@Jerry, because the Earth is heating FROM THE CORE OUTWARD. The melting is coming from below, not above, as has LONG been established.

http://www.zetatalk.com/usenet/use00442.htm

>> (Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
>> You answered your own question. Check out the
>> permafrost, a permanently frozen layer of earth. Where the
>> few inches above the permafrost, perhaps a foot or two, melt
>> during the summer months due to warmed air and increased
>> sunlight, the permafrost layer, as the name implies, is
>> PERPETUALLY FROZEN.
>> (End ZetaTalk[TM])

http://www.zetatalk.com/index/zeta222.htm

This is clearly not caused by Global Warming which has raised the air a fraction of a degree, nor has Global Warming been responsible for the permafrost or glaciers or poles melting, from the bottom up. This, as we have often stated, is due to the core of the Earth swirling about under the influence of Planet X, which has likewise created increases in volcanic activity worldwide.

Reply by Nancy Lieder on Saturday

The deception of rising sea levels

The deception of rising sea levels 

One of the more mystifying claims in the global warming/climate change debate is that of sea levels rising. There is a huge variation amongst scientists, from Al Gore's figure of 65m per century to NIWA's 1998 Lyttelton study of 1mm per year (10c per century); a disparity of 65,000%. That degree of error disqualifies claims of plausibility, even throwing doubt on NIWA's work. 

With that degree of uncertainty, it is difficult to see how anybody can be sure the sea is rising at all.

How, it may be asked, can 1mm change in sea level be calculated, averaged over one entire year or a hundred years, when even a flat sea at rest undulates more than that with waves every few seconds, and tide height just in one day varies by some two metres. 

To say a tide height is higher we require knowing higher than what? To fairly compare tide heights one needs a past reference height to compare with one in the present. Finding the former is not possible because (at least 10) factors that influence tide height do together repeat.

We are talking of phase of the moon, lunar declination, perigee cycle, high and low pressure zones that can suck heights up or depress them, and winds onshore that can blow water into a harbour or offshore depleting a bay.

Equinox tides are higher than solstice tides. The sea is warmer in summer, therefore higher. Underwater earthquakes, eruptions, and fissures raise local sea-levels, most non-recordable and/or undetectable.

Rainfall at sea, river flows and land run-offs contribute to sea-levels. Temperature changes control density and water volumes, ever-shifting in the ocean, and the direction of currents both deep, mid and surface, alter sea height. Cycles of glaciers' advance and retreat change heights of the ocean.

In short, we haven't a clue how high sea levels are ever supposed to be in any fixed place, to a tolerance of 1mm per year, when everything connected to the sea is in constant flux. 

The sea is not a lake or a pond. No computer model can pretend that it is, just for the sake of a neat result.

Examinating old photographs, sketches and tide markers reveals high watermarks unchanged on NZ beaches, apart from erosion due to changing currents. 

Disappearing sand is a cycle, a function of lower than normal sea levels because lower water undermines foreshore and top sand collapses. 

Without higher water to re-deposit sand higher up the shoreline, over a long time period a beach can ebb slowly away. 

Higher tides deposit more sand because sand is heavier than water - surf brings sand in by momentum of wave action, and leaves it there when water recedes. Erosion cycles are just that, cycles.

As of last month we have started getting higher than normal tides again, after months of smaller tidal variation. Erosion on east coast beaches like Ngunguru, Whitianga and Hawkes Bay will reverse as sand is replaced.

If this was not cyclic, all sand on all beaches would have gone long before now.

Without monitoring over all oceans we cannot know if sea-levels are rising. 

We only have measuring devices on 0.4% on the earth's surface where humans live. Special buoys now report via satellite using Argos transmitters, but we need to wait several centuries to achieve a reliable average to comment on any future century's departure from average.

Antarctic and Arctic ice are thickening, which means sea levels are dropping. 

On Tuvalu and other island atolls it is the land that is moving, not the sea. Small atolls like Tuvalu cannot be sliding under the sea whilst beaches in Australia and NZ stay unaffected. How would the sea decide which countries to send beneath the waves?

As we emerge from this interglacial the poles are the smallest they have been in a while and some sea-levels the highest they aspire to. Some countries are still rebounding after the last ice age- Scotland is rising and the south of England is lowering. The west of Australia is rising whilst the east is dropping. There is a similar differential between our north and south island.

The high watermark on any beach varies up and down the sand by about a metre every 10 minutes. To that add just 1 millimetre per year, the thickness of a grain of sand.

