About that Global Warming deal? Never mind

Good day all. We’ve known that Global Warming has been a complete fraud for some time now. The anecdotal evidence was so obvious that the followers of the Church of Global Warming, (Algore be praised!), had to change the name to “Climate Change.”

Well, thanks to all the hyperbole over Global Warming, money was actually put into actual research. The idea was to reinforces the religious beliefs of the Warmists. Funny thing though. It didn’t quite work out that way. Here are a few details from the Daily Caller:

Data from America’s most advanced climate monitoring system shows the U.S. has undergone a cooling trend over the last decade, despite recent claims by government scientists that warming has accelerated worldwide during that time.

I think the correct term here would be “Oops!”

The U.S. Climate Reference Network was developed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to provide “high-quality” climate data. The network consists of 114 stations across the U.S. in areas NOAA expects no development for the next 50 to 100 years.

But that can’t be! This is impossible! Both the Great and Powerful Wizard of Oz AlGore and now Pope Francis say that the world is doomed, Doomed! Say! Now just how did they arrive at this conclusion?

The climate stations use three independent measurements of temperature and precipitation to provide “continuity of record and maintenance of well-calibrated and highly accurate observations,” NOAA states on its website. “The stations are placed in pristine environments expected to be free of development for many decades.” In essence, NOAA chose locations so they don’t need to be adjusted for “biases” in the temperature record.

One of the problems with NOAA and other scientists sucking at the Global Warming Climate Change money trough is their tendency to “fix” the numbers when they don’t agree with their predetermined conclusions. Another problem was with the weather stations themselves. Over the last 10 years, people have been going out and taking pictures of the stations in their locations.

What they found was that far to many were placed in such a way as to render the data they generated worthless. This is one reason why new stations have been very carefully located. The only problem with this is that the data now being generated isn’t telling the Global Warmists what they want to hear.

”Clearly, a ‘pause’ or ‘hiatus’ exists in this most pristine climate data,” writes Anthony Watts, a veteran meteorologist and publisher of the science blog Watts Up With That. “In fact, a very slight cooling trend appears.”

So we should be seeing the next Ice Age any time now? Not according to the Global Warmists inside NOAA.

“Newly corrected and updated global surface temperature data from NOAA’s [National Centers for Environmental Information] do not support the notion of a global warming ‘hiatus’,” NOAA scientists wrote in their study.

NOAA found that from 1998 to 2012 there was “more than twice as much warming as the old analysis at the global scale,” at 0.086 degrees Celsius per decade compared to 0.039 degrees per decade.

Not everyone agrees with NOAA’s “fixing” of the data.

NOAA’s latest climate adjustments were sharply criticized by climate scientists skeptical of man-made global warming. Skeptics argued NOAA’s data adjustments were largely unwarranted and excluded data that didn’t fit with the global warming narrative. “My bottom line assessment is this,” wrote Dr. Judith Curry, a climate scientist at Georgia Tech. “I think that uncertainties in global surface temperature anomalies is substantially understated.”

And speaking for the Global Warmists, “Heretic! Burn the Witch! Burn the Witch!”

“The global surface temperature datasets are clearly a moving target,” Curry added. “So while I’m sure this latest analysis from NOAA will be regarded as politically useful for the Obama administration, I don’t regard it as a particularly useful contribution to our scientific understanding of what is going on.”

What’s interesting about the USCRN data is that it was created to provide scientists with “long-term sustainable and robust climate observations that are necessary to document long-term climate change trends for the United States,” according to NOAA. Much of this relies on the fact that these climate stations are placed in areas that don’t need to be adjusted for interference, like urban heat created in cities.

Ah, I see. This makes very good sense. Place the stations somewhere so the data is good and there is no need to try and “fix” it. Now I see why NOAA didn’t want to use it.

NOAA’s latest temperature update did not include USCRN data. One reason for this may be that the USCRN stations only have about a decade of data on them, which could be considered too short of a time period to use them in their analysis.

That’s one reason. I’ll wager it wasn’t the actual reason they ignored the data.

Skeptics, however, argue that USCRN data could deflate future arguments of rapid warming made by NOAA and others. “So, since this state of the art network requires no adjustment, we can most surely trust the data presented by it. Right?” Watts asked.

You would think so, wouldn’t you? However, as Mr. Watts is no doubt aware, this has nothing to do with actual science and everything to do with both money and religion. The Church of Global Warming Climate Change, (Algore Akbar!) has been a money making machine for the so called “Green Energy” suppliers as well as scientists in search of ever increasing amounts of grant money. Anything that disrupts the flow of cash has to be suppressed.

“While we seldom if ever see the USCRN mentioned in NOAA’s monthly and annual ‘State of the Climate’ reports to the U.S. public, buried in the depths of the [National Climatic Data Center] website, one can get access to the data and have it plotted,” Watts added. “We now have 10 years, a decade, of good data from this network and we are able to plot it.”

And the data will only get better as more and more stations come online. As I was finishing up this post, the Daily Caller posted an update to it’s article. It seems the Moonbats at Newsweek took umbrage with the Daily Caller’s story, accusing them of “Cherry picking” the data they used to “to fabricate an argument that opposes the scientific consensus on climate change.”  (Italics from the Daily Caller)

The Daily caller rebutted the charges with details and facts, something Newsweek hasn’t bother with in decades. As more and more information, hard data as well as anecdotal, (Seen with your own eyes as it were), evidence comes in, the scam that is Global Warming, loses more and more credibility as well as followers.

It’s hard for people to believe in Global Warming when they are shoveling through multiple feet of snow every week during the winter. According to the Church of Global Warming, (Algore Akbar!), it should be a balmy 70 degrees out in January in New England. Sorry Pope Francis, you blew it big time.

Thatisall

~The Angry Webmaster~

[yasr_visitor_votes size=”medium”]