THE Great Barrier Reef Lie – Climate Scientists’ Scaremongering Trashed By Mother Nature

great-barrier-reef-obit_h.jpg

NOT SO FAST! Great Barrier Reef starts to recover after severe coral bleaching, survey of sites between Cairns and Townsville shows | ABC online

THE farcical scaremongering by global warming activists about the “dying” reef has cost Australians jobs and money:

Three surveys conducted in Britain, China, and the United States, have shown citizens in those countries – when the situation is raised with them – say that they are concerned that the world-renowned reef is under severe threat. And many would reconsider visiting as a result…

GreatBarrierReefAn estimated 175,000 fewer tourists could visit Australia if the bleaching persists and worse if the [claimed] damage becomes permanent. 

The polls, which surveyed the attitudes and awareness of 1000 people in each market, found potential visitors were concerned over the state of the reef, which in turn could feed into them deciding to visit other Australian attractions or to go to places other than Australia entirely.

The finding suggests the tourism businesses and related local economies adjacent to the Great Barrier Reef, could suffer the loss of 10,000 jobs and that the Australian economy could lose as much as $1 billion per year in overseas income.

The reef supports an estimated 70,000 jobs in the tourism and related sectors and accounts for a significant proportion of Australia’s tourist income.

BACK in May, the UK’s Telegraph printed more hysterical Reef alarmism, as evidenced by hysterical climate ‘scientists’ :

Screen Shot 2017-10-03 at , October 3, 3.31.53 PM

Great Barrier Reef is damaged beyond repair and can no longer be saved, say scientists | The Telegraph UK

SEPTEMBER 2017 – Mother Nature trashes the alarmist GBR climate “science” :

Screen Shot 2017-10-03 at , October 3, 3.32.19 PM.png

Great Barrier Reef starts to recover after severe coral bleaching, survey of sites between Cairns and Townsville shows – ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

WHERE the hysteria began :

Great Barrier Reef: scientists ‘exaggerated’ coral bleaching

There is growing scientific conflict over bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef. Picture: Tourism Queensland

There is growing scientific conflict over bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef. Picture: Tourism Queensland | The Australian

Activist scientists and lobby groups have distorted surveys, maps and data to misrepresent the extent and impact of coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef, – according to the chairman of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Russell Reichelt.

A full survey of the reef ­released yesterday by the author­ity and the Australian Institute of Marine ­Science said 75 per cent of the reef would escape unscathed.

Dr Reichelt said the vast bulk of bleaching damage was confined to the far northern section off Cape York, which had the best prospect of recovery due to the lack of ­onshore development and high water quality.

Full story : Great Barrier Reef: scientists ‘exaggerated’ coral bleaching | The Australian

THE doom sayers really should apologise. But, of course, none will come forth, as the worst any Reef or climate change alarmist can ever be accused of for dangerous and costly scaremongering is an excess of “Save the planet” virtue.

TO tell preposterous untruths in this ‘good’ cause is not just forgivable but a sign of superior morality. The bigger the whopper the more you must really care. This is the sad, costly, destructive and repetitive story of ‘Climate Crisis Inc.’

•••

See also :

Great Barrier Reef Expert : Don’t Trust Climate Alarmists

Related :

Great Barrier Reef scare related :


Former Obama Official: Bureaucrats Manipulate Climate Stats To Influence Policy

Surprise, surprise again…

“Press officers work with scientists within agencies like the National Oceanic Administration (NOAA) and NASA and are responsible for crafting misleading press releases on climate, he added.”

Watts Up With That?

by Chris White

A former member of the Obama administration claims Washington D.C. often uses “misleading” news releases about climate data to influence public opinion.

Former Energy Department Undersecretary Steven Koonin told The Wall Street Journal Monday that bureaucrats within former President Barack Obama’s administration spun scientific data to manipulate public opinion.

“What you saw coming out of the press releases about climate data, climate analysis, was, I’d say, misleading, sometimes just wrong,” Koonin said, referring to elements within the Obama administration he said were responsible for manipulating climate data.

He pointed to a National Climate Assessment in 2014 showing hurricane activity has increased from 1980 as an illustration of how federal agencies fudged climate data. Koonin said the NCA’s assessment was technically incorrect.