Is the thought of that terrifying anyone?

Lawmakers avoid buzzwords on climate change bills

State lawmakers ran into a problem this year when recommending a study on rising sea levels and their potential impacts on coastal Virginia.

It was not a scientific problem or a financial one. It was linguistic.

They discovered that they could not use the phrases "sea level rise" or "climate change" in requesting the study, in part because of objections from Republican colleagues and also for fear of stirring up conservative activists, some of whom believe such terms are liberal code words.

On its website, for example, the Virginia tea party described the proposed "sea level rise" study this way: "More wasted tax dollars for more ridiculous studies designed to separate us from our money and control all land and water use."

The group urged its members to contact elected officials right away to defeat the measure: "They will pass this without blinking if we don't yell loudly."

So lawmakers did away with all mention of sea level rise, substituting a more politically neutral phrase: "recurrent flooding."

The amended study, while fixed on the same research, sailed through the General Assembly and was signed by Gov. Bob McDonnell, who also has raised questions about what is causing slightly higher temperatures on the planet.

The episode illustrates the continuing, even increasing, volatility of climate change as a policy issue in Virginia, at the same time that other states and whole nations are moving forward with plans to combat the phenomenon.

It also shows how climate skeptics, through their political connections and organization, are forcing state and local government to stay clear of certain buzzwords in quietly pursuing a strategy, else they risk unleashing a brawl.

Government officials and scientists just shrug when asked about the language games, especially when the subject is sea level rise. To them, the debate should not be about what is causing waters to slowly rise, but what should be done about it.

"These studies need to be done if we're going to logically tackle these problems that scientific data unequivocally proves are happening," said Larry Atkinson, an oceanographer at Old Dominion University who is overseeing a climate change initiative that focuses on rising sea levels.

"So, whatever we have to call it, I've got no problem with that," he added. "What's the alternative? Do nothing?"

The semantics dance harkens to the days when "global warming" was commonly uttered. But after conservatives criticized and ridiculed Al Gore and others, "climate change" became the kinder, gentler way to communicate the same thing.

Now it appears that "climate change" and "sea level rise" are being phased out, in Virginia at least, amid political pressure from the far right. Emerging labels include "increased flooding risk," "coastal resiliency" and, of course, "recurrent flooding."

State Del. Chris Stolle, R-Virginia Beach, who insisted on changing the "sea level rise" study in the General Assembly to one on "recurrent flooding," said he wants to get political speech out of the mix altogether.

He said "sea level rise" is a "left-wing term" that conjures up animosities on the right. So why bring it into the equation?

"What people care about is the floodwater coming through their door," Stolle said. "Let's focus on that. Let's study that. So that's what I wanted us to call it."

According to scientific tide measurements at Sewells Point in Norfolk, the sea level has risen by 14.5 inches in the past 100 years. The trend is projected to continue for at least the next century, and some scientists predict that the rate could accelerate, with the level rising an additional 2 to 3 feet by 2100, and perhaps higher.

What seems certain is that Norfolk and the rest of coastal Virginia are going to get wetter, with more frequent flooding and more waterfront property and infrastructure at risk.

Complicating the problem is that, at the same time, land is sinking, a process called subsidence. Scientists are not sure at what rate the soft, marshy region is sinking, only that it plays a significant role in calculating "relative sea level rise."

This one-two punch of rising water and sinking land is what makes Hampton Roads the second-most-vulnerable region in the United States to flooding, behind only New Orleans.

Given the stakes, environmentalists are frustrated that Virginia has not made sea level rise a priority. And they see the sensitivity over semantics as symbolic of state reluctance to dive into a politically divisive topic.

The city of Norfolk, which is especially vulnerable to rising sea waters and subsidence, given its geography and marshy footprint, today is developing a "flooding strategy" through a "citizens flooding task force." Members include residents from neighborhoods that routinely flood after minor rains and slightly higher tide cycles.

The city also recently launched a "flooding awareness" website about its efforts. But the phrases "sea level rise" and "climate change" cannot be found there.

Fleta Jackson, a spokeswoman for the city's stormwater division, said the absence is not intentional.

"Sea level rise is definitely a part of the conversation," Jackson said. "It just doesn't appear in a definitive statement."

The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality is the clearinghouse for federal grants helping to pay for three specific studies of sea level rise in Hampton Roads, the Middle Peninsula and Northern Virginia.

