By John Hayward
As climate data continues its stubborn refusal to conform to doomsday models, global-warming activists have focused much of their effort on attempting to discredit critics, apparently in the belief that “science” means suppressing inconvenient information to make hypotheses look better. A major theme running through these efforts is the supposed financial “conflicts of interest” facing scientists whose work is not funded by ideologically pure supporters of catastrophic man-made climate change theories. To put it bluntly, the warmists insist that anyone who disagrees with them is a dishonest puppet of reckless and greedy fossil fuel companies.
Skeptical scientists, facing demands from witch-hunting enforcers of climate-change orthodoxy to total up their lunch receipts for the last decade or two, pointed out that global-warming true believers are hardly free of their own conflicts of interest.
There is actually far more money behind the Church of Global Warming than any of its skeptics. The difference is that global-warming cabbage is not portrayed as unclean or suspected of influencing the outcome of scientific studies, because it comes from media-approved “good guy” organizations presumed 100 percent selfless and altruistic.
The biggest media-beloved, honorable, compassionate organization is, of course, the government.
The government has an obvious conflict of interest when it comes to pushing climate-change theories, because they provide a pretext for seizing enormous amounts of economic and political power. It is no coincidence that the politicians most eager to tax and regulate industries to their knees are politicians who weren’t all that fond of capitalism to begin with.
Most of them know less about science than the average kid building a papier-mache volcano in his kitchen for the upcoming science fair. They do, however, have a keen appreciation for the value of authority for the accumulation of power. “Do what I want, or cities will drown in melted polar ice” is a splendid example of invoking authority to compel obedience.
JunkScience.com brings us a very clear illustration of the double standard applied to climate money. Cash just doesn’t count when it comes from a power-hungry bureacracy!
Earlier this week, the Nature Climate Change journal wrote about a study that supposedly validates the Environmental Protection Agency’s claims that its new rules on carbon dioxide will save thousands of lives every year. As always with news useful to climate change and/or Big Government, this story was immediately picked up and reported far and wide by the media, with very little criticism… and a universal consensus that the study’s authors had no competing financial interests whatsoever.
That’s only true if you accept - as all of the media does, and absolutely no one should - that government money doesn’t count. As it turns out, most of the report’s authors have been given enormous amounts of money by the EPA, far beyond the sums routinely depicted as creating unacceptable conflicts of interest when climate-change skeptics produce work for private organizations. The total grants add up to some $45 million. That, in turn, is a mere fraction of the money riding on these new EPA regulations.
This is a study expressly intended to support a power grab by the EPA. As JunkScience points out, one of the authors admitted his team had its conclusion in mind before the study even began, admitting that “we wanted to bring attention to the additional benefits of carbon controls.”
Also keenly interested in bringing attention to the benefits of carbon controls: the bureaucrats who enforce them. In this case, those bureaucrats gave a great deal of money to the scientists who conducted a study supporting the agenda of the agency, and those scientists have every reason to expect more financial support in the future… provided the global-warming gravy train keeps rumbling along. If it comes off the rails, and the public demands an end to the confiscation of their money and capital… why, that wouldn’t be good for anyone who benefits from the current arrangement, now would it?
Do these financial and political interests invalidate the study that claimed to find thousands of lives per year at stake, absent the new EPA regulations? No, although JunkScience does a fine job of challenging the study in a separate post. The issue is that far less significant financial ties are routinely cited to discredit skeptical scientists whose work holds up very nicely to academic scrutiny… and those ties are never, ever left unmentioned by the media, if they deign to cover skeptical scientists at all.
Dr. Willie Soon responded to conflict-of-interest allegations leveled against him by calling for equal disclosure standards on all sides of the climate-change debate: “If the standards for disclosure are to change, then let them change evenly. If a journal that has peer-reviewed and published my work concludes that additional disclosures are appropriate, I am happy to comply. I would ask only that other authors - on all sides of the debate - are also required to make similar disclosures. And I call on the media outlets that have so quickly repeated my attackers’ accusations to similarly look into the motivations of and disclosures that may or may not have been made by their preferred, IPCC-linked scientists.”
In truth, the Solomonic disinterested wisdom assigned by friendly media to climate-change believers would be difficult for anyone to achieve, with issues this large, and the necessary studies so expensive to conduct. Furthermore, Dr. Soon’s advice would be well-taken in nearly every public policy debate. The contestants should be presumed neither angelic nor demonic, and their work should be able to stand on its own...as the theories of the climate-change movement have so spectacularly failed to do, for years on end.
The Green-Left’s funding secrets
Craig Rucker, CFACT
Environmental pressure groups continually spin conspiracy theories about the funding of their critics.
It’s one of the tricks they employ to try to silence those who oppose their dreams of regulatory control.
