Daily Mail newspaper reveals Global Warming data fraud, makes a mistake of its own
Farmers, ag scientists and the world at large have been bombarded with "scientific data" for decades claiming that climate change threatens food production, human health and our existence.
Billions of tax dollars have been poured out based on this pretext, much of which originates with the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Feb. 6, 2017 By Jerry Carlson — Since the original panic over "global warming" a couple of decades ago, we've cited many independent scientists who've pointed out flaws in the "greenhouse gas" theory, manipulation of data, and misinterpretation of both the causes and effects of climate change.
Over last weekend, a new demolisher of NASA "data" has come out: A former NASA data specialist who received a special gold medal from President Obama for devising methods to preserve data integrity. John Bates retired from NASA, and was finally free to expose the manipulation of data within the agency with clear intentions of maintaining the myth of man-made climate change. (Remember, the fear used to be "Global Warming.")
A British newspaper, the Daily Mail, published the extended interview with John Bates last weekend and updated it Sunday, Feb. 5. The author, David Rose, does a masterful job of compressing many facts and exposing not only how NASA cooked the data to bolster its own contentions, but also how other agencies such as the UN are accomplices.
The newspaper's "error" I saw was by the headline writer. The headline says "Exposed: How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data." In fact, world leaders and their cohorts in hundreds of "green" non-govenment organizations are enthusiastic allies in preserving the faith that man-made climate change is a threat to our existence on the planet.
The entire crusade is not motivated primarily with real concern over climate. It's simply the most available justification for massive global governance by an elite few. And a pretext for billions in research grants, sumptuous international conferences and political cronyism. It's the same game which would-be global masters have played for centuries. If Rome's rulers had thought of it first, they would have used the Climate Change pretext for imposing Pax Romana over the known world.
Other scientists have exposed data manipulation by the climate change advocates over the years. Some are mentioned in ongoing reports by investigative journalist John Rappaport, such as his comment at this link.
This issue is economically significant to farmers and ranchers. It threatens global economic growth by choking off carbon-based energy and raising ag production costs. There are many valid reasons to reduce atmospheric pollution, but "controlling climate change" is a distant hypothesis, not an achievable goal.
We'd advise watching other cyclical climate signals for your crop production planning, such as the 12-year sunspot cycle, El Niño and La Niña oscillations, and the two-year yield cycle. For the past several years, a long-cycle decline in solar activity has been pointing to another cool era. A few climatologists are cautioning that a repeat of the "Maunder Minimum" in solar activity could lead to a cooler northern hemisphere climate. Historically, it's cool stretches of climate which cause agricultural problems and human conflict. Warmer eras have proven more prosperous.
I've studied climate cycles since the late 1960s, and even remember when Dr. Louis Thompson of Iowa State warned USDA outlook gurus about the potential for crop shortfalls during seasons following a sunspot low. Before the angst about global warming, there were a few years when the planet was definitely cooling. A cooling is serious for agriculture; just consider the chill in Spain currently which is decimating fresh vegetables to the European Union. I studied and wrote about those facts, drawing on real climatologists, like Dr. Iben Browning and Dr. Tim Ball.
Now, the cracks in the climate-change cathedral are widening and crumbling with fresh evidence on how badly the data has been skewed. One of our professorial friends who teaches college statistics uses former NOAA chief Michael Mann's discredited "hockey stick" analysis of global temperature projections as an example of how to lie with statistics.
British writer James Delingpole skewers the climate clingers with a colorful essay recently posted on "To the Point," the website of adventurer and commentator Jack Wheeler. I lifted an excerpt from Delingpole. He starts by quoting Tim Ball, as I've done in previous climate analyses:
“I don’t want to use the phrase tipping point because that’s a phrase that has been abused in the scientific area. But I think we’re on the verge of a dramatic shift,” Ball tells the small invited audience of journalists, scientists, think-tankers, lawyers and DC politicos. He’s talking about the war on the Green Blob.
Most of them are scarred veterans of the decades-long battle to expose the man-made global warming scare — as what another speaker, Tony Heller, describes as “the biggest scientific deception in history.” Many have suffered personally and professionally for speaking out against the so-called “consensus.”
Ball, for example, a distinguished Canadian professor of climatology, has exhausted all his retirement money defending a legal action brought against him by the notorious climate alarmist Michael Mann, creator of the discredited “Hockey Stick.”
But with Trump’s inauguration it will be the beginning of the end for the Green Blob— that sinister cabal of corrupt politicians, UN and EU technocrats, bent scientists, shrill activists, rent-seeking corporatists, blood-sucking lawyers and gullible journalists which has held the world ransom these last four decades by promoting the man-made climate change scare story and other, related environmental scams.
The protests will be fierce: the global decarbonization industry alone is worth at least $1.5 trillion a year. So many snouts in such a vast trough—they’re not going to give up easily.
The $1.5 trillion per year is the total diversion of useful capital to climate-change research, carbon-burying projects, subsidies for energy sources which couldn't exist without government propping, United Nations conferences and the endless procession of futile climate agreements.
Delingpole is highly accurate: The climate change advocates won't give up easily; there's too much cash still in your pocket.
Updates Feb. 7
— NOAA agrees to "review" the claim by John Bates that NOAA manipulated data.
— H. Sterling Burnett in the American Spectator points out the false premises of the greenhouse theory.