More about "global warming." Wait...excuse me..."climate change"

I began studying global warming 40 years ago.  After a couple of years it became clear that the idea that the earth is warming because of CO2 emitted by human activity is political, not scientific.  Because it's superficially plausible, two groups of people have seized on this idea to try to force western societies to ban or greatly reduce the use of carbon-based fuel.

The two groups of people pushing this are vastly different:  One group doesn't know much science, so are unable to see the glaring, obvious flaws in the theory.  To these people, "green energy" is like a religion.

The second group is made up of people who know enough science to realize the theory is crap, but they realized that if they could get western leaders to embrace it, they could destroy capitalism.  To the members of this second group, no amount of data disproving their idea will ever be enough; they've found a great weapon that seems able to destroy capitalism, and will keep pushing that weapon as long as credulous believers exist.

From about 1910 to 1940 there was a period of strong global warming.  The most extreme weather and temperatures in recent times took place in the 1930s.  (When I was in high school they taught us about the dust bowl, but no longer.)  Nobody knows what caused that warming but we know it wasn’t caused by rising CO2 because CO2 levels were too low in that far-less-industrialized time.  From 1980 to 2000 there was a slight warming trend, but global temperatures have been flat since then.

Of course you don't believe that, because every single Mainstream Media outlet, and the supposedly pure, unbiased United Nations (what a crock!) all scream that the planet is still warming significantly.  But that's a lie.  In a minute I'll tell you how we know this, but to understand it you need to know how the "average temperature on Earth" was estimated *before* 1980.

How would you decide on the "average temperature" of, say, the United States?  Given the huge range of lattitudes, ocean effect, mountain effects and vegetation, obviously you couldn't pick one city and say "This is the average."  Instead, climatologists take daily temp records of thousands of measuring stations and do some sort of averaging.  But some stations are clearly not representative of much of the country.  Mountaintops and coastal zones, for example.  How much weight should be given to each station?

Obviously a better method is to compare the average daily high and low temperatures of the same station over time.  But here we see something...odd:  The government agencies that have the job of decreeing average temps have routinely altered actual measured readings, claiming as the official record temps that are significantly different from what the person who read a thermometer in, say, 1920 wrote down!

[From NOAA's "ncdc" webpage: "There are several factors that are important in monitoring global or U.S. temperature: quality of raw observations, length of record of observations, and the analysis methods *used to transform raw data into reliable climate data records* by *removing existing biases* from the data."  https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/temperature-monitoring.php
Ain't no bias in someone reading a thermometer, dude.  This is bafflegab for "We change it to a number we like better."] ["Every month data from over 1,200 stations from around the world are added to GHCN"]

Rational people should find this extremely suspicious:  What possible reason could the agencies have for altering *measured* readings?  

To raise your suspicions even more, the agencies refuse to explain.  They simply claim "Oh, any changes are just 'adjustments,' and are all done by a computer."

The agency lackeys expected that everyone would simply say "Ah, that's fine, thanks," because who has the balls to argue with a *computer*, eh?  But some skeptics--who knew a great deal about programming computers--asked for a copy of the program that made those 'adjustments.'  And you'll never guess what happened.

The agencies refused to furnish the alleged program, claiming it was "proprietary."

For young Americans, that means they owned the program.

Skeptics responded, "Wait, did you use agency employees to write this program?  If so, since your employees are paid with taxpayer funds, *you don't own that program.*  So give us a copy."

The government agencies told the skeptics to fuck off.

Simply put, there is NO scientific basis for altering actual, measured temperatures.  Yet they keep doing just that.  And here's the third nail:  99 percent of the "adjustments" have reduced the temps actually measured between 1900 and 1940, and have raised temps measured between 1960 and 2000.

Of course you don't believe that either.  After all, why would the agencies do that, eh?  Isn't that scientific fraud or something?  Wouldn't changing the measured temp be illegal or something?

Gee, ya think?  So why indeed?

Of course when the agencies "adjusted" the historical temp record, they didn't destroy the original records.  So (unexpectedly) hundreds of skeptics have gone to the original, hand-written recorded temps, plotted those on a time series, and then compared the results to the "adjusted" temps published by NOAA and NASA using a "flicker comparison," showing both plots on the same scale, alternating.  It's devastating.

The schemers at NOAA and NASA never thought anyone would go to that much trouble, eh?

Anyway, that's how NOAA and NASA have been able to bleat "You're all gonna die from the heat!" for the last 20 years or so--dutifully echoed by the leftist, pro-Democrat Mainstream Media.

Now here's what's changed:  around 1980 the U.S. (followed much later by other nations) began launching satellites equipped with infrared temperature-measuring instruments, aimed at the Earth.  These instruments measured tens of thousands of temperatures on every orbit, and transmitted those values to their controllers on Earth.  Some of these satellites made 16 orbits a day, and some have stayed in orbit for years.  So LOTS of data, and covering the entire Earth instead of just a small percentage of it.  (By comparison, NOAA's "global historical climate network" has just 1200 stations for the entire globe.)

And guess what the satellite data showed?  Yep, almost no global warming from 1980 to 2000, and none at all since then.  

Whoa, betcha never heard that, eh?  "Gosh, if it was true that the Earth hadn't warmed since 2000, surely the Media would have headlined that, eh?  Since I've never heard about it, it can't be true!"

Uh...do you believe Hilliary didn't have beyond-Top-Secret files on her unencrypted private email server?  Sure ya do, cuz that's what the media told ya, right?

The promoters of global warming--now cunningly renamed "climate change"--claim it will cause anything people are scared of:  more floods, stronger and more frequent hurricanes, sea-level rise, tornadoes, droughts and crop failure. The pushers know that scary threats--like the Chinese virus--make scared people willing to accept policies they normally would reject.  The pushers wail about the threats precisely to make scared voters support the goals of their political party.