In CFACT’s case, this has always struck us as absurd. For nearly 30 years, we have gratefully received contributions from a variety of foundations, corporations and individuals who share our vision, and last year, 80% of that support came from private citizen supporters. (Thank you, by the way!)
So where did the Left come up with this? How about, “projection.”
The Green movement is well aware of the mountains of funding it receives from taxpayers, foreign governments and other questionable interests. They’d rather have the public focus on their critics than take a peek at their own Green-minded tycoon and billionaire backers like George Soros or Tom Steyer, the latter of which alone spent $100 million last year trying to move the Senate more toward the global warming-Left.
Opposition to the Sandpiper and Keystone XL oil pipelines also furnish perfect examples. As CFACT’s Paul Driessen writes at Investor’s Business Daily and at CFACT.org, “Putin-allied Russian billionaires laundered $23 million through the Bermuda-based Wakefield Quin law firm to the Sea Change Foundation and thence to anti-fracking and anti-Keystone groups, the Environmental Policy Alliance found. Sandpiper opponents are likewise funded and coordinated by wealthy financiers and shadowy foundations.”
“‘Honor the Earth’ is a ‘Native American’ group that is actually a Tides Foundation ;project,’ with the Tides Center as its fiscal sponsor, contributing $700,000 and extensive in-kind aid. Out-of-state donors provide 99% of Honor’s funding.’
‘Among Tides’ biggest donors is Obama friend and advisor Warren Buffett...while public, media and political attention was riveted on Keystone, Berkshire Hathaway quietly bought the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad and Union Tank Car manufacturing company.” With Keystone blocked, “oil-by-rail skyrocketed from 9,500 carloads in 2009 to 450,000 carloads in 2014. Buffett’s ‘investment’ in anti-pipeline activism garnered billions in rail revenues.”
When CFACT Collegians chapters confronted demonstrators with these facts, first they went into denial...then they became livid! They didn’t like being exposed as a combination of hypocrites and useful idiots advancing the interests of corporate billionaires and foreign potentates.
The funds available to the radical Greens, including corporate, dwarf anything available to those who oppose them. They want to make an issue of any trace amount of corporate funding their opponents might receive while keeping their own funding entirely hidden.
This is complete hypocrisy. It needs to be exposed.
Fortunately, we not only have the merits of the argument on our side, but we also have talented writers and spokesmen, such as Paul Driessen, to help us make these facts known.
See also how they are silencing skeptics claiming we are being paid for our skepticism by big oil here, It is clearly a politically and ideologically driven marketing campaign. We in actual fact rely on generosity of readers for small donations to pay our site expenses. We have no paid staff. Thank you for you help over the 8 years we have been doing this. We have almost 66 million page views from over 25 countries.
Obama Pushes ‘Serious Threat’ of Global Warming Days After Fall of Ramadi; Networks Yawn
The “big three” of ABC, CBS, and NBC showed no interest in covering on Wednesday night the optics of President Obama touting global warming as a “serious threat,” in a speech to graduates of the Coast Guard Academy, days after the Iraqi city of Ramadi fell to ISIS. While the networks avoided this story, the Fox News Channel (FNC) program Special Report offered a full segment on the President’s remarks and their timing in relation to the continued rise of ISIS.
Also the Washington Times writes Crying wolf to the Coast Guard.
By Lord Christopher Monckton on WUWT.
Mr. Obama’s remarks at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy’s Commencement May 20 demonstrate the extent to which his advisors are keeping him divorced from the facts.
During his comments, Obama discussed the impact of climate change on national security.
The bulk of his speech was devoted to what is now becoming more and more obviously a non-problem: “the challenge....that, perhaps more than any other, will shape your entire careers and that’s the urgent need to combat and adapt to climate change.”
Some facts. In the 11 years 2004-2014, the rate of global warming taken as the mean of the three terrestrial datasets was one-twentieth of a degree. The ARGO ocean dataset shows warming of one-fortieth of a degree. The mean of the two satellite datasets shows no warming at all. Subject to formidable uncertainties, the ARGO database gives perhaps the best guide to the underlying warming rate. None of these real-world measurements is the stuff of what Mr Obama called “a peril that can affect generations”.
Next: “Our scientists at NASA just reported that some of the sea ice around Antarctica is breaking up even faster than expected.” Not exactly surprising, given that at present it has reached the greatest extent for the time of year observed in the 35-year satellite era. Why did Mr Obama not mention that (or any) fact, by way of balance?
Craig Rucker at CFACT writes:
When you think of national security threats, words like ISIS, North Korea, and Al Qaeda probably come to mind.
For President Obama, however, you can add another sinister term: “Climate denier.”
“Climate change constitutes a serious threat to global security, an immediate risk to our national security, and, make no mistake, it will impact how our military defends our country,” Obama told new Coast Guard officers at the Academy’s New London, Connecticut, campus yesterday.
