Thread: Global warming data FAKED by government to fit climate change fictions

Global warming data FAKED by government to fit climate change fictions



Monday, June 23, 2014
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Tags: global warming, fabricated data, scientific fraud

(NaturalNews) When drug companies are caught faking clinical trial data, no one is surprised anymore. When vaccine manufacturers spike their human trial samples with animal antibodies to make sure their vaccines appear to work, we all just figure that's how they do business: lying, cheating, deceiving and violating the law.

Now, in what might be the largest scientific fraud ever uncovered, NASA and the NOAA have been caught red-handed altering historical temperature data to produce a "climate change narrative" that defies reality. This finding, originally documented on the Real Science website, is detailed here.

We now know that historical temperature data for the continental United States were deliberately altered by NASA and NOAA scientists in a politically-motivated attempt to rewrite history and claim global warming is causing U.S. temperatures to trend upward. The data actually show that we are in a cooling trend, not a warming trend (see charts below).

This story is starting to break worldwide right now across the media, with The Telegraph now reporting (1), "NOAA's US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been 'adjusting' its record by replacing real temperatures with data 'fabricated' by computer models."

Because the actual historical temperature record doesn't fit the frenzied, doomsday narrative of global warming being fronted today on the political stage, the data were simply altered using "computer models" and then published as fact.


Here's the proof of the climate change fraud

Here's the chart of U.S. temperatures published by NASA in 1999. It shows the highest temperatures actually occurred in the 1930's, followed by a cooling trend ramping downward to the year 2000:



The authenticity of this chart is not in question. It is published by James Hansen on NASA's website. (2) On that page, Hansen even wrote, "Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat and drought."

After the Obama administration took office, however, and started pushing the global warming narrative for political purposes, NASA was directed to alter its historical data in order to reverse the cooling trend and show a warming trend instead. This was accomplished using climate-modeling computers that simply fabricated the data the researchers wished to see instead of what was actually happening in the real world.

Using the exact same data found in the chart shown above (with a few years of additional data after 2000), NASA managed to misleadingly distort the chart to depict the appearance of global warming:



The authenticity of this chart is also not in question. It can be found right now on NASA's servers. (4)

This new, altered chart shows that historical data -- especially the severe heat and droughts experienced in the 1930's -- are now systematically suppressed to make them appear cooler than they really were. At the same time, temperature data from the 1970's to 2010 are strongly exaggerated to make them appear warmer than they really were.

This is a clear case of scientific fraud being carried out on a grand scale in order to deceive the entire world about global warming.

EPA data also confirm the global warming hoax

What's even more interesting is that even the EPA's "Heat Wave Index" data further support the notion that the U.S. was far hotter in the 1930's than it is today.

The following chart, published on the EPA.gov website (4), clearly shows modern-day heat waves are far smaller and less severe than those of the 1930's. In fact, the seemingly "extreme" heat waves of the last few years were no worse than those of the early 1900's or 1950's.



Short-sighted agricultural practices cause more global warming than CO2

Seeing these charts, you might wonder how the extremely high temperatures of the 1930's came about. Were we releasing too much CO2 by burning fossil fuels?

Nope. That entire episode of massive warming and drought was caused by conventional agricultural practices that clear-cut forests, poisoned the soils with chemicals and plowed the top soil away. Lacking trees to retain moisture, areas that were once thriving plains, grasslands and forests turned to desert. Suddenly, the cooling effects of moisture transpiration from healthy plant ecosystems was lost, causing extreme temperatures and deadly drought.

Shortsighted agricultural practices, in other words, really did cause "warming," while a restoration of a more natural ecosystem reversed the trend and cooled the region.

Reforestation is the answer

This brings us to the simple, obvious solution to all this. If you want to cool the planet, focus on reforestation efforts. If you want to retain moisture and keep your soils alive, you need diverse plant-based ecosystems, not clear-cut fields running monoculture operations.

Forests act like sponges that soak up rainwater, and then they turn around and slowly release that water back into the air, "moisturizing" the atmosphere and keeping humidity levels high enough to support other nearby grasses, shrubs and plants. When you clear-cut forests -- as has been done all across the world to make room for mechanized agriculture -- you effectively raise temperatures by eliminating nature's plant-based water retention and cooling systems.

Industrialized farming, in other words, has already been historically shown to radically increase continental temperatures and "warm" the region. So why isn't the White House warning the world about the dangers of industrialized agriculture?