At each stage of the studies, the state has altered its verbiage, said Laura Mc-Kay, state director of coastal zone management programs.

At first, McKay said, the studies were about "climate change." Then they were changed to "sea level rise." Now they are about "coastal resilience." And while the studies themselves are slightly different, McKay said, political sensitivities played a role.

"It's kind of silly," she said. "But the reality is, some of the phrases just really send people screaming. We want to use language that doesn't alienate people."

Kris Allen, a Virginia Beach businessman, is one climate skeptic who believes sea level rise is real, is a problem and should be studied and acted upon. Indeed, he would prefer that state and local studies be labeled as such.

He gets upset, however, when government wants to prescribe economically harmful regulations on coal and gas and enact strategies such as cap-and-trade to combat a phenomenon that might be more about sinking land.

"It's a game about control," Allen said, echoing a sentiment that government is really after more control of property rights and individual liberty.

State Sen. Ralph Northam, D-Norfolk, co-sponsored the "recurrent flooding" study that eventually won approval in the General Assembly this year. He said that when he met with state Del. Stolle, the co-patron in the House, he was told that the phrase "sea level rise" needed to go or the study "would end up in the circular file."

So Northam and other Democrats agreed to amend the proposal.

"It's kind of embarrassing that people are playing politics instead of just talking straight," Northam said. "But we went along with it. We needed the study done."

Today, the Virginia Institute of Marine Science is leading the $138,000 "flooding" study, along with scientists from the University of Virginia and ODU. Their work is expected to be completed by the end of the year, offering officials from low-lying Hampton Roads, the Eastern Shore and other coastal areas insight and ideas about rising waters and increased flooding.

State officials also hope the results will help win federal funds for combating sea level rise and coastal flooding, either by constructing sea walls or berms, or by elevating streets and moving infrastructure inland.

"I question whether we're doing the public a disservice by not telling it the way it is," said state Del. Kenneth Alexander, D-Norfolk, who also voted to amend the study name. "But we can't continue to dismiss it or kick it down the road."

UK met office has joined the party debunking that there was no data to suggest global warming since 1997. 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warmi...

 

Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it

• The figures reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012 there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures
• This means that the ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996

 

The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week. 

The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.

This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.

The new data, compiled from more than 3,000 measuring points on land and sea, was issued  quietly on the internet, without any media fanfare, and, until today, it has not been reported.

This stands in sharp contrast  to the release of the previous  figures six months ago, which went only to the end of 2010 – a very warm year.

Ending the data then means it is possible to show a slight warming trend since 1997, but 2011 and the first eight months of 2012 were much cooler, and thus this trend is erased.

Some climate scientists, such as Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, last week dismissed the significance of the plateau, saying that 15 or 16 years is too short a period from which to draw conclusions.

Others disagreed. Professor Judith Curry, who is the head of the climate science department at America’s prestigious Georgia Tech university, told The Mail on Sunday that it was clear that the computer models used to predict future warming were ‘deeply flawed’.

Even Prof Jones admitted that he and his colleagues did not understand the impact of ‘natural variability’ – factors such as long-term ocean temperature cycles and changes in the output of the sun. However, he said he was still convinced that the current decade would end up significantly warmer than the previous two.

The regular data collected on global temperature is called Hadcrut 4, as it is jointly issued by the Met Office’s Hadley Centre and Prof Jones’s Climatic Research Unit.

Since 1880, when worldwide industrialisation began to gather pace and reliable statistics were first collected on a global scale, the world has warmed by 0.75 degrees Celsius.

Some scientists have claimed that this rate of warming is set to increase hugely without drastic cuts to carbon-dioxide emissions, predicting a catastrophic increase of up to a further five degrees  Celsius by the end of the century.

The new figures were released as the Government made clear that it would ‘bend’ its own  carbon-dioxide rules and build new power stations to try to combat the threat of blackouts. 

At last week’s Conservative Party Conference, the new Energy Minister, John Hayes, promised that ‘the high-flown theories of bourgeois Left-wing academics will not override the interests of ordinary people who need fuel for heat, light and transport – energy policies, you might say, for the many, not the few’ – a pledge that has triggered fury from green activists, who fear reductions in the huge subsidies given to wind-turbine firms.

Flawed science costs us dearly

Here are three not-so trivial questions you probably won’t find in your next pub quiz. First, how much warmer has the world become since a) 1880 and  b) the beginning of 1997? And what has this got to do with your ever-increasing energy bill?

