NOAA Fiddles With Climate Data To Erase The 15-Year Global Warming ‘Hiatus’



National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientists have found a solution to the 15-year “pause” in global warming: They “adjusted” the hiatus in warming out of the temperature record.

New climate data by NOAA scientists doubles the warming trend since the late 1990s by adjusting pre-hiatus temperatures downward and inflating temperatures in more recent years.

“Newly corrected and updated global surface temperature data from NOAA’s [National Centers for Environmental Information] do not support the notion of a global warming ‘hiatus,'” wrote NOAA scientists in their study presenting newly adjusted climate data.

To increase the rate in warming, NOAA scientists put more weight on certain ocean buoy arrays, adjusted ship-based temperature readings upward, and slightly raised land-based temperatures as well. Scientists said adjusted ship-based temperature data “had the largest impact on trends for the 2000-2014 time period, accounting for 0.030°C of the 0.064°C trend difference.” They added that the “buoy offset correction contributed 0.014°C… to the difference, and the additional weight given to the buoys because of their greater accuracy contributed 0.012°C.”

NOAA says for the years 1998 to 2012, the “new analysis exhibits more than twice as much warming as the old analysis at the global scale,” at 0.086 degrees Celsius per decade compared to 0.039 degrees per decade.

“This is clearly attributable to the new [Sea Surface Temperature] analysis, which itself has much higher trends,” scientists noted in their study. “In contrast, trends in the new [land surface temperature] analysis are only slightly higher.”

Global surface temperature data shows a lack of statistically significant warming over the last 15 years — a development that has baffled climate scientists. Dozens of explanations have been offered to explain the hiatus in warming, but those theories may be rendered moot by NOOA’s new study.

NOAA’s study, however, notes the overall warming trend since 1880 has not been significantly changed. What’s increased is the warming trend in recent decades.

“Our new analysis now shows the trend over the period 1950-1999, a time widely agreed as having significant anthropogenic global warming, is 0.113 [degrees Celsius per decade], which is virtually indistinguishable with the trend over the period 2000-2014″ of 0.116 degrees per decade, according to the study.

The U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s “statement of two years ago — that the global surface temperature has shown a much smaller increasing linear trend over the past 15 years than over the past 30 to 60 years’ — is no longer valid,” the study claims.

But that’s not all NOAA did to increase the warming trend in recent decades. Climate expert Bob Tisdale and meteorologist Anthony Watts noted that to “manufacture warming during the hiatus, NOAA adjusted the pre-hiatus data downward.”

“If we subtract the [old] data from the [new] data… we can see that that is exactly what NOAA did,” Tisdale and Watts wrote on the science blog Watts Up With That.

“It’s the same story all over again; the adjustments go towards cooling the past and thus increasing the slope of temperature rise,” Tisdale and Watts added. “Their intent and methods are so obvious they’re laughable.”

NOAA’s updated data was also criticized by climate scientists with the libertarian Cato Institute. Scientists Richard Lindzen, Patrick Michaels and Chip Knappenberger argue the adjustments made by NOAA were “guaranteed to put a warming trend in recent data.”

Cato scientists also argued that NOAA’s new data is an outlier compared to other global temperature records, which overwhelmingly show a hiatus in warming.

It “would seem more logical to seriously question the [NOAA] result in light of the fact that, compared to those bulk temperatures, it is an outlier, showing a recent warming trend that is not in these other global records,” the three scientists wrote.

“Adjusting good data upwards to match bad data seems questionable, and the fact that the buoy network becomes increasingly dense in the last two decades means that this adjustment must put a warming trend in the data,” wrote Michaels, Knappenberger and Lindzen, who is a top climatologist from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Scientists and climate experts skeptical of man-made global warming have become increasingly critical of temperature adjustments made by government climate agencies like NASA and NOAA. Skeptics charge that agencies like NOAA have been tampering with past temperatures to make the warming trend look much more severe than is shown in the raw data.

“It is important to recognize that the central issue of human-caused climate change is not a question of whether it is warming or not, but rather a question of how much,” they wrote. “And to this relevant question, the answer has been, and remains, that the warming is taking place at a much slower rate than is being projected.”

