Breaking: New Climate Data Rigging Scandal Rocks US Government

Written by John O'Sullivan

A newly-uncovered and monumental calculating error in official US government climate data shows beyond doubt that climate scientists unjustifiably added on a whopping one degree of phantom warming to the official “raw” temperature record.  Skeptics believe the discovery may trigger the biggest of all “climate con” scandals in Congress and sound the death knell on American climate policy.

Independent data analyst, Steven Goddard, today (January 19, 2014) released his telling study of the officially adjusted and “homogenized” US temperature records relied upon by NASA, NOAA, USHCN and scientists around the world to “prove” our climate has been warming dangerously.

Goddard reports, “I spent the evening comparing graphs…and hit the NOAA motherlode.” His diligent research exposed the real reason why there is a startling disparity between the “raw” thermometer readings, as reported by measuring stations, and the “adjusted” temperatures, those that appear in official charts and government reports. In effect, the adjustments to the “raw” thermometer measurements made by the climate scientists “turns a 90 year cooling trend into a warming trend,” says the astonished Goddard.

Goddard’s plain-as-day evidence not only proves the officially-claimed one-degree increase in temperatures is entirely fictitious, it also discredits the reliability of any assertion by such agencies to possess a reliable and robust temperature record.

Goddard continues: “I discovered a huge error in their adjustments between V1 and V2. This is their current US graph. Note that there is a discontinuity at 1998, which doesn’t look right. Globally, temperatures plummeted in 1999, but they didn’t in the US graph.”

ScreenHunter_64 Jan. 19 00.08

Climate at a Glance | Time Series

It doesn’t look right, because they made a gigantic error (possibly intentional) going from USHCN V1 to V2. In V1 they adjusted recent temperatures upwards (thin line below) and made no adjustment to older temperatures.

ScreenHunter_48 Jan. 18 18.14

GHCN Global Gridded Data

“But when they switched to V2, they started adjusting older temperatures downwards, and left post-2000 temperatures more or less intact, ” says Goddard. This created a huge jump (greater than one degree) downwards for all years prior to 2000. You can see what they did in the animation below.

Blue line is thermometer data.  Thin red line is V1 adjusted. Thick red line is V2 adjusted. They created more than 1 degree warming by reversing polarity of the adjustment in the pre-2000 years. This created a double downwards adjustment for the pre-1998 years, relative to the post 1998 years.

 

NOAA made a big deal about 2012 blowing away all temperature records, but the temperature they reported is the result of a huge error. This affects all NOAA and NASA US temperature graphs, and is part of the cause of this famous shift.

According to USHCN 1 docs, the total adjustment is supposed to be about 0.5F, and upwards.

ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_urb-raw_pg

ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_urb-raw_pg.gif (650×502)

But in USHCN2, the adjustments are much larger, and downwards. The USHCN2 adjustments are supposed to be approximately the same adjustments as USHCN1.

Here is an animation of the complete set of USHCN adjustments, which turn a 90 year cooling trend into a warming trend.

Visualizing How USHCN Hides The Decline In US Temperatures | Real Science

 

But does this evidence prove an intentional fraud? Goddard certainly thinks it possible and only a full examination of all the files will show that, one way or the other. Goddard wants backing from others to compel the Administration to come clean on this massive story, using Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) rules. The ramifications are that hundreds of bilions of tax dollars have been misallocated to “solve” a non-problem, all due to willful malfeasance and/or incompetence in data handling.

Judging by recent history, the bureaucrats should be worried. Just last month (December, 2013), John Beale, the senior EPA policy advisor, was convicted and jailed for defrauding taxpayers out of $1 million in salaries and expenses.  Does a culture of corruption extend throughout departments associated with climate policy? The public will certainly demand their right to know whether they have been deliberately and systemically lied to.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Trackback from your site.

