SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  For example, here is how to disable FireFox ad content blocking while on Silicon Investor.
Politics : Politics of Energy

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Brumar89 who wrote (67947)1/15/2016 10:59:33 AM
From: Brumar89   of 82753
 
The History Of NASA/NOAA Temperature Corruption
Posted on January 14, 2016 by stevengoddard

In 1974, The National Center For Atmospheric Research (NCAR) generated this graph of global temperatures, showing a large spike in the 1940’s, rapid cooling to 1970 and net cooling from 1900 to 1970.



denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf

In 1975, the National Academy of Sciences published a very similar graph for Northern hemisphere temperatures, which also showed net cooling from 1900 to 1970.



Page 148 : understandingcli00unit.pdf

By 1981, the graph had started to tilt to the left. Temperatures in 1970 were now about 0.1C warmer than 1900.



Not surprisingly, this change coincided with James Hansen’s interest in demonstrating a CO2 driven warming trend.



Challenge_chapter2.pdf

This pattern of NASA making the past cooler and the present warmer has occurred repeatedly since NASA became chartered with proving global warming. The past keeps getting colder.



1981: Challenge_chapter2.pdf
2001: Fig.A.ps
current: Fig.A.gif

The next graph shows how 1880-2000 global warming has been doubled since 2001, simply by altering the data. This graph is normalized to the most recent common years of the 1990’s.



The NASA temperature data is based on NOAA GHCN (Global Historical Climatology Network) data. The map below shows where their stations are located, with gray representing no data. They are missing data for about half of the Earth’s surface including most of Africa, Antarctica and Greenland. The only places with complete coverage are the US and Western Europe. The gray areas are filled in with computer modeled temperatures, meaning that about 50% of the global data used by NASA and NOAA is fake.

201511.gif (990×765)

The US temperature record has been similarly altered. In 1999, James Hansen reported 0.5C US cooling since the 1930’s.



pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1999/1999_Hansen_etal_1.pdf

Whither U.S. Climate?

By James Hansen, Reto Ruedy, Jay Glascoe and Makiko Sato — August 1999

in the U.S. there has been little temperature change in the past 50 years, the time of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases — in fact, there was a slight cooling throughout much of the country (Figure 2)

NASA GISS: Science Briefs: Whither U.S. Climate?

In 1989 NOAA also reported no warming in the US over the past century.



U.S. Data Since 1895 Fail To Show Warming Trend – NYTimes.com

The current NASA graph has eliminated the 1930-1999 cooling.



Fig.D.gif (525×438)

The animation below shows how NASA has altered their own data to make the post-1930’s cooling disappear.



The graph below overlays the 1999 and 2016 versions, normalized to the most recent common years in the 1990’s. It shows how the past has been cooled to create a fake warming trend.



NASA US temperatures are based on NOAA USHCN (United States Historical Climatology Network) data. The graph below shows the average of their measured temperatures in blue, and the average of their “adjusted” temperatures in red. The entire US warming trend over the past century is due to data tampering by NOAA and NASA.



The graph below shows the hockey stick of adjustments being made to US temperatures since 1980. This is calculated as the red line in the image above minus the blue line above.



The bulk of the data tampering is being done by simply making temperatures up. If NOAA is missing data for a particular station in a particular month, they use a computer model to calculate what they think the temperature should have been. In 1980 about 10% of the data was fake, but now almost half of it is fake.



And here is the smoking gun of fraud. The adjustments being made correlate almost perfectly to the rise in atmospheric CO2. The data is being tampered with to match greenhouse gas warming theory.



Evidence is overwhelming that the US used to be much hotter. Prior to 1960, the frequency of hot days in the US was much larger. The graphs below were generated from the same NOAA data sets used in the graphs above.



The areal coverage of hot weather in the US was also much larger prior to 1960.



The surface temperature record presented by NASA and NOAA have little or nothing to do with reality. They are tools used by the White House to push their political agenda.

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2016/01/14/the-history-of-nasanoaa-temperature-corruption/

Andy DC says:

January 14, 2016 at 1:42 pm
The fact that most adjustments are on the side of the predetermined conclusion and in concert with a huge rip off of taxpayer money on the part of alarmists smacks of fraud.

