NOAA Attempts to Hide the Pause in Global Warming: The Most Disgraceful Cover-Up Since Climategate

Despite being a public, taxpayer-funded institution, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) insists that it is under no obligation to provide the research papers, as demanded in a subpoena by Rep Lamar Smith (R-Texas).

Gosh. What vital information of national secrecy importance could NOAA possibly have to hide?

That question is entirely rhetorical, by the way. The answer is obvious – well known to every one within the climate change research community. And the whole business stinks. When these documents are released, as eventually they surely must be, what will become evident is that this represents the most disgraceful official cover-up by the politicized science establishment since the release of the Climategate emails.

At the root of the issue is the inconvenient truth that there has been no “global warming” since January 1997.

This is clearly shown by the most reliable global temperature dataset – the RSS satellite records – and was even grudgingly acknowledged in the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment report. While still insisting that there has been a slight warming – an increase, since 1998, of around 0.05 degrees C per decade – the IPCC had in all honesty to admit that this is smaller than the 0.1 degrees C error range for thermometer readings, and consequently statistically insignificant.

But if there has been no “global warming” for nearly 19 years how can alarmist proselytisers like President Obama and John Kerry possibly hope to convince an increasingly skeptical public that this apparently non-existent problem yet remains the most pressing concern of our age?”

Step forward the Obama administration’s helpful friends at NOAA. It’s not supposed to be a politicized institution: its job is to do science, not propaganda. But the memo must have been missed by NOAA scientists Thomas Karl and Thomas Peterson who, in May this year, published a “study” so favourable to the alarmist cause it might just as well have been scripted by Al Gore and Greenpeace, with a royal foreword by the Prince of Wales, and a blessing from Pope Francis.

“Data show no slowdown in recent global warming” declared NOAA’s press release. “The Pause”, in other words, was just the construct of a few warped deniers’ twisted imaginations.

Naturally this new “evidence” was seized on with alacrity by the usual media suspects.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Global Warming? Yeah, Right

Precisely distorted

Have a look at this chart. It tells you pretty much all you need to know about the much-anticipated scoop by Anthony Watts of Watts Up With That?

What it means, in a nutshell, is that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) – the US government body in charge of America’s temperature record, has systematically exaggerated the extent of late 20th century global warming. In fact, it has doubled it.

Is this a case of deliberate fraud by Warmist scientists hell bent on keeping their funding gravy train rolling? Well, after what we saw in Climategate anything is possible. (I mean it’s not like NOAA is run by hard-left eco activists, is it?) But I think more likely it is a case of confirmation bias. The Warmists who comprise the climate scientist establishment spend so much time communicating with other warmists and so little time paying attention to the views of dissenting scientists such as Henrik Svensmark – or Fred Singer or Richard Lindzen or indeed Anthony Watts – that it simply hasn’t occurred to them that their temperature records need adjusting downwards not upwards.

What Watts has conclusively demonstrated is that most of the weather stations in the US are so poorly sited that their temperature data is unreliable. Around 90 per cent have had their temperature readings skewed by the Urban Heat Island effect. While he has suspected this for some time what he has been unable to do until his latest, landmark paper (co-authored with Evan Jones of New York, Stephen McIntyre of Toronto, Canada, and Dr. John R. Christy from the Department of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama, Huntsville) is to put precise figures on the degree of distortion involved.

For the full story go to Watts Up With That NOW!

There is, of course, one very, very sad aspect to this story – and truly it pains me to mention it but journalistic duty compels me to do so – and that’s the dampening effect it may have on the grandstanding of a hapless fellow by the name of Professor Richard Muller.

Poor Professor Muller has been telling anyone who’ll listen – his amen corner in greeny-lefty MSM, mainly – that as a former “skeptic” he has now been forced by weight of evidence to conclude that global warming is definitely man-made and there has been lots of it (a whole 1.5 degrees C – Wow! that’s like almost as much as you’d get if you drove from London to Manchester!!!) since 1750. Tragically – as Watts has very reluctantly and by-no-means-experiencing-any-kind-of-Schadenfreude had to point out is that the data used by Muller to draw these conclusions was unreliable to the point of utter uselessness.

So, in the spirit of magnanimity in total crushing victory I would urge readers of this blog not to crow too much about the devastating blow Watts’s findings will have on the Guardian’s battalion of environment correspondents, on the New York Times, on NOAA, on Al Gore, on the Prince of Wales, on the Royal Society, on Professor Muller, or on any of the other rent-seekers, grant-grubbers, eco-loons, crony capitalists, junk scientists, UN apparatchiks, EU technocrats, hideous porcine blobsters, demented squawking parrots, life-free loser trolls, paid CACC-amites and True Believers in the Great Global Warming Religion.

That would be plain wrong.

Related posts:

  1. Uh oh, global warming loons: here comes Climategate II!
  2. ‘Global warming? What global warming?’ says High Priest of Gaia Religion
  3. Inventor of Mann-made global warming feels the heat
  4. Only morons, cheats and liars still believe in Man-Made Global Warming

3 thoughts on “Global Warming? Yeah, right”

  1. Rocky Mountain says:24th August 2012 at 10:07 amJames – I’m neither a “warmist” nor a “denier” and am certainly open to any sane presentation of facts (assuming that’s possible). My general impression is that there are some records being broken with regard to higher temperatures in some places (although I think it is amusing to find out that many of the earlier records were set in the 19th century which makes me wonder what was going on then). I read this AM about Artic Sea ice shrinking in volume/area and is quite a bit lower then to be expected. What’s your reading of this?
  2. Delingpole Hates Science says:27th August 2012 at 6:30 amFunny, James claims that Global Warming isn’t taking place at all yet his argument is that it is now being exaggerated instead of simply not existing.

    Do denialists even bother looking at what’s been written for them by the Oil companies before they click submit?

    1. Rocky Mountain says:29th August 2012 at 12:51 pmBut the question I would ask is whether its possible to arrive at a “denialist” version of events without invoking the very conspiratorial “Oil Company” cabal? As I stated previously, I am neither a ‘warmist’ or a “denier” but somehow an issue about climate has become politically partisan and it appears to be because either position leads to political solutions. A good example is Thomas Friedman’s book “Hot, Flat, and Crowded” which, while interesting, is clearly biased politically. This puts a neutral conservative in a bad position. However, at the end of the day I think “Green” is not a bad thing as long as it doesn’t keep individuals from choosing to live the way they want. Maybe SUVs will become prohibitively expensive and finally put to rest but I would like to see that occur because of market forces. Anyway, I don’t believe that SUVs in and of themselves cause global warming. An interesting point in Friedman’s book is that cows and deforestation combined produce the bulk of CO2 and Methane emissions. I think it would be more beneficial to concentrate on either both or one of the other first, assuming, of course, that these emissions are causing global warming and additionally assuming thaty global warming is actually happening on the scale that it is sometimes reported.

Comments are closed.