Former NOAA Scientist Blows Whistle On Manipulation Of Climate Change Data

 Cartoons, Political  Comments Off on Former NOAA Scientist Blows Whistle On Manipulation Of Climate Change Data
Feb 142017
 
A retired NOAA scientist has proven that an influential study on climate change intentionally used manipulated data to suggest an increased rise in global temperatures.

Former NOAA Scientist Blows Whistle On Manipulation Of Climate Change Data

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.”

Former NOAA Scientist Blows Whistle On Manipulation Of Climate Change Data

 
 
By Whitney Webb

Feb 122017
 
An unusually high number of Medical and NASA scientist deaths in recent years. What’s going on?
74 Prominent NASA Scientists Have Been Killed In The Last Few Years

NASA Scientist Alberto Behar died in a plane crash in January (2015) in Los Angeles – making a total of 74 Scientists dead in 2 years.

Alberto Behar helped prove that there had once been water on Mars. He worked on two missions to Mars and was also a robotics expert who researched how robots function in harsh environments (such as under water and inside volcanoes). The unusually high number of scientist deaths in recent years has made people question the suspicious nature of his death.

Behar was an expert pilot; he was a flight instructor for both planes and helicopters – the weather conditions were clear that day and for some reason his plane just started to lose altitude. The Van Nuys Airport pilot Kashif Khursheed said “I can’t see what would be the cause of something like this. He was very knowledgeable, competent and thorough.”

This is just one of the most recent cases of a prominent scientist’s suspicious death. Over the past few years 74 leading medical and NASA scientists have died, almost all are officially labelled suicide or an accident.

Glenn Thomas was a World Health Organisation spokesperson; he was reportedly an expert on Ebola and AIDS, he was aboard Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 when it was shot down with approximately 100 other researchers.

Joep Lange, a leading AIDS researcher and former president of the International AIDS Society (IAS) was also aboard MH17. They were all on their way to an international AIDS conference. With one fell swoop a large portion of the leading AIDS experts were killed before they could attend a global conference.

Melissa Ketunuti, 35, was a pediatrician who specialized in cancer; she also worked on an AIDS fellowship in Botswana. She was hogtied and set on fire in the basement of her home in Philadelphia.

Dr Anne Szarewski, 53, was a cervical cancer expert. She pioneered the cervical cancer vaccine. Szarewski was found dead in her London home in December 2013. Her husband spent hours drilling through the front door that she had locked from the inside. When he found her she was dead. To this day no one knows what killed her. An inquiry into her death was launched but nothing conclusive was ever found.

Perhaps one of the most controversial scientist deaths in the last few years was that of Shane Truman Todd, 31. In June 2012 he was found dead in Singapore, he was an electrical engineer. He was working on a top-secret “one of a kind” machine for the Chinese that was believed to be a defense weapon. Shane told his family that he was not happy with what he was doing and he feared for his life, he was allegedly being asked to compromise U.S security. He quit his job and was due to leave China and fly home but died a week before his flight after his last day at work building this unknown machine. Foul play was suspected and his family began campaigning for the truth, Chinese official said they would look into the matter and try to determine if it was murder or suicide but as of yet there are no answers.

Shane Todd

Shane Truman Todd was an electrical engineer. He was working on a top-secret “one of a kind” machine for the Chinese when he turned up dead.

These are just a tiny fraction of the scientist that have died under suspicious circumstances. You can read about these and other mysterious scientist deaths by clicking here. All of these people were either leading medical experts or leading engineers. You have to ask what could they have known that would have led to their deaths? Or could it all simply be coincidence?

In a time where conspiracy is commonplace, it is increasingly difficult to differentiate between what could be a conspiracy and what is simply an unfortunate event. It is incredibly suspect why so many of these deaths are so odd. The people who were killed would have had access to sensitive information that government officials may not want disclosed.

 

Jan 112017
 
Man Furious After Cops Issue Him Ticket For Warming Up His Car In His Own Driveway

Cops Issue Man Ticket For Warming Up His Car In His Own Driveway

Apparently in parts of the USA, warming up your car in your own driveway can land you in jail, or worse. Residents across the land of the free are quickly learning how unfree they actually are as they are issued citations for everyday activities such as allowing your engine to warm up on a cold morning.

Nick Taylor, of Roseville, Michigan, has taken to social media to express his anger over police issuing him a notice of extortion (citation) for doing what millions of people every morning do across the country.

“Every person warms up their car,” Taylor said. “We live in Michigan!”

If you don’t think a citation for warming up your car will land you in jail — try not paying it. If you don’t think a citation for warming up your car can lead to your death — try resisting your captors when they come after you for nonpayment.

However, if the public were truly at risk by a car running in a driveway, this cop should have notified Taylor of it — in the interest of public safety. But that did not happen.

