Senator Cruz did a wonderful job. I don’t think that he made a single scientific mistake. That’s amazing for a United States Senator, but not for a Princeton University graduate!
Any who want to view the hearing should be able to replay it here. The testimony is here.
What did others think?
Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)
The televised hearing (2 h 43 min) is excellent in exposing invalid methodology (including an apparent lack of concern about causal explanations) as well as harmful political methods that have been interfering with the scientific process:
Full Video: Sen. Cruz Climate Science Hearing
Published on Dec 8, 2015
John Christy, Judith Curry, Will Happer, and Mark Steyn were brilliant.
I recommend watching the entire session.
---- Dr. Larry Gould, Physicist
Note: Markey, whose state and major city was paralyzed by record cold and snow last winter blamed it on water he said that was 21F warmer than normal. Here is a plot of February SSTAs:
Temperatures off the coast were COLDER than normal. One has to go well to the east of the storm track (432 miles or more) to find waters 2.5C above normal - 1/4 the number that Markey threw out. A friend sat at a Boston restaurant years ago and heard a boisterous man bloviating with virtually every sentence beginning with “I’. He turned around after he ate and recognized Markey. He is full of himself and obviously something else.
-------------
Fiddling with Temperature Data is the Biggest Science Scandal Ever
New data shows that the “vanishing” of polar ice is not the result of runaway global warming
By Christopher Booker
When future generations look back on the global-warming scare of the past 30 years, nothing will shock them more than the extent to which the official temperature records - on which the entire panic ultimately rested - were systematically ‘adjusted” to show the Earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified.
Two weeks ago, under the headline “How we are being tricked by flawed data on global warming”, I wrote about Paul Homewood, who, on his Notalotofpeopleknowthat blog, had checked the published temperature graphs for three weather stations in Paraguay against the temperatures that had originally been recorded. In each instance, the actual trend of 60 years of data had been dramatically reversed, so that a cooling trend was changed to one that showed a marked warming.
This was only the latest of many examples of a practice long recognised by expert observers around the world - one that raises an ever larger question mark over the entire official surface-temperature record.
Watch: Climate change explained in 60 second animation
Following my last article, Homewood checked a swathe of other South American weather stations around the original three. In each case he found the same suspicious one-way “adjustments”. First these were made by the US government’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN). They were then amplified by two of the main official surface records, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss) and the National Climate Data Center (NCDC), which use the warming trends to estimate temperatures across the vast regions of the Earth where no measurements are taken. Yet these are the very records on which scientists and politicians rely for their belief in “global warming”.
Homewood has now turned his attention to the weather stations across much of the Arctic, between Canada (51 degrees W) and the heart of Siberia (87 degrees E). Again, in nearly every case, the same one-way adjustments have been made, to show warming up to 1 degree C or more higher than was indicated by the data that was actually recorded. This has surprised no one more than Traust Jonsson, who was long in charge of climate research for the Iceland met office (and with whom Homewood has been in touch). Jonsson was amazed to see how the new version completely “disappears” Iceland’s “sea ice years” around 1970, when a period of extreme cooling almost devastated his country’s economy.
One of the first examples of these “adjustments” was exposed in 2007 by the statistician Steve McIntyre, when he discovered a paper published in 1987 by James Hansen, the scientist (later turned fanatical climate activist) who for many years ran Giss. Hansen’s original graph showed temperatures in the Arctic as having been much higher around 1940 than at any time since. But as Homewood reveals in his blog post, “Temperature adjustments transform Arctic history”, NASA GISS has turned this upside down. Arctic temperatures from that time have been lowered so much that that they are now dwarfed by those of the past 20 years.
Homewood’s interest in the Arctic is partly because the “vanishing” of its polar ice (and the polar bears) has become such a poster-child for those trying to persuade us that we are threatened by runaway warming. But he chose that particular stretch of the Arctic because it is where ice is affected by warmer water brought in by cyclical shifts in a major Atlantic current [ this last peaked at just the time 75 years ago when Arctic ice retreated even further than it has done recently. The ice-melt is not caused by rising global temperatures at all.
Of much more serious sign has become the real elephant in the room of the greatest and most costly scare the world has known. This really does begin to look like one of the greatest scientific scandals of all time.
See Lord Montford’s Hiding the Decline.