Again, we get back to the ref who had bet heavily on the game who is “adjusting” his calls to favor one team. When there is a huge financial interest, normally huge corruption follows. That is simply the nature of the beast when it comes to human nature.
...................
Gail Combs says:

January 14, 2016 at 12:54 pm
........

Anyone who has followed the temperature data base fiasco knows the SST data set started with Ben Franklin.

The idea was to stay in the Gulf Stream while sailing on a wind driven ship to England. The temperature of the water in the Gulf Stream is ~ 2 to 3 degrees warmer than the normal north Atlantic temperature. So ship captains had sailors tossed buckets over the side and stick a thermometer in the water in the bucket. Accuracy? Who gives a hoot. All you want is to stay in the warm water and out of the cold water. No need for calibration or to stand their in the wind freezing your rump off waiting for the thermometer to come to equilibrium. (We won’t talk of the differences between a canvas vs a wooden bucket.)

When sailing ships became obsolete, the temperature measurements were taken at the intakes for the engines in the engine room. Accuracy? Who gives a hoot. All you want is to stay in the warm and out of the cold water or what ever to take advantage of the ocean surface currents.

In other words SST is a BIG BLACK HOLE covering 70% of the world until satellite measurements.

Enter Argo Adjustments.

At first Argo showed a cooling trend



Loehle, C. 2009. Cooling of the Global Ocean Since 2003. Energy & Environment 20:99-102)
http://www.ncasi.org//Publications/Detail.aspx?id=3152

But this would never do so when ARGO didn’t give the expected warming, NOAA ClimAstrologists implemented ‘adjustments’ to the ARGO data ….

A MIRACLE! Now ARGO shows warming. Our grant money is SAVED!

So yeah we have a really really GREAT precise and accurate and error free ocean temperature record NOT!

Gail Combs says:

January 14, 2016 at 1:09 pm

HEARTLAND:
Ironically and importantly, the left’s attacks on ExxonMobil and other oil companies saved us from being co-opted by the oil industry and other corporate interests. In 2007, ExxonMobil said it would continue funding us only if we agreed to admit that man-made global warming “may” be causing a climate crisis. Had I said yes to that, the debate today would be much different…
Joe Bast August 31, 2015

The blogs are self-financed and get pennies tossed at then from commenters occasionally.

On the other hand
BRITISH PETROLEUM
Enron, joined by BP, invented the global warming industry. I know because I was in the room..

Climategate e-mail:

Subject: Re:Your msg about climate/energy policy
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2000 11:55:23 -0400
Cc: mann@virginiaXXXX

Dear Ray

You sent me this op-ed (?) (Letter to editor?) about the need to convert the US from a carbon-based economy to a hydrogen-based economy. I can’t guess why you wanted me to know your views, but it does help me to better understand what motivates your scientific work and judgment. It also throws some doubt about your impartiality in promoting the “hockey stick’ temperature curve that a number of us have been critical of.

In any case, I doubt if espousal of this energy policy will help BP and ARCO discover a source of hydrogen somewhere.

You quote the “progressive” Business Council approvingly: “We accept the views of most scientists that enough is known about the science and environmental impacts of climate change for us to take actions to address its consequences.” And from BP chairman : “the time to consider the policy dimensions of policy change is not when the link between greenhouse gases and climate change is conclusively proven, but when the possibility cannot be discounted and is taken seriously by the society of which we are part.”

I note that BP and ARCO are still out there exploring for oil; they don’t seem to be quite ready yet to put real money where their mouth is….



Gail Combs says:

January 14, 2016 at 1:16 pm

STANDARD OIL
(Rockefeller money)
CRU it was founded in 1970’s by two Big Oil companies (Shell and BP) and the last I looked that hadn’t been removed from their Wikipedia page (yet):

Initial sponsors included British Petroleum, the Nuffield Foundation and Royal Dutch Shell.[5] The Rockefeller Foundation was another early benefactor, and the Wolfson Foundation gave the Unit its current building in 1986.[4]

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

Grants Search:- The Rockefeller Brothers Fund

http://www.rbf.org/content/grants-search

Bill McKibben’s 350_dot_org: 6 grants from 2003 totaling US$875,000.00

Bill McKibben’s 1Sky_dot_org: 7 grants between 2007-2011 totaling US$2,100,000.00
(includes US$1 million ‘start-up’ grant)

The Sierra Club: 12 grants from 2009 totaling US$1,665,000.00

Friends of the Earth: 7 grants from 2009 totaling US$777,500.00

The Pacific Institute (President; Peter Gleick): 5 grants between 2004-2008 totaling US$670,000.00.

