Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers.

[hdbuck]

Back To The Dark Ages: Update: Top French Meteorologist Who Questioned ‘Global Warming’ Fired

A popular weatherman announced Saturday evening he has been sacked by leading French news channel France Télévisions for publishing a book which accused top climate change experts of misleading the world about the threat of global warming.
Philippe Verdier, a household name in France for his daily weather reports on the France 2 channel, announced in an online video that he had received a letter of dismissal

“My book ‘Climate Investigation’ was published one month ago. It got me banned from the air waves,” said the weatherman, who was put “on leave” from the TV station on October 12.

“I received this letter this morning and decided to open it in front of you because it concerns everybody- in the name of freedom of expression and freedom of information.”

His announcement comes four days after France Télévisions chief Delphine Ernotte told French MPs that Verdier had been summoned to a formal interview that could lead to his dismissal.

An employee who picked up the phone at France Télévisions on Sunday morning told FRANCE 24 that there were no PRs present to confirm or deny Verdier’s dismissal.

‘Many positive consequences to global warming’

The controversy around Verdier’s claims has likely been heightened by their timing, with his book coming just weeks before the start of a much-anticipated UN climate change summit, known as COP21, to be held in Paris at the end of November.

“I put myself in the path of COP21, which is a bulldozer, and this is the result,” Verdier told RTL radio station in October.

He said he was inspired to write the book after France’s Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius met with TV meteorologists and asked them to highlight climate change issues in their broadcasts.

“I was horrified by this speech,” Verdier told French magazine Les Inrockuptibles last month.

In his book, Verdier accuses state-funded climate change scientists of having been “manipulated” and “politicised”, even accusing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of publishing deliberately misleading data.

He also argues that there are “a great many positive consequences to global warming”, such as lower consumption of fuel used for heating and fewer cold-related deaths in winter.

“I am being punished for exercising my freedom of expression,” the weatherman told RTL.`


http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11/02/back-to-the-dark-ages-top-french-weatherman-fired-over-climate-change-book-the-global-warming-policy-forum-gwpf/

the guy's a gay victim of the homophobic and antisemitism in france.

ehheh but anyway,
1/ not famous at all, first time most french people hear of him, since as a climate manager of a tv channel, he never appeared on TV per say.
2/ he just bought half of the story, still arguing man is indeed responsible for GW
3/ like anyone cares, good riddance of this pure product of modern socialism.


i'd like to point out to A. Nolen's Blog  http://anolen.com/ which develops a thesis about the deep state, its agents and the gay/progressist ideology influencing it, bending the alpha culture into some sort of wemenized, sensitive and biased society. (seems she closed the blog and prepare a book form it.. best seller to be imho!)

** https://web.archive.org/web/*/anolen.com

[Spendulus]

....

ehheh but anyway,
1/ not famous at all, first time most french people hear of him, since as a climate manager of a tv channel, he never appeared on TV per say.
2/ he just bought half of the story, still arguing man is indeed responsible for GW
3/ like anyone cares, good riddance of this pure product of modern socialism.
....

RE #2, isn't that actually worse than "truly being a Denier?"

It's evidence that there are dire consequences if you even challenge one part of the narrative.

[hdbuck]

....

ehheh but anyway,
1/ not famous at all, first time most french people hear of him, since as a climate manager of a tv channel, he never appeared on TV per say.
2/ he just bought half of the story, still arguing man is indeed responsible for GW
3/ like anyone cares, good riddance of this pure product of modern socialism.
....

RE #2, isn't that actually worse than "truly being a Denier?"

It's evidence that there are dire consequences if you even challenge one part of the narrative.

manicheanly speaking, of course! but then people generally are too scared of going forward with intellectual honesty, the brainwash being too hard on them.

new twist in the story: it seems some 'Republican' deputies are invoking the Talmud to try at defend the 'halfdenier' in a letter to the TV boss.

http://www.lepoint.fr/politique/des-deputes-lr-volent-au-secours-du-m-meteo-climatosceptique-philippe-verdier-22-10-2015-1975945_20.php

some talmud quote like "unanimity implies a risk of making mistakes"


seriously how religious these 'believers' are...


ps: see? you really have to be carefull about what you say in this world.. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-11-02/austrian-politician-under-fire-after-agreeing-zionist-money-jews-are-global-problem mehehehehe

[Wilikon]

Climate Change Kills the Mood: Economists Warn of Less Sex on a Warmer Planet


And fewer babies would be bad news.