Christopher Booker is author of The Real Global Warming Disaster: Is the Obsession with “Climate Change” Turning Out to Be the Most Costly Scientific Blunder in History?
----------
Watch Chris Horner (Red Hot Lies) bash looney tune hysterical environmentalist Betsy Rosenberg on this radio show who had promised we only had 4 or 5 years to save the planet (Enviros have been saying that for decades).
----------
Sen. Ed Markey: 39 Years of Voting ‘Present’
By Howie Carr
U.S. Sen. Edward Markey (D-MA) has long labored in the shadows of the Bay State statesmen who preceded him, but Tuesday the Congressional lifer managed something few solons from Massachusetts or anywhere else have ever accomplished.
First, he let two hostile witnesses take over a Senate subcommittee hearing on global warming and begin questioning him. Then, about two minutes into the relentless cross examination - by a woman and a Canadian author - “Fast Eddie” began foaming at the mouth.
Literally. Fee-fi-foaming at the mouth.
Watch the video for yourself.
Tables_turned_Scientist_Judith_Curry_and_Author_Mark_Steyn_question_school_Sen_Markey_on_climate
Markey, who has been in Congress since the Gerald Ford administration, was at a subcommittee hearing on Capitol Hill being chaired by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), R-TX. Two of Cruz’ witnesses were climatologist Judith Curry and Mark Steyn, the writer and climate-change skeptic who is Rush Limbaugh’s number-one fill-in host. Steyn jokes that he is “America’s undocumented anchorman,” while a George Soros-financed website this week attempted to disparage him as a “shock jock.”
Markey read a few pro-warmist talking points written by his staff, then stood up to leave the room. But Dr. Curry was incensed by his attack on her.
“Have you read my testimony?” she asked the former ice-cream truck driver once known in his hometown of Malden as “Mr. Frosty.” “Have you read my testimony?”
The blood drained from Markey’s face. Have you read my testimony? Point of order, Mr. Chairman. No trick questions allowed!
“Why can’t she respond?” Steyn yelled. “You impugned her integrity!”
Markey started sputtering...97 percent of scientist...warmest year ever...trend is straight up.
Steyn interrupted again: “Do you know what the Little Ice Age was, Senator?”
The Little Ice Age! Not even the most eminent warmists like Leonardo DiCaprio and Katy Perry can explain away the Little Ice Age. It’s like waving a crucifix, a silver bullet and a clove of garlic in Dracula’s face all at once. Markey was in full panic mode now. He began babbling inane gibberish about the Winter of ‘15, the coldest and snowiest ever in Boston, 110 inches of global warming.
This was when the spittle began forming on his lower lip.
“The warming of the ocean intensifies the amount of precipitation when Arctic air hits that water.”
In other words, the warmer it gets, the colder it gets, not to mention snowier. Whatever you say, Mr. Frosty.
Steyn knew now that he had Markey on the ropes. Markey was fighting way above his weight class. Steyn began interrupting him with one pointed barb after another. Again, remember, Steyn was the witness, and he had hijacked the hearing from a solon who’s been in Congress since 1976.
“Do you know what the winters were like at Plymouth Rock, senator?”
“Well, here is the thing. We...”
“You don’t. How long has your family been in Massachusetts?”
“We are new arrivals and I have to admit..”
“You should have been in there in 1750.”
It was just another day in the life of Ed Markey, a lightweight’s lightweight, a sheep in sheep’s clothing.
As the latest US senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Frosty has had some mighty small shoes to fill. He’s not a whoremonger like JFK, or a blustering woman-drowning drunk with a legacy of some of the most ruinous legislation ever, like Ted Kennedy. He’s not a smug, sanctimonious preening gigolo like John Kerry, or a duplicitous fraud like Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA).
At age 69, he’s too old to die tragically young, like Paul Tsongas did of cancer at age 55. It’s likewise too late for him to follow in the footsteps of Ed Brooke, the nation’s first elected black senator since Reconstruction, and have sex with Barbara Walters (she’s 86 now).
But in his own small way, Markey is as appalling as any of his better-known predecessors. At the annual St. Patrick’s Day breakfast in Southie, then-Senate President Billy Bulger would always say of Markey:
“To a battle of wits he comes unarmed.”