Georgia Tech climate scientist Judith Curry also chimed in, arguing that NOAA excluded extremely accurate sea buoy data in order to erase the hiatus in warming. Curry wrote that it “seems rather ironic, since this is the period where there is the greatest coverage of data with the highest quality of measurements — ARGO buoys and satellites don’t show a warming trend.”

“Nevertheless, the NOAA team finds a substantial increase in the ocean surface temperature anomaly trend since 1998,” she wrote. “This short paper in Science is not adequate to explain and explore the very large changes that have been made to the NOAA data set. The global surface temperature datasets are clearly a moving target. So while I’m sure this latest analysis from NOAA will be regarded as politically useful for the Obama administration, I don’t regard it as a particularly useful contribution to our scientific understanding of what is going on.”


http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/04/noaa-fiddles-with-climate-data-to-erase-the-15-year-global-warming-hiatus/2/

HARVARD, SYRACUSE RESEARCHERS CAUGHT LYING TO BOOST OBAMA CLIMATE RULES



E-mails obtained from the Environmental Protection Agency show that Harvard University, Syracuse University and two of their researchers appear to have falsely claimed a study supporting EPA’s upcoming global warming rules was conducted “independent(ly)” of the agency.


In early May, a study published in the journal Nature Climate Change purported to support a key EPA claim about its forthcoming global warming rules aimed at coal-fired power plants. The New York Times’ headline, “EPA Emissions Plan Will Save Thousands of Lives, Study Finds,” typified the media coverage.

Across the media, the authors were innocuously described as simply university-affiliated “researchers.” After all, the researchers had declared they had “no competing financial interests” in their study. Both universities had issued media releases heralding the study as the “first independent, peer-reviewed paper of its kind.”

Study co-author Charles Driscoll of Syracuse University told the Buffalo News, “I’m an academic, not a politician. I don’t have a dog in this fight.” The claim of independence was also emphatically asserted by study co-author Jonathan Buonocore of Harvard University. “The EPA, which did not participate in the study or interact with its authors, Buonocore says, roundly welcomed its findings.”

But a closer look at these claims of independence raises serious doubts.

An online search of EPA’s web site revealed that Syracuse’s Driscoll has previously involved as a principal investigator in studies that received over $3.6 million in research grants from EPA. Co-author Dallas Burtraw, a researcher at the think tank Resources for the Future, had been involved in previous EPA grants totaling almost $2 million. Harvard co-author Jonathan I. Levy had been involved in over $9.5 million worth of grants. Co-author Joel Schwartz, also of Harvard, had been previously involved in over $31 million worth of grants from EPA.

Are we to believe that a group of researchers who had previously received some $45 million in grants from EPA, no doubt hoping for more in the future, could possibly not have any dog in this fight? It’s probably not necessary to ask how this slipped past the incurious mainstream media.

Intrigued by Bounocore’s odd assertion of absolutely no involvement with EPA, I submitted a request to EPA under the Freedom of Information Act for email between the study authors and EPA staff. Although subsequent wrangling with agency staff gave me doubt that I would ever get anything, I received, much to my surprise, 99 pages of emails after mere weeks.

The emails reveal that study co-authors Driscoll, Buonocore, Schwartz and Harvard’s Kathy Lambert were definitely in contact with key EPA staff regarding this research.

A July 8, 2014 email shows Lambert arranging a conference call with EPA staff to get EPA’s input on the study. One of the EPA staff involved was the contact person for agency’s Clean Power Plan cost-benefit analysis. A subsequent e-mail shows that the top EPA staffer on the Clean Power Plan cost-benefit analysis was added to the call.

A July 15, 2014 email from Driscoll to an EPA staffer boasts of “considerable interest” in their analysis from unnamed outside “groups.” One sentence after buttering up the EPA staffer, Driscoll asks her if they could have a phone call to discuss fundraising for a conference Driscoll is organizing. No appearance of attempted financial conflict there?

A November 7, 2014 e-mail from Lambert to EPA about the study reads, “We would like to follow back up with you by phone to discuss possible next steps in this analysis and what role you might be able to play.”

This issue goes deeper than mere truth-telling. The EPA’s controversial Clean Power Plan hinges on the notion that shuttering coal plants will save lives.

The EPA’s proposed global warming plan ostensibly focuses on reducing carbon dioxide emissions from coal plants. But the bulk of the alleged benefits of the plan actually arise from collateral projections of lives supposedly saved by reducing coal plant emissions related to particulate matter and ozone.

