Scientists in Australia have announced that global warming has completely ‘vanished’, after adjustments made to dodgy climate change data saw temperature readings plummet worldwide.
Recorded temperatures at the Bureau of Meteorology’s Thredbo Top automatic weather station dropped below -10C this week, after the fraudulent climate change data was amended by engineers.
The Australian.com.au reports: A record of the Thredbo Top station for 3am on Wednesday shows a temperature reading of -10.6C. This compares with the BoM’s monthly highlights for June and July, both showing a low of -9.6C.
The BoM said it had taken immediate action to replace the Thredbo station after concerns were raised that very low temperatures were not making it onto the official record. Controversy has dogged the bureau’s automatic weather station network since Goulburn man Lance Pigeon saw a -10.4C reading on the BoM’s website on July 2 automatically adjust to -10C, then disappear.
Later independent monitoring of the Thredbo Top station by scientist Jennifer Marohasy showed a recording of -10.6C vanish from the record.
Other posts from YourNewsWire:
A great scientist named Roger Revelle had Al Gore in his class at Harvard and the Global Warming campaign was born. Revelle tried to calm things down years later, but Gore said Revelle was Senile and refused to debate. John Coleman documents the entire story and shows how our tax dollars are perpetuating the Global Warming alarmist campaign even though temperatures have not risen in years and years.
[arve url=”https://youtu.be/SyUDGfCNC-k” /]
Radical change in climatic conditions is melting Arctic ice and disrupting wildlife.
The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulate at Bergen Norway.
Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone.
Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.
Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the Gulf Stream still very warm.
Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well-known glaciers have entirely disappeared.
Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelt which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.
Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.
I must apologize.
I neglected to mention that this report was from November 2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post – 94 years ago.
This must have been caused by the Model T Ford’s emissions or possibly from horse and cattle flatulence?
That article in turn was based on information relayed by the American consul in Norway to the U.S. State Department in October 1922 and published in the Monthly Weather Review:mwr-050-11-0589a
Potentially explosive allegations have surfaced casting doubt on the validity of critical climate change data published by NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) that subsequently influenced multi-billion dollar decisions made by world leaders at the 2015 Paris Climate Conference.
On Sunday Feb 4, John Bates, former NOAA Meteorology Principal Scientist and winner of the US Department of Commerce Gold Medal in 2014 for his work in preservation of climate data records, published a bombshell post titled Climate Scientists Versus Climate Data, on the climate change blog Climate Etc., lampooning the seminal climate change work of former director of the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) Tom Karl.
Bates claims to have extensive documentation proving that Karl made, ”decisions that maximize warming and minimize documentation. “ The report in question was published by the journal Science on Jun 4, 2015, just five months before the 2105 United Nations Climate Change Conference. The Karl report directly refuted the somewhat inconvenient 2013 UN IPCC (United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) report also known as the Fifth Assessment Report, which concluded that rate of global warming decreased from 1998-2012 when compared to the global warming trend from 1951-2012. The phenomenon was dubbed the “global warming hiatus”.
NOAA was quick to applaud the study on its website stating of the Karl paper shortly after it was published, “A new study published online today in the journal Science finds that the rate of global warming during the last 15 years has been as fast as or faster than that seen during the latter half of the 20th Century. The study refutes the notion that there has been a slowdown or “hiatus” in the rate of global warming in recent years.”
The report’s ultimate validation, however, was its influence on the 2015 UN Climate Change Conference. In his blog post Dr. Bates writes, “Gradually, in the months after K15 [Tom Karl’s paper] came out, the evidence kept mounting that Tom Karl constantly had his ‘thumb on the scale’—in the documentation, scientific choices, and release of datasets—in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming hiatus and rush to time the publication of the paper to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy.” Indeed, world leaders have pledged hundreds of billions of dollars to support climate change research.
It bears mentioning that despite the unexpected results of the Fifth Assessment Report, the overall conclusion of scientists at that time remained dire stating that, “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia.” They also stated that,” Human influence on the climate system is clear. This is evident from the increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, positive radiative forcing, observed warming, and understanding of the climate system.” In effect, apart from the assertions of the Karl paper, the larger facts surrounding climate change remain the same according to the mainstream scientific consensus.