You may find the answers to the first two surprising. Since 1880, when reliable temperature records began to be kept across most of the globe, the world has warmed by about 0.75 degrees Celsius.

From the start of 1997 until August 2012, however, figures released last week show the answer is zero: the trend, derived from the aggregate data collected from more than 3,000 worldwide measuring points, has been flat.

Not that there has been any  coverage in the media, which usually reports climate issues assiduously, since the figures were quietly release online with no accompanying press release – unlike six months ago when they showed a slight warming trend.

The answer to the third question is perhaps the most familiar. Your bills are going up, at least in part, because of the array of ‘green’ subsidies being provided to the renewable energy industry, chiefly wind.

They will cost the average household about £100 this year. This is set to rise steadily higher – yet it  is being imposed for only one  reason: the widespread conviction, which is shared by politicians of all stripes and drilled into children at primary schools, that, without drastic action to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions, global warming is certain soon to accelerate, with truly catastrophic consequences by the end of the century – when temperatures could be up to five degrees higher.

Hence the significance of those first two answers. Global industrialisation over the past 130 years has made relatively little difference.

And with the country committed by Act of Parliament to reducing CO2 by 80 per cent by 2050, a project that will cost hundreds of billions, the news that the world has got no warmer for the past 16 years comes as something of a shock.

It poses a fundamental challenge to the assumptions underlying every aspect of energy and climate change policy.

This ‘plateau’ in rising temperatures does not mean that global warming won’t at some point resume.

But according to increasing numbers of serious climate scientists, it does suggest that the computer models that have for years been predicting imminent doom, such as  those used by the Met Office and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, are flawed, and that the climate is far more complex than the models assert.

‘The new data confirms the existence of a pause in global warming,’ Professor Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Science at America’s Georgia Tech university, told me yesterday.

‘Climate models are very complex, but they are imperfect and incomplete. Natural variability  [the impact of factors such as long-term temperature cycles in the oceans and the output of the sun] has been shown over the past two decades to have a magnitude that dominates the greenhouse warming effect.

‘It is becoming increasingly apparent that our attribution of warming since 1980 and future projections of climate change needs to consider natural internal variability as a factor of fundamental importance.’

Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, who found himself at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ scandal over leaked emails three years ago, would not normally be expected to agree with her. Yet on two important points, he did.

The data does suggest a plateau, he admitted, and without a major El Nino event – the sudden, dramatic warming of the southern Pacific which takes place unpredictably and always has a huge effect on global weather – ‘it could go on for a while’.

Like Prof Curry, Prof Jones also admitted that the climate models were imperfect: ‘We don’t fully understand how to input things like changes in the oceans, and because we don’t fully understand it you could say that natural variability is now working to suppress the warming. We don’t know what natural variability is doing.’

Yet he insisted that 15 or 16 years is not a significant period: pauses of such length had always been expected, he said.

Yet in 2009, when the plateau was already becoming apparent and being discussed by scientists, he told a colleague in one of the Climategate emails: ‘Bottom  line: the “no upward trend” has to  continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’

But although that point has now been passed, he said that he hadn’t changed his mind about the  models’ gloomy predictions:  ‘I still think that the current decade which began in 2010 will be warmer by about 0.17 degrees than the previous one, which was warmer than the Nineties.’

Only if that did not happen would he seriously begin to  wonder whether something more profound might be happening. In other words, though five years ago he seemed to be saying that 15 years without warming would make him ‘worried’, that period has now become 20 years.

Meanwhile, his Met Office  colleagues were sticking to their guns. A spokesman said: ‘Choosing a starting or end point on short-term scales can be very misleading. Climate change can only be detected from multi-decadal timescales due to the inherent variability in the climate system.’

He said that for the plateau to last any more than 15 years was ‘unlikely’. Asked about a prediction that the Met Office made in 2009 – that three of the ensuing five years would set a new world temperature record – he made no comment. With no sign of a strong El Nino next year, the prospects of this happening are remote.

Why all this matters should be obvious. Every quarter, statistics on the economy’s output and  models of future performance have a huge impact on our lives. They trigger a range of policy responses from the Bank of England and the Treasury, and myriad decisions by private businesses.

Yet it has steadily become apparent since the 2008 crash that both the statistics and the modelling are extremely unreliable. To plan the future around them makes about as much sense as choosing a wedding date three months’ hence on the basis of a long-term weather forecast.

