Climate Change IQ Question 8: Are government-sponsored climate scientists the only credible sources of information relating to climate-change policy?

Answer: No, and government agencies are actually guilty of corrupting the data.

The constant repetition of the mantra that were having “the hottest two decades in recorded history,” as by self-anointed authorities such as “Bill Nye, the Science Guy,” relies on data from government agencies, NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) and NOAA (National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration). These agencies, however, rewrite history by “adjusting” data, consistently making the past cooler and the present warmer. The “adjustments” correlate almost perfectly with the rise in atmospheric CO_2,, fitting the data to the theory. The graph below superimposes the surface temperatures, ostensibly based on the same data set, published by NASA in 1981, 2001, and 2017. [1]

Even worse, “the bulk of the data tampering is being done by simply making temperatures up. If NOAA is missing data for a particular station in a particular month, they use a computer model to calculate what they think the temperature should have been. In 1980 about 10% of the data was fake, but now almost half…is fake.” [1] The most spectacularly fraudulent assertion, shown in an animation, is to claim record heat in areas of the world for which there is no data. While every record high may be trumpeted on the news, the frequency and area covered by hot summer afternoons in the U.S. has plummeted over the past 80 years and is now near record lows. [2]

Much has been published about an 18-year “global warming pause” or hiatus, shown by satellite temperature records, which would contradict the climate models. Some 30 explanations were contrived, e.g. that the heat was hiding in the deep ocean. Now the tactic is apparently not to try to explain or deny the hiatus, but simply to assert the opposite.

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is forming a “red team” to assess climate science. As described in a hardly unbiased manner by science reporter Scott Waldman, it’s an “attempt to poke holes in the mainstream climate science.” He launches an ad-hominem attack on possible members: [3] Some might be “quite elderly,” or “advocates,” or “self-funded hobbyists.” One authored a book mentioned by an energy company in an ad, and some might at one time have received a grant from “energy companies with a direct interest in weakening science” that supports the prevailing CO₂ narrative. Waldman ignores the exhaustively documented report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change.

For those who oppose a rigorous scientific debate, a “credible” scientist is apparently now defined as one who is dependent on government grants, is widely published in literature that is heavily biased toward the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) model, has never expressed an opinion contrary to the CO₂-based hypothesis, and has a Ph.D. in the new UN IPCC-related “climate science” as opposed to a traditional technical discipline such as physics or engineering.

Take-home lessons:

• The witches in Shakespeare’s Macbeth were engaged in “weather cooking,” to influence the course of events. NASA and NOAA engage in data cooking, also for a political purpose.
• By definition, legitimate “climate scientists” are only those who accept the preconceived notion that anthropogenic CO₂ emissions are causing or will cause catastrophic climate change, and are acceptable to NASA, NOAA, and other “peers.”
• As the Soviets said, “We know what’s happening now. It’s the past that keeps changing.”
• “Evidence-based” now means “expert-based,” as self-appointed authorities decide what is and what is not evidence. 

References: 

1. Realclimatescience.com. History of NASA/NOAA temperature corruption. Available at: https://realclimatescience.com/history-of-nasanoaa-temperature-corruption/.
2. Heller T. The wildly fraudulent NOAA climate extremes index, Oct 27, 2017. Available at: https://realclimatescience.com/2017/10/the-wildly-fraudulent-noaa-climate-extremes-index/.
3. Waldman S. Picking ‘red team’ roster presents minefields for Pruitt. Climatewire, Oct 26, 2017.

Printable PDF of Question 8: https://goo.gl/YMmNU1