As Congressman for 37 years, Markey used to show up at another St. Patrick’s Day time, sponsored by a newspaper publisher in Everett, a city in his district. It was also the hometown of the then-Speaker of the Massachusetts House, George Keverian, another Democrat.
One year at the breakfast Markey was bemoaning what he said was his shabby treatment at the hands of the Everett weekly newspaper.
“Why,” he whined, “does everybody hate me?”
Speaker Keverian leaned into the microphone. “Why, Eddie? Because you’re an asshole.”
Markey came out of Malden, a blue-collar suburb a few towns north of Boston. He was first elected in 1972 as a pro-life Catholic. He is now of course 100 percent “pro-choice.”
His big break came when US Rep. Torbert Macdonald, a Harvard classmate and crony of JFK, died in office in 1976. Markey, using a network that included his old customers from his days on the ice cream truck as Mr. Frosty, jumped into the fight.
Markey’s claim to fame in that first race was that he’d tangled at the State House with the then Speaker (not Keverian). The Speaker had evicted Markey from his tiny basement office and put his desk in the hall. Markey made a TV spot: “They can tell Ed Markey where to sit, but they can’t tell him where to stand.”
He won a seven-way Democrat primary with 22 percent of the vote.
He was sworn into office in November 1976, and he’s been in Washington ever since, leaving next to no footprints, sitting and standing wherever the leadership tells him to.
At the beginning, Markey fancied himself a Kennedy-esque figure. Even now Massachusetts teems with such wannabees - K-Mart Kennedys, as they’re called. He even once tried to get his brother elected to Congress from a nearby district. Lightning did not strike twice.
His first national exposure came in 1979, when the real Kennedy began running for president. A network camera crew was invited in to do a day-in-the-life piece on Teddy for the nightly news. They were rolling as Teddy’s aide Rick Burke called Markey’s office and got him on the line. What happened next was recounted by Burke in his 1992 tell-all book, The Senator.
“Ricky,” Teddy yelled, “what’s his name? What’s his name?”
“Markey,” Burke said.
“No, no no. What’s his first name?”
As Burke wrote, he whispered Markey’s first name to Teddy, after which “the Senator nodded, removed his hand from the mouthpiece and said in a syrupy tone, ‘Oh, Ed, how are you?’”
The next night, the entire exchange ran on the network newscast.
In 1984, Sen. Paul Tsongas announced that he would not seek reelection to a second term because of his recent cancer diagnosis. A whole raft of Democrats jumped into the fight, including Lt. Gov. John Kerry and two Congressmen, including Markey. The other Congressman’s slogan was, “The state needs a workhorse, not a show horse.” Guess which candidate he was referring to.
Markey’s Senate campaign was sputtering even before he agreed to a sitdown interview with a local TV reporter who sprang a current-events pop quiz on him. Among the really tough questions: Who does the US support in El Salvador and Nicaragua? Remember, this was in the era when the Sandinistas were the toast of the state’s People’s Republics. Danny Ortega could have been elected mayor of Cambridge by acclamation.
But Fast Eddie didn’t know which side the US was on - in either country. He also misidentified the prime minister of Israel. The deer-in-the-headlights look on his face as he was asked the questions was priceless - somehow you can’t find any of the two “Just the Facts” segments anywhere on the Internet, and the entire Senate campaign of 1984 goes unmentioned in his Wikipedia biography.
Markey pulled the plug a few days later, after yet another embarrassment. His longtime girlfriend allegedly assaulted him in a car outside the Oak Grove MBTA station in Malden.
At the time I was working as a reporter for a Boston TV station, while also writing a monthly political column for Boston magazine. On the day Markey dropped out of the Senate race to run for reelection to the House, I asked him to autograph one of his Senate brochures.
“To Howie,” he scrawled. “I hope someday I can have two jobs like you.”
In other words, he wanted to run for higher office, while not risking his safe House seat.
Over the years he embraced all the usual PC causes. He was briefly for the nuclear freeze movement. For years he carried in his coat pocket a TV remote control, which he would wave around to demonstrate his commitment to reducing monthly cable TV charges, which despite Markey’s efforts went ever higher.
As the years have gone by, Markey has been seen less and less in Massachusetts. He and his wife (who kept her maiden name, Blumenthal) live in the exclusive Rolling Hills neighborhood of Chevy Chase MD, which is also the home of MSNBC’s “Comrade? Chris Matthews.