Few people would be so foolish. But decisions of far deeper and more costly significance than those derived from output figures have been and are still being made on the basis of climate predictions, not of the next three months but of the coming century – and this despite the fact that Phil Jones and his colleagues now admit they do not understand the role of ‘natural variability’.

The most depressing feature  of this debate is that anyone who questions the alarmist, doomsday scenario will automatically be labelled a climate change ‘denier’, and accused of jeopardising the future of humanity.

So let’s be clear. Yes: global warming is real, and some of it at least has been caused by the CO2 emitted by fossil fuels. But the evidence is beginning to suggest that it may be happening much slower than the catastrophists have claimed – a conclusion with enormous policy implications.

The science is settled: no warming

by Barry Brill

March 26, 2013

---

The planet is no longer warming. The brief warming episode of the late 20th century completed its course in the mid 1990s, and is now extinct.These are now uncontroversial statements.

They are based on hard data which has been available for many years on the websites of many official agencies. But somehow those agencies found ways to interpret the data differently, and to continually sidestep the elephant in the room.

---

The IPCC report of 2007 came and went, failing to detect – or at least failing to acknowledge – that global warming was no more. On the contrary, “it’s worse than we thought” was the rallying cry throughout the lead-up to the COP15 at Copenhagen.

But the prevarication couldn’t last forever. Three years ago, CRU’s Phil Jones admitted to the BBC that there had been no statistically significant warming since 1995.

The pace picked up when the UK Met Office models surreptitiously projected a 20-year standstill on Christmas Eve 2012; and then James Hansen – oft described as the father of global warming – confirmed “a pause” of a decade or more. Now the whole house of cards finally tumbled, with Rajendra Pachauri, official spokesman for the IPCC, confirming in Melbourne that global temperatures had plateaued for 17 years.

Will global warming ever start again? Nobody knows.

The long flat trend will of course be replaced by a new trend at some future point, but its eventual sign and slope are inscrutable. The as-yet-unidentified combination of forces driving the current standstill might break in any direction.

Some diehards contend that a 16-17 year plateau is too short a period to comprise a flat trend. But actions speak louder than words, and much shorter trends have been seen as decisive in the past.

The 1992 Rio Conference founded a major international treaty on a warming trend that was 12 years old. Hansen’s 1988 launch of the DAGW campaign was little more than a decade after scientists had feared the beginning of a new ice age.

It is widely acknowledged that 15+ years is ample to determine a trend:

•  In 2008, the NOAA reported that 15 years of zero trends would invalidate the expected warming rate.

• On May 7, 2009, a leading climate modeler emailed colleagues: “the ‘no upward trend’ needs to continue for 15 years before we get worried”.

• In 2011, Dr Ben Santer averred that a ‘hiatus period’ of 17 years would be required to negate the ‘human fingerprint’ shown in climate models.

• Gavin Schmidt on RealClimate.com: “you can’t use short term (15 years or less) trends to prove that global warming has or hasn’t stopped”.

Let us turn to the best practice manual for climatology, the “Guide to Climatologogical Practices” (3rd Edition) published by the World Meteorological Organisation in 2011. At 4.8.1 under the heading “Period of Calculation”:

 

“A number of studies have found that 30 years is not generally the optimal averaging period for normals used for prediction. The optimal period for temperatures is often substantially shorter than 30 years, but the optimal period for precipitation is often substantially greater than 30 years..... In general the most recent 5- to -10 year period of record has as much predictive value as a 30-year record.”

Following Dr Pachauri’s admission, we can expect a spin barrage built on words like “hiatus”, “remission”, “lull”, “time-out”, “stalled” and “paused”.

The use of a term like “pause” is a blatant misuse of language. It relies upon an evidence-free prophesy that the deceased trend will some day be resurrected. It is no more than Freudian wish-fulfillment.

There have been three distinct warming episodes since the instrumental record began – 1860-80,1912-40 and 1978-96 – but nobody suggests that any of them were linked by a “pause”. Some historians argue that the two World Wars were a single event with a 21-year ‘intermission’, but few find this convincing.

The statistical fact is that the late 20th century warming trend is history. It is over. It is so yeterday. As Monty Python’s immortal “Dead Parrot” sketch illustrates so vividly, there is a vast gulf between  “resting” and “dead”.

IPCC Railroad engineer Pachauri acknowledges ‘No warming for 17 years’

 

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/04/these-maps-show-why-w...