Comments (138)

  • Al Gore - Page 9

    |

    […] | Dana Nuccitelli | Environment | The Guardian No it is government scientists manipulating data Breaking: New Climate Data Rigging Scandal Rocks US Government – Principia Scientific Intl The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever – Telegraph More Countries […]

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JvdHeijden

    |

    “We continuously dig into the earth and extract coal, oil, natural gas and burn it for our cars, our homes, our corporations and think this has possibly no effect on our planet’s climate?”

    Well Hans, There is what you believe in , and there is science.In the early 20C it was inconceivable that there was an absolute speed limit for all mass, faster you travelled the longer you lived.That space was distorted by mass etc etc.We humans dream all kinds of theories and behaviour based on what we “beleive” must be so.
    It is not as simple as your belief that burning fossil fuel is having a disasterous effect on the Earths climate. It may well have some effect, but we need to know how much. There are many other factors which can change the climate – many of which have happen well before we started burning fossil fuels.The theory ( and I guess the basis of your belief)is that rising levels of CO2 ( being a greenhouse gas) will cuase the planet to heat up somehow.We need to know by how much before we start implimenting policies that may well have no effect at all. Co2 is a very minor gase in terms of its greenhouse contribution and all greenhouse gases play a part in both heating and cooling of the planet.When it comes to measuring the effect of man made CO2 emmissions on the earths temperature it is well nigh impossible to do that over a very short time period using Earth based temperature measurements and wide open tomis interpretation and data rigging in favour of the contemporay scientific consensus. The science we are pursuing now is largely junk science.We know it is because it has catastrophically failed to produced any reliable predictions. Furthermore the ONLY source of heat enegery capable of raising temperatures on earth is the bright thing in the sky – the un – which itself is very unpredictable in terms of both its cyclic heat output and its cosmic influence on the climate by coronal mass ejection.Our science needs to work at the macroscopic scale observed from space not on a microscopic scale using temperature measurement here on earth.We have to concentrate on the thermodynamics in terms of heat flow which is both very difficult, also still requiring a long time scale to map the heat energy in and out of planet earth.
    It seems to be part of the human psychology to have mae culpa or guilt when we see iniquality or perceived damage and that is the basis of your logic. Unfortunately science does not always follow human logic. So instead of calling those that challenge climate science stupid ,is it not better to do the really hard science and have the irrefutable proof rather than run around like headless chickens making stupid punitive taxation policies based on what you “beleive”, which will have the only effect of rewarding the rich and punishing the poor. We have to focus on solving the worlds demand on energy resources and stop wasting it on junk climate science.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Hans

    |

    I don’t understand how much more simple it can get. We have over 7 billion people inhabiting the earth. We continuously dig into the earth and extract coal, oil, natural gas and burn it for our cars, our homes, our corporations and think this has possibly no effect on our planet’s climate? “Show me the proof” What a bunch of idiots.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Mack

      |

      …”corporations”
      Oh yeah those evil corporations are at it again changing the climate. Hammer and sickle head Hans has drunk the koolaid.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    doug nusbaum

    |

    Reminds me of What Mary McArthy said of about Lillian Hellman Every word she writes is a lie including the words ‘and’ and ‘the’. At least Ms. Hellman did not lie about her Name was not a lie — Right Mr. HJeller?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    David Gale

    |

    Pardon my obvious ignorance on the science but how much additional CO2 would be needed to replenish the rain forests?

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Pat Obar

      |

      [quote name=”David Gale”]Pardon my obvious ignorance on the science but how much additional CO2 would be needed to replenish the rain forests?[/quote]

      None! Just stop cutting for fuel or crops. Rainforests are much more skilful at governance than earthlings can ever become!

