"LOS ANGELES — With California entering its fifth year of a statewide drought, Gov. Jerry Brown moved on Monday to impose permanent water conservation measures and called on water suppliers to prepare for a future made drier by climate change."
Then USA Today ran this:
"Causes of Calif. drought natural, not man-made: NOAA
Which one is the reliable newspaper?
You won't believe what happens next! More after the jump...
The good science NASA does is relayed to the public by the biggest pack of liars round. Here's some examples of how they distorted the evidence to mean the opposite to fit somebody's commercial agenda.
The lack of any global warming after 1998 has been erroneously referred to as "the pause" in global warming which implies it's real and will keep going.
The problem is it didn't. After the hottest year in 1998, it not only stopped getting warmer but each year was colder than the previous until 2009 and in 2010 it was warmer but not as warm as 1998 which no year in the twentieth century has been so far.
The amount of data that was fudged is epic and began with the original models the IPCC policy is made from - NASA pointed out they forgot trees in their CO2 models and Dyson, who founded the field pointed out they left out clouds and accused them of "fudging" their data.
The current mess is about one set of ocean measurements, and never mind that Dyson, the greatest living mathematician has pointed out you can't actually take a measurement of "the ocean"- we have but a few small samples of surface readings. There are problems, coincidentally, with both the land based and sea based probes being off by a couple of degrees and from these the NOAA claims to have produced precise results in the hundredths of a degree.
The automated robots that measure ocean temperature don't mafh more accurate measurements taken by passing ships with specially calibrated highly accurate instruments. It's not one or two, it's systematic.
The [Australian] Bureau of Meteorology has been accused of manipulating historic temperature records to fit a predetermined view of global warming. Researcher Jennifer Marohasy claims the adjusted records resemble “propaganda” rather than science.
"But last summer I was found out in Santa Fe. It happened at a climate research conference, where I was invited to speak on another topic. At the conference dinner, one participant stood up and exposed my global temperature denial. The room erupted into chaos. I started eyeing the exits and sinking under the table. I imagined there were calls for a rope, as the crowd of scientists seemed to teeter toward becoming a lynch mob.
But my fears were not realized. It wasn't the Wild West after all. The crowd settled and a scientist at my table asked me why I objected to global temperature. I replied minimally, "on physical grounds." To my surprise, my interrogator simply nodded and accepted the explanation. He obviously knew the physics. However, he said, "but an average over temperatures is OK to use as an 'index,' isn't it?"
"Well, er, yes. I suppose it's OK," I replied. But if increasing temperature means "warming," what does increasing "index" mean? Global "indexing"?
My dark secret needs little explanation for thermodynamically minded people. For them, it is really quite simple: The Earth is not in "thermodynamic equilibrium," so there is no single temperature for the whole thing. No statistical hocus pocus can change that. However, global warming proponents and skeptics alike have been very busy averaging temperature data, unsupervised, on an industrial scale for years.
A few years earlier, after a lecture on averaging temperatures for climate purposes, I questioned the statistician who made the presentation. What do his averages mean in terms of physics, I asked, given that averaging temperatures is not physical. Apparently no one had asked him that before.
Many people think that you can make sense out of an average of anything at all. My usual reply is to ask what an average over telephone numbers means. Temperature is like that. When averaged, it does not produce an actual temperature of anything, any more than an average over telephone numbers must be a callable number, let alone a number you might care to call."
-Christopher Essex is professor of applied mathematics and director of program in theoretical physics at University of Western Ontario, and co-author of Taken by Storm: the Troubled Science, Policy and Politics of Global Warming.
Shell Met Secretly With Enviros On How To Pass A Nationwide CO2 Tax
"The concept of a carbon tax — a charge levied upon companies according to the amount of CO2 they emit into the atmosphere — has been pushed by environmentalists as an alternative to strict government regulations."
Show me where "environmentalists" suggested the government not regulate the air pollution that kills 7 million a year and instead suggested a gas sold with the government's approval as a plant growth accelerant, and never proven to affect climate, be taxed instead?
"...the questions whether all other things are equal, and how much warming our sins of emission may cause, and whether the cost of mitigation today is less than that of adaptation the day after tomorrow, are by no means settled."
“Fiddling temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever,” says Christopher Booker, not pulling his punches. And I think he’s right not to do so. If – as Booker, myself, and few others suspect – the guardians of the world’s land-based temperature records have been adjusting the raw data in order to exaggerate “global warming” then this is indeed a crime against the scientific method unparalleled in history.