(The original article was meant to shame climate deniers from the GOP. But despite the constant parroting from scientists, most Americans are still on the fence about blaming humans for climate change..)

EPA chief Scott Pruitt says carbon dioxide is not a primary contributor to global warming (March 9, 2017)

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt said Thursday he does not believe carbon dioxide is a primary contributor to global warming.

"I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and there's tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact, so no, I would not agree that it's a primary contributor to the global warming that we see," he told CNBC's "Squawk Box."

...The statement contradicts the public stance of the agency Pruitt leads. The EPA's webpage on the causes of climate change states, "Carbon dioxide is the primary greenhouse gas that is contributing to recent climate change."

Pruitt's view is also at odds with the conclusion of NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/09/epa-chief-scott-pruitt.html

OMB Director Mulvaney: We consider spending on climate change to be a waste of money (March 16, 2017)

Trump budget director Mick Mulvaney: "Regarding the question as to climate change I think the President was fairly straightforward. We're not spending money on that any more. We consider that to be a waste of your money to go out and do that so that is a specific tie to his campaign."

[OMB = Office of Management and Budget]

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4661465/omb-director-mulvaney-consid...

'We consider that to be a waste of your money': Trump budget trolls the global warming lobby by cutting climate change research agency, NASA's 'Earth science' mission and UN programs (March 16, 2017)

Climate science is one of the biggest losers when it comes to President Trump's proposed budget, which the administration unveiled today.

...The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration could be cut by $1.5 billion...

Over at NASA, the Trump administration wants the space agency to push funds away from researching climate, while the Trump budget also calls for zeroing out funding for climate change programs through the United Nations.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4320820/Trump-trolls-global...

Former Obama Official: Bureaucrats Manipulate Climate Stats To Influence Policy

24 April, 2017. Former Obama Official: Bureaucrats Manipulate Climate Stats To Influence Policy. (n.d.). Retrieved April 25, 2017, from dailycaller.com

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 the decades before that,” he said. The U.N. published reports in 2014 essentially mirroring Koonin’s argument.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported there “is limited evidence of changes in extremes associated with other climate variables since the mid-20th century” and current data shows “no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century.”

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.

Koonin is not the only one claiming wrongdoing. House lawmakers with the Committee on Science, Space and Technology, for instance, recently jumpstarted an investigation into NOAA after a whistleblower said agency scientists rushed a landmark global warming study to influence policymakers.

Texas Republican Rep. Lamar Smith, the committee’s chairman, will “move forward as soon as possible” in asking NOAA to hand over documents included in a 2015 subpoena on potential climate data tampering.

Koonin, who served under Obama from 2009 to 2011, went on to lament the politicization of science suggested that the ethos should be to “tell it like it is. You’re a scientist and it is your responsibility to put the facts on the table.” NASA and NOAA’s actions, he said, are problematic, because “public opinion is formed by the data that is formed from those organizations and appears in newspapers.” Neither agency responded to The Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.

Former Obama Official: Bureaucrats Manipulate Climate Stats To Influence Policy. (n.d.). Retrieved April 25, 2017, from dailycaller.com

EPA Removes Climate Science Website, Announces ‘Changes’ to Reflect Trump Administration (April 29, 2017)

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) removed several web pages about climate change and greenhouse gas emissions from its homepage as the agency announced Friday that it would be “undergoing changes” to better reflect the Trump administration’s priorities.

Officials took down one website that appeared to contradict EPA administrator Scott Pruitt’s statements on climate change and removed another that provided information about the Clean Power Plan, an initiative of the Obama administration, the Washington Post reported.

The climate change website now redirects to a page that says that “this page is being updated” and that “we are currently updating our website to reflect EPA’s priorities under the leadership of President Trump and Administrator Pruitt.”

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/04/29/epa-removes-clim...

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/signpost/cc.html

New report about Antarctica is horrible news for global warming alarmists

30 April, 2017. Warming on the Antarctic Peninsula has long been touted by supporters of the theory man is destroying the planet by using fossil fuels as proof of the dangers of global warming. Al Gore, the face of the world-is-going-to-end climate movement, has visited Antarctica on at least two occasions to highlight the alleged problem.

“This prediction has proven true,” Gore wrote about the claim Antarctica would warm faster than the global average. “Today, the West Antarctic Peninsula is warming about four times faster than the global average.”
<...>
Climate realists have rightfully pointed out the evidence shows total ice accumulation on Antarctica has outweighed losses, a claim bolstered by a 2015 NASA study, which found, “An increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.” But even many climate change skeptics have accepted some significant parts of Antarctica are warming.