      Reply

    • Avatar

      JvdHeijden

      |

      No need to pardon yoursself David.Science has to explain itself, using ratified proof, both to the scientist AND to those that ask questions of it. Untill we have done the proper science which can acurrately model the energy budget ( ie heat flow onto planet Earth vs heat flow out of planet Earth) we will tie oursevles up in knots using focused argument based on the Greenhouse gases. These gases play a part in both heating AND cooling the planet. From what I observe as an engieer climatogolists understand very little about thermo dynamics and are far too wrapped up in modelling te climate on historical data sets. That is simply never going to produce a valid model because the process of absorbsion and radiation from a non ideal black body ( ie the Earth)is highly complexed and chaotic.
      Unfortunately all we have at the moment is consensus of scientific opinion – that is NOT and never will be any thing to do with the established science we desperately need to understand the Earths natural heating and cooling cycles. Unfortunately also, that some people have mis understood how little we really know about the thermodynamics of the earth’s climate stability and used it to create human climate policies for which there is no factual foundation ( headless chickens)

      Reply

  • Avatar

    JvdHeijden

    |

    @DB -“You better hope that your employer does not see this or you will find yourself without a job.
    If what you said were true then earths temperatures would have tracked solar output”
    I have no concerns about my employment. I have simply asked you to use your brain and think about what you read and understand about climate change – science is always open to challenge – and it is not for a scientist to impose his opinions on others as being correct untill they can provide the irrefutible, independently reproducable evidence.
    Clearly you did not bother with learning or understanding anything about Thermodynamics.
    1)The temperature of a
    To know if the eaths temperature is rising or falling it is something that can only be studied at the macro scopic scale. A body in isolated space ( Earth) is simply dependent on the radiate Heat energy input vs Heat emitted energy output – being enrgy,they are time dependent quantities. The rate of heat loss ie radiation from the earth is a complexed quantity to calcuate as it is highly dependent on the Earths temperature which is a function of the heat transfer processes going on within the climate and the mass of the Earths constituents ( air water and rock basically).
    2)As I pointed out to you,The Earths temperature would only directly follow the radiant heat output of the sun if absorbsion/ radiation was based on a simple single function ie that the Earth is a perfect black body – It is NOT. The earths temperature is ultimately driven by the suns output – no matter what amount of insulation the level of Greenhouse gas is present as it is the only source of radiant energy available to do that. The Greenhouse effect is NOT a perfect one way ( ie Heat in – no heat out) insulator.Co2, the single one component we are suppose to be so worried about ,like any other greenhouse gas, radadiates in all directions – 50% say must go back into space, so the Earth will at some stage give up its heat through radiation back into space as its temperature rises.Due to the vast thermal mases involved, there is a huge time constant in transfering heat at the surface into the components that store and re- radiate heat( Oceans Rock, water vapour, Co2 Methane etce ).Re radiation is dependent on cloud cover and many other gasious components in the atmosphere that allow/ disallow heat to emitted from the planet.That is why we do not see the direct graphical relationship that you niavely expect in a graph that only covers 30 years!!. We are ( were!!) seeing a period of positive integration where global surface temperature was rising ( you will note it actually stopped rising some 12 years ago!!) The problem that posses for a niave theory that is based upon “increase green house gas means higher temperature on earth” may not be true at all in the longer term because we are simply looking at a “frightning” detail with a magnifying glass, and conveniently ignoring the big picture – to create policy which has no real scientific basis for concern.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    douglas nusbaum

    |

    [quote name=”CarbonDisclosureProject”]The global warming scam is known as the Carbon Disclosure Project run out of London and its last estimated worth is 87 trillion dollars. It’s all a carbon tax.[/quote]

    Jews run the banmks. Jews are overly represented in the sciences especially the hard sciences, and especially in nobel prizes. Jews control the media. Just another Jewish conspiracy We are so good at it. :-)

    Reply

  • Avatar

    douglas nusbaum

    |

    [quote]
    So, Nowhere did I claim to be a scientist – I am an engineer who uses science.
    If you understood anything about thermodynamios and what I said about the greehouse effect I said that the temperature on Earth can only follow the heat output of the Sun since it is the only driving energy source available.
    Now go away, study some science and make sure you understand it before making ridiculous comments.[/quote]

    You better hope that your employer does not see this or you will find yourself without a job.
    If what you said were true then earths temperatures would have tracked solar output
    Here is a picture showing that either 1. it does not, or two there is a vast conspiracy going on http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/images/science/SunsEnergyTemp.jpg
    According to your theory, a box in front of a bright light would reach the same temperature whether or not it was insulated. You are right about not being a scientist, or having much understanding of it.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Squid2112

      |

      Ah, but the “filament” (the actual source of the heat) would [b]NOT[/b]!

