Congress Investigates Fraudulent Science Used by NOAA to Push UN Global Warming Treaty

The New American ^ | 02.25.17 | William F. Jasper

[Libertynotfree]

It’s about time to expose the scam.

[lepton]

Read the evaluations of the outputs of the systems Karls used. They are unstable. They vary wildly month-to-month for the same month. By all appearances, he just cherry-picked one output he liked, with no verification.

[hal ogen]

Why is it when I hear “congress investigates” a vision of Kabuki theater arises???

[Seaplaner]

The warmists just love to crow that (n) percent of "scientists" all support the counterfeit pronouncement of man-caused climate change.

I happen to be a scientist, a real one.

And, I'm quite familiar with the scientific method, which has been wholly stifled in this political scare-mongering scenario.

For example, what the warmists purport does not even qualify to be an hypothesis (one needs first an observation, and computer models are not observations).

Also, it is standard among scientists to invite critical review of one's methods, results, and conclusions. The warmists are secretive about their methods, their results are computer outputs, and their conclusions apparently preceded every other step.

Instead of welcoming challenging views, they ridicule them; and, instead of being independent of political input, they are lockstep fifth-column warriors along the shining path of left-wing progressivism.

They avoid challenging views because they fear them.

Warmists are the precise opposite of scientists, they are obedient servants.

[lepton]

graphs pulled over the course of several months in 2012

The dark blue line shows the raw, unadjusted temperature record for Alice Springs. The green line shows the adjusted data as reported by GHCN in January 2012. You can see that the adjustments are quite small. The red line shows the adjusted temperature after being put the through the GHCN  algorithm, as reported by GHCN in March 2012. In this case, past temperatures have been cooled by about 2 degrees. In May, the adjustment algorithm actually warmed the past, leading to adjusted past temperatures that were about three degrees warmer than what they had reported in March! Note that all the graphs converge together at the right hand end, since the adjustment algorithm starts from the present and works backwards. The divergence of the lines as they go back in time illustrates the instability.

[Sequoyah101]

An honest an professional scientist or engineer seeks reputable critical review. He recognizes that his product has serious repercussion if wrong. Critical peer review is part of demonstrating the integrity some just dont have.

[miniTAX]

Absolutely. “Congress investigation” means all talks, hearings, grandstanding and zero action.
I’ll give my attention whenever a single one of these climate scammers is fined or put behind bars. That is never.

[chopperman]

“97 percent of the scientests agree” is an intentional misquote by the alarmists pulled from the Cook study of the internal Climategate emails that confirmed the fraud of Climategate. Cook found that of the reviewed professional literature, which U.of East Anglia conspirators admittedly controlled, there was 97 percent of a third agreement in CO2 contributing to “Global Warming”. His report actually confirmed the conspiracy. “97 percent of a third” is still less than a third but its only a third among the papers that were allowed to be published. The top huricane expert in USA went to his grave complaining that he couldn’t get published because of these UAE people.

[TBP]

Hide the decline.

[abclily]

OK!! Everybody pay attention!

Lesson for today:

1. The sun is 1,300,000 times as big as the earth.

2. The sun is a giant nuclear furnace that controls the climates of all its planets.

3. The earth is one of the sun’s planets.

4. The earth is a speck in comparison to the size of the sun.

5. Inhabitants of the earth are less than specks.

Study Question: How do less-than-specks in congress plan to control the sun?

[lepton]

“97 percent of the scientests agree”

---

Actually...there’s multiple sources. Each more hilarious than the last.

This includes a ‘study’ where thousands of members of a scientific organization were sent a list of questions, including the vague questions about whether CO2 causes warming, whether it had warmed since the 1800s, and whether humans had any effect on climate.

These were wittled down to a couple of hundred responses, and among that small group got a 97% on the CO2 causing warming question (why so low?). They actually got more complaints back that the questions were broken than they did agreement within this small group - the original mailing list excluding geologists and meteorologists and many other relevant disciplines.

Another 97%er is a study by Naiomi Oreskes, where she did an internet search and her group evaluated papers as to whether they supported man-made global warming or not. Famously, the would classify both a study which purported to find evidence of some phenomenon which supported the author’s interpretation of global warming theory - and the paper that disproved the previously referenced paper - as well as papers written by skeptics, or didn’t address the issue but used the keywords, all as supporting AGW theory.

Then there’s the Lewandowsky study.

[Tawiskaro]