All that is about to change.

A study published in the journal Science of the Total Environment in February is now getting the attention of prominent climate change skeptics. The study claims the Antarctic Peninsula is cooling and that the previous warming in the second half of the 21st century is “an extreme case.” The researchers also found the recent cooling trend, which they say began in 1998-99, has already had a significant impact on the Antarctic Peninsula’s cryosphere, slowing down “glacier recession.” 

New report about Antarctica is horrible news for global warming alarmists. (2017, April 30). Retrieved May 05, 2017, from http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/04/30/new-report-about-antarctica...

Trump on Paris accord: 'We're getting out'
1 June, 2017.  <...>The decision amounts to a rebuttal of the worldwide effort to pressure Trump to remain a part of the agreement, which 195 nations signed onto. Foreign leaders, business executives and Trump's own daughter lobbied heavily for him to remain a part of the deal, but ultimately lost out to conservatives who claim the plan is bad for the United States.
"In order to fulfill my solemn duty to protect America and its citizens, the United States will withdraw from the Paris climate accord but being negotiations to reenter either the Paris accord or an entirely new transaction under terms that are fair to the United States," Trump said from the White House Rose Garden.
"We're getting out. And we will start to renegotiate and we'll see if there's a better deal. If we can, great. If we can't, that's fine," he added.
<...>
In talking points delivered to Trump's allies, the White House characterized the Paris agreement as a job killer that placed undue burdens on American taxpayers.
"The Paris Accord is a BAD deal for Americans, and the President's action today is keeping his campaign promise to put American workers first," the talking points read. "The accord was negotiated poorly by the Obama administration and signed out of desperation. It frontloads costs on the American people to the detriment of our economy."
<...>
"The agreement doesn't eliminate coal jobs, it just transfers those jobs out of the United States and ships them to foreign countries," Trump said from the Rose Garden. "This agreement is less about the climate and more about other countries gaining a financial advantage over the United States." Source: edition.cnn.com

Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK) : Man Made Climate Change Is A Hoax

5 June, 2017. Oklahoma Senator Jim Inhofe joined Brian Kilmeade to discuss President Trumps decision to pull out of the Paris Climate Accord and said, "Climate is always changing, but the myth that the world is coming to an end due to climate change is a hoax." He went on to say that he's also is not surprised about Left's uproar over pulling out. "These are the same people perpetrating the myth theory." Senator Inhofe also sits on the Armed Services committee and said while not enough money has gone into that military he doesn't blame the President because he inherited a "Hollow Force" similar to what the U.S. was saddled with in the mid-80's.

Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK) : Man Made Climate Change Is A Hoax. (2017, June 05). Retrieved June 11, 2017, from https://radio.foxnews.com/2017/06/05/senator-jim-inhofe-r-ok-man-ma...

Climate Change Mentions Are Deleted From the Bureau of Indian Affairs' Website

Colorlines screenshot of Bureau of Indian Affairs' website before and after, taken on June 14, 2017.

14 June, 2017. This is the second website to remove all mentions of the manmade catastrophe.

The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) has made some subtle, but telling, changes on its website. It recently removed all mentions of climate change from its Tribal Climate Resilience Program website. Now, it is called Tribal Resilience Program.

Here’s an image of the original website:

Colorlines screenshot of Bureau of Indian Affairs' website before, taken on June 14, 2017.

And of the current one:

Colorlines screenshot of Bureau of Indian Affairs' website now, taken on June 14, 2017.

<...>

It’s unclear when exactly the site changed, but Internet archives show the old site as it read in May. The previous site said:

Mainstreaming climate change considerations into all Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) activities, and supporting federally recognized Tribal Nations to do the same, is a high priority for the administration and the Department of the Interior (DOI). Climate change will bring new challenges to Indian Country and Alaska Native Villages.

That entire section is now gone. And, as BuzzFeed noted, the Tribal Climate Resilience Awards, which go towards helping tribes prepare for climate change, faces nearly $10 million in cuts under President Donald Trump’s proposed 2018 budget.

This isn’t the administration’s first attempt at clearing climate change off federal websites. The EPA’s climate change website was all but removed in April

Funes, Y. (2017, June 14). Climate Change Mentions Are Deleted From the Bureau of Indian Affairs' Website. Retrieved June 14, 2017, from https://www.colorlines.com/articles/climate-change-mentions-are-del...