“Denying it, or refusing to deal with it, endangers our national security and undermines the readiness of our forces,” he added.
Perhaps it shouldn’t be surprising that this President, whose lackluster foreign policy has come under much criticism, would seek to deflect that criticism by casting the public’s eye on a new villain - even one of his own creation. But choosing to go after climate scientists and others who simply disagree with Al Gore’s alarmism seems to be just a bit of a stretch...even for him.
Leave alone the fact that there’s been no increase in hurricanes, tornados, wildfires or other extreme weather events (not to mention no increase in global temperatures in over 18 years), the evidence that a warmer world leads to more conflict is not supported by either factual or historical evidence.
As CFACT’s Marc Morano has chronicled regarding this issue at ClimateDepot.com:
War-related casualties have fallen over the last half-century, even as temperatures have slightly risen.
Since the dawn of civilization, warmer eras have meant fewer wars.
Peer-reviewed studies show the primary causes of civil war are political, not environmental.
A chapter of the Fifth Assessment Report of the UN’s own IPCC published last year notes that “collectively the research does not conclude that there is a strong positive relationship between warming and armed conflicts.”
To be sure, the world is still awaiting its first climate refugee resulting from a conflict generated by alleged man-made global warming. This despite shrill warnings of impending doom going back years, one issued by the UN itself which said there would be 50 million such refugees by 2010. Of course, we saw none.
So it appears the President is not looking at the facts, but simply shilling for his friends in the Green movement.
Demonizing your political opponents does not make America stronger. It may be shrewd politically, but it’s doubtful to do much in the way of improving national security.
Let’s hope this effort to put climate skeptics in the camp of national security threats backfires.
It doesn’t deserve to be given any serious attention.
Never to be caught understating anything, Obama declares:
“I am here today to say that climate change constitutes a serious threat to global security, an immediate risk to our national security.”
Oh really Mr. President, what could that possibly be?
Is the lack of warming, perhaps even a little global cooling since 1998, despite a slow steady increase in CO2, frying your plans for a carbon tax?
Are you concerned about the lack of big hurricanes for many years, because that sort of climate change might disrupt your climate plans?
Are you worried that another winter like this last one could completely freeze out your support along the East Coast? Has the snow finally melted in Boston?
Isn’t the greatest threat to our national security a President who will not listen to the thousands of scientists who have objected to the climate nonsense? Instead, you continue to listen a tiny vocal minority that is telling you what you want to hear.
Who is guilty of Dereliction of Duty, Mr President??
Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)
Corbett, Oregon USA
Obama At U.S. Coast Guard Academy Commencement: Denying Climate Change “Dereliction Of Duty”
Report: Foreign Countries Altering Weather Data to Show Warming
By Jason Devaney, May 19, 2015
Three foreign countries may be changing their historical weather data to show warming trends, according to a scientist in the field.
Dr. H. Sterling Burnett of the Heartland Institute claims in a story that Australia, Paraguay, and Switzerland have altered their data in an effort to prove global warming is real.
“Switzerland joins a growing list of countries whose temperature measurements have been adjusted to show greater warming than actually measured by its temperature instruments,” Burnett writes. “In previous editions of Climate Change Weekly, I reported weather bureaus in Australia and Paraguay were caught adjusting datasets from their temperature gauges. After the adjustment, the temperatures reported were consistently higher than those actually recorded.”
Citing a report from Swiss Science journalist Markus Schar, Burnett writes that Switzerland altered its weather data and now it shows a “doubling of the temperature trend.”
“For example, in Sion and Zurich, [the Swiss Meteorological Service] adjustments resulted in a doubling of the temperature trend,” Burnett writes. “Schar notes there has been an 18-year-pause in rising temperatures, even with data-tampering. As a result, Schar calls the adjustments a ‘propaganda trick, and not a valid trend.’”
In March, it was reported that U.S. government scientists often change weather data - a practice that is neither new nor a secret. Scientists say the data is changed to correct for inaccuracies in testing. Critics say it is a way to show a warming trend, which it has done.
“(The National Climatic Data Center, or NCDC) pulls every trick in the book to turn the U.S. cooling trend into warming. The raw data shows cooling since the 1920s,” a science blogger said.
“NCDC does a hockey stick of adjustments to reverse the trend. This includes cooling the past for ‘time of observation bias’ in filling missing rural data with urban temperatures, and doing almost nothing to compensate for urban heat island effects.”
Global warming skeptics say it is a man-made scam, but defenders of the phenomenon point to evidence in weather data - which is apparently being changed in countries across the world.
Bill Nye, who hosted a popular children’s show in the 1990s, told Rutgers University graduates over the weekend global warming is real. “So, hey deniers - cut it out, and let’s get to work,” Nye said.