The answer: Because it doesn't accomplish anything that's politically important to this administration. It's far more important to use the false panic of global warming to shut down clean coal power plants (U.S. coal plants are FAR cleaner than China's) and drive the population into a state of subservient obedience through doomsday scare tactics.

Now we conclusively know the government is lying about global warming

As an environmentalist, I'm always concerned about pollutants and emissions, especially heavy metals being dumped into the atmosphere. But I've also learned over the years that almost everything the federal government aggressively promotes to the public is a blatant lie. Rarely does anything resembling the truth ever come out of Washington D.C.

These people are experts at lying with bad science, hiding their deceptions behind the cover of "scientific thinking" and making outlandish claims such as saying that anyone who doesn't believe their fabricated data must also believe the Earth is flat. Remember, the people who are telling you that burning fossils fuels is causing runaway global warming are the very same people who also claim mercury in vaccines is safe to inject in unlimited quantities, toxins in GMOs are safe to eat, chemotherapy works great for cancer patients and that there's no such thing as any food or nutrient that prevents disease.

These are the same government people who build massive networks of underground bunkers and caves in complete secrecy while publicly claiming preppers are conspiracy theorists. It's the same government that lied about running inhumane medical experiments on prisoners via the National Institutes of Health, then got caught and had to apologize decades later.

If you think this same government is telling you the truth about global warming, you probably need to have your head examined. But not by a government-licensed psychiatrist, or she'll dose your head full of psychiatric medications that cause you to lose so much of your cognitive function, you'll actually start to believe CNN's broadcasts.

Sources for this article include:
(1) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment...

(2) http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/han...

(3) http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/...

(4) http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/ind...

(5) http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/2...




http://www.naturalnews.com/045695_gl...fic_fraud.html

NOAA/NASA Dramatically Altered US Temperatures After The Year 2000

Posted on June 23, 2014 by stevengoddard

Prior to the year 2000, NASA showed US temperatures cooling since the 1930′s, and 1934 much warmer than 1998.

NASA GISS: Science Briefs: Whither U.S. Climate?

NASA’s top climatologist said that the US had been cooling

Whither U.S. Climate?

By James Hansen, Reto Ruedy, Jay Glascoe and Makiko Sato — August 1999

Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat and drought.

in the U.S. there has been little temperature change in the past 50 years, the time of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases — in fact, there was a slight cooling throughout much of the country

NASA GISS: Science Briefs: Whither U.S. Climate?

NOAA and CRU also reported no warming in the US during the century prior to 1989.

February 04, 1989
Last week, scientists from the United States Commerce Department’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said that a study of temperature readings for the contiguous 48 states over the last century showed there had been no significant change in average temperature over that period. Dr. (Phil) Jones said in a telephone interview today that his own results for the 48 states agreed with those findings.

New York Times

Right after the year 2000, NASA and NOAA dramatically altered US climate history, making the past much colder and the present much warmer. The animation below shows how NASA cooled 1934 and warmed 1998, to make 1998 the hottest year in US history instead of 1934. This alteration turned a long term cooling trend since 1930 into a warming trend.

Fig.D.gif (525×438)

But NASA and NOAA have a little problem. The EPA still shows that heatwaves during the 1930s were by far the worst in US temperature record.

Heat waves in the 1930s remain the most severe heat waves in the U.S. historical record (see Figure 1).

High and Low Temperatures | Climate Change | US EPA

George Orwell explained how this worked.

“He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.”
― George Orwell, 1984

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2...the-year-2000/

Obama’s War On American Coal Reveals Our Manchurian President

June 25, 2014 by John Myers

PHOTOS.COM

“This isn’t an election; this is a coup.” — Ben Marco, as portrayed by Denzel Washington, in “The Manchurian Candidate”
President Barack Obama is with one hand kneecapping domestic coal production and with the other hand forming an alliance with Iran, America’s most dangerous adversary in the Mideast and a country that covets nuclear weapons and Mideast domination. Yet Obama and Iran’s Ayatollah are working together in partnership to stabilize the Shiite government of Iraq, which, if they are successful, will secure crude oil from that region and re-establish Tehran’s dominance.
Presidents have been making deals with Mideast dictators for decades, so in itself there may be nothing wrong with Obama’s actions. It seems so clearly wrong that as Obama orders military advisers back into Iraq and prepares airstrikes, his Administration is issuing proclamations against domestic coal producers, which harvest America’s richest energy resource and provide tens of thousands of jobs that are desperately needed.
If one didn’t know better, one might think this is all part of our President’s plan to cripple U.S. energy independence, a plan to leave America in critical need of Mideast influence and crude.