As EPA values each life “saved” at about $10 million, the claim that the rules will save 6,600 lives per year puts the rules’ alleged benefits on the order of $66 billion per year, far in excess of industry projections of the rules’ costs.

These EPA claims, however, are controversial to say the least. A compelling alternate view is that no lives will be saved because, for one reason, EPA’s own extensive clinical research shows that particulate matter and ozone in outdoor air do not kill anyone.

The only casualty in this case is our confidence in the independence of EPA-funded researchers.


http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/04/harvard-syracuse-researchers-caught-lying-to-boost-obama-climate-rules/

Experiment suggests that reality doesn't exist until it is measured



Researchers working at the Australian National University (ANU) have conducted an experiment that helps bolster the ever-growing evidence surrounding the weird causal properties inherent in quantum theory. In short, they have shown that reality does not actually exist until it is measured – at atomic scales, at least.

Associate Professor Andrew Truscott and his PhD student, Roman Khakimov, of ANU's Research School of Physics and Engineering conducted a version of John Archibald Wheeler's delayed-choice thought experiment – a variation of the classic double-slit experiment, where light is shown to display characteristics of both waves and particles – where an object moving through open space is provided the opportunity (some would say "a choice") to behave like a particle or a wave.

In this instance, however, the ANU team replicated Wheeler's experiment using multiple atoms, which was much more difficult to do than a test using photons. This extra difficulty is due to the fact that, as they have mass, atoms tend to interfere with each other, which can theoretically influence the results.

"An atom is a much more classical particle," Associate Professor Truscott said. "For the theory to hold with a single atom is significant because it proves that it works for particles with mass."

To carry out the experiment, the ANU team initially trapped a collection of helium atoms in a Bose-Einstein condensate (a medium in which a dilute gas is cooled to temperatures very close to absolute zero), and then forcibly ejected them from their containment until there was only a single atom left behind.

This remaining atom was then released to pass through a pair of counter-propagating laser beams (that is, beams moving in opposite directions), which created a pattern to act as a crossroads for the atom in the same way that a solid diffusion grating would act to scatter light.

After this, another laser-generated grating was randomly added and used to recombine the routes offered to the atom. This second grating then indiscriminately produced either constructive or destructive interference as if the atom had journeyed on both paths. Conversely, when the second light grating was not randomly added, no interference would be introduced, and the atom would behave as if it had followed only one path.

However, and this is the really weird part, the arbitrary number generated to determine if the grating was added or not was only generated after the atom had passed through the crossroads. But, when the atom was measured at the end of its path – before the random number was generated – it already displayed the wave or particle characteristics applied by the grating after it had completed its journey.

According to Truscott, this means that if one chooses to believe that the atom really did take a particular path or paths, then one also has to accept that a future measurement is affecting the atom's past.

"The atoms did not travel from A to B. It was only when they were measured at the end of the journey that their wave-like or particle-like behavior was brought into existence," said Truscott. "It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it.”

Even though the findings of the experiment add to the perceived weirdness of quantum theory, the results also validate it. But, even without regard to the weird aspects, quantum physics almost certainly governs the world at the atomic level, and this existence has enabled the development of quantum technologies ranging from cryptography to solar cells.

From an everyday point of view, our minds perceive that an object should behave like a wave or a particle, quite independently of how it is measured. However, as this experiment supports, quantum physics predicts that it doesn’t seem to matter if a particle or object should show wave-like behavior or particle-like behavior; it all depends on how it is actually measured at the end of its journey.

"Quantum physics' predictions about interference seem odd enough when applied to light, which seems more like a wave, but to have done the experiment with atoms, which are complicated things that have mass and interact with electric fields and so on, adds to the weirdness," said Roman Khakimov.

The first time ever that Wheeler's delayed-choice experiment has been conducted using a single atom, the quantum weirdness represented by this experiment much more closely approaches the macro world in which humans perceive reality, which adds to the significance of the findings.

The results of this research were recently published in the journal Nature Physics


http://www.gizmag.com/quantum-theory-reality-anu/37866/

The religion of peace never attacks members of its own to pieces...

 

http://www.vox.com/2015/6/4/8724821/game-of-thrones-climate-change





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everything is about climate change now. Everything. Too bad they forgot to ask the author if he had global warming in his mind when he was typing away on his old DOS PC using WordStar 4.0...