Sensor measurement uncertainty has never been fully considered in prior appraisals of global average surface air temperature. The estimated average ±0.2 C station error has been incorrectly assessed as random, and the systematic error from uncontrolled variables has been invariably neglected. The systematic errors in measurements from three ideally sited and maintained temperature sensors are calculated herein. Combined with the ±0.2 C average station error, a representative lower-limit uncertainty of ±0.46 C was found for any global annual surface air temperature anomaly. This ±0.46 C reveals that the global surface air temperature anomaly trend from 1880 through 2000 is statistically indistinguishable from 0 C, and represents a lower limit of calibration uncertainty for climate models and for any prospective physically justifiable proxy reconstruction of paleo-temperature. The rate and magnitude of 20th century warming are thus unknowable, and suggestions of an unprecedented trend in 20th century global air temperature are unsustainable.
This week, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is releasing its latest report, the “Working Group II Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report.” Like its past reports, this one predicts apocalyptic consequences if mankind fails to give the UN the power to tax and regulate fossil fuels and subsidize and mandate the use of alternative fuels. But happily, an international group of scientists I have been privileged to work with has conducted an independent review of IPCC’s past and new reports, along with the climate science they deliberately exclude or misrepresent.
Our group, called the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), was founded in 2003 by a distinguished atmospheric physicist, S. Fred Singer, and has produced five hefty reports to date, the latest being released today (March 31).
Nation's Biggest Nuclear Firm Makes a Play for Green Money
"The biggest player in the beleaguered nuclear power industry wants a place alongside solar, wind and hydroelectric power collecting extra money for producing carbon-free electricity.
Exelon Corp., operator of the largest fleet of U.S. nuclear plants, says it could have to close three of them if Illinois rejects the company's pitch to let it recoup more from consumers since the plants do not produce greenhouse gases."
Who do you think funds the daily barrage of science denial that pretends it's still warming?
"The Telegraph also understands that there are concerns within The Guardian about funded journalism on its website.
It confirmed that it is in discussions with the European Climate Foundation "regarding the funding of journalism projects". The foundation lobbies for climate and energy policies to reduce emissions."
Transaction: The Guardian is paid to run roughly a dozen stories a week about climate. Right or wrong, it's not like they check.
Contradicting NASA is sort of the first clue there. It's propaganda masquerading as science. How can you tell if any of this is true?
A new paper published in PNAS finds an astonishing deficiency and major false assumption of climate models, which has major implications for Arctic and global warming/climate change, the Earth's energy budget, and which is also another nail in the coffin for the overheated and falsified IPCC climate models. IMHO, it is effectively a death knell to conventional climate models and their projections, as well as the attribution statement of the IPCC based upon such models and blaming allegedly "more than 100%" of global warming on man-made greenhouse gas emissions.
The authors state climate models falsely assume water (71% of Earth's surface) is 100% efficient in emitting (and absorbing) far-infrared energy, but instead find "that is not the case," and that this discovery is allegedly a "previously unknown phenomenon."
Der Spiegel Slams IPCC Lead Author Rahmstorf: “Scandal Surrounds German Government Climate Advisor”
Journalist Irene Meichsner wrote a critical report about the IPCC, which appeared in the Frankfurter Rundschau daily, to which Rahmstorf reacted quite nastily. He asserted at his blog that the journalist had been dishonest, sloppy, had never read the IPCC report, and that she even lifted text from another source (Richard North and Jonathan Leake). For a journalist, such accusations are of course career threatening and thus deadly serious.
Meichsner didn’t stand for it, took the case to court, and won.
"The last time we had this discussion was 2013, remember? Before that it was 2010. Before that it was 2005, and everything started with the Super El Nino in 1998. Statistically, saying that 2014 was the hottest year ever is a very valid thing, and if you understand statistics, I am envious of you."
They actually said this. Here's NASA saying the same thing but without the WHAT WIZARDRY IS THIS?!?! about the math.
February 23, 2015 - "The past year was the warmest year on record, though their analysis has 2014 in a virtual tie with 2005 and 2010. "
When several years all tie for the warmest year it means temperature isn't increasing.
You can use your best crayons to prove this to yourself, easily.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, criticized for manipulating temperature records to create a warming trend, has now been caught warming the past and cooling the present.
This statement by NOAA was still available on their website when checked by The Daily Caller News Foundation. But when meteorologist and climate blogger Anthony Watts went to check the NOAA data on Sunday he found that the science agency had quietly reinstated July 1936 as the hottest month on record in the U.S.