Climate change has been blamed for many things over the years. Never, until now, has anyone thought it was possible to see it as a kind of contraceptive.

Hot weather leads to diminished “coital frequency," according to a new working paper put out by the National Bureau of Economic Research. Three economists studied 80 years of U.S. fertility and temperature data and found that when it’s hotter than 80 degrees F, a large decline in births follows within 10 months. Would-be parents tend not to make up for lost time in subsequent, cooler months.

An extra "hot day" (the economists use quotation marks with the phrase) leads to a 0.4 percent drop in birth rates nine months later, or  1,165 fewer deliveries across the U.S. A rebound in subsequent months makes up just 32 percent of the gap.

The researchers, who hail from Tulane University, the University of California-Santa Barbara, and the University of Central Florida, believe that their findings give policymakers three major things to think about.

1. Birth rates do not bounce back completely after heat waves.

That's a problem. As summers heat up, developed countries may see already low birth rates sink even lower. Plunging birth rates can play havoc with an economy. China's leaders recently acknowledged this by ditching the longtime one-child policy and doubling the number of children couples are allowed to have. A sub-replacement U.S. birthrate means fewer workers to pay Social Security benefits for retirees, among other consequences.

2. More autumn conceptions means more more deliveries in summer.

Infants experience a higher rate of poor health with summer births, "though the reasons for worse health in the summer are not well-established," the authors write. One possibility may be "third-trimester exposure to high temperatures."

3. Air conditioning might prove to be an aphrodisiac.

Control over the climate at home might make a difference. The researchers suggest that the rise of air conditioning may have helped offset some heat-related fertility losses in the U.S. since the 1970s.

The paper's title is about as lascivious as the National Bureau of Economic Research gets: "Maybe Next Month? Temperature Shocks, Climate Change, and Dynamic Adjustments in Birth Rates." The researchers assume that climate change will proceed according to the most severe scenarios, with no substantial efforts to reduce emissions. The scenario they use projects that from 2070 to 2099, the U.S. may have 64 more days above 80F than in the baseline period from 1990 to 2002, which had 31. The result? The U.S. may see a 2.6 percent decline in its birth rate, or 107,000 fewer deliveries a year.

Just when you thought climate change policy couldn't get any less sexy

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-02/climate-change-kills-the-mood-economists-warn-of-less-sex-on-a-warmer-planet


---------------------------------------------------------
Remember: people living in warmer places have less babies. Remember: air conditioners kill the planet but help making more babies. More babies help fight global warming...

 

[Spendulus]

.....
Remember: people living in warmer places have less babies. Remember: air conditioners kill the planet but help making more babies. More babies help fight global warming...

 

Wait, so now OVERPOPULATION IS NOT A PROBLEM?

[galdur]

This is true.  The world´s highest fertility rate is in Africa, they have to be screwing all the time there to somehow keep warm.

[Spendulus]

This is true.  The world´s highest fertility rate is in Africa, they have to be screwing all the time there to somehow keep warm.

You know, the more things get blamed on Global Warming, the fewer things that will actually get solved or worked on or improved.

So a lot of people can sit around on their fat asses, do nothing and blame it on something they can't control (except by exhorting people around them to Go Green).

In a way, that creates opportunities for anyone who actually wants to Do Things.

[MakingMoneyHoney]

CO2 is currently reports as 397.64ppm on this page.


CO2 levels today the same as in 1910

"“Svante August Arrhenius (19 February 1859 – 2 October 1927) was a Swedish scientist, originally a physicist, but often referred to as a chemist, and one of the founders of the science of physical chemistry. He received the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 1903,…”

“He is acknowledged as the father of the CO2 driven global warming hypothesis and supposedly one of the greatest scientists of his time.

“In 1910 he is quoted in a newspaper article thus:

“The present proportion of carbon dioxide in the air is about one part in 2,500.”

“Arrhenius thought doubling the CO2 levels would provide huge benefits by increasing the available land for agriculture.

“But the point I want you to note is this

“The present proportion of carbon dioxide in the air is about one part in 2,500.”