This small sample doesn’t even scratch the surface of grants awarded by the RBF to activists (e.g. Greenpeace Fund: US$550,000) and/or climate research units globally (e.g. Center for Climate Strategies: US$5,171,600.00).

Oh…almost forgot;

The Heartland Institute => Your search results: 0 Grants
The Global Warming Policy Foundation => Your search results: 0 Grants

BruceC says:

January 14, 2016 at 1:25 pm
Gail, that Rockefeller list looks like one of my early ‘lists’. Here’s an ‘updated’ version;

2003 – present;

Bill McKibben’s;
Step It Up ($200,000)
1Sky_dot_org ($2,100,000)
350_dot_orgorg ($875,000)

Total grants to Mckibben = $3,175,000

Al Gore’s – Alliance for Climate Protection = $250,000
David Suzuki Foundation = $185,000

The Sierra Club = $1,665,000
Friends of the Earth = $777,500
Friends of the Earth International = $290,000
The Pacific Institute (Founder and President; Peter Gleick) = $670,000
Greenpeace Fund = $550,000
Center for Climate Strategies = $5,171,600
The Union of Concerned Scientists = $75,000
Media Matters for America = $375,000
Environmental Defense Fund = $550,000
Natural Resources Defense Council = $1,660,000
National Wildlife Federation = $1,025,000
European Climate Foundation = $395,000

Al Gore’s – Alliance for Climate Protection = $200,000
The Sierra Club = $300,000
Friends of the Earth = $100,000
The Pacific Institute (Founder and President; Peter Gleick) = $849,451
Center for Climate Strategies = $137,700
Environmental Defense Fund = $1,100,000
Natural Resources Defense Council = $3,793,350

TOTAL = $23,294,601

How much have the Rockefeller’s given to sceptic organizations?

The Heartland Institute
The Cato Institute
The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)
Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT)
Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)

= $0.00

And even this updated list still hasn’t scratched the surface.

BruceC says:

January 14, 2016 at 1:31 pm
You can also add +$125million in funding to Stanford University’s Global Climate and Energy Project (GCEP) from Exxon/Mobil and Schlumberger.

......

Meanwhile here’s this from the government:
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/112xx/doc11224/03-26-climatechange.pdf

That’s out of date, but you can still see that about $2.5 billion are spent every year on ‘climate science’ among other things, vs the $15.75 million/year on a different point of view. (Here’s an assignment for you: find all sources of government money (globally) spend on the pro-global warming perspective). And then there’s Greenpeace and all the other green groups that rake in tens or hundreds of millions a year. There’s all the subsidies that go to ‘green’ anything, like Solyndra and the other failed companies. A least all those CEO’s managed to pocket their cash before running the businesses in the ground, but it’s ok, because they’re green and they’re not conservatives.

If it wasn’t for the constant drum-beat of impending doom because of CAGW, NO money would be going to ‘green’ industries and green advocacy groups. I find it so funny that warmists will complain about skeptics getting $15 or $20 million/year while at the same time they’re receiving billions. And somehow those millions are able to do so much more than the billions greens receive.

Gail Combs says:

January 14, 2016 at 1:33 pm
But the really fun one is

SHELL OIL

IPCC LEAD AUTHOR Ged Davis when VP of Shell Oil wrote scenarios for the IPCC. (Another Shell Oil exec Doug McKay was at the IPCC scenario meetings. McKay was also Senior Financial Analyst with the World Bank. Robert Watson worked for the World Bank while Chair of the IPCC.)

Ged Davis E-mail

This is part of one of the Scenarios Sustainable Development later called Agenda 21.

