Climate Scientists Trying To Influence Policy Through Fraud

Government climate scientists “from 13 agencies” are committing their usual felonies today, assisted by the their partners in crime at the New York Times. They want President Trump to approve a wildly fraudulent report which claims that US temperatures are rising drastically “since 1980.”

Government Report Finds Drastic Impact of Climate Change on U.S. – The New York Times

Before data tampering, NOAA US data shows that maximum temperatures are plummeting in the US.

But look what they did! 1980 seems like an odd year to start a trend, until you look at the data. 1980 was the end of  the coldest period of the last century in the US, so they were able to create a fake upwards trend which they declared as “drastic.”

Besides the cherry picking and all their other lies, government climate scientists are also massively altering the US temperature data.

Make no mistake about it. These people are hard core criminals who are extorting money and power from the government through fraud, conspiracy and lies. Climate racketeering.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

29 Responses to Climate Scientists Trying To Influence Policy Through Fraud

  1. kyle_fouro says:

    Carl Mears is one of the signatories.

  2. Joel O'Bryan says:

    That Sounds like a who’s-who list of who should be fired, or if they can’t fired, sent to the mail room to organize deskchair inventories and empty waste bins.

    • arn says:

      Organising deskchair inventoried and emptying waste bins??

      You know we are talking about progressives:
      That’s not just above their intellectual capacity.
      Those guys are not used to do physical work:
      They may get a blister and never recover from this shock
      and sue the hell out of the state for being mentally and physically abused and being treated like slaves.

      Everything that’s demanding and wants more from you than turning flatlines into hockeystick and adjusting data to justify the hockey stick alive would be considered an offense.

  3. Kris Johanson says:

    I took my daughter and her friend to La Jolla Cove today to mess around. Tons of people enjoying the ocean and actually swimming in the Cove with sea lions. The ocean is not significantly rising on this coast. There’s lots of expensive construction going on right on the ocean, banks lending money, developers taking long positions, insurers writing insurance policies, the insurance flood maps are the same, and so on. I can go out and measure atmospheric CO2 off my deck facing the onshore breeze and it ranges from 350 to 430 ppm, day in and day out. Cal-OSHA’s workplace permissible limit is 5,000 ppm, a full 15 times higher. The CO2 in your mouth right now is about 40,000 ppm.

    To Trump administration: we’re not buying the global apocalypse message. We care about jobs, the economy, securing the borders, beating ISIS.

  4. Andy DC says:

    The climate alarmists have also tried to erase our “modern Little Ice Age”, which was a distinct period of global cooling from 1940-1980. Whatever warming there has been since 1980 was basically just a recovery to pre-1940 normals.

  5. Steve Case says:

    Tony says,

    Is that over the top? I know this; if the people pushing the “Climate Change” agenda get the legislation they want, it will cost us all dearly. More than the crime families?

    Crime Costs the Global Economy a Staggering $870 Billion

    Hmmm, just the funding for all the “Research” must be approaching that.

  6. Brian D says:

    Remember all that doom and gloom over Great Lakes water levels being so low. Well, this summer, Lake Superior has been at near record levels, and Lake Ontario has been at new record highs since May at least. I don’t have reports prior to that. This is great for shipping as they can load more cargo keeping shipping costs down.

    Access to reports here.

  7. Steven Fraser says:

    Article at the daily Caller refutes the ‘not public’ aspect of this NYT article. It has been available online since December.

  8. Stephen Gould says:

    There is one private industry which has a strong existential financial interest in getting the science right – not vested in GW happening (alt energy, etc.), or its not happening (coal, etc.) but in what the actual state is. They have large and well paid teams of scientists who study this to find out what is actually happening. TTBOMK they are the only industry in this specific position. It’s the reinsurance industry. Check out what they thing.

  9. Concerned Citizens of America says:

    But to have multiple scientists orchestrated to produce some degree of un-science (Orwellian) govt reports harms continued progress to sustainable renewable energy

  10. Chris Pratt says:

    I love reading th opinions of a bunch of flat earthers and middle school dropouts when getting my climate science news. Funny how it’s never people with a degree in the actual field that make these dubious claims.