      In fact, you can easily test this yourself. Simply take a light bulb and screw it into your deep freezer light outlet. Allow the freezer (and bulb) to come to thermal equilibrium. Open the freezer door and measure the color of the light from the bulb.

      Now, take the very same light bulb and screw it into your oven light outlet. Turn your oven to maximum temperature. Allow your oven to come to maximum thermal equilibrium and again, measure the color of the light from your light bulb.

      VOILA! … the color will be [b]EXACTLY[/b] the same! … Why? .. because the bulb filament (the source of the heat) is [b]EXACTLY the same temperature[/b]!

      [b]An object cannot make itself hotter[/b]! And the cooler surroundings cannot make it hotter either. In other words, No Virginia, a cooler object CANNOT, [b]in no uncertain terms[/b], make a warmer object warmer still.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    JvdHeijden

    |

    @cws
    Agree with you,anyone with half a brain cell knows that the policys behind AGW are not backed up with any ratified science whatsoever. It has been politically expedient to blame human CO2 emissions for changes in the global temperatures :- as a means to raise revenue for governments, to create new markets and to control energy supply development.We are still comming out of an ice age, there is no scientific evidence that we will cause a meltdown through CO2 emissions.Even so it, is a very convenient ideology for governments and corporations to promote – a fear factor to justify taxation to fund alternative energy schemes, creating new markets in technologies which are supposed to solve our problems and protect the environment.They do niether and none have a hope of meeting our energy demands in the future. We only have the opinion of scientists and their sacred “peer review” – none of which is established science until irrefutible real evidence is presented( not based on modelling which at the very least needs to be independently audited ). Evidence which can be reproduced from new indepentendly audited / verified, data sets and yields valid predictions for climate change, directly linked to human activity. Well all remember the cold fusion scam claimed by a qualified respected scientist, which fell apart once it was independently scrutinised. Independent scrutinisation of data sets and computer modelling used in climate science needs the same kind of public investment as the research itself – and it is not happening.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    cws

    |

    What I don’t understand is why so many scream we are all going to burn up in X number of years but do nothing to stop it.

    The little Ice Age caused by volcanic activity and limited or no sun spots cooled the planet causing it to snow in the summer one year.

    There were no man made industries during that time period. So if the planet can change temps due to nature, why has none of the taxation climate hawks not suggested using volcanic activity to cool the planet now? It is historical documentation that it did cool the planet so if we are REALLY all going to burn up, this seems a logical short term choice and one of the reasons I doubt the science behind this tax scam.

    Research Organizations are funded by the Government who is looking for a new tax source so this man made crisis is a win win scenario for grant requesting organizations who need government funding and the governments who are investing in those organizations who can frighten the unwashed masses into believing that taxes on industry will fix this supposed issue.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Bob Lee

    |

    I check the weather for Mojave, CA at NOAA daily, for the last two weeks they have showed results of at least 10 degrees above the actual temps. This morning at 6 AM it is 62 degrees yet they report 72. I decided to do a search and find out what in the world is going on, it is obvious that their results are flat out lies. I will never use NOAA again. I don’t care what any one thinks, I’m here and see the truth for myself.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Jvd heijden