“If there was 1:2,500 CO2 molecules in 1910 which is 4:10,000 which is 400 ppm by volume as quoted by the greatest scientist of the day where is there any evidence that we have increased the concentration to current record levels of 400 ppm, 1:10,000 or !:2,500 ???

“If it is unchanged according to the father of the CO2 driven global warming hypothesis- 400 ppm in 1910 and 400 ppm now – why do we have any alarm ?

“I guess modern alarmists are saying Arrhenius was totally wrong about the only thing he actually had any data on – the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere....."

[Spendulus]

CO2 is currently reports as 397.64ppm on this page.


CO2 levels today the same as in 1910

"“Svante August Arrhenius (19 February 1859 – 2 October 1927) was a Swedish scientist, originally a physicist, but often referred to as a chemist, and one of the founders of the science of physical chemistry. He received the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 1903,…”

“He is acknowledged as the father of the CO2 driven global warming hypothesis and supposedly one of the greatest scientists of his time.

“In 1910 he is quoted in a newspaper article thus:

“The present proportion of carbon dioxide in the air is about one part in 2,500.”

....
“If it is unchanged according to the father of the CO2 driven global warming hypothesis- 400 ppm in 1910 and 400 ppm now – why do we have any alarm ?

“I guess modern alarmists are saying Arrhenius was totally wrong about the only thing he actually had any data on – the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere....."

Ground based measurements of co2 vary widely, location, season, etc. 

the observations from the volcano in Hawaii by Scripts are free of these variabes and are consistent year to year.

Thus the measurements from 1910 and today are NOT comparable.

[Schleicher]

CO2 is currently reports as 397.64ppm on this page.


CO2 levels today the same as in 1910

"“Svante August Arrhenius (19 February 1859 – 2 October 1927) was a Swedish scientist, originally a physicist, but often referred to as a chemist, and one of the founders of the science of physical chemistry. He received the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 1903,…”

“He is acknowledged as the father of the CO2 driven global warming hypothesis and supposedly one of the greatest scientists of his time.

“In 1910 he is quoted in a newspaper article thus:

“The present proportion of carbon dioxide in the air is about one part in 2,500.”

....
“If it is unchanged according to the father of the CO2 driven global warming hypothesis- 400 ppm in 1910 and 400 ppm now – why do we have any alarm ?

“I guess modern alarmists are saying Arrhenius was totally wrong about the only thing he actually had any data on – the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere....."

Ground based measurements of co2 vary widely, location, season, etc. 
the observations from the volcano in Hawaii by Scripts are free of these variabes and are consistent year to year.
Thus the measurements from 1910 and today are NOT comparable.

Yeah. And now there's the OCO-2 satellite.
https://youtu.be/_UEZqyGU5RU

[Spendulus]

CO2 is currently reports as 397.64ppm on this page.


CO2 levels today the same as in 1910

"“Svante August Arrhenius (19 February 1859 – 2 October 1927) was a Swedish scientist, originally a physicist, but often referred to as a chemist, and one of the founders of the science of physical chemistry. He received the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 1903,…”

“He is acknowledged as the father of the CO2 driven global warming hypothesis and supposedly one of the greatest scientists of his time.

“In 1910 he is quoted in a newspaper article thus:

“The present proportion of carbon dioxide in the air is about one part in 2,500.”

....
“If it is unchanged according to the father of the CO2 driven global warming hypothesis- 400 ppm in 1910 and 400 ppm now – why do we have any alarm ?

“I guess modern alarmists are saying Arrhenius was totally wrong about the only thing he actually had any data on – the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere....."

Ground based measurements of co2 vary widely, location, season, etc. 
the observations from the volcano in Hawaii by Scripts are free of these variabes and are consistent year to year.
Thus the measurements from 1910 and today are NOT comparable.

Yeah. And now there's the OCO-2 satellite.
https://youtu.be/_UEZqyGU5RU

Which is a nice dataset.  No question.

[galdur]

Kerry: COP21 Not to Result in Legally Binding Measures to Cut Emissions

Sputnik International  4:50 am
The upcoming Paris climate change conference will not result in a legally binding agreement that would demand specific carbon emission reduction targets from various countries, US Secretary of State John Kerry said in an interview with The Financial Times. yawn


---

Of course. It will result in lots of hot air being blown at taxpayers´expense which is the main purpose. Global warming is a trillion dollar industry.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=global+warming+a+trillion+dollar+industry

[galdur]

WORST DEAL IN HISTORY: $1.5 TRILLION A YEAR TO REDUCE GLOBAL WARMING BY 0.048°C

Bjørn “Skeptical Environmentalist” Lomborg has been doing the math on global warming – and it’s worse than we thought.

