Climate Politics – Skeptic

  PART 3

PART 1        PART 2


Global Warming is not going to be dispelled in this short blog. However, suspect methodology, politics, secrecy and inaccuracies demand greater accountability for those who are effecting global economies that intern, effect each and every one of us.

There are several factors that fuel dangerous climate change skepticism. The climate alarmists try to foster an air’ denial and refusal to face facts. As discussed in part 2, Climate Politics – Fear, the resulting tact taken by warmists has been one of denial themselves. The climate cartel has ended discussion, positing that there is no longer need for debate because the science is settled, which is a big flag that a closer look into the debate is necessary.

Fueling skepticism,

  • scandals involving politicized emails and documents suggesting improprieties in data collection and collation.
  • Accuracy, not only of data collection methods, but also the reliability of historical records and data resolutions when margins of error are only calculations. Leaving skeptics wondering how warmists can make conclusions down to the tenths of degrees.
  • Secrecy combined with the billions of dollars being allocated for climate science, green industry and to those who are making huge profits from the alarmism.
  • Failed predictions and inaccuracies of conclusions.
  • Apocalyptic forecasting, fear mongering and the shutting down of any further discussion. If the warming is that evident, scientists should be able to relate how they know that instead of indulging in bullying tactics such as personal attacks and character assassinations.
  • The pause or hiatus in temperature increases since 1998

NOAA Named in Lawsuit ; refusal to divulge climate data

2015 – The newest scandal main stream news is ignoring, is the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) refusal to make climate data available to the United States House Committee on Science. The committee received information from whistleblowers that the report was rushed and inaccurate. The report claims to refute that there has been an hiatus at all in temperature increases since 1998. Notice how this one study negates all the other data go date showing a hiatus. So, why do alarmists cite that skeptics don’t have enough peer papers to challenge the theory when it seems like one is all that is needed? Main stream media jumped all over this study pronouncing the death of the hiatus, that global warming is alive and well again. One hitch though.

NOAA refused to comply with the committee and with a freedom of information request by Judicial Watch data that pertained to the study. Only once they were named in a lawsuit, did they finally start handing over the information on how they collect and disseminate data used for studies conclusions. The information supplied allegedly reveals that historical temperature data was lowered, or as they put it, adjusted. The “adjustment” wipes out the previously accepted 18 years of stagnant   temperature increase. Not only was historical data adjusted down, satellite data was completely ignored. Satellite data contradicts any temperature rise over the past 18 years. Also, the study hand picked the ground based sensor data, utilizing a small percentage of the available data. Not using satellite data is in conflict with a statement by NOAA’s deputy administrator.

During House Committee testimony,  NOAA’s deputy administrator, Manson Brown, said NOAA’s ability

“to deliver environmental intelligence starts with keeping the pulse of the planet, especially the atmosphere and the ocean, and this is the central capability where space-based assets come into play.”

NASA Refuses to Release Scientific Data TOO!

2007 – NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) was exposed by by Stephen McIntyre of, for errors in disseminating temperature data between 2000 and 2007. The errors exaggerated temperature increases and forced NASA to issue a correction once the information went public. In the correction, 1998 was replaced by 1934 as the hottest year on record for the United States. In fact, five of the hottest 10 years were before World War II. The significance of the error was played down, but it reveals the lack of accountability in climate science. McIntyre had to reverse engineer the data because NASA, as NOAA did, refused to make there algorithm available for auditing. That launched a considerable damage control campaign that gave the world a glimpse of  just how little science knows about how integrated global systems interact to produce this thing we call climate.

The narrative is, thousands of scientists can’t be wrong. Well, there are very few organizations that disseminate, evaluate and collate the data for public and political consumption. NOAA prides itself as the premiere data intelligence agency in the world. If their data is wrong, so could be   thousands of other scientists data. Why are climate modeling computer programs secret?

