Political Climate
Nov 27, 2015
The Price Of Freedom Is Eternal Vigilance

Steve Goddard, Real Science

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.

Nov 20, 2015
“Massively Altered”…German Professor Examines NASA GISS Temperature Datasets!

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.


See more here and here.

Also see debunking by German Scientists here.

Nov 18, 2015
Meet the $400-Billion-a-Year Global Warming Industrial Complex

By Michael Bastasch

For those who claim there’s no money in global warming, a new report by the Climate Policy Initiative (CPI) shows the private sector and governments spent $391 billion in 2014 on “low-carbon and climate-resilient growth.”

Governments mostly in Western Europe, East Asia and the U.S. spent $148 billion backing green energy and leveraging $243 billion in private sector funding, according to a report by CPI. The group says some $13.5 trillion in green energy schemes is needed for countries to comply with pledges to cut carbon dioxide emissions.

“There is more money than ever before being invested in low carbon and climate resilient action,” CPI’s Barbara Buchner told Climate Change News. “At the same time, more needs to happen.”

CPI says $16.5 trillion in spending is needed to meet the United Nations’ goal of limiting future warming to 2 degrees Celsius by 2100. The report underscores just how much money there is in the “global warming” industry, which contrasts claims made by activists that there’s only money in promoting fossil fuels.

“If countries get their domestic policy frameworks right, that really can trigger a big change in making money flow,” Buchner said.

“The first step to addressing the climate crisis is to stop funding the problem,” said 350.org executive director May Boeve. “Ending fossil fuel subsidies and other dirty finance is the clearest way that G20 countries can help build momentum for the climate talks in Paris. As hundreds of institutions continue to join the fossil fuel divestment movement itís time for governments to follow suit and stop funding climate destruction.”

For years, activists have claimed governments across the world spend hundreds of billions of dollars subsidizing fossil fuels every year - a recent report says governments spent $452 billion on fossil fuels this year.

Environmentalists hope that highlighting the scale of fossil fuels subsidies will build support for using that money to fund green energy and other global warming programs. Even United Nations officials have jumped on the bandwagon by pushing for ending fossil fuel subsidies and funding green programs.

“The first step to addressing the climate crisis is to stop funding the problem,” May Boeve, head of the activist group 350.org, said of fossil fuel subsidies. “Ending fossil fuel subsidies and other dirty finance is the clearest way that G20 countries can help build momentum for the climate talks in Paris.”

Even if it’s true fossil fuels get $452 billion in subsidies a year, activists are hesitant to point out to the growing size of the global warming industry. Funding for global warming programs rose 18 percent in 2014, while fossil fuel subsidies have fallen 42 percent since 2012.

Activist groups have also been raking in more cash than groups skeptical of global warming as the issue gains more prominence in national policy debates.

Global warming skepticism only raised “$46 million annually across 91 conservative think tanks,” according to The Daily Caller News Foundation’s Andrew Follett. “That’s almost 6 times less than Greenpeace’s 2011 budget of $260 million, and Greenpeace is only one of many environmental groups.

Page 3 of 593 pages « First  <  1 2 3 4 5 >  Last »