Agree. The side does a superb job of showing the questionable practices of the climate change crowd - to include changes of past data, predictions that are almost laughably incorrect, and more.
Even if you’re not a STEM type, it’s well written and includes actual references.
Sooner or later the pretend science folks like Google will have to ban sites like his because - well - because.
There is a narrative that must be promoted, the control of the world is at stake.
It’s no longer “global warming”. It’s not even “climate change”.
Now, it’s “climate chaos”.
Try to keep up.
btt
How much have sea levels risen on the Boston, New York, and Miami waterfronts?
I’m thinking close to zero, otherwise people would be screaming already, with CNN doing hysterical live reports from the scene ...
obviously that ain’t happening
Jim Bridenstine was a rock solid conservative. I wonder what has gotten in to him?
There may be plenty of evidence on how “manmade climate change” is a scam, but that does not prevent some truly horrific ideas from being promoted.
Some “environmentalists” have suggested putting up shades above the earth, apparently completely unaware of the central role that sunlight has on the growth of vegetation. Another scheme involves pulling carbon dioxide out of the air (at a great energy cost), also promoted by those who apparently have no idea that carbon dioxide is quite literally the material of life.
I’ve seen other schemes, as well. What they all have in common is that they would be environmentally disastrous if implemented. Some schemes represent fundamental existential threats to continued life on earth.
I can’t help but wonder if the smart people promoting manmade global warming hysteria are only pushing it as a way to reduce resistance against socialism, or if their ultimate intent is to eliminate life from the planet. I can’t imagine that they are pushing these drastic life-threatening schemes in utter ignorance of the consequences.
bkmk
In conclusion all this hysteria is bunk , the problem fixes itself without any human efforts needed.
There is a weather / temperature station in Mulberry Florida which is been there for decades. When it was put there it was in the middle of an empty field.
Later on that field became a black asphalt parking lot surrounded by buildings and air conditioning units pumping out Heat. And that is considered proof of global temperature change. This temperature / weather station is not an anomaly.
Spending trillions of dollars, destroying the economies of the world, and surrendering sovereignty is an exercise in Leftism and wealth redistribution, no more than that.
Good objective article with references. Thanks for posting.
Personally, I think it’s a miracle that our climate system is as stable as it is.
It seems to me we should understand how that works before becoming overly concerned about the fact that our climate is changing.
BUT!!!!
Try to get an AGW alarmist to read it and you will be greeted with "CONSENSUS!"
In the same way liberals shield themselves from social reality by shouting "RACIST!".
“This is one of the best, short, data driven essays on temperature manipulation by NASA and the IPCC that I have seen.”
I agree. An excellent summary of the skeptics position.
As I recall, several years ago a network of non-municipal non-heat island weather stations was established. These were also to be located in places not likely to develop for many years.
Even our local weather station at the airport near the interstate is apparently affected by the increase in concrete around it. There is a significant difference in my weather station recordings just 8 miles away. Yes, my station is calibrated.
“Climate science” is 99% Political Science and 1% Real Science.
The article does an excellent job summarizing the motivation.
“Motivation for NASA to Report Higher Temperatures
Why would NASA come up with results so different from those of other climate observations? Consider the history of the NASA global temperature estimates. In 1986, James Hansen broadly publicized his global warming theory in testimony before the US Senate. For the next 27 years, Mr. Hansen was the chief scientist at NASA in charge of preparing and presenting those estimates. Is it unreasonable to suggest that the “adjustments” and formulas he used after his Senate testimony were biased with an effort to make his predictions turn out to be correct? How much of the NASA estimate is a simple self-fulfilling prophesy?
It’s not just NASA that is subject to significant pressure which likely introduces bias into their results. Climate scientists may be in the same position as those in other fields (i.e. nutrition, pharmaceuticals, psychology) where the desire to produce a pre-selected result influences the inputs, methods, and findings of their science. Alarming results (“hottest ever!” “disaster predicted” “urgent action needed”) all generate headlines; speaking engagements; trips to climate conferences (IPCC); and additional funding for more research. When scientists find opposite results (“nothing is really changing” “it’s just weather” “random events as usual”) they get no publicity; no funding; and instead are attacked (“pro big oil” “anti-environment” or worst of all, a “climate change denier.”)[35] There are indeed thousands of scientific papers that are at odds with NASA, but they don’t get nearly the media coverage and they are not included in NASA’s estimates.”
Summation of current Climate Science:
When raw data show the exact opposite of “adjusted” data, there’s something very very wrong.