“What they forgot to tell you, and you don’t know until you read all the way into the fine print is that it actually decreased in…

View original post 244 more words


US Congress launches climate data probe

“NOAA’s decision to withhold the documents was, he wrote, ‘without any justification in law’.

Last week Peter Stott, head of climate monitoring at the UK Met Office, admitted that notwithstanding the Pausebuster, it was clear ‘the slowdown hasn’t gone away’. The ‘pause’ is clearly visible in the Met Office’s ‘HadCRUT 4’ climate dataset, calculated independently of NOAA.”

Climate “science” finally being submitted to the proper scrutiny it deserves under the new administration.

TOM KARL et al – Time to handover the publics data, that you refused to under subpoena, when Obama ran your corrupt climate show!

Time “science” got its once good reputation back so we can make properly informed decisions with the publics money. The many trillions of their money spent so lavishly on “Climate Crisis Inc.”

Tallbloke's Talkshop

Credit: slate.com Credit: slate.com
It should be harder for NOAA to brush this off than it was when the last President was in office.
H/T GWPF

Revelations by the Mail on Sunday about how world leaders were misled over global warming by the main source of climate data have triggered a probe by the US Congress.

Republican Lamar Smith, who chairs the influential House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space and Technology, announced the inquiry last week in a letter to Benjamin Friedman, acting chief of the organisation at the heart of the MoS disclosures, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

He renewed demands, first made in 2015, for all internal NOAA documents and communications between staff behind a controversial scientific paper, which made a huge impact on the Paris Agreement on climate change of that year, signed by figures including David Cameron and Barack Obama.

View original post 407 more words


BOMBSHELL – NOAA whistleblower says Karl et al. “pausebuster” paper was hyped, broke procedures

“(NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.” – Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist

In 1960, Eisenhower foresaw the possibility of a criminal like Tom Karl of NOAA corrupting science….

“The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocation, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet in holding scientific discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”
– President Eisenhower  1960

•••

BOMBSHELL – NOAA whistleblower says Karl et al. “pausebuster” paper was hyped, broke procedures

They played fast and loose with the figures -NOAA whistleblower

The Mail on Sunday today reveals astonishing evidence that the organisation that is the world’s leading source of climate data rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change.

A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.

The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.

But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.

It was never subjected to NOAA’s rigorous internal evaluation process – which Dr Bates devised.

His vehement objections to the publication of the faulty data were overridden by his NOAA superiors in what he describes as a ‘blatant attempt to intensify the impact’ of what became known as the Pausebuster paper.

His disclosures are likely to stiffen President Trump’s determination to enact his pledges to reverse his predecessor’s ‘green’ policies, and to withdraw from the Paris deal – so triggering an intense political row.

,,,

In an exclusive interview, Dr Bates accused the lead author of the paper, Thomas Karl, who was until last year director of the NOAA section that produces climate data – the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) – of ‘insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximised warming and minimised documentation… in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming pause, rushed so that he could time publication to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy’.

Dr Bates was one of two Principal Scientists at NCEI, based in Asheville, North Carolina.

A blatant attempt to intensify paper’s impact 

Official delegations from America, Britain and the EU were strongly influenced by the flawed NOAA study as they hammered out the Paris Agreement – and committed advanced nations to sweeping reductions in their use of fossil fuel and to spending £80 billion every year on new, climate-related aid projects.

The scandal has disturbing echoes of the ‘Climategate’ affair which broke shortly before the UN climate summit in 2009, when the leak of thousands of emails between climate scientists suggested they had manipulated and hidden data. Some were British experts at the influential Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

Dr Bates retired from NOAA at the end of last year after a 40-year career in meteorology and climate science. As recently as 2014, the Obama administration awarded him a special gold medal for his work in setting new, supposedly binding standards ‘to produce and preserve climate data records’.

Yet when it came to the paper timed to influence the Paris conference, Dr Bates said, these standards were flagrantly ignored.

