The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever
New data shows that the warming trend is not the result of runaway global warming, but a big scam. Have you wondered why is Boston under 6 feet of snow if the world is getting hottet?
When future generations look back on the global-warming scare of the past 30 years, nothing will shock them more than the extent to which the official temperature records – on which the entire panic ultimately rested – were systematically “adjusted” to show the Earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified.
Two weeks ago, under the headline “How we are being tricked by flawed data on global warming”, Paul Homewood, who, on his Notalotofpeopleknowthat blog, had checked the published temperature graphs for three weather stations in Paraguay against the temperatures that had originally been recorded. In each instance, the actual trend of 60 years of data had been dramatically reversed, so that a cooling trend was changed to one that showed a marked warming.
This was only the latest of many examples of a practice long recognised by expert observers around the world – one that raises an ever larger question mark over the entire official surface-temperature record.
Homewood checked a swathe of other South American weather stations around the original three. In each case he found the same suspicious one-way “adjustments”. First these were made by the US government’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN). They were then amplified by two of the main official surface records, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss) and the National Climate Data Center (NCDC), which use the warming trends to estimate temperatures across the vast regions of the Earth where no measurements are taken. Yet these are the very records on which scientists and politicians rely for their belief in “global warming”.
Homewood has now turned his attention to the weather stations across much of the Arctic, between Canada (51 degrees W) and the heart of Siberia (87 degrees E). Again, in nearly every case, the same one-way adjustments have been made, to show warming up to 1 degree C or more higher than was indicated by the data that was actually recorded. This has surprised no one more than Traust Jonsson, who was long in charge of climate research for the Iceland met office (and with whom Homewood has been in touch). Jonsson was amazed to see how the new version completely “disappears” Iceland’s “sea ice years” around 1970, when a period of extreme cooling almost devastated his country’s economy.
One of the first examples of these “adjustments” was exposed in 2007 by the statistician Steve McIntyre, when he discovered a paper published in 1987 by James Hansen, the scientist (later turned fanatical climate activist) who for many years ran Giss. Hansen’s original graph showed temperatures in the Arctic as having been much higher around 1940 than at any time since. But as Homewood reveals in his blog post, “Temperature adjustments transform Arctic history”, Giss has turned this upside down. Arctic temperatures from that time have been lowered so much that that they are now dwarfed by those of the past 20 years.
Homewood’s interest in the Arctic is partly because the “vanishing” of its polar ice (and the polar bears) has become such a poster-child for those trying to persuade us that we are threatened by runaway warming. But he chose that particular stretch of the Arctic because it is where ice is affected by warmer water brought in by cyclical shifts in a major Atlantic current – this last peaked at just the time 75 years ago when Arctic ice retreated even further than it has done recently. The ice-melt is not caused by rising global temperatures at all.
Of much more serious significance, however, is the way this wholesale manipulation of the official temperature record – for reasons GHCN and Giss have never plausibly explained – has become the real elephant in the room of the greatest and most costly scare the world has known. This really does begin to look like one of the greatest scientific scandals of all time.

And all so they can tax your ass.

100% agreed. Global warming is just another Big Govt. hoax. It doesn't exist and it never did. I've got a lot of new info on this, too, but right now, I'm limited in time on OPP, so I haven't had time to post it. Glad you and others have. Too many global warming whackos around, and Obama and the UN are racking up on the deal, as usual. It's really going to cost us all in terms of extra energy expenses, taxes, and so forth. And, for what? All to save the planet -- a planet which isn't suffering from global warming in the first place. Real science proves that.

Oh, c'mon. And I thought you were finally coming to your senses. Just how many years have you been on these boards, by the way? Of all the denialists, as you call them, how many have used trickery to prove their points? You know, the kind of trickery that Mann used or Hansen in using the phony temperature measuring stations. Or Algore in his phony polar bear photos. Now there's a real scientist for you. That crap would never sell if the liberal mainstream media hadn't been pushing it so hard.

100% agreed. Global warming is just another Big Govt. hoax. It doesn't exist and it never did. I've got a lot of new info on this, too, but right now, I'm limited in time on OPP, so I haven't had time to post it. Glad you and others have. Too many global warming whackos around, and Obama and the UN are racking up on the deal, as usual. It's really going to cost us all in terms of extra energy expenses, taxes, and so forth. And, for what? All to save the planet -- a planet which isn't suffering from global warming in the first place. Real science proves that.

Maybe. But human activity certainly has affected the land, air and water, and not in a good way. If we keep up the complacent, ignorant attitudes toward pollution and the environment, it will come back to bite us in the ass. Actually, it is already.
Obama and the U.N. aren't doing much of anything except paying it lip-service. There have been no drastic actions taken to temper the ecological menace that is our current modern-industrial socio-economic order.
Are we a threat to the planet? I don't think so. But the planet can be a threat to us, and will shake us off like a bad case of fleas if we continue to take it for granted.

Conservation, for starters. Imagine if millions of people were more disciplined when it came to how they use electricity, gas and water, what a dent that would make. We need serious initiatives toward developing renewable - energy technologies. They generate almost no pollution or harmful emissions and could significantly reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, which, let's face it, are going to run out eventually. Expanding renewable energy can improve air quality, create new industries and jobs, and move us toward a cleaner, safer, more affordable energy-future.
We can also develop better methods of waste-management/disposal. We can probably put all of the unemployed to work in the area of anti - litter and grounds/water maintenance alone.
Of course none of it can happen without cooperation and political accord. There's plenty of incentive, but no will. Certain powerful interests both public and private will resist anything, no matter how beneficial, that obligates them to take any major risk or make sacrifices. So first steps involve getting enough people to care and help in any way they can, and getting through to particularly sociopathic ruling elites who currently hold the reigns of power.
The "how" is something else again. Maybe someone can help me out with that one?....