Even if every nation in the world adheres to its climate change commitments by 2030 the only  difference it will make to “global warming” by the end of this century will be to reduce the world’s temperatures by 0.048°C (0.086°F).

That’s 1/20th of a degree C.

Let’s put this into perspective.

Earlier this year, Climate Change Business Journal calculated that the annual cost of the global warming industry is $1.5 trillion.

If you want to know what that looks like in numerals it is:

$1,500,000,000,000

And if you want a better idea of how it looks conceptually, I highly recommend this infographic visualisation.

To put it another way, even if you’d spent $1 million a day every day since the birth of Jesus, you’d still be less than half the way to reaching $1.5 trillion.

Or, to put it still another way, $1.5 trillion is the same amount we spend annually buying stuff we want and need via online shopping.

The Occupy crowd invite us to feel bitter and angry and cheated by the $700 billion it cost to bail out the US banks after the 2008 crash – and perhaps they’re right. But at least that was just a one-off payment. With the climate change industry we’re talking more than twice that amount being wasted every single year.

Well, I say “wasted”. Obviously if you belong to one of the categories below – which, of course, a lot of Occupy sympathizers do, when they’re taking time off from their day jobs rioting, soap-shunning and plaiting their armpit hair – then you might feel differently.

Carbon traders; dodgy academics; vulture capitalists pecking on the bloated carcass of renewable energy; environmental NGOs; environmental consultancies who specialise in giving “expert” testimony at planning appeals, arguing on the most spurious grounds that no the bats and birds in this area aren’t going to be affected by this new wind turbine they’re going to be happier than ever no really; sustainability officers at every level of local government; advisers attached to every business who advise them how to reduce their CO2 count; PR companies that specialise in green awareness; dog-on-a-rope wind turbine scamsters; environmental lawyers. more

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/10/cost-climate-change-1-5-trillion-year-reduce-global-warming-0-048c/

[Spendulus]

WORST DEAL IN HISTORY: $1.5 TRILLION A YEAR TO REDUCE GLOBAL WARMING BY 0.048°C

Bjørn “Skeptical Environmentalist” Lomborg has been doing the math on global warming – and it’s worse than we thought.

Even if every nation in the world adheres to its climate change commitments by 2030 the only  difference it will make to “global warming” by the end of this century will be to reduce the world’s temperatures by 0.048°C (0.086°F).

That’s 1/20th of a degree C.

Let’s put this into perspective.

Earlier this year, Climate Change Business Journal calculated that the annual cost of the global warming industry is $1.5 trillion.

If you want to know what that looks like in numerals it is:

$1,500,000,000,000

And if you want a better idea of how it looks conceptually, I highly recommend this infographic visualisation.

To put it another way, even if you’d spent $1 million a day every day since the birth of Jesus, you’d still be less than half the way to reaching $1.5 trillion.

Or, to put it still another way, $1.5 trillion is the same amount we spend annually buying stuff we want and need via online shopping.

The Occupy crowd invite us to feel bitter and angry and cheated by the $700 billion it cost to bail out the US banks after the 2008 crash – and perhaps they’re right. But at least that was just a one-off payment. With the climate change industry we’re talking more than twice that amount being wasted every single year.

Well, I say “wasted”. Obviously if you belong to one of the categories below – which, of course, a lot of Occupy sympathizers do, when they’re taking time off from their day jobs rioting, soap-shunning and plaiting their armpit hair – then you might feel differently.

Carbon traders; dodgy academics; vulture capitalists pecking on the bloated carcass of renewable energy; environmental NGOs; environmental consultancies who specialise in giving “expert” testimony at planning appeals, arguing on the most spurious grounds that no the bats and birds in this area aren’t going to be affected by this new wind turbine they’re going to be happier than ever no really; sustainability officers at every level of local government; advisers attached to every business who advise them how to reduce their CO2 count; PR companies that specialise in green awareness; dog-on-a-rope wind turbine scamsters; environmental lawyers. more

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/10/cost-climate-change-1-5-trillion-year-reduce-global-warming-0-048c/

Let's get to the important stuff.