The paper was published in June 2015 by the journal Science. Entitled ‘Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming

In the weeks after the Pausebuster paper was published, Dr Bates conducted a one-man investigation into this. His findings were extraordinary. Not only had Mr Karl and his colleagues failed to follow any of the formal procedures required to approve and archive their data, they had used a ‘highly experimental early run’ of a programme that tried to combine two previously separate sets of records.

karl-peterson

This had undergone the critical process known as ‘pairwise homogeneity adjustment’, a method of spotting ‘rogue’ readings from individual weather stations by comparing them with others nearby.

However, this process requires extensive, careful checking which was only just beginning, so that the data was not ready for operational use. Now, more than two years after the Pausebuster paper was submitted to Science, the new version of GHCN is still undergoing testing.

Moreover, the GHCN software was afflicted by serious bugs. They caused it to become so ‘unstable’ that every time the raw temperature readings were run through the computer, it gave different results. The new, bug-free version of GHCN has still not been approved and issued. It is, Dr Bates said, ‘significantly different’ from that used by Mr Karl and his co-authors.

Dr Bates revealed that the failure to archive and make available fully documented data not only violated NOAA rules, but also those set down by Science. Before he retired last year, he continued to raise the issue internally. Then came the final bombshell. Dr Bates said: ‘I learned that the computer used to process the software had suffered a complete failure.’

The reason for the failure is unknown, but it means the Pausebuster paper can never be replicated or verified by other scientists.

MoS2 Template Master

He said he decided to speak out after seeing reports in papers including the Washington Post and Forbes magazine claiming that scientists feared the Trump administration would fail to maintain and preserve NOAA’s climate records.

Dr Bates said: ‘How ironic it is that there is now this idea that Trump is going to trash climate data, when key decisions were earlier taken by someone whose responsibility it was to maintain its integrity – and failed.’

NOAA not only failed, but it effectively mounted a cover-up when challenged over its data. After the paper was published, the US House of Representatives Science Committee launched an inquiry into its Pausebuster claims. NOAA refused to comply with subpoenas demanding internal emails from the committee chairman, the Texas Republican Lamar Smith, and falsely claimed that no one had raised concerns about the paper internally.

Last night Mr Smith thanked Dr Bates ‘for courageously stepping forward to tell the truth about NOAA’s senior officials playing fast and loose with the data in order to meet a politically predetermined conclusion’. He added: ‘The Karl study used flawed data, was rushed to publication in an effort to support the President’s climate change agenda, and ignored NOAA’s own standards for scientific study.’

Last night Mr Karl admitted the data had not been archived when the paper was published. Asked why he had not waited, he said: ‘John Bates is talking about a formal process that takes a long time.’ He denied he was rushing to get the paper out in time for Paris, saying: ‘There was no discussion about Paris.’

He also admitted that the final, approved and ‘operational’ edition of the GHCN land data would be ‘different’ from that used in the paper’.

 

Read the entire extraordinary expose by David Rose here:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html#ixzz4XlWgDL48


Homogenization of temperature data makes Capetown South Africa have a warmer climate record

Australia’s warmist agency BoM (Bureau of meteorology) removed the very warm temps of the late 1800’s and begins Australia’s temp record at 1910. This correlates with warm Cape Town (Southern Hemisphere) temp data, pre-1909, removed by NASA to maximise upward trend in temps, promoting the “man-made” global warming narrative.

BoM also smoothed out (removed) 1940-1970’s cooling in many regions of AUS, as seen in the Cape Town record, to create an overall warming trend.

“Man-Made” global warming, by pen and *not* CO2, indeed.

Watts Up With That?

Playing around with my hometown data, I was horrified when I found what NASA had done to it.  Even producing GISTEMP Ver 2 was counterfactual.

homogenize-definition

Guest essay by Philip Lloyd

The raw data that is fed to NASA in order to develop the global temperature series is subjected to “homogenization” to ensure that it does not suffer from such things as the changes in the method of measuring the mean temperature, or changes in readings because of changes in location. However, while the process is supposed to be supported by metadata – i.e. the homogenizers are supposed to provide the basis for any modification of the raw data.

For example, the raw data for my home city, Cape Town, goes back to 1880:

clip_image002

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/tmp/gistemp/STATIONS/tmp_141688160000_0_0/station.txt

The warmest years were in the 1930’s, as they were in many other parts of the globe. There was then a fairly steep decline into the…

View original post 191 more words


NOAA’s Tornado Fraud

NOAA TORNADO LIES: Another solid example of why government climate agencies like NOAA, NASA, CSIRO, BoM, MetOffice – run by a handful of activist administrators, are the last places to hear or read the truth on “global warming” aka “climate change”.