  11. Science Is Not The Villain says:

    This story is impossible to assess. The graphs are not annotated in any way as to their source or context. The assertion that scientist are “tampering” with data is empty without any background into why the reported and measured temperatures are different. According to NOAA, the HCN program was initiated in 1986, so how could all these records be from HCN stations?

    Furthermore, the writer starts talking about NOAA data above the first figure, then follows with a comments above the second: “But look what they did! … so they were able to create a fake upwards trend which they declared as ‘drastic.'” But it is not NOAA who says it’s drastic, it is the NYT. This is not a small point. Once you start relying on the media (including blogs) for your assessment of climate change, you give up all hope of getting a clear picture. If you read the actual document this claims to report on, you see that each prediction has an associated probability (certainty level). The media tend to ignore these, contributing to both alarmism and denialism.

    The problem is that people become sucked in to a narrative, and keep going to the sources that will confirm that narrative. The business of these sources is not to provide truth, but to confirm the narrative, so they make accusations about things like “data tampering” without saying why the data were altered, even if it was perfectly legitimate to do so. In fact, NOAA used data attained by Anthony Watts (a skeptic) and his colleagues and volunteers in their assessment of the accuracy of temperature recording stations. Several variables come into play when dealing with temperature records, and it would be folly to use raw data to try to represent historical temperatures.

    Unfortunately, there are a lot of details to wade through when it comes to trying to understand climate science. It’s not for the faint of heart. This is why it’s so extremely irresponsible to say that summaries like the latest U.S. assessment are bunk. There are no other credible sources for information that are readable by the general public. One can’t rely on blogs like this which have obvious agendas (why else would they never confirm a finding, or offer opposing views?). Alas, deniers won’t read the assessment with an open mind because they have been convinced that climate science has for half a century been dominated by fraud and corruption on all levels, infiltrating hundreds of organizations working independently around the globe (even the scientists working for Exxon who around 1980 found that AGW was a threat!). It’s the most obvious illustration in America’s recent history of how successful a coordinated, well-funded propaganda campaign can be. (For evidence, see and this series

    • Science Is Not The Villain says:

      I obviously didn’t proofread the above comment before posting it, and there are typos and minor errors like saying “attained” when I meant “obtained” by Anthony Watts. My apologies.

    • AndyG55 says:

      “This story is impossible to assess”

      We can’t help if you are a moron. !!

      If they had stuck to real “Science”… the AGW scam WOULD NOT EXIST !!

      Anthony Watts is NOT as “skeptic” in the derogatory way you imply

      He is a person who actually part believes that CO2 can cause warming.

      The Exxon scientists DID NOT find a threat. There STILL isn’t a threat.

      Once you figure out how to remove your blinkers, and actually look at the real science, you will see that the whole farce is a load of BS from its very foundations.

      You try and find a paper that proves empirically that CO2 causes warming in our convectively controlled atmosphere.

      NOTHING. !! It is a MYTH !!

    • AndyG55 says:

      “and it would be folly to use raw data to try to represent historical temperatures”

      Start adjusting it.. It is no longer data. Its an assumption based fabrication.

      Certainly , there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with the raw data showing a strong 1940ish peak, about equal to current.

      That data is confirmed in MANY places.

  12. Science Is Not The Villain says:

    REVISION: Although the USHCN program was initiated in the ’80s, it did incorporate data from stations that were present before then, so I shouldn’t have questioned how the record could go back so far in the graph. However, the raw data aren’t always accurate records of temperature, which is why there were adjustments made, and why the HCN program was initiated in the first place.

    • tonyheller says:

      Total BS

    • AndyG55 says:

      I can see that you are not a scientist, (maybe a “social scientist” ?)

      … and have probably have never been anywhere near any real science.

      Let me assure you that Tony knows about 10⁶ times more about the US temperature data sets than you will EVER know.

    • gator69 says:

      Amazing that these bozos blindly accept proxy temperature data without error bars, and then turn up their nose to actual data. A brain free zone.

  13. AndyG55 says:

    “Science Is Not The Villain ”

    No, but the CORRUPTION of science by the socialist, anti-science, anti-CO2 agenda , most certainly is.

    There is NO science in that agenda, just lying, deceitful propaganda.

Leave a Reply to AndyG55 Cancel reply

