![\"Al-Gore](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/angry.net\/blog2\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/12\/Al-Gore-Fire-Breathing-Dragon.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n<\/p>\n
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<\/a>:<\/p>\n Data from America\u2019s most advanced climate monitoring system shows<\/a> 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><\/p><\/blockquote>\n I think the correct term here would be \u201cOops!\u201d<\/p>\n The U.S. Climate Reference Network was developed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to provide \u201chigh-quality\u201d climate data. The network consists of 114 stations across the U.S. in areas NOAA expects no development for the next 50 to 100 ye<\/i>ars.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n But that can’t be! This is impossible! Both the Great and Powerful Wizard of Oz<\/i><\/span> AlGore and now Pope Francis say<\/a> that the world is doomed, Doomed! Say! Now just how did they arrive at this conclusion?<\/p>\n The climate stations use three independent measurements of temperature and precipitation to provide \u201ccontinuity of record and maintenance of well-calibrated and highly accurate observations,\u201d NOAA states<\/a> on its website. \u201cThe stations are placed in pristine environments expected to be free of development for many decades.\u201d In essence, NOAA chose locations so they don\u2019t need to be adjusted for \u201cbiases\u201d in the temperature record.<\/i><\/p><\/blockquote>\n One of the problems with NOAA and other scientists sucking at the Global Warming<\/i><\/span> Climate Change money trough is their tendency to \u201cfix\u201d 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n \u201dClearly, a \u2018pause\u2019 or \u2018hiatus\u2019 exists in this most pristine climate data,\u201d writes<\/a> Anthony Watts, a veteran meteorologist and publisher of the science blog Watts Up With That. \u201cIn fact, a very slight cooling trend appears.\u201d<\/i><\/p><\/blockquote>\n So we should be seeing the next Ice Age any time now? Not according to the Global Warmists inside NOAA.<\/p>\n \u201cNewly corrected and updated global surface temperature data from NOAA\u2019s [National Centers for Environmental Information] do not support the notion of a global warming \u2018hiatus\u2019,\u201d NOAA scientists wrote<\/a> in their study. <\/i><\/p><\/blockquote>\n NOAA found that from 1998 to 2012 there was \u201cmore than twice as much warming as the old analysis at the global scale,\u201d at 0.086 degrees Celsius per decade compared to 0.039 degrees per decade. <\/i><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Not everyone agrees with NOAA’s \u201cfixing\u201d of the data.<\/p>\n NOAA\u2019s latest climate adjustments were sharply criticized by climate scientists skeptical of man-made global warming. Skeptics argued NOAA\u2019s data adjustments were largely unwarranted and excluded data that didn\u2019t fit with the global warming narrative. <\/i>\u201cMy bottom line assessment is this,\u201d wrote<\/a> Dr. Judith Curry, a climate scientist at Georgia Tech. \u201cI think that uncertainties in global surface temperature anomalies is substantially understated.\u201d<\/i><\/p><\/blockquote>\n And speaking for the Global Warmists, \u201cHeretic! Burn the Witch! Burn the Witch!\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThe global surface temperature datasets are clearly a moving target,\u201d Curry added. \u201cSo while I\u2019m sure this latest analysis from NOAA will be regarded as politically useful for the Obama administration, I don\u2019t regard it as a particularly useful contribution to our scientific understanding of what is going on.\u201d <\/i><\/p><\/blockquote>\n What\u2019s interesting about the USCRN data is that it was created to provide scientists with \u201clong-term sustainable and robust climate observations that are necessary to document long-term climate change trends for the United States,\u201d according<\/a> to NOAA. Much of this relies on the fact that these climate stations are placed in areas that don\u2019t need to be adjusted for interference, like urban heat created in cities.<\/i><\/p><\/blockquote>\n 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 \u201cfix\u201d it. Now I see why NOAA didn’t want to use it.<\/p>\n NOAA\u2019s 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.<\/i><\/p><\/blockquote>\n That’s one reason. I’ll wager it wasn’t the actual reason they ignored the data.<\/p>\n Skeptics, however, argue that USCRN data could deflate future arguments of rapid warming made by NOAA and others. <\/i>\u201cSo, since this state of the art network requires no adjustment, we can most surely trust the data presented by it. Right?\u201d Watts asked.<\/i><\/p><\/blockquote>\n You would think so, wouldn’t you? However, as Mr. Watts<\/a> 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<\/i><\/span> Climate Change, (Algore Akbar!) has been a money making machine for the so called \u201cGreen Energy\u201d 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.<\/p>\n \u201cWhile we seldom if ever see the USCRN mentioned in NOAA\u2019s monthly and annual \u2018State of the Climate\u2019 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,\u201d Watts added. \u201cWe now have 10 years, a decade, of good data from this network and we are able to plot it.\u201d <\/i><\/p><\/blockquote>\n 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<\/a>. It seems the Moonbats at Newsweek took umbrage with the Daily Caller’s story, accusing them of \u201cCherry picking\u201d the data they used to \u201cto fabricate an argument that opposes the scientific consensus on climate change.\u201d\u00a0 <\/em>(Italics from the Daily Caller)<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n Thatisall<\/p>\n ~The Angry Webmaster~<\/b><\/i><\/em><\/p>\n [yasr_visitor_votes size=”medium”]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" 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 … Continue reading <\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n