“The bottom line is that the NOAA headline graph is grossly dishonest. Indeed, if a company published something like that in their Annual Accounts, they would probably end up in jail!

NOAA themselves know all of this full well.
Which raises the question – why are they perpetuating this fraud?”

Read all of the excellent deconstruction of yet more NOAA fraud via Paul Homewood here…

NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/tornadoes/201613

According to NOAA, the number of tornadoes has been steadily growing since the 1950s, despite a drop in numbers in the last five years.

They show the above chart prominently in their Tornadoes – Annual 2016 Report.

However, they know full well that it is meaningless to compare current data with the past, as they explain themselves in the section Historical Records and Trends, which is hidden away on their own website:

One of the main difficulties with tornado records is that a tornado, or evidence of a tornado must have been observed. Unlike rainfall or temperature, which may be measured by a fixed instrument, tornadoes are short-lived and very unpredictable. If a tornado occurs in a place with few or no people, it is not likely to be documented. Many significant tornadoes may not make it into the historical record since Tornado Alley was…

View original post 592 more words


German Professor : NASA Has Fiddled Climate Data On ‘Unbelievable’ Scale

James-Hansen-Getty-640x480.png

CARL DE SOUZA/AFP/Getty Images

Brietbart’s James Delingpole confirming what sceptics have been observing with disgust for years and what thankfully the world is now becoming increasingly clear about – that NASA, under the directorship of climate change activist Gavin Schmidt and before him James Hansen (pictured) arrested 4 times for climate activism, is scandalously tampering with one of the four major global temperature data sets – GISS.

This is the same data set used by much of the climate science cabal, agenda-driven politicians and the alarmist mainstream media to claim the “Hottest Year Ever” meme.

See: Understanding The “Hottest Year Evah” | Climatism

•••

by JAMES DELINGPOLE24 Nov 2015

A German professor has confirmed what skeptics from Britain to the US have long suspected: that NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies has largely invented “global warming” by tampering with the raw temperature data records.

Professor Dr. Friedrich Karl Ewert is a retired geologist and data computation expert. He has painstakingly examined and tabulated all NASA GISS’s temperature data series, taken from 1153 stations and going back to 1881. His conclusion: that if you look at the raw data, as opposed to NASA’s revisions, you’ll find that since 1940 the planet has been cooling, not warming.

According to Günter Ederer, the German journalist who has reported on Ewert’s findings:

From the publicly available data, Ewert made an unbelievable discovery: Between the years 2010 and 2012 the data measured since 1881 were altered so that they showed a significant warming, especially after 1950. […] A comparison of the data from 2010 with the data of 2012 shows that NASA-GISS had altered its own datasets so that especially after WWII a clear warming appears – although it never existed.

Apart from Australia, the planet has in fact been on a cooling trend:

Using the NASA data from 2010 the surface temperature globally from 1940 until today has fallen by 1.110°C, and since 2000 it has fallen 0.4223°C […]. The cooling has hit every continent except for Australia, which warmed by 0.6339°C since 2000. The figures for Europe: From 1940 to 2010, using the data from 2010, there was a cooling of 0.5465°C and a cooling of 0.3739°C since 2000.

But the activist scientists at NASA GISS – initially led by James Hansen (pictured above), later by Gavin Schmidt – wanted the records they are in charge of maintaining to show warming not cooling, so they began systematically adjusting the data for various spurious reasons using ten different methods.

The most commonly used ones were:

• Reducing the annual mean in the early phase.
• Reducing the high values in the first warming phase.
• Increasing individual values during the second warming phase.
• Suppression of the second cooling phase starting in 1995.
• Shortening the early decades of the datasets.
• With the long-term datasets, even the first century was shortened.

Ewert’s findings echo that of US meteorologists Joseph D’Aleo and Anthony Watts who examined 6,000 NASA weather stations and found a host of irregularities both with the way they were sited and how the raw data had been adjusted to reflect such influences as the Urban Heat Island effect.