It’s always a good idea for a DC insider to own some property back in the old home state - just ask Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS), R-KS. Markey was lectured by one of the older members of the delegation:
“No living in Mummy’s home anymore, Ed.”
But Markey rejected that sage counsel. His legal Massachusetts residence is his late parents’ modest one-family house in Malden. He pays the minimum water bill, according to a Boston Globe story in 2013.
Living in Maryland, Markey has become more and more disconnected from his constituents. His House district on the near North Shore was always in danger of being dismembered in a redistricting, which was why he was willing to endure the humiliation of those St. Patrick’s Day breakfasts, to ingratiate himself with the Beacon Hill powers who could end his political career.
At one point, the legislative leadership in Boston gerrymandered the town of Natick west of Boston into his district. Markey apparently never visited Doug Flutie’s hometown, nor did any of his staff. Their lack of Natick knowledge was demonstrated at the ribbon-cutting for the Big Dig, which connected Natick and all the other Metrowest communities to Boston and points north.
One of the most popular take out restaurants north of Boston is Kelly’s Roast Beef on Revere Beach. So when it was Markey’s turn to speak, he tried to make a joke - “It’s so great to see this tunnel opening, because now all of my constituents in Natick can get to Kelly’s so much quicker.”
Markey waited for the laughter, which never came. You see, everyone in the crowd except Markey knew that a decade earlier, Kelly’s had opened a new outlet… in Natick.
In 2013, Sen. John Kerry resigned his seat to become secretary of state. Twenty-nine years after autographing my pamphlet, Markey got his wish. He could run for the Senate without relinquishing his House seat. In the Democrat primary, he edged the Congressman from South Boston, who had at least voted against Obamacare. In the final, despite a lopsided financial advantage, Markey had a relatively close call, 55-45, against a former Navy SEAL and political novice, Gabriel Gomez. He ran up huge majorities in the urban areas to offset his equally lopsided losses in most of the state’s 351 cities and towns.
After 37 years in Congress, Mr. Frosty was finally Sen. Frosty. He was assigned to the Foreign Relations Committee. His first committee vote in September 2013 was on the resolution giving Obama the power to bomb Syria.
Markey voted...present.
Once again he was a joke back home. At least Kerry voted for the $87 billion before he voted against the $87 billion. Or, did you hear about Barack Obama and Ed Markey walking into a bar? Nothing happens. Obama can/t decide what to order and Markey keeps saying, “I’ll have what he’s having.”
This is Ed Markey, the solon who was foaming at the mouth Tuesday. A guy who, as the Boston Herald put it, “might as well be in the Witness Protection Program.”
Before fleeing the hearing with his tail between his legs Tuesday, Markey issued one final pronouncement, this time on the subject of the Pope.
“I agree with this Pope,” he said, presumably speaking about “climate change” as opposed to abortion or gay marriage. “I disagree with the Pope in 1632. This Pope is correct and we have a moral responsibility to act.”
By voting present, Sen. Frosty?
Ed Markey - to a battle of wits he comes unarmed. Now more than ever.
He is of course rabidly anti-gun. Last year he discerned a major problem with bazookas, antitank devices and assault weapons.
“We should ban these weapons to disarm the criminals and the teenagers that are terrorizing the citizens of this country right now on every neighborhood corner!”
Malden has changed somewhat, but even now, there are no bazookas on any street corners, even downtown.
“We need to ban assault weapons,” he continued. “We need to stop the flow of high magazine clips.”
High magazine clips? Markey knows less about guns than he does about Kelly’s Roast Beef.
He has said his proudest vote in almost 40 years in Congress was for Obamacare. Yes, he really said that.
Another big issue for Mr. Frosty: caffeinated energy drinks like Red Bull. He has demanded that the total caffeine content be listed on every can. He has likewise come out against what he calls “the roller-coaster arms race,” whatever that is.
Some of his other initiatives are a little more ominous, like the “Hate Crime Reporting Act of 2014.” Something called “the National Telecommunications and Information Administration” would report to Congress on “the use of telecommunications...to advocate and encourage violent acts and the commission of crimes of hate.”
A leading civil-liberties lawyer in Boston was appalled: “This proposed legislation is worse than merely silly. It is dangerous. It is not up to Sen. Markey… to define for a free people what speech is, and is not, acceptable.”