    |

    @doglas nusbaum.
    It is vital to seperate science from belief, when forming policies which have the capability of severely disruoting everthing we have achieved in civilisation – whether climate change is human driven or not.
    To address your reply to :- “Second, you are really claiming that if you put a constant heat source, say an electric light bulb into a sealed box, wait until the box reaches thermal equilibrium and then cover the box with a blanket that the inside of the box will not not go to a higher temperature and remain at that higher temperature?”
    What you say is correct – and according to the 2nd law of TD, the equilibrium temperature is depended on how good the insulation is – if it is perfect then the temperature inside the box will eventually rise to that of the filiament – because no heat can escape. As I said the greehouse effect is by no means perfect one could assume that since molecule C02 re-radiates infra red isotropically, only 50% of the absorbed heat is directed back downwards towards earth, causing it to rise in temperature. If the system is taken as a whole and approximated as a black body,the heat radiated back into space follows an aproximation of the Plank( freqency)Stefan – Boltzmann law (power)and is dependent upon the 4 power of its temperature above absolute zero. For radiant heat transfer back into space through gasious emmitters the time constants can be very long which therefor makes it difficult to determine or model the heat flow from the driving source(Sun)back into space. Your example of 100 years may not even come near providing support for your claim
    So it is not a simple as you claim in a lossy system with an imperfect reflector.
    What the science must show is that the temperature of the earth is rising due to human activity.The data sets and computer models we have are by no means adequate to show that the changes in climate we observe today have any relevance whatsoever, in terms of the longer term variance caused by the only major driving energy ie output from the Sun or for that matter any other cosnic radiation impinging on the earths upper atmosphere.
    Now ask yourself why climate change policy has ben so rapidly put into place – when many good scientists admit – “we simply do not know if mankind is significantly influencing theclimate” and not saying “we are 95% certain” – as that is NOT science

    Reply

  • Avatar

    doug nusbaum

    |

    [quote name=”JvdHeijden”]@ douglas nusbaum
    You are like so many who write about climate change without any understanding of fundamental scientific principle. The first rule is to read and then [b]comprehend[/b] what is said . Regarding my spelling (typo’s mainly due to the poor performance of tc/ip), since when has spelling had anything to do with a individuals expertise in a subject!!?).
    So, Nowhere did I claim to be a scientist – I am an engineer who uses science.
    If you understood anything about thermodynamios and what I said about the greehouse effect I said that the temperature on Earth can only follow the heat output of the Sun since it is the only driving energy source available.
    Now go away, study some science and make sure you understand it before making ridiculous comments.[/quote]

    Yep. And the suns radiative output has been constant or going down over the past 100 or so years. But the temperature has been going up. Perhaps you do not accept this bit of information, which only indicates, as I posted earlier, that you less able to learn from your environment than trees, forrests, and single celled organisms living in the sea.

    engineers are careful, and proof their work. You obviously do not do that. And you failed to address my other answer to your statement about a driving energy source. If you increase the insullation / block radiative loss then the body inquestion must get warmer to loose the same amount of heat coming in. An actual engineer would be aware of that.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Jvd heijden

    |

    @ Juel d.
    No climate change does not have to be a conspiracy at all – morelike the element of irrational human stupidity that drives unwarranted reactions.This has come about because the “concept” or belief that the human race is somehow responsible for and is capable of correcting or preventing climate change!! This new ideology has made a great oportunity to create more business in an evolving world economy and opinion about our limited resources. I think your comment is somewhat niave both on the science and the politics on climate change:-
    1) Science -Peer reviewed science is NOT established science – established science has been quite different from the opinions of scientists and research of the day.It takes many years of observation and cross examination of hard evidence before all the elements of research can be shown to fit irrefutably with what has already been established. Thermodynamics is one of the most powerful and successful establish science we have to discribe the behaviour of the known universe.To date there is NO established science to show that changes of the climate are significantly affected by human activity.
    2) Politics – How is it that we have revenue generating policies already in place before the science is established? Follow the money any you will soon see why. You surely must see that taxing people to change the climate is a pretty stupid idea based on science – because we know that the climate has changed – it what it does – and someday it will not be so accomodationg to a large human population. Green taxes are funding massive investment in wind farms. A spokesman from the National Grid in the UK stated that the renewable energy sources were pretty in terms of helping meet the base load. The cost and complication of managing the output from these resources was difficult to justify.Green taxes hurt the less well off because of the added cost of this poor quality expensive renewable energy

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Juel D

    |

    Yeah those pesky scientists earning their millions out of a global conspiracy to homogenise global temperatures to falsify evidence for climate change! I hate it when I see them driving around their Mercedes and Porsches, deliberately driving through puddles on the side of the road and spraying us proletariat scum as they laugh and drive on to their golden gated mansions! They’re DEFINITELY on the governments (OR WORSE) payroll to try and trick us into believing climate change!