Britain’s Paul Homewood is also on NASA GISS’s case. Here he shows the shocking extent of the adjustments they have made to a temperature record in Brazil which has been altered so that a cooling trend becomes a warming trend.

station_thumb8

Unadjusted temperature record: shows cooling trend.

station_thumb9

Adjusted temperature record: shows warming trend.

For still more evidence of NASA’s adjustments, check out Alterations to Climate Data at Tony Heller’s Real Climate Science.
Truly, these people have no shame.
•••
Climate Fraud Resource File :

See also :


Man Made Warming in Iceland

“Time To Drain The (Climate Change) Swamp.”

Defund Gavin Schmidt/NASA’s $1Billion/year taxpayer funded gravy train.

Put the dragnet through Tom Karl’s NOAA as well.

Disgraces to science.

Science Matters

H/t to Bill Illis and Tony Heller

As the graphs show, global warming is indeed man made. It is achieved by adjustments producing a warming trend in station records where no such trend existed.

A similar pattern is found and analyzed in my study of the highest quality US stations Temperature Data Review Project–My Submission

View original post


Trump expected to slash Nasa’s climate budget in favour of space exploration

“After all, there’s no ‘C’ in NASA.”

Exactly right.

And this quip becomes even more farcical when you drill down on the funding for ‘space’ Vs ‘climate’ over at NASA…

Via Mike Bastasch, Daily Caller:

“NASA’s budget includes more than $2 billion for its Earth Science Mission Directorate, which works to improve climate modeling, weather prediction and natural hazard mitigation. NASA’s other functions, such as astrophysics and space technology, are only getting a mere $781.5 and $826.7 million, respectively, in the budget proposal.

Spending on the [climate] directorate has increased by 63 percent over the last eight years, making it the largest and fastest growing budget of any NASA science program. Over the same time period, the general NASA budget grew only by 10.6 percent — just enough to account for inflation.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/17/nasas-top-climate-scientist-wants-trump-to-keep-funding-global-warming-science/#ixzz4QaJzZ6rp

It appears that ‘cooling the past and warming the present’, to fit the global warming narrative, is a winning formula in the squeeze for taxpayer funds.

Nice work Gavin Schmidt.

Tallbloke's Talkshop

NASA space robot [image credit: phys.org] NASA space robot [image credit: phys.org]
After all, there’s no ‘C’ in NASA.
H/T GWPF/Sunday Times

US President-elect Donald Trump is set to slash Nasa’s budget for monitoring climate change and instead set a goal of sending humans to the edge of the solar system by the end of the century, and possibly back to the moon.

Mr Trump, who has called climate change a “Chinese hoax”, is believed to want to focus the agency on far-reaching, big banner goals in deep space rather than “Earth-centric climate change spending”.

According to Bob Walker, who has advised Mr Trump on space policy, Nasa has been reduced to “a logistics agency concentrating on space station resupply and politically correct environmental monitoring”.

View original post 153 more words


Massive Cover-up Exposed: 285 Papers From 1960s-’80s Reveal Robust Global Cooling Scientific ‘Consensus’

The real ‘deniers’ if you like.

Worse still, these guys, Connolley, Schmidtt and Mann are history ‘re-writers’.

There truly are no boundaries when formulating the climate scam.

NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

image

http://notrickszone.com/2016/09/13/massive-cover-up-exposed-285-papers-from-1960s-80s-reveal-robust-global-cooling-scientific-consensus/#sthash.oWZrStbL.PXvEHcU3.dpbs

Kenneth Richard provides a detailed and damning account in NoTricksZone of the attempt to cover up global cooling in the 1970s by William Connolley:

Beginning in 2003, software engineer William Connolley quietly removed the highly inconvenient references to the global cooling scare of the 1970s from Wikipedia, the world’s most influential and accessed informational source.

It had to be done. Too many skeptics were (correctly) pointing out that the scientific “consensus” during the 1960s and 1970s was that the Earth had been cooling for decades, and that nascent theorizing regarding the potential for a CO2-induced global warming were still questionable and uncertain.

Not only did Connolley — a co-founder (along with Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt) of the realclimate.com blog — successfully remove (or rewrite) the history of the 1970s global cooling scare from the Wikipedia record, he also erased (or rewrote) references to the Medieval…

View original post 816 more words