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com
UPDATE: @ForecastFacts: FYI: You Just Lived Through The Earth’s Hottest January-April Since We Started Keeping Records via @climateprogress
Once again as shown in the raw data that goes into the models (6 warmer in the last 11 years) and satellites (8 warmer in just the last 20 years), Forecast the Facts, Thinkprogress and NASA caught in another lie.
By John Hindraker in Powerline Blog
POSTED ON MAY 5, 2015
We have written a number of times about how government agencies, including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration here in the U.S., have systematically adjusted temperature history to make the past look colder. They apparently do this, usually surreptitiously and without explanation, in order to stoke global warming hysteria. See, for example, He Who Controls the Present Controls the Past and Inside the Global Warming Scandal.
Now Mike Brakey, an engineering physicist and heat transfer specialist, has caught NOAA revising historic temperature data for Maine as always, to make the past look cooler and the present warmer by comparison:
Over the last months I have discovered that between 2013 and 2015 some government bureaucrats have rewritten Maine climate history… (and New England’s and of the U.S.). This statement is not based on my opinion, but on facts drawn from NOAA 2013 climate data vs. NOAA 2015 climate data after they re-wrote it.
We need only compare the data. They cooked their own books (see numbers below).
Click to enlarge: Brakey_1
This graph presents the data visually. The black line shows average annual temperatures for Maine from 1895 to the present as they were recorded at the time, and as NOAA published them in 2013. Thermometers have recorded no net warming since 1895. The blue line represents NOAA rewritten history as it appears in 2015. Note how NOAA reduces earlier temperatures more than recent ones to give the graph a plausibly warming trend. The green line shows average annual temperatures for a single location, Lewiston-Auburn, showing a steep decline since 2000.
Click to enlarge: Brakey_2
NOAA has made similar adjustments to past temperatures around the United States. Brakey writes:
It appears NOAA panicked and did a massive rewrite of Maine temperature history (they used the same algorithm for U.S. in general). The new official temperatures from Maine between 1895 and present were LOWERED by an accumulated 151.2F between 1895 and 2012.
In my opinion, this is out-and-out fraud. Why did they corrupt national climate data? Global warming is a $27 billion business on an annual basis in the U.S alone.
Now NOAA data revised in 2015 indicate that 1904, 1919 and 1925 in Maine were much colder than anything we experience today. (See the scorecard above comparing the NOAA data that are 18 months apart). Note how for 1913 the NOAA lowered the annual temperature a whole 4F!
For the balance of the years, as they get closer to the present, the NOAA tweaks less and less. They have corrupted Maine climate data between 1895 and present by a whopping accumulated 151.2F.
David Archibald writes:
Their cooling of the past to keep the global warming meme alive reminds me of the old Soviet joke - the future is known, it is the past that keeps changing.
Would someone please try to explain why this isn’t the biggest scandal in the history of science?
Dr. Gordon Fulks presents yet another example of temperature record cheating by NOAA
Posted on May 8, 2015
Here’s a fascinating item, provided to Gordon by a U of Washington climate scientists.
The way this works is you screw with the old temps to make them lower, then you get a Michael Mann temp record that shows warming.
Date: Thu, 7 May 2015
Subject: [GWR] Fwd: Washington State mean temperature in 1897: 45.3 or 49.5?
These figures for Washington State mean temperature come from NCDC’s “climate at a glance” web page:
Washington, Average Temperature, January-December
Units: Degrees Fahrenheit
Base Period: 1895-2015
1895, 45.2, -1.0
1896, 45.4, -0.8
1897, 45.3, -0.9
1898, 45.7, -0.5
1899, 45.1, -1.1
1900, 47.0, 0.8
But when I go to the Washington climate summary published at the end of 1897 the Washington State mean temperature is given as 49.5 F, which is +4.2 F warmer than the 45.3 degrees found at NCDC’s Climate at a Glance web site for Washington State in 1897.
Here is the quote from the 1897 annual summary for Washington State:
The mean temperature of the state for 1897, obtained from 20 stations in the western section and 17 stations in the eastern section from which complete records were received, was 49.5 degrees, which is slightly in excess of the eight-year normal, the amount being about half a degree. The mean for the western Section, meaning that portion of the State between the Pacific Ocean and the Cascade Mountains, was 50.1 degrees; while the mean of the eastern section, meaning all that portion of the State east of the Cascade Range, was 48.9 degrees.
The 1897 annual climate summary for Washington can be found here.
Of the 37 stations reporting in 1897 only 3 sites (less than 10%) reported an annual mean temperature lower than the 2015 version of the 1897 Washington State mean temperature of 45.3 degrees.
Does anyone have an idea why there is a large discrepancy of +4.2 degrees between the 1897 version (49.5) and the 2015 version (45.3) of our state’s annual mean temperature?
I suspect that we know the answer. The Obama Administration is now blatantly cheating with the historical climate records.
Does that surprise anyone?
Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)
Corbett, Oregon USA