Climate Change

[sprintcyclist]

Global Warming: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration may have a boring name, but it has a very important job: It measures U.S. temperatures. Unfortunately, it seems to be a captive of the global warming religion. Its data are fraudulent.

What do we mean by fraudulent? How about this: NOAA has made repeated "adjustments" to its data, for the presumed scientific reason of making the data sets more accurate.

Nothing wrong with that. Except, all their changes point to one thing — lowering previously measured temperatures to show cooler weather in the past, and raising more recent temperatures to show warming in the recent present.

This creates a data illusion of ever-rising temperatures to match the increase in CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere since the mid-1800s, which global warming advocates say is a cause-and-effect relationship. The more CO2, the more warming.

But the actual measured temperature record shows something different: There have been hot years and hot decades since the turn of the last century, and colder years and colder decades. But the overall measured temperature shows no clear trend over the last century, at least not one that suggests runaway warming.

That is, until the NOAA's statisticians "adjust" the data. Using complex statistical models, they change the data to reflect not reality, but their underlying theories of global warming. That's clear from a simple fact of statistics: Data generate random errors, which cancel out over time. So by averaging data, the errors mostly disappear.

That's not what NOAA does.

According to the NOAA, the errors aren't random. They're systematic. As we noted, all of their temperature adjustments lean cooler in the distant past, and warmer in the more recent past. But they're very fuzzy about why this should be.

Far from legitimately "adjusting" anything, it appears they are cooking the data to show a politically correct trend toward global warming. Not by coincidence, that has been part and parcel of the government's underlying policies for the better part of two decades.

What NOAA does aren't niggling little changes, either.

As Tony Heller at the Real Climate Science web site notes, "Pre-2000 temperatures are progressively cooled, and post-2000 temperatures are warmed. This year has been a particularly spectacular episode of data tampering by NOAA, as they introduce nearly 2.5 degrees of fake warming since 1895."

So the global warming scare is basically a hoax.

This winter, for instance, as measured by temperature in city after city and by snow-storm severity, has been one of the coldest on record in the Northeast.

But after the NOAA's wizards finished with the data, it was merely about average.

Climate analyst Paul Homewood notes for instance that in New York state, measured temperatures this year were 2.7 degrees or more colder than in 1943. Not to NOAA. Its data show temperatures this year as 0.9 degrees cooler than the actual data in 1943.

Erasing Winter
By the way, a similar result occurred after the brutally cold 2013-2014 winter in New York. It was simply adjusted away. Do this year after year, and with the goal of radically altering the temperature record to fit the global warming narrative, and you have what amounts to climate fraud.

"Clearly NOAA's highly homogenized and adjusted version of the Central Lakes temperature record bears no resemblance at all the the actual station data," writes Homewood. "And if this one division is so badly in error, what confidence can there be that the rest of the U.S. is any better?"

That's the big question. And for those who think that government officials don't have political, cultural or other agendas, that's naivete of the highest sort. They do.

Since the official government mantra for all of the bureaucracies at least since the Clinton era is that CO2 production is an evil that inevitably leads to runaway global warming, those who toil in the bureaucracies' statistical sweat shops know that their careers and future funding depend on having the politically correct answers — not the scientifically correct ones.

"The key point here is that while NOAA frequently makes these adjustments to the raw data, it has never offered a convincing explanation as to why they are necessary," wrote James Delingpole recently in Breitbart's Big Government. "Nor yet, how exactly their adjusted data provides a more accurate version of the truth than the original data."

There are at least some signs of progress, however. In the case of the Environmental Protection Agency, future reports and studies will include the data and the underlying scientific assumptions for public scrutiny.

That's one way to bring greater honesty to government — and to keep climate charlatans from bankrupting our nation with spurious demands for carbon taxes and deindustrialization of our economy to prevent global warming. The only real result won't be a cooler planet, but rather mass poverty and lower standards of living for all.

https://www.investors.com/politics/edit ... ing-scare/

[sprintcyclist]

.............. The SEI forum: Adapting Climate Science for Business
Wednesday 19 June, 2019, Sydney Environment Institute (SEI), University of Sydney.