University of East Anglia Email Leaks

We all remember the 2009 Climate Research Units (CRU) part in “Climategate”, where we learned that scientists were manipulating data, to align with the InterGOVERNMENTAL Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) narrative of catastrophic global warming. Even though, many scientists were saying that the global temperature hadn’t risen in over a decade. Phil Jones, director of the (CRU), admitted later that there had not been any significant warming since the mid 1990’s.

phil no significan warming

The public learned about the attempt to “hide the decline” in temperature by using Mike’s “trick”. The quotes below and an email timeline of the scandal can be read in their entirety by clicking the hide the decline link above.

“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

Keith Briffa, now deputy director of the Climatic Research Unit, received this email questioning incontinuity between actual data and political agenda.

“Dear Keith,
You are the only guy who may know  what was and is going on in the northern forests.  With respect to that I do not think that the WMO statement # 913 on the status of the global climate in 1999 is a sufficiently reliable last word. For one thing: the curve attributed to you doesn’t seem to jive with any of the figures of your 2000 QSR paper.  Where from did they get the 0.6 degree departure at 1600 AD?

Another problem:  the ring density and width in the last several decades are both decreasing which at any other
time would be interpretted as a sign of cooling. So why is it shown in the WMO report as an unprecedented warming?

In either case it is not very responsible to relate the curves to global climate as WMO has done. You are saying it, albeit somehow indirectly but pretty clearly, in all your papers.”

Consensus? 97%

You have to be very careful about the comparisons made between peer reviewed papers that support and oppose global warming. Thousands of papers are cited for the former, but this is deceiving. Searching peered papers that include man made global warming in their abstracts, does not mean the paper actually supports it. A new study shows that out of almost 12,000 published papers, only 41 were explicitly in supported of man made global warming. So where did the 97% statistic come from?

The “97 percent” statistic was born in 2009 with a study by a University of Illinois student Kendall Zimmerman and Peter Doran. Only 79 scientists surveyed were used! 77 of 79 total surveyed respondents who had published at least 50% of their papers on climate change, supported man contributed to warming theory. No body surveyed if any of them believed that the warming was in any way dangerous.

You see the numbers manipulation here? The headline is 12,000 papers reviewed and 97% support global warming. That headline is as far as many people go when believing what they read. The headline however, doesn’t mention the number of papers that actually reference man made global warming. Similarly, an abstract may outline the pros and cons or even potential dangers of global warming, but the paper itself, often weighs the issue without taking a stance, let alone substantiating anything.

NOAA, NASA and the IPCC are the backbone of the climate change narrative. Scientists get much of their data from these organizations, all of which have been polluted by scandals relating to how they handle and interpret data. There needs to be more accountability.


We the public are told that the majority of scientists agree with the theory of man made global warming and the skeptics are the lunatic fringe and should be arrested. Then why are there so few organizations controlling the information flow. Why are the climate modeling algorithms so secret that they cannot be audited by other scientists? I thought science was neutral and open to scrutiny? The climate models need to be peer reviewed as well.

The Apocalypse

“Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007,” the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC.”So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative.”

By Jonathan Amos Science reporter, BBC News, San FranciscoWednesday, 12 December 2007 Professor Wieslaw Maslowski

Not only was the Arctic not ice free in summer in 2013, it had added half a million square miles (29%) in 2013 over 2012. The Antarctic reached record ice levels in 2013 as well. This summer, 2015, the North West Passage was again, closed all summer due to pack ice.

MoS2 Template Master

In part 2 of this series on Climate Politics, I listed all the cries for the “last chance” to save planet earth, going back a decade and a half. What usually happens to any theory that has its predictions fail time and time again? At the very least, Dangerous climate change due to man should be demoted to an hypothesis.

The Pause or Hiatus

In 2013 governments around the world were demanding a clearer explanation of the “slow down”. They wanted to know why temperatures hadn’t risen since 1998. As you can see by this statement by Prof Arthur Petersen, of the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, that the IPCC is a global influence on policy and data dissemination. How the IPCC thinks, so does global governments. We are not talking about thousands of scientists all over the globe concurring on global warming theory.