    If only they were more like the corporately sponsored purveyors of truth on this website or the venerable almighty Goddard! They wouldn’t have an agenda would they? They’re scientists of the highest calibre? They wouldn’t support sacked, discredited scientists!

    Use your brains. There isn’t a government conspiracy to control the populace through enforced climate change legislature. Period. A scandal THAT big would be uncovered in a breeze. It’s like the systematic abuse of inmates in Abu Ghraib and Camp Nama as directed by the US presidential office. You can only keep up the game going as long as you can stop the truth leaking out, or people involved talking. In this case ACTUAL US soldiers, agents etc.. divulging information to journalists and other media outlets. Or via a wikileaks style exposé. Evidence FOR climate change has been gathered consistently over the last 30 years, to imply that the multiple sources of peer reviewed scientific evidence is all somehow falsified is so minute! That given the bulk and scale of data collected and apparent lack of counter argument by those who deny climate change (By which I mean non fringe, peer reviewed and accepted evidence) that it’s beyond reasonable doubt.

    It’s illogical. They can control people and justify Orwellian laws much more simply than tampering with scientifically peer gathered evidence on a global scale. Unless of course they’re controlled by the Illuminati and/or (depending on who you ask) the New World Order. Why not just spy on your populations through a mass gathering of personal information through say, electronic communications? Spread fear and xenophobia and militaristic fervor through the threat of those darn terrorists… Wait forget all that. That’s too much effort… Wait a minute!

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Zeek

    |

    IMF Carbon Tax Scam from day 1. :-)

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JvdHeijden

    |

    @bernard b carman.
    We are actually in agreement, Bernard! – I unfortunately I do not possess your eloquence or wider understanding in the evolution of socio -economic principles in expressing my views.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JvdHeijden

    |

    @ douglas nusbaum
    You are like so many who write about climate change without any understanding of fundamental scientific principle. The first rule is to read and then [b]comprehend[/b] what is said . Regarding my spelling (typo’s mainly due to the poor performance of tc/ip), since when has spelling had anything to do with a individuals expertise in a subject!!?).
    So, Nowhere did I claim to be a scientist – I am an engineer who uses science.
    If you understood anything about thermodynamios and what I said about the greehouse effect I said that the temperature on Earth can only follow the heat output of the Sun since it is the only driving energy source available.
    Now go away, study some science and make sure you understand it before making ridiculous comments.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    bernard b carman

    |

    @JvdHeijden — i believe that perhaps the disagreement was with the possible unintended implication that as opposed to other economic systems, poverty is an inevitable consequence of capitalism alone.

    for certainly, there is poverty with all other economic systems, and usually far worse overall than in a more capitalistic one. i use “more” as a caveat because from my viewpoint, there has been little to no free markets in America whatsoever for a very, very long time. those who disagree with me on this might consider which markets — besides the black market — have no interference of the STATE whatsoever.

    but you bring up another issue which i believe noteworthy:

    “If capitalism is based on a money system which has to have a finite supply to hold its value…”

    for a free market system to properly function, there also must be a free market in competing currencies. fiat currency manipulated by a cartel of crooks (politicians & bankers) along with a direct taxation system (“income” tax), will never yield a society of prosperity. rather, it is ALWAYS used to control people’s spending while the insiders create wealth from the debt of all future generations in perpetuity — the ruling class continues to grow richer, while the working class continues to grow poorer.

    so again, post-1913 America is NOT based on a capitalist economic system. rather, elements of both socialism & fascism have been adopted over time. American citizens have been turned into wage slaves thinking their natural & sacred liberties are actually recognized by the “Neo-Amerikan” IN-justice system. generally, only when one is confronted by the tyrants of the ruling class does one come to understand this.