Do they really plait their armpit hair?

[galdur]

WORST DEAL IN HISTORY: $1.5 TRILLION A YEAR TO REDUCE GLOBAL WARMING BY 0.048°C

Bjørn “Skeptical Environmentalist” Lomborg has been doing the math on global warming – and it’s worse than we thought.

Even if every nation in the world adheres to its climate change commitments by 2030 the only  difference it will make to “global warming” by the end of this century will be to reduce the world’s temperatures by 0.048°C (0.086°F).

That’s 1/20th of a degree C.

Let’s put this into perspective.

Earlier this year, Climate Change Business Journal calculated that the annual cost of the global warming industry is $1.5 trillion.

If you want to know what that looks like in numerals it is:

$1,500,000,000,000

And if you want a better idea of how it looks conceptually, I highly recommend this infographic visualisation.

To put it another way, even if you’d spent $1 million a day every day since the birth of Jesus, you’d still be less than half the way to reaching $1.5 trillion.

Or, to put it still another way, $1.5 trillion is the same amount we spend annually buying stuff we want and need via online shopping.

The Occupy crowd invite us to feel bitter and angry and cheated by the $700 billion it cost to bail out the US banks after the 2008 crash – and perhaps they’re right. But at least that was just a one-off payment. With the climate change industry we’re talking more than twice that amount being wasted every single year.

Well, I say “wasted”. Obviously if you belong to one of the categories below – which, of course, a lot of Occupy sympathizers do, when they’re taking time off from their day jobs rioting, soap-shunning and plaiting their armpit hair – then you might feel differently.

Carbon traders; dodgy academics; vulture capitalists pecking on the bloated carcass of renewable energy; environmental NGOs; environmental consultancies who specialise in giving “expert” testimony at planning appeals, arguing on the most spurious grounds that no the bats and birds in this area aren’t going to be affected by this new wind turbine they’re going to be happier than ever no really; sustainability officers at every level of local government; advisers attached to every business who advise them how to reduce their CO2 count; PR companies that specialise in green awareness; dog-on-a-rope wind turbine scamsters; environmental lawyers. more

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/10/cost-climate-change-1-5-trillion-year-reduce-global-warming-0-048c/

Let's get to the important stuff.

Do they really plait their armpit hair?

Probably. Take a look around next time you go out. All those girliemen and weirdos and manchildren? They worship their own butt, dream of having their dicks chopped off, I´m sure they spend hours on the armpit hair.

[Spendulus]

WORST DEAL IN HISTORY: $1.5 TRILLION A YEAR TO REDUCE GLOBAL WARMING BY 0.048°C

Bjørn “Skeptical Environmentalist” Lomborg has been doing the math on global warming – and it’s worse than we thought.

Even if every nation in the world adheres to its climate change commitments by 2030 the only  difference it will make to “global warming” by the end of this century will be to reduce the world’s temperatures by 0.048°C (0.086°F).

That’s 1/20th of a degree C.

Let’s put this into perspective.

Earlier this year, Climate Change Business Journal calculated that the annual cost of the global warming industry is $1.5 trillion.

If you want to know what that looks like in numerals it is:

$1,500,000,000,000

And if you want a better idea of how it looks conceptually, I highly recommend this infographic visualisation.

To put it another way, even if you’d spent $1 million a day every day since the birth of Jesus, you’d still be less than half the way to reaching $1.5 trillion.

Or, to put it still another way, $1.5 trillion is the same amount we spend annually buying stuff we want and need via online shopping.

The Occupy crowd invite us to feel bitter and angry and cheated by the $700 billion it cost to bail out the US banks after the 2008 crash – and perhaps they’re right. But at least that was just a one-off payment. With the climate change industry we’re talking more than twice that amount being wasted every single year.

Well, I say “wasted”. Obviously if you belong to one of the categories below – which, of course, a lot of Occupy sympathizers do, when they’re taking time off from their day jobs rioting, soap-shunning and plaiting their armpit hair – then you might feel differently.