There is no consensus at the IPCC or anywhere else for what the IPCC refers to as the “hiatus” in temperature increases since 1998. Some scientists think the planet is growing warmer but the heat is being absorbed by the oceans, others think it may be because of natural cooling of the Pacific ocean counteracting the temperature rise. That is interesting since they also say the oceans are warming due to greenhouse gases. The take away here is, scientists don’t know why temperatures have stopped rising. Climate warming scientists are not looking for an objective cause, they are trying to explain why the predetermined warming is not showing up in the data. That is called fitting the data to your theory.

In 2013 a pause was the consensus by every major climate research centre. Leading some eminent scientist believing the plane is in a cooling period that may last until mid century.

None of the climate models have lived up to the apocalyptic predictions of yesteryear according to the above article and the general public are getting numb from over a decade of alarmism. Can we really rely on these secretly coded models based on convoluted data methodology. We have seen how the data has been manipulated in the past to try and match the predicted outcomes. If you are only looking for warming, your going to find warming.

The Disclaimer

“The inconsistencies we found among the models are a reality check showing we may not know as much as we thought we did,” said lead author Patrick T. Brown, a Ph.D. student in climatology at Duke’s Nicholas School of the Environment.

“This doesn’t mean greenhouse gases aren’t causing Earth’s atmosphere to warm up in the long run,” Brown emphasized. “It just means the road to a warmer world may be bumpier and less predictable, with more decade-to-decade temperature wiggles than expected. If you’re worried about climate change in 2100, don’t over-interpret short-term trends. Don’t assume that the reduced rate of global warming over the last 10 years foreshadows what the climate will be like in 50 or 100 years.

The above statement is quite remarkable. Essentially he is saying, although we have no idea why the data isn’t what we thought, we do know the theory is correct, even though, the data doesn’t support it. Now, in Patrick’s defense, he had to make that disclaimer so his research money would not dry up, and so he wouldn’t be accused of being a right winged outer fringe denier.

You also have to question a theory that is not falsifiable. When predictions fail, the theory is modified to allow for it. For example, the increase in Antarctic ice, cooling instead of heating, extreme weather as well as a lack of extreme weather. This behavior is an indicator of forcing the data to fit the theory. Because global warming is happening, anything that occurs is a result of it and needs to be explained through that microscope. The problems with such blatant disregard to scientific objectivity is one, discovery is halted as scientists spend millions researching in the wrong direction and two, it can be a windfall for an agenda because nothing seems to dispute it. At some point, scientists have to look at the ridiculousness of explanations attributing all weather to global warming. 0.04% of the atmosphere can not be responsible for too much rain, too little rain, too much ice, too little ice, extreme weather and lack of extreme weather all at the same time. Politics and money!!

Climate science has become highly politicized. Not surprising given the 16.5 trillion dollar price tag the Paris climate summit says the UN needs to save the planet. Are these catastrophic predictions coming from thousands, or even hundreds of independent scientists? No, is the process open and peer reviewed? only individual studies and papers are, while the overall modeling comes from secret algorithms disseminated and dispersed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), NOAA and NASA.

The Skeptics

This is not a numbers game, my side has more than your side. It only takes one paper to destroy a theory. The point is, there are plenty of reputable scientists who are debating climate theory. There are plenty of scientists within climate theory who are debating why modeling and predicting is so far off, why ice is building in some areas and declining in others. Why extreme weather has lessened instead of increased as predicted. It is a theory in search of data that turns out studies like this;

At the very least, there is no basis for climate theorists to declare the science is settled, or that 97% of all scientists agree with the theory. Calling those opposed to warming theory clearly are not a fractional few fringe lunatics with their own agenda. Follow the money, follow the 16.5 trillion dollars the UN is demanding today from tax payers. Is it any wonder why there is so much push back and rhetoric when it comes to skeptics of Climate Change danger. With that kind of money on the table, is it any wonder why everything is being linked to warming theory. From terrorism to gravitational changes to human extinction. Desperate predictions from a faltering theory.