The conclusions drawn by Bates included recommendations for beefing up legislation regarding the archiving of federal climate data sets (the issue at the heart of Karl’s alleged malfeasance), enforcement of such legislation and, “a renewed effort by scientists and scientific societies to provide training and conduct more meetings on ethics.”
If you believe in God, then intellectually you cannot believe in man-made global warming. You must be either agnostic or atheistic to believe that man controls something that he can’t create.
I’ve had many people ask me, “You talk about climate change/global warming a lot. You make it clear you don’t agree, that you think it’s all a hoax, and you’re so certain, and it makes us uncomfortable.” Some people say, “Nobody’s that certain. I mean, how can you know this? I mean, there are people out there claim they’re scientists who say it’s happening, and that we’re causing it, and you tell us…? I mean, who are you? You’re not a scientist, and you’re telling us to disbelieve them all because it’s political?”
A lot of people say, “You just can’t! Nobody can be that sure of themselves. You just can’t sit there and just automatically reject what scientists say!”
“Damn I can if I want to. If they’re Democrats — Liberal Democrats, funded by Liberal Democrats — you are bound to reject it. Your own sanity requires that you reject it if it comes from the funding of that group by the liberal Democrats or a big liberal Democrat donor, the Democrat Party, doesn’t matter. Because it’s a political issue that’s designed to get you believing you’re responsible, you must pay penance, you must acknowledge that you’re responsible, you must turn over all of this to big government to fix it. You must agree to raising taxes, carbon tax or whatever.
“Because the premise is you and the way you’re living your life are causing this destruction. And I’m sorry, but I don’t believe that.” And then I floor them. I wish I didn’t floor them. I wish what comes next did not shock people. But I tell them, “It is my devout belief in God that gives me every bit of confidence that man is not destroying — and furthermore, cannot — destroy the climate.” Then you go through all of what I consider the common-sensical ways of rejecting the premise, such as: “Have you ever noticed that the predictions are all for 30 years from now, 50 years from now, 100 years from now when people alive today will not be here to know whether they were right or wrong?
“Did you ever notice that a global warming catastrophe is never predicted for next year or next month? Have you noticed that ever since Hurricane Katrina, they’ve been hoping for more of them, so that they can use that to prove it, and there haven’t been any more? We haven’t had a major hurricane strike the country in 10 years, and yet they claim that Katrina was evidence galore of global warming?” I go through all of these things that you’ve heard for years, just the common-sensical ways of rejecting this premise.
I acknowledge the climate changes.
Everything changes. Nothing is static. Everything is dynamic.
The argument is, is Western Civilization responsible for it? That’s what the allegation is: That prosperous people, high standards of living, are responsible…for destroying the climate? Have you ever stopped to consider that charge? “If you wanted to destroy the climate, what would you do?” I ask them. “Would you go out and buy a fleet of SUVs, keep your thermostat at 60? What would you do? Like, if you really wanted to destroy the ozone layer, what would you do? I mean they’re claiming that you’re doing it, so what are you doing? What about your lifestyle is destroying the world when you go outside?”
They never have an answer for it.
They just are afraid to reject it.
They want to believe.
I mean, even some friends of mine. They want to believe in source authorities. They want to believe people are not lying to them. That’s one of the toughest things about dealing with liberalism that you run up against is people want to believe people in positions of power. They want to believe the president. Of all people, they want to believe the president. They don’t want to consider the president may be phony, a liar, a saboteur. They just don’t even want to contemplate it. But when I get into my religious belief as that is what informs me of my opposition to global warming, that’s where I learn how — I don’t know, what’s the word — irreligious people are. See, if I could go through this very briefly, I believe this a loving God. I believe in the God of creation. I believe the story of creation, as an allegorical story.
I do not believe, put very simply, that God could create human beings and not provide for them mechanisms whereby they can strive to live longer, to live happier, to live healthier. I believe in the loving God of creation that provides all of these things of beauty and substance and opportunity which permit one species, the human race, to harness as much as we can, and we are forever trying to harness more.
