Speaking of Media- and "expert"-induced hysteria...

 

Eventually Americans will realize that just as you've been totally duped--conned--for six years by the endless lies from Fauci and lackeys about duh Chyna virus, you're also being duped about "climate change."

As a clue for young Americans, consider this: The term "climate change" emerged around 2008.  Before that it was called "Globull Warming," driven by the theory that it was caused by CO2 emitted by human activity (burning fuel).  But after four straight record-cold winters, the dictators running the Hoax started seeing that fewer Americans were saying they believed the planet was warming.

"Oooohh, what can we do to keep the grift going, eh?"  Answer: claim that the planet was STILL warming, still at an unprecedented rate, surely fatal--but that it wasn't warming evenly!  So as some places continued to get warmer, other spots would get colder!

The con artists never actually explained the math behind that, and the Media never asked, because it sounded kinda plausible. 

"See, yew dumb 'climate denier'?  It's simple logic, right?  Dere hasta be a kind of balance, so dat when some parts of duh globe get hotter, some must get colder!  But the overall effect is still dat duh Erf is gettin warmer!  Yep yep yep!" 

"Never doubt the Science, deplorable!  Like Dr. Fauci!  You'd nevah question HIM, right?  Cuz he don' tol' ya that 'Anyone who challenges ME is actually challenging Science!'  An' he's duh highest paid guy in duh entire gruberment!  So he gots to be smaht, an' tellin' us duh troof!"

Pied Piper effect. 

NASA and NOAA's own published works show both have altered the original, recorded US temperature record

For the past decade or so, statistical experts skeptical of claims that the climate is warming--let alone of the claims that the claimed warming is caused by CO2 emitted by human activity (burning carbon-based fuel) have been documenting how NOAA and NASA have both been altering US temperature records to make it appear that the climate is warming.

If you're not fluent in science the sentence above seems totally bland, unalarming.  So let me re-phrase: Both NASA and NOAA --the two government agencies charged with recording and publishing temperatures in both the U.S. and around the world--have been deliberately, systematically altering the official records to make people think there's been significant, alarming global warming.

For example, here's a graph of what NASA claimed--in 1999--was the average U.S. temp record:

Just 20 years later--after Democrat politicians realized they could win votes by claiming Americans were killing the planet by using "too much energy"--and after NASA realized they could change the "official" record without causing a huge public outcry--here's the "new, improved" NASA graph of the supposed "historical record."  See if you can spot the difference.

Both agencies literally take a measured temperature reading from some station in 1930 and...change it.  Do they think the observer from 90 years ago just didn't know how to read a thermometer?  Or that the 1930 observer who read the thermometer as, say, 74 degrees hen had a brain hiccup and wrote "78," so that 90 years later the "government experts" are just correcting that "error"?

NASA/NOAA experts:  "Hahahaha!  Of course not, citizen!  We would never even think about suggesting that an observer 90 years ago didn't know how to read a thermometer!  That's silly!"

But if that's true, why have you changed the record from actual, observed temperatures--and always in a direction that reduces  reported temperature of 90 years ago, while INcreasing reported temperatures from the last 20 years--thus making it seem as if we've been having scary Global Worming...sorry, "climate change"?

NASA/NOAA experts: "Um...uh... We didn't do that.  What happened was, we used a thing called a 'computer algorithm' to calculate a more accurate temperature for an area instead of just relying on one datapoint.  Cuz that's how Science works, citizen!"

Okay, if that's true, give us a copy of this algorithm so we can examine it to see if it's sound, or might just possibly use bad logic.

NASA/NOAA experts:  "Um...uh... Our policy prevents us from doing that."

What's the basis for that policy?

NASA/NOAA experts:  "Uh...the algorithm is 'proprietary.'  We own it, so we don't have to give you a copy."

Wait, asshole: If you developed this alleged algorithm using gruberment employees, they were paid with government funds, right?  That means you don't own it.  It is NOT "proprietary."  That's horseshit, as your legal counsel surely would have told you if you'd bothered to ask   Do you seriously think that claim will hold up in court?

NASA/NOAA experts:  "It's whatever we say it is.  Cuz we're Scientists!  You silly people just don't have the education to understand complex things like computer algorithms.  And Science!  And why it's not Sciency to rely on a measured temperature from 90 years ago to be accurate!"

[Lawsuit follows.  Court rules against NASA/NOAA experts.]

Okay, now stop stalling and give us a copy of this algorithm you claim made you alter the official temperature records.

NASA/NOAA experts:  "Um...uh... We'd really like to do that, but unfortunately we can't.  See, the only copy we had was accidently erased.  You may find this hard to believe, but we didn't have any backup copies.  So, we win, you lose.  Now go away."

As noted earlier, skeptics have been reporting NASA and NOAA's alterations to the official temperature records for over a decade now, but it's always ignored by the press, dismissed as just another conspiracy theory.  This happened as recently as yesterday on DailyKos.

Reality is that the data alterations are no secret, and that NOAA and NASA admit they do it.  They just claim the alterations are based on sound scientific principles, and not done by hand to produce a desired result, but by a totally logical, unbiased computer.

