Thread: The scandal of fiddled global warming data - The US has been cooling since the 30's

CFACT

Is it ethical for a warming researcher to put their thumb on the scale?
'When future generations try to understand how the world got carried away around the end of the 20th century by the panic over global warming, few things will amaze them more than the part played in stoking up the scare by the fiddling of official temperature data.'

Share the facts at the Daily Telegraph and at CFACT's Climate Depot: http://www.climatedepot.com/

'NOAA’s US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been “adjusting” its record by replacing real temperatures with data “fabricated” by computer models. The effect of this has been to downgrade earlier temperatures and to exaggerate those from recent decades, to give the impression that the Earth has been warming up much more than is justified by the actual data.'
' Any theory needing to rely so consistently on fudging the evidence... must be looked on not as science at all, but as simply a rather alarming case study in the aberrations of group psychology.'



The scandal of fiddled global warming data - Telegraph

The US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record
Telegraph.co.uk

The scandal of fiddled global warming data

The US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record
A scene from 'The Day After Tomorrow': in reality, officially approved scientists fudge the data
By Christopher Booker

4:04PM BST 21 Jun 2014
6536 Comments

When future generations try to understand how the world got carried away around the end of the 20th century by the panic over global warming, few things will amaze them more than the part played in stoking up the scare by the fiddling of official temperature data. There was already much evidence of this seven years ago, when I was writing my history of the scare, The Real Global Warming Disaster. But now another damning example has been uncovered by Steven Goddard’s US blog Real Science, showing how shamelessly manipulated has been one of the world’s most influential climate records, the graph of US surface temperature records published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Goddard shows how, in recent years, NOAA’s US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been “adjusting” its record by replacing real temperatures with data “fabricated” by computer models. The effect of this has been to downgrade earlier temperatures and to exaggerate those from recent decades, to give the impression that the Earth has been warming up much more than is justified by the actual data. In several posts headed “Data tampering at USHCN/GISS”, Goddard compares the currently published temperature graphs with those based only on temperatures measured at the time. These show that the US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record; whereas the latest graph, nearly half of it based on “fabricated” data, shows it to have been warming at a rate equivalent to more than 3 degrees centigrade per century.

When I first began examining the global-warming scare, I found nothing more puzzling than the way officially approved scientists kept on being shown to have finagled their data, as in that ludicrous “hockey stick” graph, pretending to prove that the world had suddenly become much hotter than at any time in 1,000 years. Any theory needing to rely so consistently on fudging the evidence, I concluded, must be looked on not as science at all, but as simply a rather alarming case study in the aberrations of group psychology.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/env...ming-data.html

CFACT

Breaking: Supreme court issues mixed ruling partially rolling back EPA's emissions regulations and partially letting them stand.

Share CFACT's legal briefs to the Supreme Court: http://www.cfact.org/?s=%22Supreme+Court%22

What will it take to ultimately restore sanity to environmental law and regulation?

By the way, that's steam in the photo Reuters posted. CO2 is odorless and colorless and particulates are controlled by solutions already in place. Photographing steam in shadow is a standard trick in the global warming propaganda playbook.



U.S. top court cuts back climate change regulation | Reuters
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday issued a mixed...
Reuters UK

U.S. Supreme Court cuts back climate change regulation

By Lawrence Hurley
WASHINGTON Mon Jun 23, 2014 3:30pm BST
0 Comments

Smoke is released into the sky at the ConocoPhillips oil refinery in San Pedro, California March 24, 2012. Picture taken March 24, 2012.
Credit: Reuters/Bret Hartman

(Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday issued a mixed ruling on a challenge to part of President Barack Obama’s greenhouse gas regulations by exempting a small proportion of facilities from a federal air pollution program while allowing most major pollution sources, including power plants and refineries, to be included.
The court was divided in several different ways in what was a relatively narrow case concerning a challenge by industry groups and Republican-leaning states to one aspect of a suite of rules issued by Obama's Democratic administration in 2009 and 2010.
On a 7-2 vote, the justices rejected the industry-backed argument that pollution sources cannot be regulated for greenhouse gases under the "prevention of serious deterioration" or PSD program. The program requires any new or modified major polluting facility to obtain a permit before any new construction is done if it emits "any air pollutant."
But industry could claim a partial win because the court said on a separate 5-4 vote that some facilities the government had wanted to regulate will be exempted.
According to the American Chemistry Council, one of the challengers, 83 percent of greenhouse gas emissions that could potentially be regulated under the Environmental Protection Agency's interpretation of the law would still be covered as a result of the ruling, compared with the 86 percent of emissions that the EPA says it wants to regulate.
Under the program, the operators have to show they are using the best technology available to reduce emissions of the covered pollutants. More than 300 facilities have already applied for permits.
The Supreme Court decision does not affect the Obama administration’s ability to set air pollution standards for greenhouse gases under a separate provision of the Clean Air Act. On June 2, the White House announced proposed rules calling for 30 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants, including coal-fired facilities.


(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Howard Goller and Grant McCool)

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/0...0EY1L920140623

Freedom Outpost

Supreme Court Strikes Down First Phase Of Obama’s Global Warming Agenda http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/06/su...arming-agenda/



Supreme Court Strikes Down First Phase Of Obama’s Global Warming Agenda

Michael Bastasch 2 hours ago
0 Comments

The Supreme Court struck down the Environmental Protection Agency's carbon dioxide permitting scheme for power plants and other large facilities, saying the agency exceeded its authority under the Clean Air Act.

The EPA has been requiring facilities emitting more than 100,000 tons of carbon dioxide per year to get permits. The agency, however, had to "tailor" the rule to accommodate regulating carbon dioxide emitting facilities under the Clean Air Act.
"We hold that EPA exceeded its statutory authority when it interpreted the Clean Air Act to require… permitting for stationary sources based on their greenhouse-gas emissions," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the majority opinion.
"Specifically, the Agency may not treat greenhouse gases as a pollutant for purposes of defining a 'major emitting facility' … in the [permitting] context or a 'major source'" Scalia wrote. "To the extent its regulations purport to do so, they are invalid."
The decision was welcomed by power companies as well as the oil and gas industry because the rules also extended to refineries and other large manufacturing facilities.
"Today's decision will help to ensure that permitting requirements fall within the authority granted by Congress," said Harry Ng, vice president and general counsel at the American Petroleum Institute.
"It is a stark reminder that the EPA's power is not unlimited. Any new rules should be designed to complement – not strangle – the manufacturing renaissance America is experiencing thanks to new energy production," Ng said in a statement.
The Supreme Court's decision, however, does not affect upcoming regulations limiting carbon dioxide emissions on new and existing power plants. EPA regulations on existing power plants aim to cut carbon emissions 30 percent by 2030.

Emissions limits on new and existing power plants would force the retirement of 19 percent of the U.S. coal plant fleet and cut coal production by up to 28 percent, according to the EPA's own analysis.
"Under the provisions of this rule, EPA projects that approximately 46 to 49 GW of additional coal-fired generation (about 19% of all coal-fired capacity and 4.6% of total generation capacity in 2020) may be removed from operation by 2020," the EPA said in its regulatory impact analysis.
The EPA's power plant rule, couples with other power plant rules, is projected to raise electricity prices 10 percent by 2020, according to an analysis by the American Action Forum. Consumers could pay $150 more each year for electricity due to Obama administration regulations.
The Supreme Court's ruling also does not strike down the EPA's ability to require industrial facilities and power plants to get permits for emitting traditional pollutants already being regulated by the agency.
"EPA is getting almost everything it wanted in this case," wrote Scalia, adding that the EPA will be able to regulate 83 percent of carbon dioxide emissions under the court's ruling — close to the EPA's goal of regulating 86 percent of carbon emissions.

Source

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.

You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.

http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/06/su...arming-agenda/