I ACTUALLY AGREE WITH OBUMMER

[RV ME]

…..well half way.  In an interview today, Obummer agreed that the media overstates the threat of terrorism over the real problem of global warm….errr climate change.

 

http://youtu.be/54SL4czTnuw

 

While I believe the terrorism part of his statement is complete and total bunk, I wholeheartedly agree with him that the issue of global warm….errr climate change should be thoroughly discussed by the media.

Recently, yet another study of the actual temperatures used in the true believers global warm…errr climate change models has revealed the blatant fraud required to produce  the true believers desired results.

 

Climategate, the sequel: How we are STILL being tricked with flawed data on global warming

Although it has been emerging for seven years or more, one of the most extraordinary scandals of our time has never hit the headlines. Yet another little example of it lately caught my eye when, in the wake of those excited claims that 2014 was “the hottest year on record”, I saw the headline on a climate blog: “Massive tampering with temperatures in South America”. The evidence on Notalotofpeopleknowthat, uncovered by Paul Homewood, was indeed striking.

Puzzled by those “2014 hottest ever” claims, which were led by the most quoted of all the five official global temperature records – Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss) – Homewood examined a place in the world where Giss was showing temperatures to have risen faster than almost anywhere else: a large chunk of South America stretching from Brazil to Paraguay.

Noting that weather stations there were thin on the ground, he decided to focus on three rural stations covering a huge area of Paraguay. Giss showed it as having recorded, between 1950 and 2014, a particularly steep temperature rise of more than 1.5C: twice the accepted global increase for the whole of the 20th century.

But when Homewood was then able to check Giss’s figures against the original data from which they were derived, he found that they had been altered. Far from the new graph showing any rise, it showed temperatures in fact having declined over those 65 years by a full degree. When he did the same for the other two stations, he found the same. In each case, the original data showed not a rise but a decline.

Homewood had in fact uncovered yet another example of the thousands of pieces of evidence coming to light in recent years that show that something very odd has been going on with the temperature data relied on by the world's scientists. And in particular by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which has driven the greatest and most costly scare in history: the belief that the world is in the grip of an unprecedented warming.

How have we come to be told that global temperatures have suddenly taken a great leap upwards to their highest level in 1,000 years? In fact, it has been no greater than their upward leaps between 1860 and 1880, and 1910 and 1940, as part of that gradual natural warming since the world emerged from its centuries-long “Little Ice Age” around 200 years ago.

This belief has rested entirely on five official data records. Three of these are based on measurements taken on the Earth’s surface, versions of which are then compiled by Giss, by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and by the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit working with the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction, part of the UK Met Office. The other two records are derived from measurements made by satellites, and then compiled by Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) in California and the University of Alabama, Huntsville (UAH).

The adjusted graph from the Goddard Institute for Space Studies

In recent years, these two very different ways of measuring global temperature have increasingly been showing quite different results. The surface-based record has shown a temperature trend rising up to 2014 as “the hottest years since records began”. RSS and UAH have, meanwhile, for 18 years been recording no rise in the trend, with 2014 ranking as low as only the sixth warmest since 1997.

One surprise is that the three surface records, all run by passionate believers in man-made warming, in fact derive most of their land surface data from a single source. This is the Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN), managed by the US National Climate Data Center under NOAA, which in turn comes under the US Department of Commerce.

But two aspects of this system for measuring surface temperatures have long been worrying a growing array of statisticians, meteorologists and expert science bloggers. One is that the supposedly worldwide network of stations from which GHCN draws its data is flawed. Up to 80 per cent or more of the Earth’s surface is not reliably covered at all. Furthermore, around 1990, the number of stations more than halved, from 12,000 to less than 6,000 – and most of those remaining are concentrated in urban areas or places where studies have shown that, thanks to the “urban heat island effect”, readings can be up to 2 degrees higher than in those rural areas where thousands of stations were lost.

Below, the raw data in graph form

To fill in the huge gaps, those compiling the records have resorted to computerised “infilling”, whereby the higher temperatures recorded by the remaining stations are projected out to vast surrounding areas (Giss allows single stations to give a reading covering 1.6 million square miles). This alone contributed to the sharp temperature rise shown in the years after 1990.

But still more worrying has been the evidence that even this data has then been subjected to continual “adjustments”, invariably in only one direction. Earlier temperatures are adjusted downwards, more recent temperatures upwards, thus giving the impression that they have risen much more sharply than was shown by the original data.