Twenty years from now one of two things will have happened:  Either the warmies will have succeeded in killing the U.S. economy by banning the use of carbon-based fuel--in which case you'll be eating insects and soy--or most Americans will have learned about the scam, and how it was carefully concocted by communists at the U.N. and their lackeys in the Democrat party to try to destroy the U.S. economy.

If you have kids--or if you're a young American and look forward to having kids--which outcome results should make a great deal of difference to you.

Source.

Leftist loon: Climate change affects immigration reform, LGBTQ rights, etc.

As those over 30 know, the scam called "climate change" was once called "global warming."

The wacko Left had to change the name after a series of unusually cold winters started to make Americans think perhaps the planet's climate wasn't warming after all.  Because personal experience--in this case freezing your ass off for months--is usually a pretty effective teacher.

Well, unless you're a socialist/Democrat/liberal/"progressive," of course.  In which case nothing is an effective teacher.

Now a leftist female "activist" warns us that the updated/renamed threat of "climate change" is about far more than just the planet's climate.  Instead it supposedly drives or controls such unexpected things as "transgender justice," racism and immigration reform.

Really.  I'm serious.  Writing in the leftist rag The Nation, female activist Leehi Yona wails that so-called "climate change"--and remember, for years it was called global warming--actually has a huge impact on...immigration reform, LGBTQIA+ rights, and religious freedom??

Yes, she claims those things.

And naturally all the wailing and angst is caused by...wait for it...President Trump.

Oh, of course.  We should have guessed.

According to Yona his appointment of a string of “climate-change deniers” to key positions in his administration, his withdrawal from the Paris climate accord and what she claims is his “assault on public lands,” shows her (and by extension all enlightened beings) that “Trump’s policy is nothing short of...climate destruction.”

During the past summer Yona writes, “I couldn’t think about wildfires breaking across the continent without thinking about trans rights. I couldn’t think about Hurricane Irma without thinking about DACA.  Climate change isn’t just about the planet. It’s about justice: racial, social, socioeconomic, reproductive, and environmental."  And don't forget "religious freedom."

I'd ask how she claims religious freedom is linked to climate change but it'd be a waste of my time.

And these people want to run the country.  Heaven help us.

"Global warming"-- now called "climate change"--revisited

In case you haven't noticed, the Democrat party is still at full-scream on an idea called "global warming"... excuse me: "climate change."

That theory was originally called "global warming," but after several record-breaking cold winters began to make lots of Americans think the claim of global warming was horse-shit, the warmies didn't miss a beat:  they simply changed the name of the alleged crisis from "global warming" to "climate change."

Then a few thousand Americans who knew how to do a thing called "google search" noted that the Earth's climate constantly changed--had always changed--so unless recent changes were way outside of historical norms, getting upset about this was...well, sort of insane.

This shocked the warmies:  They didn't think the sheeple knew that the climate of the planet changed naturally.  The goal of the Warmies was to make the sheeple believe "climate" was constant, so if it suddenly began changing, that was very, very dangerous!

But the warmies had lots more ammunition:  proof that this particular change wasn't natural, but was caused by human activity!

Specifically the warmies noted--correctly--that human activities like driving cars and heating homes and hot water, and making stuff--and breathing--all emitted CO2.  Then they pointed to data showing that between 1964 and 2000, CO2 levels in the atmosphere had risen from 350 parts per million to 400--an astonishing 14 percent increase.  (It's now about 415 ppm.)

They also noted--again correctly--that the use of carbon-based fuel by humans rose exponentially after 1945 or so.  So for the Warmies, the cause was certain:  use of carbon fuels increases, then atmospheric CO2 increases, climate warms.   It was so obvious to them that even a child should be able to see the connection! 

Problem was, Americans didn't realize Earth's climate was warming.  Seemed pretty constant to most of us.  So what the Warmies was needed was for some PhDs to publish a study claiming rising CO2 was causing the climate to warm dangerously.

So now it's time to introduce you to Michael Mann's infamous "hockey stick" graph--which arguably sparked the hysteria of alleged "global warming."  Sorry..."climate change."

Mann is a PhD at U. Penn.  In 1999 he published a paper that included the graph below, which he claimed represented global average temperatures for the last 1000 years.

Mann's "hockey stick" graph (adapted from IPCC's "Third assessment"

Note the alleged steep increase in average temperatures since 1900.  If true--and who could even imagine that a PhD would publish a crap paper, eh?--it looks like the planet is warming dangerously.

"OMB [Oh my Barack!], the end of the world is near!" 

Here was the final link in the chain of absolute proof that CO2--caused by humans burning carbon-based fuels--was causing a disaster.  To review:
  1)  Burning carbon fuels--oil, gasoline, natural gas, jet fuel and coal--produces CO2 (true);
  2)  Beginning around 1945, use of carbon-based fuels has grown steeply (true);
  3)  Atmospheric CO2 increased by about 14% between 1960 and 2000 (true);
  4)  CO2 warms the planet by trapping heat that would otherwise escape (a "greenhouse gas");
  5)  Since 1900, the average temperature of the entire Earth had risen incredibly steeply;

Voila: What more proof could one possibly need?