 

Yep.

EPA Chief: Don’t Worry About Proof, Just Trust The Government When It Comes To Global Warming…





Americans are just going to have to trust the EPA’s 44 years of experience dealing with environmental issues when it comes to figuring out ways to cope with man-made global warming, says the agency’s chief.

EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy told Big Think in an interview that while there are limits to how much the federal government can do for issues like global warming, the public needs to trust how the EPA translates the “complicated” science into real-life actions.

“Well I think we all have to recognize the strengths and limitations of government action,” McCarthy said. “But here’s what I think we can do at the federal level more effectively. We can speak to the science because it’s complicated and we do a lot of research and we do a lot of translation of the science into what it means for people so that the decisions can be made on the basis of real science and on the basis of a real technical understanding.”

“That’s how it has worked in EPA’s career for 44 years at EPA is we’ve listened to the science and the law and we have let solutions take off in the marketplace which is where the cheapest, most effective always win,” McCarthy said. “That’s why EPA can move environmental standards forward so effectively and grow jobs at the same time.”

The EPA is on the verge of finalizing rules limiting CO2 emissions from power plants as part of President Barack Obama’s climate agenda. Republicans and industrial lobbies have opposed the rules, saying they will be costly and do nothing to stem warming.


http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/03/epa-chief-just-trust-us-on-climate-science/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Mipsterz: a space for Muslim hipsters







(CNN)Ever heard of "Mipsterz"?


The term originated in 2012 with a small group of friends in New York who jokingly called themselves Muslim hipsters. Though they hesitated to form an official group -- "hipster rule number one: never self-identify as a hipster" -- Mipsterz quickly evolved into an online community, and the group has garnered international attention.

Much of that attention came in the form of a heated debate in 2013, amid the huge popularity of one of its videos featuring women wearing hijabs.

The video, shot in Los Angeles and New York, shows young Muslim women taking selfies, skateboarding, fencing and eating ice cream -- doing all the things that young people like to do. Layla Shaikley, the video's art director and one of the women prominently featured in the video, says it was meant to serve as a "self-biography" for people outside of their community.

The response to the video was passionate on both sides. Supporters applauded its depiction of young Muslim women expressing themselves. Detractors shamed the women for participating, saying the video objectified them, according to Abbas Rattani, producer of the video and co-founder of Mipsterz. Others argued that the video just showed Muslim women trying too hard to fit in.

"We're so incredibly obsessed with appearing 'normal' or 'American' or 'Western' by way of what we do and what we wear that we undercut the actual abnormality of our communities. ... And in all of this, we might just lose that which makes us unique: our substance," Sana Saeed wrote in The Islamic Monthly.

Despite the controversy -- or maybe because of it -- Mipsterz eventually made it out to the suburbs. Parents of Muslim children started reaching out to the group, Rattani says. Their kids felt foreign at times, the parents said, but after the video went viral, their classmates saw that being Muslim could be cool. Some even wanted to be Mipsters themselves, Rattani remembers hearing.

"Mipsterz has created a space where young Muslims can have open discussions, share their experiences and not be ashamed of who they are," Shaikley says.

Though the group's goal is not to address Islamophobia, "in a way, we are sort of combating Islamophobia by just being ourselves," Rattani says.

Thousands of Muslims and people of other faiths have joined the online community, which exists as a Facebook group and a group email list. But they don't all agree on the definition of a Mipster.

Shaikley describes a Mipster as "a young Muslim American just trying to find a space for themselves unapologetically ... reconciling multiple identities and doing it like a rock star."

Rattani is less comfortable committing to one definition, calling it "abstract."

"We don't take ourselves too seriously, and we love individuality."


http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/03/living/mipsterz-muslim-hipsters/?sr=tw060315mipsterz7pVODtopPhoto



---------------------------------------------------------------------
I wish you well Mipsterz! And stay safe from the islamomophobist fatwas...


 

I smell a rat...





Very well connected. Calling all the #blacklivesmatter crew for help right way... Could be another fake isla-momo-phobia crime...

Ask her what she thinks of gays being stoned to death in islamic countries then we would know what she really is...