An early glaring instance of this was spotted by Steve McIntyre, the statistician who exposed the computer trickery behind that famous “hockey stick” graph, beloved by the IPCC, which purported to show that, contrary to previous evidence, 1998 had been the hottest year for 1,000 years. It was McIntyre who, in 2007, uncovered the wholesale retrospective adjustments made to US surface records between 1920 and 1999 compiled by Giss (then run by the outspoken climate activist James Hansen). These reversed an overall cooling trend into an 80-year upward trend. Even Hansen had previously accepted that the “dust bowl” 1930s was the hottest US decade of the entire 20th century.

Assiduous researchers have since unearthed countless similar examples across the world, from the US and Russia to Australia and New Zealand. In Australia, an 80-year cooling of 1 degree per century was turned into a warming trend of 2.3 degrees. In New Zealand, there was a major academic row when “unadjusted” data showing no trend between 1850 and 1998 was shown to have been “adjusted” to give a warming trend of 0.9 degrees per century. This falsified new version was naturally cited in an IPCC report (see “New Zealand NIWA temperature train wreck” on the Watts Up With That science blog, WUWT, which has played a leading role in exposing such fiddling of the figures).

By far the most comprehensive account of this wholesale corruption of proper science is a paper written for the Science and Public Policy Institute, “Surface Temperature Records: Policy-Driven Deception?”, by two veteran US meteorologists, Joseph D’Aleo and WUWT’s Anthony Watts (and if warmists are tempted to comment below this article online, it would be welcome if they could address their criticisms to the evidence, rather than just resorting to personal attacks on the scientists who, after actually examining the evidence, have come to a view different from their own).

One of the more provocative points arising from the debate over those claims that 2014 was “the hottest year evah” came from the Canadian academic Dr Timothy Ball when, in a recent post on WUWT, he used the evidence of ice-core data to argue that the Earth’s recent temperatures rank in the lowest 3 per cent of all those recorded since the end of the last ice age, 10,000 years ago.

In reality, the implications of such distortions of the data go much further than just representing one of the most bizarre aberrations in the history of science. The fact that our politicians have fallen for all this scary chicanery has given Britain the most suicidally crazy energy policy (useless windmills and all) of any country in the world.

But at least, if they’re hoping to see that “universal climate treaty” signed in Paris next December, we can be pretty sure that it is no more going to happen than that 2014 was the hottest year in history.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11367272/Climategate-the-sequel-How-we-are-STILL-being-tricked-with-flawed-data-on-global-warming.html

 

Based on all the evidence we now know, how can any thinking person still believe anything said by the true believers when it comes to global warm…errr climate change?  Time and time again their fraud has been exposed yet there are still those that believe the propaganda.  I would love to hear any true believer acknowledge, if not attempt to defend, the blatant fraud taking place in plain sight.  The 8oo pound gorilla in the room has morphed into a 200 ton blue whale yet the true believers continue to pretend it does not exist.

I say hooray for Obummer, let’s get the media focusing on the real problem of (THE FRAUD) that is global warm….errr climate change.  If the Fourth Estate was living up to their task the issue of global warm…err climate change would have died years ago.  RV ME

 

[bigwave]

Sorry RV ME I jsut could not get myself to open the video - I get sick just thinking about hearing him talk let alone actually listening to him.

 

I did enjoy the post though.

 

Peace,

 

Come on RV.

[RV ME]

Sorry RV ME I jsut could not get myself to open the video - I get sick just thinking about hearing him talk let alone actually listening to him.

 

I did enjoy the post though.

 

Peace,

 

Come on RV.

 

 

I have said before that just when I think I cannot be more disgusted with him, he proves me wrong.  I know he is hard to stomach, but you need to know what he said.  Found a transcript that can be read so as not to have to listen to him. 

 

MATTHEW YGLESIAS, VOX: Do you think the media sometimes overstates the level of alarm people should have about terrorism and this kind of chaos, as opposed to a longer-term problem of climate change and epidemic disease?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Absolutely. And I don't blame the media for that. What's the famous saying about local newscasts, right? If it bleeds, it leads, right? You show crime stories and you show fires, because that's what folks watch, and it's all about ratings. And, you know, the problems of terrorism and dysfunction and chaos, along with plane crashes and a few other things, that's the equivalent when it comes to covering international affairs. There's just not going to be a lot of interest in a headline story that we have cut infant mortality by really significant amounts over the last 20 years or that extreme poverty has been slashed or that there's been enormous progress with a program we set up when I first came into office to help poor farmers increase productivity and yields. It's not a sexy story. And climate change is one that is happening at such a broad scale and at such a complex system, it's a hard story for the media to tell on a day-to-day basis.