Carbon traders; dodgy academics; vulture capitalists pecking on the bloated carcass of renewable energy; environmental NGOs; environmental consultancies who specialise in giving “expert” testimony at planning appeals, arguing on the most spurious grounds that no the bats and birds in this area aren’t going to be affected by this new wind turbine they’re going to be happier than ever no really; sustainability officers at every level of local government; advisers attached to every business who advise them how to reduce their CO2 count; PR companies that specialise in green awareness; dog-on-a-rope wind turbine scamsters; environmental lawyers. more

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/10/cost-climate-change-1-5-trillion-year-reduce-global-warming-0-048c/

Let's get to the important stuff.

Do they really plait their armpit hair?

Probably. Take a look around next time you go out. All those girliemen and weirdos and manchildren? They worship their own butt, dream of having their dicks chopped off, I´m sure they spend hours on the armpit hair.

And Reddit is missing out on all this?

[Wilikon]

German Scientist Confirms NASA Fiddled with Climate Data


A German professor has confirmed what skeptics from Britain to the US have long suspected: that NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies has largely invented “global warming” by tampering with the raw temperature data records.

Professor Dr. Friedrich Karl Ewert is a retired geologist and data computation expert. He has painstakingly examined and tabulated all NASA GISS’s temperature data series, taken from 1153 stations and going back to 1881. His conclusion: that if you look at the raw data, as opposed to NASA’s revisions, you’ll find that since 1940 the planet has been cooling, not warming.

According to Günter Ederer, the German journalist who has reported on Ewert’s findings:

From the publicly available data, Ewert made an unbelievable discovery: Between the years 2010 and 2012 the data measured since 1881 were altered so that they showed a significant warming, especially after 1950. […] A comparison of the data from 2010 with the data of 2012 shows that NASA-GISS had altered its own datasets so that especially after WWII a clear warming appears – although it never existed.

Apart from Australia, the planet has in fact been on a cooling trend:

Using the NASA data from 2010 the surface temperature globally from 1940 until today has fallen by 1.110°C, and since 2000 it has fallen 0.4223°C […]. The cooling has hit every continent except for Australia, which warmed by 0.6339°C since 2000. The figures for Europe: From 1940 to 2010, using the data from 2010, there was a cooling of 0.5465°C and a cooling of 0.3739°C since 2000.

But the activist scientists at NASA GISS – initially led by James Hansen (pictured above), later by Gavin Schmidt – wanted the records they are in charge of maintaining to show warming not cooling, so they began systematically adjusting the data for various spurious reasons using ten different methods.


http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/24/german-professor-nasa-fiddled-climate-data-unbelievable-scale/


-----------------------
Lies!

 

[Spendulus]

German Scientist Confirms NASA Fiddled with Climate Data


A German professor has confirmed what skeptics from Britain to the US have long suspected: that NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies has largely invented “global warming” by tampering with the raw temperature data records.

Professor Dr. Friedrich Karl Ewert is a retired geologist and data computation expert. He has painstakingly examined and tabulated all NASA GISS’s temperature data series, taken from 1153 stations and going back to 1881. His conclusion: that if you look at the raw data, as opposed to NASA’s revisions, you’ll find that since 1940 the planet has been cooling, not warming.

According to Günter Ederer, the German journalist who has reported on Ewert’s findings:

From the publicly available data, Ewert made an unbelievable discovery: Between the years 2010 and 2012 the data measured since 1881 were altered so that they showed a significant warming, especially after 1950. […] A comparison of the data from 2010 with the data of 2012 shows that NASA-GISS had altered its own datasets so that especially after WWII a clear warming appears – although it never existed.

Apart from Australia, the planet has in fact been on a cooling trend:

Using the NASA data from 2010 the surface temperature globally from 1940 until today has fallen by 1.110°C, and since 2000 it has fallen 0.4223°C […]. The cooling has hit every continent except for Australia, which warmed by 0.6339°C since 2000. The figures for Europe: From 1940 to 2010, using the data from 2010, there was a cooling of 0.5465°C and a cooling of 0.3739°C since 2000.

But the activist scientists at NASA GISS – initially led by James Hansen (pictured above), later by Gavin Schmidt – wanted the records they are in charge of maintaining to show warming not cooling, so they began systematically adjusting the data for various spurious reasons using ten different methods.


http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/24/german-professor-nasa-fiddled-climate-data-unbelievable-scale/


-----------------------
Lies!

 

Now look.  You need to be reasonable, just like Reddit.  Please don't post things like this.

  Now just look at what Reddit/r/climatechange/ has to say.