All tickets are enforced with the threat of violence. To deny it is to deny reality. So, when government officials begin issuing threats of violence for everyday activities such as warming up your car, it’s time to start paying attention.

“Vehicle parked in drive with keys in ignition, motor running — no one around,” the Roseville officer wrote on the ticket in a sorry attempt to justify the extortion.

The officer never attempted to knock on Taylor’s door to inform him of the asinine law, and instead issued a demand for money.

“That would have been respectful,” Taylor said. “I had no clue that this was a law, an ordinance.”

When asked by WDIV 4 why cops were stealing money from people for warming up their cars, police said the key component of the case is whether the key is in the car. Using a remote starter is OK because the key isn’t in the car. If the key is in the car, it’s a state and local violation, because somebody could take off in the car.

“You’re putting the public at risk,” Roseville Police Chief James Berlin said. “This is purely a public safety issue.”

However, if the public were truly at risk by a car running in a driveway, this cop should have notified Taylor of it — in the interest of public safety. But that did not happen.

Instead, this officer showed that revenue collection and revenue collection alone was his mission by doing nothing to stop the supposed risk.

Taylor quickly went to Facebook after receiving the citation and let his feelings be known. The idea of being extorted for warming up one’s car apparently resonated with people as it has shared more than 13,500 times as of Monday.

After seeing the post on Facebook, Chief Berlin had no problem publicly noting that he wished ill-will on Taylor.

“You see the disparaging comments he made about my officer?” Berlin said. “Drop dead.”

Taylor said he didn’t mean to call the officer a name, but noted how ridiculous the ticket was.

“Unattended car?” Taylor said. “I’ve done this every day for seven years. Every person warms up their car. We live in Michigan.”

Video below:

 
Source Matt Agorist / The Free Thought Project

Mainstream Media Falsely Spins Trump’s New York Times Climate Comments

 Political  Comments Off on Mainstream Media Falsely Spins Trump’s New York Times Climate Comments
Nov 232016
 

New York Times Trump

This is a classic example of “Fake News”. The Mainstream Media’s reporting of Trump’s interview with the New York Times says in that meeting he changed his mind on climate change. And if you read the transcripts, he didn’t. If you read the transcripts, he spoke like Trump always speaks. He didn’t commit himself to anything, and some of his answers were innocuous.

Trump actually cited ClimateGate, restated skepticism of ‘Global Warming’.

Climate Depot Analysis:

The media spin on President Elect Donald J. Trump’s sit down with the New York Times on November 22, can only be described as dishonest. Trump appears to soften stance on climate change & Donald Trump backflips on climate change & Trump on climate change in major U-turn

The ‘fake news’ that Trump had somehow moderated or changed his “global warming” views was not supported by the full transcript of the meeting.

Heartland Institute President Joe Bast had this to say about the full transcript of Trump’s meeting: “This is reassuring. The Left wants to drive wedges between Trump and his base by spinning anything he says as “retreating from campaign promises.” But expressing nuance and avoiding confrontation with determined foes who buy ink by the barrel is not retreating.” The Heartland Institute released their skeptical 2015 climate reportfeaturing 4,000 peer-reviewed articles debunking the UN IPCC claims.

Trump’s climate science view that there is “some connectivity” between humans and climate is squarely a skeptical climate view. Trump explained, “There is some, something. It depends on how much.”

Trump’s views are shared by prominent skeptical scientists. University of London professor emeritus Philip Stott has said: “The fundamental point has always been this. Climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, or variables, and the very idea that we can manage climate change predictably by understanding and manipulating at the margins one politically selected factor (CO2) is as misguided as it gets.” “It’s scientific nonsense,” Stott added. Stott is featured in new skeptical climate change documentary Climate Hustle.

Scientists at the UN climate summit in Marrakech commended Trump’s climate views. See: Skeptical scientists crash UN climate summit, praise Trump for ‘bringing science back again’

Trump also told resident NYT warmist Tom Friedman: ‘A lot of smart people disagree with you’ on climate change. (Note: Friedman has some wacky views: Flashback 2009: NYT’s Tom Friedman lauds China’s eco-policies: ‘One party can just impose politically difficult but critically important policies needed to move a society forward’)

Once again, Trump was 100% accurate as very prominent scientists are bailing out of the so-called climate “consensus.”