    some might wonder how any of this could be on topic regarding this thread…?

    while i agree with your earlier post in regards to the globalist agenda of “climate change”, i believe the issue is more about control over the people than about merely finding new mechanisms for taxation.

    if it wasn’t for an endless supply of “money” which is created out of thin air by the ruling/looting class, such “endless wars” would not be possible… like this war on anyone/everyone who does not subscribe to this “climate change” indoctrination which is now even included in the government’s school books.

    unlimited wealth among the ruling class allows for an endless degree of corruption in a vast array of subjects… including this one. such is why i believe that the corrupted “money” system — including the Federal Reserve and fractional banking systems — is the number one most important political issue of all.

    How To Be A Crook
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oHbwdNcHbc

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Squid2112

      |

      [quote]i believe the issue is more about control over the people than about merely finding new mechanisms for taxation.[/quote]

      I believe you are [b]SPOT ON[/b]!

      Excellent comment Bernard! … thanks!

      Reply

  • Avatar

    douglas nusbaum

    |

    [quote name=”John vdHeijden”]Part 1 I have a career of some 40 years past, working along those in the “hard ” sciences of math physics chemistry and particulary control theory .As a result I have developed world leading, reliable products based on established science.
    Climate science? – Nah its a psuedoscience. I have not read one paper that examines the greenhouse effect and is properly challenged,analysed and supported by the theory of Thermodynamics. Thermodynamics has never let us down. It tells us that there can be only one source of heat in the solar system that is capable of maintaining temperatures on planet earth that being the SUN.
    The climate change psuedoscience tells us that the human race is responsible for changes in the heat stored in the atmosphere ( actually are very vague as to where the heat stored and according to what theory is in fashion) Take the much heralded greenhouse theory, Thermo dynamics tells us that the effect is not perfect ( there is no such thing as a perfect gas that reflects all re-radiated heat back to earth – it leaks heat – much like the insulation used in a thermosflask). This means that the the heat available on earth can only ever follow the SUNs output long term it simply can not keep rising unless the suns output does the same. Sure the insulation ( greenhouse effect) can increase causing the planet to heet up – but that can only be a temporary thing if the suns output does not do the same ( the insulation leaks).[/quote]

    I do not believe your post. First of all if you have the expertise that you claim you would have not have misspelled heat. Second, you are really claiming that if you put a constant heat source, say an electric light bulb into a sealed box, wait until the box reaches thermal equilibrium and then cover the box with a blanket that the inside of the box will not not go to a higher temperature and remain at that higher temperature? If that is your claim, then your claim to making a living as a scientist is a lie.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    douglas nusbaum

    |

    [quote name=”oscar manuel”]I also want to add that pictures of people wearing masks to protect against smog in China and India are totally fake. They photoshop them on the people. The rising sea levels are totally fake…as is the pictures of the England coast posted on 05/02/2014 on BBC. I was just on that train today…its still there and the sea is totally calm. I was in L.A. Calif. a few days ago…. there’s lots of rain, the streets are flooded…the whole “drought” story about Calif. is totally fake. The resevoirs and swimming pools are totally full. I am totally in agreement that all this is made up. They say the Oceans are getting more “acid”, those guys must be on “acid”. They are actually getting less acid. Those satellite pictures of the shrinking glaciers have been photoshopped to make it look that way. They are doing this to shrink the profits of our oil companies. The Tar Sands in Alberta are actually good for the rivers and the native people complaining just because they can’t drink the water….its all a lie. I believe this article. The scientists are making all this up. I don’t know why but they should know better. The stories about boats sailing through the N.W. passage are total lies. The ice is thicker than ever. I am so happy that Mr. John O’Sullivan has finally come up to show us how we have be totally duped by all the scientists and news reporters everywhere. They are all against the oil companies that are only trying to make a honest living. Some of the excutives have actually had to move into smaller houses, give up their vacation homes because of these lies.[/quote]

    Your post is 31 days late. Or you are off of your medications

    Reply

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.