[dontlop]

I believe those liberals dumped billions of dollars into the stock market hoping to make a fortune off their hoax and ended up losing most of it

I'm sure obama still gets calls from his " old " pals screaming for him to open this up again to get people to invest and bring their stocks back up so they can dump them and get out without such heavy losses

But even the media is well aware that we are aware and its a wash

They lost their rears on this one especially al gore

Notice how we never hear from him any more

And his buddy Ted turner who knows if he's even alive any more

They tried to rob us all trying to make us purchase carbon credits from them

But they lost and they lost big

Edited February 10, 2015 by dontlop

[divemaster5734]

 problem of global warm….

 

Yeah, back east has global warming issues right now... cancelled flights, power outages...  doncha know it's a warm snow storm?.. should be -20 and it's only -10... Oh Nooooooo...

[aliciadogz]

I mute him every time I just can't listen.

[dog53]

Keep your friends close and your enemy's closer .

I listen to everything the puke says.

I love to try to figure out whats going on in that evil twisted brain.  hahahahahahaha

[jobug38]

It's all BS. Me rothsad and others on this site have been saying this for a very long time! But thank you for bringing this !

[Whatshername]

Of course obama double-downed on climategate.  These radicals are WHACK!  And I think we can now say they're dangerous...

 

Greenpeace Activist Calls for Climate Change ‘Deniers’ to be Beheaded

 

A climate change advocate, believed to be a Greenpeace activist and Guardian contributor, has called for the beheading of so-called “climate change deniers”, arguing the world would be a better place without them. The comments are merely the latest in a long history of warmists advocating the killing of people who question global warming dogma.

 

On January 21st, in it’s ‘Climate Consensus – the 97%’ section, the Guardian published an article entitled “Matt Ridley wants to gamble the Earth’s future because he won’t learn from the past”, which was illustrated with a fake, but nonetheless rather gruesome image of a severed head.

 

The article drew hundreds of comments, including one from ‘Bluecloud’ on the day the article was posted, reading “Should that not be Ridley’s severed head in the photo?”

 

Further down he added “We would actually solve a great deal of the world’s problems by chopping off everyone’s heads.

“Why are you deniers so touchy? Mere calls for a beheading evolve [sic] such a strong response in you people.

 

“Ask yourself a simple question: Would the world be a better place without Matt Ridley?

“Need I answer that question?”

 

The comment has since been removed by moderators, allowing ‘Bluecloud’ to attempt to deny that he had called for violence. On Sunday morning he commented “Oh dear, it didn’t take much for the denial industry to start claiming environmentalists are out to chop off people’s heads.

 

“It’s clear that when they have no argument to make, they stoop to misquoting deleted posts”

 

Others also tried to deflect blame, with commentor ‘ianhassall’ writing “Bluecloud’s moderated comment is causing quite a stir, isn’t it.

 

“If warmists can’t get their point across with the settled science I’ve got no doubt they’d resort to the sort of violence he’s suggesting.”

 

To which Bluecloud replied: “And what violence would that be? Making false claims is easy in the absence of evidence.”

Unfortunately for Bluecloud, the evidence is easy to come by on Twitter. Climateologist Richard Tol has tweeted a screenshot of his original comment in full:

 

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/01/25/greenpeace-activist-calls-for-climate-change-deniers-to-be-beheaded/

 

Furthermore, the Bishop Hill blog is reporting that others commenting on the Guardian article revealed Bluecloud to be Gary Evans, a Greenpeace funded “Sustainability Consultant”, according to his Linked In profile, who has written for the Guardian in the past.

 

The comment fingering Evans was apparently deleted by the Guardian moderators far in advance of Evan’s comment being deleted.

 

Bluecloud’s comment comes a week after a Professor Emeritus of Physics at Princeton University called climate change activism a “jihad against atmospheric carbon” in a new paper for the Global Policy Warming Foundation.

 

However, this is not the first time that global warming advocates have threatened violence against those who question the theory of anthropogenic global warming. In 2010 Greenpeace’s Gene Hasmi wrote: “Pressuring politicians on climate change is not working. We saw that in Copenhagen. Three months later, we also know why. Which is why the global climate movement now must do course-correction. We need to shift targets and go after the real termites that hollowed out and imploded Copenhagen.