2015 HOTTEST YEAR ON RECORD.  UNTIL NEXT YEAR!!!

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/2015-will-be-hottest-year-on-record-until-next-year/?wt.mc=SA_Reddit-Share

[Spendulus]

German Scientist Confirms NASA Fiddled with Climate Data


A German professor has confirmed what skeptics from Britain to the US have long suspected: that NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies has largely invented “global warming” by tampering with the raw temperature data records.
....
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/24/german-professor-nasa-fiddled-climate-data-unbelievable-scale/


-----------------------
Lies!

 

CLIMATE CHANGE IS TO BLAME FOR SYRIA WAR!!!!

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/23/prince-charles-climate-change-is-to-blame-for-war-in-syria/

[Wilikon]

NOAA’s climate change science fiction

The environmental intelligence agency ignores satellite data


The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is the nation’s leading collector of climate data. Every day, NOAA analyzes vast amounts of data to predict changes to our climate, weather, oceans and coasts. The agency also publishes monthly temperature averages across the nation and compares those numbers to historical temperature records.

As the nation’s self-proclaimed authority on “environmental intelligence,” NOAA should be held to the highest scientific standards. This means their conclusions should be objective, independent of political consideration and based on all available sources of information.

NOAA’s top official, Kathryn Sullivan, has described the agency’s role as providing “timely, reliably, and actionable information — based on sound science — every day to millions of Americans.”

In testimony before the House Science Committee, NOAA’s deputy administrator, Manson Brown, made similar remarks, noting the importance of satellite data. He said that NOAA’s ability “to deliver environmental intelligence starts with keeping the pulse of the planet, especially the atmosphere and the ocean, and this is the central capability where space-based assets come into play.” So why does NOAA leave out satellite data when it releases climate projections?

NOAA often fails to consider all available data in its determinations and climate change reports to the public. A recent study by NOAA, published in the journal Science, made “adjustments” to historical temperature records and NOAA trumpeted the findings as refuting the nearly two-decade pause in global warming. The study’s authors claimed these adjustments were supposedly based on new data and new methodology. But the study failed to include satellite data.

Atmospheric satellite data, considered by many to be the most objective, has clearly showed no warming for the past two decades. This fact is well documented, but has been embarrassing for an administration determined to push through costly environmental regulations.

PHOTOS: Hand cannons: The world's most powerful handguns

Instead, NOAA focused its study on surface temperature monitoring that is often flawed because these sites measure thousands of independent temperature readings and utilize a hodgepodge of different methods that have changed over time. For example, measurements from land-based stations can be skewed because of their location and proximity to surrounding heat-holding asphalt in urban areas.

Satellite data, on the other hand, is highly calibrated and provides complete global coverage. For decades, satellites have been used to monitor the earth and collect information. Satellites measure something extremely important — the deep atmosphere. The temperature readings collected by satellites often differ from ground monitoring stations and have consistently shown much smaller rates of warming. Yet NOAA refuses to incorporate satellite data into its monthly projections that are released to the public. Why?

NOAA appears to pick and choose only data that confirms their bias. NOAA then disseminates this incomplete data to the media who manufacture alarming headlines but ignore the uncertainty of the conclusions.

Earlier this year, NASA issued a news release stating that 2014 was the warmest year on record. Few media acknowledged the footnote: Scientists were only 38 percent sure this was actually correct. That is less than 50-50.

NOAA fully understands margins of error and works with them on a daily basis. But where are these details in their news releases? While NOAA’s monthly projections usually warn of increased warming, they ignore satellite data that refutes their alarmist statements.

The ability to remain independent of political consideration seems like a minimum requirement for an agency that should provide unbiased scientific information. But NOAA’s habit of picking and choosing data raises serious questions about the agency’s independence. In fact, it shreds NOAA’s credibility.

As a self-proclaimed “environmental intelligence agency,” NOAA’s reports should be based only on the best available science that takes into account all sources of data. Unfortunately, NOAA continues to rely upon biased science in pursuit of a predetermined outcome. That’s not good science, it’s science fiction.

This administration is pursuing an extreme political climate change agenda and has made NOAA its accomplice. These are not the actions of an objective agency. NOAA needs to come clean about why it cherry-picked and changed certain data, while ignoring satellite data, to get the results it wanted.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/26/lamar-smith-noaas-climate-change-science-fiction/