Renowned Princeton Physicist Freeman Dyson: ‘I’m 100% Democrat and I like Obama. But he took the wrong side on climate issue, and the Republicans took the right side’

Nobel Prize-Winning Scientist Dr. Ivar Giaever, Who Endorsed Obama Now Says Prez. is ‘Ridiculous’ & ‘Dead Wrong’ on ‘Global Warming’

Green Guru James Lovelock reverses belief in ‘global warming’: Now says ‘I’m not sure the whole thing isn’t crazy’ – Condemns green movement: ‘It’s a religion really, It’s totally unscientific’

Politically Left Scientist Dissents – Calls President Obama ‘delusional’ on global warming

Trump correctly cited the Climategate scandal: “They say they have science on one side but then they also have those horrible emails that were sent between scientists…Terrible. Where they got caught, you know, so you see that and you say, what’s this all about.” See: Watch & Read: 7th anniversary of Climategate – The UN Top Scientists Exposed

Trump cited his uncle, a skeptical MIT scientist: “My uncle was for 35 years a professor at M.I.T. He was a great engineer, scientist. He was a great guy. And he was … a long time ago, he had feelings — this was a long time ago — he had feelings on this subject.” (Yes, other MIT scientists are very skeptical as well. See: MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen Mocks 97% Consensus: ‘It is propaganda’

It is also worth noting that Trump’s often cited 2012 tweet about climate change stating “The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive,” was clearly a joke and he has said it was a joke. It is further worth noting that climate skeptics do not believe the conecpt of “climate change” was “created” by China.

And in what has been described as “fake news”, the publisher of NYT tried to sell CO2-induced storms to Trump; but Trump refused to accept the claim.

NYT’s Arthur Sulzberger: ‘We saw what these storms are now doing, right? We’ve seen it personally. Straight up.’
Trump countered: ‘We’ve had storms always, Arthur.’


Trump is accurately citing the latest climate science by noting that extreme weather is not getting worse. See: 2016 ‘State of the Climate Report’

  • The U.S. has had no Category 3 or larger hurricane make landfall since 2005 – the longest spell since the Civil War.
  • Strong F3 or larger tornadoes have been in decline since the 1970s.
  • Sea level rise rates have been steady for over a century, with recent deceleration.
  • Droughts and floods are neither historically unusual nor caused by mankind, and there is no evidence we are currently having any unusual weather.

Trump’s claim to have an “open mind” on U.S. climate policy and his comment that “I’m going to take a look at” withdrawing from the UN Paris agreement are more nuanced than his previous blunt statements that the U.S. will cancel the UN agreement. But those comments in the context of the interview are hardly a flip-flop or major signal of changing views on the issue.

(Climate Depot Note: UN Paris climate deal ‘is likely to be history’s most expensive treaty’ – ‘Cost of between $1 trillion and $2 trillion annually’

University of Pennsylvania Geologist Dr. Robert Giegengack noted in 2014, “None of the strategies that have been offered by the U.S. government or by the EPA or by anybody else has the remotest chance of altering climate if in fact climate is controlled by carbon dioxide.”

In layman’s terms: All of the so-called ‘solutions’ to global warming are purely symbolic when it comes to climate. So, even if we actually faced a climate catastrophe and we had to rely on a UN climate agreement, we would all be doomed!)

http://www.thegwpf.com/donald-trump-on-climategate-the-paris-agrement/
Donald Trump’s New York Times Interview
President-elect Donald J. Trump during a meeting at The New York Times’s offices in Manhattan on Tuesday.

[….] THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN, opinion columnist: Mr. President-elect, can I ask a question? One of the issues that you actually were very careful not to speak about during the campaign, and haven’t spoken about yet, is one very near and dear to my heart, the whole issue of climate change, the Paris agreement, how you’ll approach it. You own some of the most beautiful links golf courses in the world …

[laughter, cross talk]

TRUMP: [laughing] I read your article. Some will be even better because actually like Doral is a little bit off … so it’ll be perfect. [inaudible] He doesn’t say that. He just says that the ones that are near the water will be gone, but Doral will be in great shape. (Note: Trump’s Seawall Is About His Business, Not Global Warming – ‘Only shows Trump uses climate alarmism to benefit his business’)

FRIEDMAN: But it’s really important to me, and I think to a lot of our readers, to know where you’re going to go with this. I don’t think anyone objects to, you know, doing all forms of energy. But are you going to take America out of the world’s lead of confronting climate change?

TRUMP: I’m looking at it very closely, Tom. I’ll tell you what. I have an open mind to it. We’re going to look very carefully. It’s one issue that’s interesting because there are few things where there’s more division than climate change. You don’t tend to hear this, but there are people on the other side of that issue who are, think, don’t even …

SULZBERGER: We do hear it.

FRIEDMAN: I was on ‘Squawk Box’ with Joe Kernen this morning, so I got an earful of it.

[laughter]

TRUMP: Joe is one of them. But a lot of smart people disagree with you. I have a very open mind. And I’m going to study a lot of the things that happened on it and we’re going to look at it very carefully. But I have an open mind.

SULZBERGER: Well, since we’re living on an island, sir, I want to thank you for having an open mind. We saw what these storms are now doing, right? We’ve seen it personally. Straight up.