4. Sustainable Development (B1)

The central elements of this scenario family include high levels of environmental and social consciousness, successful governance including major social innovation, and reductions in income and social inequality. Successful forms of governance allow many problems which are currently hard or difficult to resolve to fall within the competency of government and other organisations. Solutions reflect a wide stakeholder dialogue leading to consent on international environmental and social agreements. This is coupled with bottom-up solutions to problems, which reflect wide success in getting broad-based support within communities… [Got to gear up the propaganda to get that support don’t you]

David Hone is not only SHELL OIL’S Senior Climate Change Adviser he is also Chairman of the International Emissions Trading Association.
Besides lobbying the UK Parliament to strangle Shale Gas by insisting that CCS be deployed – in which venture he’s succeeded- he and his mentor James Smith. SHELL OIL’S previous UK Chairman took SHELL very deeply into Carbon Trading.

Then there is Mueller of the BEST temperature dataset.
Perhaps having a Shell Oil President, Marlan Downey, “Former President of the international subsidiary of Shell Oil” in his consulting company might have something to do with all of Mueller’s publicity shenanigans. Muller’s consulting firm, Muller & Assoc. has on its Advisory Board Marlan Downey — “Former President of the international subsidiary of Shell Oil, founder of Roxanna Oil; former President of Arco International”
– A puppet attached to Shell Oil with money strings comes to mind. Privately held consulting firms are OH SOOOooooo nice for hiding money trails aren’t they?

Back to the Money Strings and Shell Oil.

The Dutch royal family (The House of Orange) is still reportedly the biggest shareholder in the Dutch part of the group, although the size of its stake has long been a source of debate. The Queen of England is also a major stockholder link and Scuttlebutt and more Scuttlebutt.

Prince Bernhard of the Dutch Royal Family is the Founding President of World Wildlife Fund (WWF)

HRH The Duke of Edinburgh served as International President of WWF for 16 years until his retirement at the end of 1996…

John H. Loudon, Better known as “the Grand Old Man of Shell”, John H. Loudon, a Dutchman, headed Royal Dutch Shell from 1951 to 1965…. He was President of WWF from 1976 to 1981, and also a member of The 1001.

Ruud Lubbers served three terms as Prime Minister of the Netherlands between 1982 and 1994, thus becoming the longest serving Dutch Prime Minister…. He continued in Parliament as Senior Deputy Leader, and later Parliamentary Leader of the Christian Democratic Alliance. He became President of WWF International on 1 January 2000, but only served for one year as he was appointed United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees from 2001-2005.

World Wildlife Fund Presidents – past and present

Another major stockholder is the Rothschilds. The Rothschild Investment Trust was formed in 1988 => RIT Capital Partners. Rockefellers and Rothschilds Unite

Then we can look at the Shell Board of Directors.

Peter Voser
Chief Executive Officer
… a member of the Swiss Federal Auditor Oversight Authority from 2006 to December 2010. In 2011…

Josef Ackermann
Non-executive Director
… He is Chairman of the Board of Directors of Zurich Insurance Group Limited and of Zurich Insurance Company Limited, positions he has held since March 2012.

… he held a variety of positions in corporate banking, foreign exchange/money markets, treasury and investment banking. In 1990, he was appointed to SKA’s Executive Board, on which he served as President between 1993 and 1996. He joined Deutsche Bank’s Management Board in 1996 with responsibility for the investment banking division and, from 2006 and 2002 respectively until May 2012, he was Chairman of the Management Board and of the Group Executive Committee of Deutsche Bank AG. He is a member of the Supervisory Board of Siemens AG, the Board of Directors of Investor AB and a number of advisory boards. He also has various roles in several foundations and academic institutions….

Charles O. Holliday
Non-executive Director
… He served as Chief Executive Officer of DuPont from 1998 to January 2009, and as Chairman from 1999 to December 2009…. He previously served as Chairman of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, Chairman of The Business Council, Chairman of Catalyst, Chairman of the Society of Chemical Industry – American Section, and is a founding member of the International Business Council. He is Chairman of the Board of Directors of Bank of America Corporation and a Director of Deere & Company.

Gerard Kleisterlee
Non-executive Director
…He is Chairman of Vodafone Group plc, a member of the Supervisory Board of Daimler AG, and a Director of Dell Inc.