All I can say is, don’t blame me, I voted for Steve Lynch. And then I voted for Gabriel Gomez.
Howie Carr is a syndicated talk radio host and columnist. Get his latest book, Killers, at Amazon.com today!
The White House is engaged in a massive climate scam, which involves many billions of dollars and has infected the academic community. They are currently planning to attempt to silence whistleblowers, via intimidation and kangaroo court RICO prosecutions.
The last thing they would want would be whistleblowers like me (who would blow their scam wide open) on the witness stand, so it is safe to assume that whatever they are planning will involve gag orders and secret tribunals under the guise of “national security.” It would be the equivalent of the Bush administration prosecuting Iraq war dissenters.
As a preventative measure, I am posting this information now, and it will stay at the top of my blog. I would like to see it spread far and wide.
I have no ties to any energy industry. I do not receive any funding other than small donations on my blog, which work out to much less than minimum wage over the past decade. I have never had any discussion with any skeptic which involved any suggestion of spreading misinformation. Quite the opposite, skeptics work tirelessly to expose the massive big dollar climate fraud being perpetrated by the White House, government agencies, and academia.
I am a life-long environmentalist. I testified at my first Congressional hearing in support of a wilderness area while still in High School. I worked to get the Clean Air Act passed. I volunteered as wilderness ranger for the United States Forest Service for two summers. I do all of my personal transport by bicycle or mass transit, unless it is more than 40 miles or no safe route. I would love to see 95% of cars off the road, but lying about the climate is not an acceptable way to get there. I have a wonderful, full life, enjoy every minute, and want the next generation to have the same opportunities I have.
I have worked on many mission critical projects for government and industry, including The DOE’s nuclear waste disposal site safety analysis report, imaging systems for military drones, and critical spy software used by the US military. I have worked as a contract software developer on climate and weather model development for the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado. I have been a key player on design teams of many of the world’s most complex electronic designs. I am an expert in signal processing.
I have spent thousands of hours analyzing NASA/NOAA climate records using my best engineering, signal processing and science skills. I have done this with no financial motivation, and no motivation other than finding out the truth.
I have concluded that much of their climate data is flagrantly fraudulent. This is the biggest science scam in history. Let’s get this word out to everyone, and shut this unbelievably expensive scam down once and for all.
Not convinced? Look how NASA has tampered with their own sea level and temperature data.
See it here.
See it in greater, indisputable detail here.
-----------
US Presidential candidates ranked for independent thinking and gullibility on climate science
Joanne Nova
How many Presidential candidates are susceptible to groupthink, scare campaigns and low-base science agitprop? Thanks to Seth Borenstein, Michael Mann & Andrew Dessler we can rank them according to their ability to resist profoundly unscientific propaganda like “there is a consensus”.
Ted Cruz is clearly the best at holding his own in the independent thinker stakes. Ben Carson and Donald Trump do well. But poor Hillary Clinton doesn’t stand a chance against the onslaught of junk graphs, hyperbolic claims, and inane bumper-sticker cliches.
US presidential Candidates, climate science, groupthink
Those who fall for the consensus argument are in no position to run a nation. Firstly it’s profoundly unscientific - we don’t vote for the laws of science; scientific theories are either true or not true regardless of opinions. Secondly, it only takes ten minutes of independent searching to find that there is no consensus among scientists as a broad group, anyway. There is a consensus among various definitions of certified climate scientists, but not among meteorologists , geoscientists and engineers or other hard science areas.
As I’ve said before, skeptics outrank and outnumber believers, they make planes fly, find mineral deposits, and walked on the moon. Believers produce climate models that don’t work. If climate scientists were good scientists, the first people they’d convince would be the physicists, mathematicians, geologists and engineers.
Most readers of skeptical blogs (who chose to respond to surveys and list their qualifications in comments have hard science degrees. Dan Kahan conducted a survey of 1,500 people and found people who knew more about maths and science were more likely to be skeptical. In other words, skeptics were better informed about science”. If we had to name a list of skeptics versus believers, the skeptics number 31,000, yet there is no list of named scientists who believe that comes close - let alone a list of 300,000 which would imply some truth to the statement that the science is settled, and the world’s scientists agree.
The famous 97% consensus is really a 0.3% consensus.
See real scientists review climate science with thousands of peer reviewed papers. NIPCC report.