FRIEDMAN: But you have an open mind on this?

TRUMP: I do have an open mind. And we’ve had storms always, Arthur.

SULZBERGER: Not like this (sic!).

TRUMP: You know the hottest day ever was in 1890-something, 98. You know, you can make lots of cases for different views. I have a totally open mind. (Note: EPA Says That The Worst Heat Waves Occurred in The 1930s)
My uncle was for 35 years a professor at M.I.T. He was a great engineer, scientist. He was a great guy. And he was … a long time ago, he had feelings — this was a long time ago — he had feelings on this subject. It’s a very complex subject. I’m not sure anybody is ever going to really know. I know we have, they say they have science on one side but then they also have those horrible emails that were sent between the scientists. Where was that, in Geneva or wherever five years ago? Terrible. Where they got caught, you know, so you see that and you say, what’s this all about. I absolutely have an open mind. I will tell you this: Clean air is vitally important. Clean water, crystal clean water is vitally important. Safety is vitally important.

And you know, you mentioned a lot of the courses. I have some great, great, very successful golf courses. I’ve received so many environmental awards for the way I’ve done, you know. I’ve done a tremendous amount of work where I’ve received tremendous numbers. Sometimes I’ll say I’m actually an environmentalist and people will smile in some cases and other people that know me understand that’s true. Open mind.

JAMES BENNET, editorial page editor: When you say an open mind, you mean you’re just not sure whether human activity causes climate change? Do you think human activity is or isn’t connected?

TRUMP: I think right now … well, I think there is some connectivity. There is some, something. It depends on how much. It also depends on how much it’s going to cost our companies. You have to understand, our companies are noncompetitive right now.

They’re really largely noncompetitive. About four weeks ago, I started adding a certain little sentence into a lot of my speeches, that we’ve lost 70,000 factories since W. Bush. 70,000. When I first looked at the number, I said: ‘That must be a typo. It can’t be 70, you can’t have 70,000, you wouldn’t think you have 70,000 factories here.’ And it wasn’t a typo, it’s right. We’ve lost 70,000 factories.

We’re not a competitive nation with other nations anymore. We have to make ourselves competitive. We’re not competitive for a lot of reasons.

That’s becoming more and more of the reason. Because a lot of these countries that we do business with, they make deals with our president, or whoever, and then they don’t adhere to the deals, you know that. And it’s much less expensive for their companies to produce products. So I’m going to be studying that very hard, and I think I have a very big voice in it. And I think my voice is listened to, especially by people that don’t believe in it. And we’ll let you know.

FRIEDMAN: I’d hate to see Royal Aberdeen underwater.

TRUMP: The North Sea, that could be, that’s a good one, right?

[…]

MICHAEL D. SHEAR, White House correspondent: Mr. Trump, Mike Shear. I cover the White House, covering your administration …

TRUMP: See ya there.

[laughter]

SHEAR: Just one quick clarification on the climate change, do you intend to, as you said, pull out of the Paris Climate

TRUMP: I’m going to take a look at it.

Full interview

They are going to constantly do what they can to stir things up and try to get people to turn against him. They didn’t get their way, were made to look like fools, so now they have to sensationalize everything to get people spreading lies and hate. Which is no surprise since it is a majority of liberals who work in this industry.

And they’re counting on all of us uneducated deplorables to believe their BS
 

Smartphones And Safe Spaces

 Political  Comments Off on Smartphones And Safe Spaces
Dec 122015
 

Smartphones And Safe Spaces

Just a thought… is Smartphone addiction a contributing factor in the “Safe Space” mentality of college students? It seems more believable than Obama linking Terrorism and Global Warming.

Smartphone Addiction Making People Dumb And Dumber:

If you’re like many people, your smartphone is at your side day and night. You use it to wake you up in the morning; to call, email, text, or Instagram people all day long; to guide you to an unfamiliar location; to lull you to sleep at night with nature sounds.

Is that a problem? Are you becoming too dependent on, or even addicted to, your smartphone?

Quite possibly, several studies say, though theories abound on how best to cure the problem.

“Cellphones are so multifunctional, and every week we’re coming up with more and more uses,” said James Roberts, professor of marketing at Baylor University in Waco, Texas. “Of course, they’re highly portable; they’re always with us, in our pockets. All that positions cellphones to be highly addictive.”

Roberts and colleagues recently published a study on the topic in the Journal of Behavioral Addictions. According to their study, college students spend more than eight hours a day on average using their cellphones. Roberts said this habit has dramatically changed the behavior of students and how they communicate and relate to each other.

“Ten years ago, I would walk into a classroom and kids would be bubbling — just talking and laughing. Now, I walk in and it’s like a morgue,” he said. “Everyone is their own separate entity, doing their own thing on the cellphones. They’re together, but alone.”