We were created to do so. We are as much a part of nature as any other living organism or species. We are not violating nature by using what God created in us to improve our lives, to improve the lives of as many others as we can. We have definitions of how we improve lives, standard of living, prosperity, contentment, happiness, pursuit of happiness, all of this I believe is the product of creation of a loving God, and I just can’t intellectually believe that a loving God would create such beauty and substance and opportunity, that if exploiting it — and I don’t mean in a negative sense — by examination, experimentation, by living our lives and trying to improve them, that we destroy what has been created for us. It just doesn’t make any sense to me.
I can’t come to grips intellectually with the idea that the way we live our lives — and I don’t have any doubt that the Western civilization lifestyle provides the best opportunity, the best chance for humanity on this entire planet. And yet every day I’m pummeled with the charge, with the allegation that all of us who are simply trying to provide for ourselves and our families, we’re trying to better our communities, we are trying to improve the future for our children, I just can’t accept that the process of doing all of that leads to the destruction of all that has been created for us. I don’t think we have the power. I don’t think we have the power to destroy this. Even if we nuked it, it’s still here. We are gone. Life is still here in some shape, manner or form. And the whole process will start all over again.
But we’re not talking about nukes. Nobody in the global warming movement is accusing us of global warming by using nuclear weapons. I’m using the most extreme example I can. If you really want to destroy the planet, that’s the best we could do. We don’t know how to do anything else, other than nuke everything. That’s the further advanced weaponry we’ve got. They have been used a couple of times, and the places they have been are in fine shape. They were not ultimately forever destroyed, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Chernobyl, plant accident. But to me the evidence is all around us and is abundant that, despite our efforts in many cases, standards of living improve.
I just have never been able to come to grips — throw the religion out, if it makes you uncomfortable. I just can’t come to grips with the idea that the only people responsible for climate change happen to be capitalistic related Western civilization industrialized countries, especially when you look at pollution and the messes that we make here and how far advanced we are in cleaning them up than in poverty stricken, poverty-ridden areas, depressed areas of the world. Where there is poverty there is pestilence and pollution and filth and misery. And where there is poverty, there is usually dictatorship or tyranny of some kind. There is socialism, communism, some sort of ism that denies the individual liberty and freedom that we in this country have.
I believe in the basic goodness of most human beings and the goodness of most human beings leads to the betterment of life for everybody. And I just can’t come to grips with doing that destroying the planet. And yet that’s what they tell us every day. Frankly, I resent it. I intellectually resent the idea that people trying to improve every aspect — we have people trying to clean up messes emit as little pollution as we can. And in a capitalistic society, people are gonna do that on their own, contrary to what critics will say. They will say that a free people living in a capitalistic system are selfish and greedy and don’t care about the messes they make, because they don’t care about other people. It takes a governing authority somewhere in a distant capital where only the people there have the correct answers of compassion and so forth. Yet when you take a look at what those people do in that distant capital you see mess after mess after mess that gets worse and worse and worse. And they continue to be the ones called on to clean up each mess that they make, and it progressively gets worse and worse and worse and we have a cycle. Create the mess, fix the mess, mess gets bigger, come in, create it because some reason they are judged to be the only ones who can fix it.
Yet people not involved in that bureaucracy, not involved in that distant capital, people living among themselves who have the authority and the power have clean neighborhoods, have clean cities, because it’s what they want, and they have the freedom and the means and the prosperity to do it. You run around the world where there’s poverty, pestilence, disease, what’s missing is the ability to clean up any of those messes because there isn’t the means, the license the prosperity, there isn’t the freedom, there isn’t the capitulation, there isn’t the know-how.
All there is in those places is the desire to get out, and where do they want to go? Right here. Somehow, some way, some reason they want to come here to the home of climate destruction? Really? The car you drive, the air that you exhale, the soft drinks that you drink, whatever you eat and consume, cars, cows farting and belching is causing climate destruction, we’re supposed to intellectually just accept it? I’m sorry, I can’t.
Walter Cronkite warns of the coming Ice Age in 1972.