At 1:11:20

Professor Andy Pitman:

“…this may not be what you expect to hear. but as far as the climate scientists know there is no link between climate change and drought.

That may not be what you read in the newspapers and sometimes hear commented, but there is no reason a priori why climate change should made the landscape more arid.

If you look at the Bureau of Meteorology data over the whole of the last one hundred years there’s no trend in data. There is no drying trend. There’s been a trend in the last twenty years, but there’s been no trend in the last hundred years, and that’s an expression on how variable Australian rainfall climate is.

There are in some regions but not in other regions.

So the fundamental problem we have is that we don’t understand what causes droughts.

Much more interesting, We don’t know what stops a drought. We know it’s rain, but we don’t know what lines up to create drought breaking rains.”

Bookmark this page. I’ll be referring back to these quotes.

Just trying to help Prof Andy Pitman get his message out — the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

As I’ve been saying, the Federation drought was worse than anything modern. The worst droughts in Australia were 1,000 to 2,000 years ago and there’s no trend in Australian droughts. And who could forget the recent study by Ashcroft showing that 178 years of Australian rain has nothing to do with CO2?

UPDATE: Figure this: Andy Pitman says “we don’t understand what causes droughts” but “the indirect link is clear”!



Professor Andy Pitman: UNSW

Andy is a climate modeler with a major focus on terrestrial processes in global and regional climate models. He has explored the global and regional impacts of land cover change and currently co-leads the Land use change: identification of robust impacts project. He has interests in climate extremes and how these are likely to change in the future. His leadership and research experience is extensive nationally and internationally. Between 2004 and 2010 he convened the ARC Research Network for Earth System. Since 2011 he has been the Director of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science. This national centre involves five Universities, major Australian research agencies and many international groups. Andy is a member of the Academy of Science’s National Committee for Earth System Science and the NSW Minister for the Environment’s Science Advisory Committee. He is closely affiliated with the World Climate Research Program (WCRP). He was chair of the WCRP’s Land Committee for the Global Land Atmosphere System Study from 2006 to 2008, and is now on its Science Steering Committee. ..........................

http://joannenova.com.au/2019/08/prof-a ... te-change/

[brian ross]

Climate change escalating so fast it is 'beyond point of no return'

[brian ross]

Our government is choosing to fail on climate and trying to make a virtue of it

[sprintcyclist]

[youtube]https://www.facebook.com/theantileftist ... 089658486/[/youtube]

https://www.facebook.com/theantileftist ... 089658486/

[brian ross]

Facebook? As evidence? OMG.

[Juliar]

Geez the Greeny BRossy is giving a hiding to regurgitating the FAKE NEWS from his favorite Greeny Web Sites.

What is it about the Climate Change SCAM that triggers spasms in the minds of Greenies ?

Of course hardly any normal person believes the Greenies' Climate Change SCAM anymore because it is now well know that the Climate Change SCAM is just a fraudulent attempt by the Greenies to try to get people interested in their One World Socialist "Govt" in a Sustainable World which is also a SCAM.

That is why the Greenies are becoming so extreme these days in a last ditch attempt to save their Climate Change SCAM.

But after the Greenies have been so deeply shamed after they burnt Australia down to the ground they don't have much credibility anymore.

These days one would be ashamed to admit to being a Greeny.

[The Reboot]

Facebook? As evidence? OMG.

How old are you? 12? Tsk tsk.

[brian ross]

Scientists sign open letter to Australian Government urging action on climate change

[The Reboot]

Scientists sign open letter to Australian Government urging action on climate change

Pfft. Take it up with China, they're the ones who are pumping out the most gas emissions. Australia's is little in comparison.

But nah, you and your climate change buddies won't go anywhere near China. Nor will the UN, because they're on China's teet. As you are, it seems. Tsk tsk!