King Coal Cut Down By Obama

Coal provides America with 70 percent of its electricity. You might think that coal would be valued by Obama because it provides so many well-paying jobs and that it would be the natural energy source for electricity to charge electric cars. (What never seems to compute to so many of the idiot Greens is that there has to be a basis for the charge for the electric car and that electricity, like everything else, isn’t free.)
The United States is the Saudi Arabia of coal, with 1,000 years of coal reserves. Coal can generate the power for all things, even the grand ambition of Obama and the Greens for a million electric cars by the end of the decade. But electric cars need to be charged, and the only energy that is readily available is coal.
I recently watched Bill Maher earlier this month after the Obama Administration’s Environmental Protection Agency announced what it calls the “Clean Power Program,” as well as new regulations planned against coal generators. Maher’s guest was EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy.


MAHER: “Last week [the EPA] announced, I think it was called the ‘Clean Power Program.’ Some people called it a war on coal. I hope it is a war on coal. Is it?”
McCARTHY: “Actually, EPA is all about fighting against pollution and fighting for public health. That’s exactly what this is.”
So, yes, Team Obama is going to war against American coal, while establishing militarily and diplomatic ties with Iran to combat the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).
Coal power plants must bend to new rules by the EPA. There is a four-month comment period on the dictates that impact coal, coal jobs and coal States. Of course, the Greens have wasted no time weighing in, telling Obama that slamming dirty coal is something they support.
Not all Americans agree the Obama Administration has tried to tiptoe around the fact McCarthy declared a war on coal for her President. And an op-ed penned by Senators John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) and Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) and published by The Wall Street Journal pointed out that not all Americans are ready to jump on board with regard to Obama’s war on coal.
The “announcement [about the proposed power plant rules] is a dagger in the heart of the American middle class, and to representative Democracy itself,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY).
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce also weighed in on coal power plant restrictions, saying, “An avalanche of environmental regulations has made it increasingly difficult to build and develop in the United States.”
An independent study by IHS Global concludes the new rules threaten to suppress average annual U.S. gross domestic product by $51 billion and lead to an average of 224,000 fewer U.S. jobs every year through 2030.
Other studies on coal restrictions have predicted that as many as half a million jobs will be lost. Include the tens of thousands of jobs that America will lose when Obama says no to the Keystone Pipeline, and America is looking at the loss of nearly 1 million high-paying jobs, all to prevent what is still a theory of man-made global warming.

America’s Real Enemy

There should be the bigger question: Where is America going to get affordable energy if domestic coal faces restrictions and Alberta oil sands are blocked? The truth is America will be forced to meet its energy needs from the Persian Gulf, that bleak desert that spawned Islam and, likely, Obama’s prophet, Muhammad.
Never mind that it is the worst region in the world to count on for anything other than tribal war and genocide. Remember, in the 1970s the Mideast instituted two oil embargos against the United States. The Mideast founded OPEC to bleed as much money from the West as possible for crude. And the Mideast is and has been for 50 years a breeding ground for terrorists that want desperately to kill Americans, Jews and each other.
Greens, pay attention: If global warming really does exist and if hydrocarbons are part of the reason why it exists, then Mideast crude is also at the heart of your fixation over carbon dioxide. When you get a barrel of oil stamped “Mideast Crude,” it doesn’t mean it burns clean.
Factor in all the carbon and other toxic pollutants created by America’s intervention in this region; it is likely they are more harmful to the global environment than coal that is currently burned in North America. Let’s not forget that for nearly a decade the U.S. used depleted uranium in Iraq and Afghanistan both in ammunition and armor. If the environmentalist’s true goal is to protect human and animal life, here is a suggestion: Have your President stop using it in his arsenal.
According to Wikipedia, the chemical toxicity of depleted uranium is a million times greater than its radiological hazard. Other chemicals being used by America’s military are not doing “Mother Earth” any good either.
Yet I expect nary a complaint about depleted uranium or any of the chemical weapons used as more Mideast wars are prosecuted to secure future “dirty” Arab oil. Nor will there be a mention of the lost lives of young Americans who died not to fight a clear and present danger to the United States but because their war is one fought for a Green President who is aiming to hamstring America’s future while engineering a renaissance for Islam. So please tell me: Who is America’s real enemy?

Yours in good times and bad,
–John Myers

http://personalliberty.com/obamas-wa...ian-president/