Christine Morin-Postel
Non-executive Director
…. she was Chief Executive of Société Générale de Belgique, Executive Vice-President and a member of the Executive Committee of Suez S.A., Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Crédisuez S.A. and a Non-executive Director of Pilkington plc, Alcan Inc. and EXOR S.p.A. She is a Non-executive Director of British American Tobacco plc.

Sir Nigel Sheinwald GCMG
Non-executive Director
…He was a senior British diplomat who served as British Ambassador to the USA from 2007 to 2012. He joined the Diplomatic Service in 1976 and served in Brussels (twice), Washington and Moscow and in a wide range of policy roles in London. He served as British Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the European Union in Brussels from 2000 to 2003. Prior to his appointment as British Ambassador to the USA, he served as Foreign Policy and Defence Adviser to the Prime Minister and Head of the Cabinet Office Defence and Overseas Secretariat. He retired from the Diplomatic Service in March 2012….

Linda G. Stuntz
Non-executive Director
She is a founding partner of the law firm of Stuntz, Davis & Staffier, P.C., based in Washington, D.C. Her law practice includes energy and environmental regulation as well as matters relating to government support of technology development and transfer. From 1989 to 1993, she held senior policy positions at the U.S. Department of Energy, including Deputy Secretary. She played a principal role in the development and enactment of the Energy Policy Act of 1992.

From 1981 to 1987, she was an Associate Minority Counsel and Minority Counsel to the Energy and Commerce Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives. She chaired the Electricity Advisory Committee to the U.S. Department of Energy from 2008 to 2009, and was a member of the Board of Directors of Schlumberger Limited from 1993 to 2010. She is a member of the Board of Directors of Raytheon Company. [Raytheon does mostly government contracts G.C.]

Jeroen van der Veer
Non-executive Director
….He was Vice-Chairman and Senior Independent Director of Unilever (which includes Unilever N.V. and Unilever plc) until May 2011 and is Chairman of the Supervisory Boards of Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. and of ING Group. He also has various roles in several foundations and charities.

Gerrit Zalm
Non-executive Director
…He is Chairman of the Board of Management of ABN AMRO Bank N.V., a position he has held since February 2009. Before joining ABN AMRO, he was the Minister of Finance of the Netherlands from 1994 until 2002, Chairman of the VVD Liberal Party in the Lower House (2002) and Minister of Finance from 2003 until 2007. During 2007 until 2009 he was an adviser to PricewaterhouseCoopers (2007), Chairman of the trustees of the International Accounting Standards Board (2007-2010), an adviser to Permira (private equity fund) (2007-2008) and Chief Financial Officer of DSB Bank (2008). Prior to 1994, he was head of the Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis, a professor at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam and held various positions at the Ministry of Finance and at the Ministry of Economic Affairs. ….

That board is rather well connected to governments, NGOs and various banks are they not?

stevengoddard says:

January 14, 2016 at 12:38 pm
$29 billion per year in government climate scam money to climate fraudsters vs. $0 in my funding. That is a ratio of infinity.

...........
” The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological elite. “ Dwight David Eisenhower

....
Gail Combs says:

January 14, 2016 at 1:40 pm

Seems the activists are STILL trying to dig out the funding of the HUGE Climate Denial Machine that they created out of their fevered imaginations.

Since Greenpeace, WWF, Sierra Club, 350.org and all the rest are really Astroturf organizations with money strings to the global elite, they can not imagine there is actually a real grassroots effort like us skeptics.

SO they keep making things up and tossing mud but they have NO REAL DATA because there ISN’T any money except pocket change.

scott allen says:

January 14, 2016 at 3:10 pm
Michael Mann income from grants and speaking fees.
His grants for 16 years total just under 6 million (and that was just to 2013) and he gets 10,000 for speaking fees (plus expenses) Plus his compensation for the several board of directors spots he holds. Plus book royalties and his 6 figure income from his university. Not a bad haul for a man who made up a hockey stick.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2398822/posts

http://mediatrackers.org/florida/2013/01/16/climate-alarmist-michael-mann-charges-10000-speaker-fee
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext