thebigp

January 16, 2020 by T.LaDuke-RED STATE
If there is one thing I love is a good old fashioned debate on things that the vast majority of regular people do not understand yet we think we know. Probably one of the greatest examples of this in the modern day is G****L C*****G/WARMING hysteria.
My colleague Stu Cvrk wrote HERE earlier today about some of the examples in the past of global climate hysteria peeps getting it wrong.
G****l W*****g Alarmists Manipulate Climate Data--January 16, 2020 by Stu Cvrk
Is the climate “warming”? The climate ALWAYS changes and always has throughout the millennia of Earth’s existence. Climate alarmists claim that recent warming is due to mankind’s CO2 emissions since the beginning to the Industrial Revolution. Never mind that studies have shown that CO2 increases have been lagging indicators in past warming cycles, as well as considerable dispute that a trace gas like CO2 could contribute an any significant way to any warming since 1850 or so. Personally, I believe it is no coincidence that alarmists have zeroed in on CO2, a main by-product of advanced human civilization, as the culprit. These people are for zero growth, by and large, as their favorite policies reflect. That is part of the so-called “Green New Deal,” along with a totalitarian mandate to completely shift the world economy to “g***n e****y sources” in lieu of the energy sources that have built human civilization since the beginning of the industrial age, i.e., coal, oil, and natural gas. What do the actual data say about warming?
Cracks in climate alarmism. A lot of warmist attention has been focused on disproving or undermining the fact that there has been a “hiatus” in global temperature increases over the past couple of decades. Alarmists have even proposed data adjustments that would show that g****l w*****g has been proceeding uninterrupted despite the apparent plateau over the past almost two decades. Many skeptics question the data adjustments (as do I). One such question is presented in this article from a couple of years ago.
As noted in the comments section, “it is hugely damaging to the image of climate alarmist advocates that skeptics are now openly questioning whether there has been tampering with the raw data to exaggerate evidence for g****l w*****g. People have an instinct about dishonesty and often have zero tolerance for people in power lying. It is like a switch: switch it and your reputation and everything you say is turned to dust.”
And another pertinent comment: “If data are important, then data collection and accuracy are important. This is particularly true in fields such as climate science, in which it is impossible to rerun experiments plagued by bad or missing data. The cavalier attitude of climate science toward data accuracy and comprehensiveness is appalling.”
Yes, indeed; the underlying data are key to understanding the t***h about c*****e c****e.
Manipulating climate data. Thankfully, a couple of videos have been produced that explain how the government manipulates climate data to support alarmist theories. Here is the first one that details how the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on C*****e C****e (IPCC) manipulated data to get the alarmist conclusions they sought, as explained here:
[This video provides a] chronological look at the original IPCC investigation into global temperature changes, revealing how it was c*********d by a desire to reach a certain conclusion, with senior scientists deliberately downplaying contradictions in the underlying data in order to present a tidy narrative. This is a devastating summary of how the c*****e c****e scientific sausage was made. Not one person in a thousand knows what is authoritatively revealed here about the data series underlying the now iconic “hockey stick chart.” [The Hockey stick is thoroughly debunked here:]
U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) and its affiliate agencies are tasked with educating a trusting public about Earth’s ever-changing climate. Most Americans would be shocked to know that USGCRP’s climate assessments are little more than brazen environmental propaganda, and what follows is convincing proof of that contention.
As part of his efforts to put the glare of bright light on junk climate science, [Tony] Heller produced an absolutely devastating video that lays bare the fraudulent presentation of climate data by the U.S. Global Change Research Program. How so? To produce its frightening assessments, USGCRP cherry-picks the starting point of climate graphs to give the false impression that hot days, wildfires, sea level rise and other climate indicators are undergoing cataclysmic negative changes, when just the opposite is true, as Heller’s video clearly shows:
The data massaging conspiracy. Climate alarmists constantly claim that an “oil-and-gas industry-funded cabal” is part of a conspiracy to undermine (alarmist) climate science. Yet, like L*****ts in other spheres, the alarmists were in fact guilty of what they accuse others. Remember the Climate Gate 2.0 emails from several years ago? It is highly illuminating that the likes of Michael “Hockey Stick” Mann frequently used the phrase “the cause” in many of his emails, don’t you think? The details of what the alarmist cabal and their media allies have suppressed and tried to explain away are contained in this article.
Conclusion. Manipulating climate data – and coordinating that manipulation – has been the alarmists’ modus operandi in “proving” their crackpot theories on anthropogenic g****l w*****g from the very beginning. Thankfully, skeptics are pushing back and exposing the lies with greater frequency than ever before. Be sure to watch those two videos, as they have been suppressed by the alarmists and their media allies for obvious reasons (they destroy the case for the “Green New Deal”).
The end.
Now we have some push back from The Heartland Institute which is one of the leading think tanks in studying data on…climate.
PRESS RELEASE: Heartland Institute Reacts to NOAA’s Claim 2019 ‘Second-warmest Year on Record’
January 15, 2020
By Anthony Watts, James Taylor, H. Sterling Burnett
Agency’s own data actually shows 2019 was cooler than 2005 in the United States; global temp claims riddled with problems
ARLINGTON HEIGHTS, IL (January 15, 2020) – The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) today released a new report claiming 2019 was “the second warmest [year] since modern recordkeeping began in 1880. NOAA says this past year was 0.98 degrees Celsius warmer than the 1951 to 1980 mean, making the 2010s “clearly the warmest decade on record.”
Climate experts at The Heartland Institute dispute this claim, pointing to a cherry-picked period for the “mean” comparison and data that has been consistently adjusted to artificially make recent years appear significantly warmer than in decades past. In fact, NOAA’s state-of-the-art land-based temperature stations in the United States, placed by design to minimize the urban heat-island effect and other factors that corrupt the data, show that the U.S. was cooler in 2019 than in 2005. See the chart below from the U.S. Climate Reference Network via the NOAA website.

The following statements from climate and environment experts at The Heartland Institute—a free-market think tank—may be used for attribution. For more comments, refer to the contact information below. To book a Heartland guest on your program, please contact Media Specialist Billy Aouste at media@heartland.org.
“The NOAA/NASA press release is inconsistently presented. For example, they can’t even agree on a common base period for comparisons. Some graphs use 1951-1980 while others compare to 1981-2010 averages to create anomaly plots. NOAA and NASA owe it to the public to present climate data with a consistent climate period for comparison, otherwise it’s just sloppy science.
“NOAA’s U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN) has the best quality climate data on the planet, yet it never gets mentioned in their press releases. While the U.S. isn’t the world, the lack of a warming signal in the contiguous United States since 2005 suggests that the data NOAA and NASA use from the antiquated Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN) reflects warmer biases due to urbanization and adjustments to the data. The USCRN has no biases, and no need for adjustments, and in my opinion represents a ground t***h for c*****e c****e.”
Anthony Watts
Senior Fellow
The Heartland Institute
awatts@heartland.org
“Modest warming has, thankfully, been occurring since we slipped out of the Little Ice Age a little more than a century ago. That was the coldest period of the past 10,000 years and brought horrible human misery. The modest warming that is lately occurring should naturally lead to subsequent years being a little warmer than previous years, which is the case. This is a good thing and just brought tremendous human health and welfare benefits, along with substantial environmental benefits.”
James Taylor
Director of the Arthur B. Robinson Center for Climate and Environmental Policy
The Heartland Institute
jtaylor@heartland.org
“Once again, NASA and NOAA are throwing gasoline on a fire they largely created by ignoring the best data on temperature, and instead using c*********d or adjusted temperature readings to reinforce their claim humans are causing a climate crisis. The U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN), the gold standard of surface temperature data, plus data from global satellites and weather balloons, all record minimal or almost no warming over the past 40 years, yet NASA and NOAA ignore these sources of unbiased data, because it undermines their dogmatic belief in human caused climate catastrophe.”
“NASA and NOAA are like toddlers trying to fit round toys into square holes, and just as likely as toddlers to throw fits when their efforts are stymied by reality.”
H. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D.
According to a Press Release from them today there may some not connecting all the dots going on here…
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) today released a new report claiming 2019 was “the second warmest [year] since modern recordkeeping began in 1880. NOAA says this past year was 0.98 degrees Celsius warmer than the 1951 to 1980 mean, making the 2010s “clearly the warmest decade on record.”
Climate experts at The Heartland Institute dispute this claim, pointing to a cherry-picked period for the “mean” comparison and data that has been consistently adjusted to artificially make recent years appear significantly warmer than in decades past. In fact, NOAA’s state-of-the-art land-based temperature stations in the United States, placed by design to minimize the urban heat-island effect and other factors that corrupt the data, show that the U.S. was cooler in 2019 than in 2005. See the chart below from the U.S. Climate Reference Network via the NOAA website.
They also tweeted about it right here…
Now I can freely admit I am NOT a scientist and neither is Leo Dicaprio, although he does have a pretty cool boat and I’m working on getting a super neat dingy. Yet people like Leo want to blame everything bad from forest fires to icebergs sinking the Titanic on man-made yada yada. When you just blindly accept conclusions from G-O-V-E-R-M-E-N-T anything, you are going to be disappointed.
Heartland’s conclusion alleges that the NOAA is cherry-picking the data. From the charts above that looks to be the case. So is NOAA “t***h” just a cheery picked opinion or is it ACTUAL T***H?
There is truly only one way to find out. Let’s have experts from whoever NOAA wants to send and those from the Heartland Institute and do a conference and let these experts hash it out. They could bring all the charts and data and broadcast LIVE so that people can watch and make up their own minds. If the “T***H” is actually “THE T***H” than this should not be a problem. I know they will have to dumb it down for all of us but I also know from my personal experience that if I’m confident in my conclusions, I will talk anywhere, anytime.
So lets put some pressure on these experts to have a Lincoln-Douglas style debate ( Heartland is based in Illinois so that is a natural reference) and see where this leads. I think it would be a fascinating learning experience for us all.
If all the parties do not mind, I would also like to suggest a place for this debate.
Leo DiCaprio’s yacht. The fresh air and sun will do us all some good.
SOURCE-T.LaDuke-RED STATE- heartland institute- Stu Cvrk- U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP)- The Heartland Institute-Anthony Watts, James Taylor, H. Sterling Burnett