 

“Emerging battle-bruised from the disaster zone of Copenhagen, but ever-hopeful, a rider on horseback brought news of darkness and light: “The politicians have failed. Now it’s up to us. We must break the law to make the laws we need: laws that are supposed to protect society, and protect our future. Until our laws do that, screw being climate lobbyists. Screw being climate activists. It’s not working. We need an army of climate outlaws.”

 

“The proper channels have failed. It’s time for mass civil disobedience to cut off the financial oxygen from denial and skepticism.

 

“If you’re one of those who have spent their lives undermining progressive climate legislation, bankrolling junk science, fueling spurious debates around false solutions, and cattle-prodding democratically-elected governments into submission, then hear this:

 

“We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work.

“And we be many, but you be few.”

 

2010 also saw the release of the 10:10 Campaign’s supposedly comedic ‘No Pressure’ video, penned by Richard Curtis, in which children and office workers who don’t want to do their bit to prevent climate change are blown up by hitting a big red button.

 

[RV ME]

Of course obama double-downed on climategate.  These radicals are WHACK!  And I think we can now say they're dangerous...

 

Greenpeace Activist Calls for Climate Change ‘Deniers’ to be Beheaded

And I thought it was bad when the true believers just wanted to put us in prison.

 

US college professor demands imprisonment for climate-change deniers

An assistant philosophy professor at Rochester Institute of Technology wants to send people who disagree with him about global warming to jail.

The professor is Lawrence Torcello. Last week, he published a 900-word-plus essay at an academic website called The Conversation.

His main complaint is his belief that certain nefarious, unidentified individuals have organized a “campaign funding misinformation.” Such a campaign, he argues, “ought to be considered criminally negligent.”

Torcello, who has a Ph.D. from the University at Buffalo, explains that there are times when criminal negligence and “science misinformation” must be linked. The threat of climate change, he says, is one of those times.

Throughout the piece, he refers to the bizarre political aftermath of an earthquake in L’Aquila, Italy, which saw six scientists imprisoned for six years each because they failed to “clearly communicate risks to the public” about living in an earthquake zone.

“Consider cases in which science communication is intentionally undermined for political and financial gain,” the assistant professor urges.

“Imagine if in L’Aquila, scientists themselves had made every effort to communicate the risks of living in an earthquake zone,” Torcello argues, but evil “financiers” of a “denialist campaign” “funded an organised [sic] campaign to discredit the consensus findings of seismology, and for that reason no preparations were made.”

“I submit that this is just what is happening with the current, well documented funding of global warming denialism,” Torcello asserts.

Torcello says that people are already dying because of global warming. “Nonetheless, climate denial remains a serious deterrent against meaningful political action in the very countries most responsible for the crisis.”

As such, Torcello wants governments to make “the funding of climate denial” a crime.

“The charge of criminal and moral negligence ought to extend to all activities of the climate deniers who receive funding as part of a sustained campaign to undermine the public’s understanding of scientific consensus.”

Torcello, the Ph.D.-holding philosophy professor, then manages to conflate the standard of criminal negligence with the much lower standard of garden-variety negligence under civil law.

Torcello also tries to preemptively rebut criticism that his attempt to silence climate change skeptics with the threat of criminal penalties is unconstitutional due to the First Amendment.

“We must make the critical distinction between the protected voicing of one’s unpopular beliefs, and the funding of a strategically organised [sic] campaign to undermine the public’s ability to develop and voice informed opinions,” he argues.

“It is time for modern societies to interpret and update their legal systems.”

On March 13, 2014 (the day Torcello’s screed was published), the high temperature was 18 degrees Fahrenheit in Rochester, N.Y., the city for which Rochester Institute of Technology is named.

In the latest U.S. News rankings,

http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/17/u-s-college-professor-demands-imprisonment-for-climate-change-deniers/

 

Funny how the actions that they say should land you in prison is exactly what the true believers are engaging in.  RV ME

[Jim1cor13]

The 'warming agenda' has always been little more than a new religion

with Al Gore as its herald and messiah. Along the way, they captured

a few scientists and other so called 'experts' who were used to preach

the 'coming climax' and unfolding doom made to sound certain by its

herd of alarmists and like minded doomsayers. They managed to gain

converts along the way, including many global governments to add

authority to their manipulated message.

 

Some things never change, the theme is always the same underlying

urgency. Yes, it is BS and always has been. It purposely took on the traits of 

some modern theology, its ability to manipulate thought and instill fear

which is the hallmark of most religions. The ultimate agenda was to convert

the masses to this new theology once governments were on board.

 

Another day, another lie pushed on the public at large.

[captl1]

Well said Jim!