P Gosselin, No Tricks Zone
Veteran journalist Gunter Ederer* writes a piece reporting that massive alterations have been found in the NASA GISS temperature data series, citing a comprehensive analysis conducted by a leading German scientist. These results are now available to the public.
Professor Dr. Friedrich Karl Ewert. Source: University of Paderborn
Ederer reports not long ago retired geologist and data computation expert Professor Dr. Friedrich Karl Ewert began looking at the data behind the global warming claims, and especially the datasets of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS).
Ewert painstakingly examined and tabulated the reams of archived data from 1153 stations that go back to 1881 - which NASA has publicly available - data that the UN IPCC uses to base its conclusion that man is heating the Earth’s atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels. According to Ederer, what Professor Ewert found is “unbelievable”:
From the publicly available data, Ewert made an unbelievable discovery: Between the years 2010 and 2012 the data measured since 1881 were altered so that they showed a significant warming, especially after 1950. [...] A comparison of the data from 2010 with the data of 2012 shows that NASA-GISS had altered its own datasets so that especially after WWII a clear warming appears - although it never existed.”
Ederer writes that Ewert particularly found alterations at stations in the Arctic. Professor Ewert randomly selected 120 stations from all over the world and compared the 2010 archived data to the 2012 data and found that they had been tampered to produce warming.
The old data showed regular cycles of warming and cooling over the period, even as atmospheric CO2 concentration rose from 0.03% to 0.04%. According to the original NASA datasets, Ederer writes, the mean global temperature cooled from 13.8C in 1881 to 12.9C in 1895. Then it rose to 14.3C by 1905 and fell back under 12.9C by 1920, rose to 13.9C by 1930, fell to 13 by 1975 before rising to 14C by 2000. By 2010 the temperature fell back to 13.2C.
But then came the “massive” altering of data, which also altered the entire overall trend for the period. According to journalist Ederer, Ewert uncovered 10 different methods NASA used to alter the data. The 6 most often used methods were:
* Reducing the annual mean in the early phase.
* Reducing the high values in the first warming phase.
* Increasing individual values during the second warming phase.
* Suppression of the second cooling phase starting in 1995.
* Shortening the early decades of the datasets.
* With the long-term datasets, even the first century was shortened.
The methods were employed for stations such as Darwin, Australia and Palma de Mallorca, for example, where cooling trends were suddenly transformed into warming.
Ewert then discovered that NASA having altered the datasets once in March 2012 was not enough. Alterations were made again in August 2012, and yet again in December 2012. For Palma de Majorca: “Now because of the new datasets it has gotten even warmer. Now they show a warming of +0.01202C per year.”
Using earlier NASA data, globe is in fact cooling
The veteran German journalist Ederer writes that the media reports of ongoing global warming are in fact not based on reality at all, but rather on “the constantly altered temperatures of the earlier decades.” Ederer adds:
Thus the issue of man-made global warming has taken on a whole new meaning: Yes, it is always man-made if the data are adjusted to fit the theory. The meticulous work by Ewert has predecessors, and fits a series of scandals and contradictions that are simply being ignored by the political supporters of man-made climate change.”
Ederer also brings up the analysis by American meteorologists Joseph D’Aleo and Anthony Watts who examined 6000 NASA measurement stations and found an abundance of measurement irregularities stemming in large part from serious siting issues. According to Ederer the findings by Professor Ewert are in close agreement with those of Watts and D’Aleo.
Ederer writes of the overall findings by Professor Ewert:
Using the NASA data from 2010 the surface temperature globally from 1940 until today has fallen by 1.110C, and since 2000 it has fallen 0.4223C (...). The cooling has hit every continent except for Australia, which warmed by 0.6339C since 2000. The figures for Europe: From 1940 to 2010, using the data from 2010, there was a cooling of 0.5465C and a cooling of 0.3739C since 2000.”
Ederer summarizes that in view of the magnitude of the scandal, one would think that there would be in investigation. Yet he does not believe this will be the case because the global warming has turned into a trillion-dollar industry and that that too much is tied to it.
All datasets are available to the public at any time. The studies by Prof. Ewert may be requested by e-mail: ewert.fk@t-online.de.
*Gunter Ederer is a former journalist for ARD and ZDF German Television and has won numerous awards internationally.
----------
Also see debunking by German Scientists here.