 

[...]
while historians such as Ian Kershaw, Joachim Fest and Alan Bullock agree that Hitler was anti-Christian - a view evidenced by sources such as the Goebbels Diaries, the memoirs of Speer, and the transcripts edited by Martin Bormann contained within Hitler's Table Talk.[6] Goebbels wrote in 1941 that Hitler "hates Christianity, because it has crippled all that is noble in humanity."[7] Many historians have come to the conclusion that Hitler's long-term aim was the eradication of Christianity in Germany,[8] while others maintain that there is insufficient evidence for such a plan.[9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler


---------------------------------------
That one was easy to debunk

 

That said...


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1080281.0

Under the draft provisions of the latest trade deal to be leaked by Wikileaks, countries could be barred from trying to control where their citizens’ personal data is held or whether it’s accessible from outside the country.

Wikileaks has released 17 documents relating to the Trade in Services Agreement (TISA), currently under negotiation between the US, the European Union and 23 other nations. These negotiating texts are supposed to remain secret for five years after TISA is finalized and brought into force.

The deal, which has been under discussion behind closed doors since early 2013, is intended to remove barriers to trade in services. It’s a sort of companion piece to the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which cover trade in goods – but potentially far bigger, with Wikileaks claiming that ‘services’ now account for nearly 80 per cent of the US and EU economies.

Like TTIP and TPP, TISA could be sped through Congress using Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), also known as fast-track authority, which has been passed by the US Senate and may be taken up in the House this month. Under TPA, Congress is barred from making amendments to the trade deals, and most simply give yes-or-no approval.

And the contents of TISA make interesting reading, particularly for anybody concerned about privacy. Under the draft agreement, the EU would be barred from requiring the personal data of its citizens to be held within European borders, an idea currently under discussion in Germany.

“No Party may require a service supplier, as a condition for supplying a service or investing in its territory, to: (a) use computing facilities located in the Party’s territory,” the leaked draft stipulates.

“No Party may require a service supplier, as a condition for supplying a service or investing in its territory, to: (a) use computing facilities located in the Party’s territory.”

These rules could in some ways have a beneficial effect: they could, for example, be used to outlaw state censorship.

However, there are clear implications for privacy – as well as security from hacking. EU privacy regulations currently require companies to store EU citizens’ personal data locally, to make sure they comply with the region’s strict legal requirements for data processing. Tech companies like Facebook, Google, and internet advertising networks would be delighted to see such rules relaxed.

It’s a complicated issue, and one that should really be discussed in public, before any agreement is reached. As Maira Sutton of the Electronic Frontier Foundation has previously noted, “Negotiators should be working to reconcile this tension between powerful private and public actors who may have conflicting stances on major human rights issues such as privacy and free expression.

“That in turn, will require open public participation from a variety of stakeholders. By contrast, TISA’s language reflects the concerns of the internet industry, and not necessarily the interests of internet users as a whole.”

Wikileaks has previously leaked parts of the TPP deal, and on Tuesday, announced plans to try and raise $100,000 to be used as a reward for the remaining chapters.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/emmawoollacott/2015/06/04/leaked-tisa-documents-reveal-privacy-threat/2/

Texas University To Media: They Will NOT Get To Question Hillary, “Her Speech Will Be The Interview”







-------------------------------------------------------------
This is how, ladies and gentlemen, the progressive ideal dies...

Yes it is. It is now an old classic

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzY7qQFij_M



But at least it is not a pet rock...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKtHAicd1-Y

A new survey finds that more Americans view former President George W. Bush favorably than President Obama.

The CNN/ORC poll reveals that 52 percent of Americans see Bush positively, while 43 percent do not.

In contrast, U.S. voters are split on their views of Obama.

The new poll finds that 49 percent view Obama favorably, while 49 percent do not.

Those ratings for Obama are down from a similar poll in March. During that sampling, 52 percent of Americans viewed him positively, while another 46 percent did not.

Bush’s numbers, meanwhile, mark a major shift for the former president since he departed office in early 2009, CNN said.


http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/243858-george-w-bush-tops-obama-on-favorability-in-new-poll


 

Can a muslim be accused of islamophobia?

This must be the ugliest most short sighted unimaginative laziest designed flag for planet earth ever made... A circle of 7 ring noses... Why 7? 7 continents? Or is it 6 continents? Why is the center hollow? Hollow Earth Theory?















Also that yellow and black colors resonate with a lot of libertarian bitcoiners already...