On September 11, 1972, Cronkite cited scientists’ predictions that there was a “new ice age” coming. He called that prediction from British scientist Hubert Lamb “a bit of bad news.”
“But then there is some good news,” Cronkite continued. “That while the weather may be just a little colder in the immediate years to come, the full extent of the new ice age won’t be reached for 10,000 years. And if you can stand any more good news, even then it won’t be as bad as the last ice age 60,000 years ago. Then New York, Cincinnati, St. Louis, were under 5,000 feet of ice. Presumably no traffic moved and school was let out for the day. And that’s the way it is, Monday, September 11, 1972.”
Lamb, the scientist Cronkite cited, was no fringe scientist. He founded the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Great Britain. When he died, the CRU director called him “the greatest climatologist of his time,” according to the Global Warming Policy Foundation. He was also credited with establishing “climate change as a serious research subject.”
Rush Limbaugh discussed a scenario that opens the door for a possible Obama third term. It may sound crazy but lets face it… we currently have a man in the White House who respects neither the law nor American tradition.
Let’s put this in a scenario, because some of you might be thinking, “All right, Rush, you’re going too far now. All you guys thinking Obama’s doing this and doing that, he’s violating the Constitution. He would never do that!” Well, let’s construct a scenario and see if it has even the slightest bit of believability, and let’s establish some things that we know to be true that Obama also knows. Chief among those is that the Republican Party has said that impeachment is off the table.
More than once they’ve said this. The Republican Party has made it clear that they will not use that constitutional measure as a means of reining Obama in, and maybe even getting him out of office. They have also made it very clear in just the most recent vote on the funding for Department of Homeland Security that they will not use the power of the purse to stop Obama. Okay, so those duo realities equal Obama fully aware the Republican Party will take no steps to stop him in his ongoing violations and running up to the edges of the Constitution.
Now, let’s fast forward to, say, May, June of 2016.
Let’s say that Mrs. Clinton has withstood all of this e-mail stuff, that Elizabeth Warren has not gotten in the race, that Algore took the temperature and decided not to go, that it’s just Mrs. Clinton and Joe Biden. On the other side, the Republican field has a great list of possible candidates, and they will have by that time engaged in a vigorous debate which may have served to educate the country on the foibles and the problems of the past eight years, and the country may be looking forward to a dramatic change to Republican in the election of 2016.
Obama fully aware of this, would go on television and say that the Democrat field is so weak that he’s not confident that Mrs. Clinton can win. He might even take steps to make sure she can’t win. You know, sabotage her campaign. And then call a national speech to the nation in which the main point is that it’s beginning to look like the Republicans will win the White House, and this is something that he can’t risk. Not after eight courageous years of transforming America!
We just cannot put it all to the risk of being unraveled and undone by these racist, sexist, misogynist, whatever else Republicans. So as a service to the nation and to the nation, he is going to forget the Twenty-Second Amendment and either not leave office or run for reelection himself as the Democrat nominee. Just imagine that scenario. I don’t care how unreal it sounds, how unbelievable it sounds. Imagine it. What would anybody do? What would Mitch McConnell do? What would John Boehner do?
Mark Levin would have a heart attack.
I would probably have an aneurysm.
We’d be done.
What would anybody do? The Supreme Court would say, “Nobody has standing here! There’s no case yet. Obama hasn’t done anything yet. We can’t do anything about this until he actually serves a third term, and then you gotta bring the case to us.” What would anybody do if he says this? The media would be cheering it. Put all this in the mix. This guy’s out there thinking about this. It’s hard to believe, it’s so unlikely, but don’t think… Obama’s planning on staying in Washington part of time.
He’s got a plan to continue to live in Washington after he has left office for that exact reason. Whoever the next president is, Republican or Democrat, if that next president starts to unravel any of this, Obama’s on television every night. He knows he’s gonna have the media in his back pocket and whoever the next president is will not get away with anything without a huge fight from Obama. What would the Republicans do? (interruption) I think the odds are the Republicans might call an emergency constitutional convention and amend the Twenty-Second Amendment, permitting Obama to do this because their fear of being critical of Obama would destroy their chances of winning with the independents.