Which leads us to the final claim, and the warmies "conclusion:"
  6) Surface temperature is higher than ever before, which will lead to "feedback" and "runaway increases" due to positive feedback (instability); and we'll all die.  Or something.

But once again, because of the internet, people who would normally never have seen Mann's paper saw it.  And a few of those folks--with lots of expertise in statistics, among other things, thought "Wow, that claimed exponential increase in temps since 1900 seems to be SO unusual that I wonder if the guy who wrote that paper were...honest." 

And they downloaded the paper and data (rarely posted) and start analyzing.  And you'll never guess what they found.  (Don't worry, I'll tell you in a bit.)

The result was a decade of dueling papers.  Except the people who thought Mann had committed scientific fraud... couldn't get their papers published. 

That's odd, since accusations of scientific fraud are usually extremely attractive to journals.  Drama!

Later we found that the reason for the difficulty in skeptic papers being published was that Mann and his co-conspirators were friends with the editors of practically every scientific journal related to earth sciences--and they leaned on those editors to get them to refuse to accept papers that disagreed with Mann et al.

How cool is that, eh?

Of course you think that simply must be a wacko conspiracy theory.  Couldn't possibly be true.  Cuz a PhD would never do that, eh?   Plus, you couldn't possibly keep that sort of thing from eventually leaking out, eh?

Aaaand turns out that last part was right:  Eventually their lies were exposed.

The UK's main site for climate study is at the University of East Anglia.  In November 2009 someone hacked into that group's email server and copied over 1,000 emails--which were quickly posted on the internet.  And you'll never guess what those emails showed.

The emails showed Mann and one of his friends--a key player in the research group named Phil Jones--discussing ways to "hide the decline"--a reference to the fact that actual *measured* temperatures on earth weren't rising, as Mann et al claimed, but had actually been falling over the last decade.  They also discussed the need to "eliminate the MWP" (medieval warm period)--a period around 1200 A.D.  when Greenland was warm enough to grow grapes.

The emails also showed Mann discussing how to get friendly journal editors to refuse to publish papers critical of Mann's work or GW in general.

And just as happened after the release of the leaked DNC emails, neither Mann nor UEA disputed the authenticity or content of the emails, but simply explained to friendly reporters that the emails simply didn't mean what they clearly said.

Just as the Democrats did after their emails were exposed, eh?

Now let's return to those four links that supposedly prove that global warming, caused by humans burning carbon fuels, is warming the planet by a significant and dangerous amount:

No one on the "AGW-skeptic" side disputes the first 4 links.  The problems are with the last two.

The first thing we need to note is a logical fallacy that used to be taught to virtually every college freshman: "Correlation does not imply causation."  That is, even if temperatures were indeed rising (and as you'll see, they're not) as CO2 rose, it doesn't mean any alleged rise was caused by rising CO2.  Further, while no one disputes that humans have been burning far more carbon-based fuels since 1945--indisputably producing more CO2--that doesn't show that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is due mainly to human activity.

Next, about that claimed big increase in temperatures Mann (and others) claimed happened since 1900:  First,  a big part of Mann's conclusions relied on the thickness of tree rings.  They had access to data on over a hundred trees, but only included the 15 or so that supported their theory, ignoring the ones that didn't.

As you might guess, honest science really frowns on that.  It's called "cherry-picking your data."  That alone screams crap paper--i.e. fraud.

Next, Mann linked his crap tree-ring "data" to temps put out by two agencies reporting "official" temperatures.  And guess what:  Those agencies lied--and continue to do so.  The two U.S. government agencies responsible for gathering and publishing temperature data--NOAA and NASA--have systematically changed measured, reported temperatures, both past and present.  In 99% of the cases, those changes reduced past measured temps and increased more recent ones.

The two agencies claim those changes are made not by capricious human decisions but by an absolutely fair, neutral computer algorithm.  So naturally the folks running AGW discussion sites asked for a copy of the computer code allegedly used by the agencies to make those changes.

Astonishingly (or not), the agencies have refused, claiming the algorithm is "proprietary" (i.e. that the agency owns it, so is allowed to refuse to divulge it), even though development of the *alleged* code was clearly paid for with taxpayer money.  So unless it's a national secret, it ain't proprietary. 

I'll try to finish this later.  Meanwhile, here's a good summary of a *few* of the problems with "global warming" by Bill Whittle:



By contrast, here's an article from 2013 on the Leftist site "Slate," purporting to explain the "hiatus" or pause in global warming.  As you read it, keep in mind that most of the warmie crowd has been screaming furiously that there has been NO pause in the increase in global temperature, and that claims that there's been a "pause" are lies by eeeevil Rethuglicans to thwart our Savior Obama's (pbuh) efforts to enact a crucial "cap and trade" law.

But isn't it odd: if CO2 causes global warming, then if there HAS been a pause, we should have seen a corresponding drop--or at least a flattening--in atmospheric CO2 level.  So did that happen?

Why YES, yes it did!  So there ya go!  Proof!  Just like we said to you stupid deplorables!

Just kidding.  No drop or flattening in CO2 was observed.  Which seems to do major damage to the theory that global warming is caused by rising atmospheric CO2.