FROM A LINK TRADUCED June 10, 2017

That's why Global Warming does not depend on man ...

That is why Rubbia and Zichichi express themselves in certain terms: the graph that dismantles the theories of Obama and Al Gore

In recent days we have published articles in which we discussed the thought of renowned Italian scientists, Rubbia and Zichichi , about climate change and the influence that man can have in determining them.

The widespread opinion, particularly the American one linked to the political figures of Al Gore and Obama , is that human activity is at the basis of Global Warming (so-called Global Warming) and causes a causal action in provoking Climate change by man. So they tell us ... ..

None of the two scientists we mentioned above ever agreed that it is Man to Determine Climate Change.

Well, a recently published graph, which reports the authoritative Met Office and NOAA data , highlights Global Global Temperature Anomaly, which is the global warming trend over the past 150 years. The orderly value, very simply, is the global thermal variation value, that is, what is now called Global Warming

As can be seen from 1900 to 1950, the trend is increasing. But industrial activity, the one that caused the greenhouse effect and everything else, was virtually absent at that time. There were no industries at that time.

Instead, from 1950 to 1970, the trend is decreasing, ie decreasing. And it decreases just during the period of maximum industrialization, in the period when man acts in a very marked way with industrial processes.

If the man were to cause the GW, it is obvious that the trend should be contrary, decreasing until 1950 and growing until 1970 ...

This means that Zichichi and Carlo Rubbia are right: it is not the man that determines with its action global warming, but are other causes from which global warming is born, and they are all natural.

Energy Secretary Rick Perry says CO2 is not the main driver of climate change

• Energy Secretary Rick Perry says he does not believe CO2 emissions from human activity are the primary driver of climate change.
• That view is at odds with the conclusions of the Environmental Protection Agency, NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
• EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt also told CNBC in March he does not believe global warming is primarily caused by CO2.

DiChristopher, T. (2017, June 19). "Energy Secretary Rick Perry told CNBC on Monday he does not believe carbon dioxide emissions from human activity are the main driver of climate change, joining the EPA administrator in casting doubt on the conclusion of some of the government's top scientists.

Asked whether CO2 emissions are primarily responsible for climate change, Perry told CNBC's "Squawk Box": "No, most likely the primary control knob is the ocean waters and this environment that we live in."
<...>
Perry and Pruitt's views are also at odds with the conclusion of NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Despite those conclusions, Perry said, "This idea that science is just absolutely settled and if you don't believe it's settled then somehow you're another neanderthal, that is so inappropriate from my perspective."

Being a skeptic about climate change issues is "quite all right," he said, suggesting that skepticism is a sign of a "wise, intellectually engaged person." <...>"

DiChristopher, T. (2017, June 19). Energy Secretary Rick Perry says CO2 is not the main driver of climate change. Retrieved June 19, 2017, from http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/19/energy-sec-rick-perry-says-co2-is-no...

Australian Bureau of Meteorology temperature data faked?

BoM faces storm over weather data inaccuracies

3 August, 2017. "Bush meteorologist Lance Pidgeon had hard evidence it was cold near Goulburn in the early hours of July 2 this year because his cold water pipes froze, bursting in the wall and breaking the toilet. To be certain, Pidgeon checked the Bureau of Meteorology website and saw the temperature had plunged to minus 10.4C.

Scientist Jennifer Marohasy and amateur meteorologist Lance Pidgeon at the Goulburn airport weather station that recorded minus 10.4C on July 2. Picture: Jane Dempster. Source of image: theaustralian.com.au

“But then I saw something truly bizarre,” Pidgeon says. The temperature recording on BoM’s website adjusted itself to minus 10C and then disappeared from view. That early morning observation by Pigeon has forced BoM to admit shortcomings at an undisclosed number of cold weather locations within the automatic weather station network. A complete review is being undertaken of the network equipment and BoM’s temperature data handling. It is the biggest public scandal for BoM since furious debate was sparked three years ago over its treatment of historic and contemporary temperature records to compile its new homogenised national temperature data series known as ACORN-SAT. For an agency that screams from the rooftops every time the mercury nudges to the slightest record high, losing a half a degree Celsius here and there at the lower extremities is a pretty poor look.

<...> William Kininmonth, a former head of BoM’s National Climate Centre, says he is puzzled that after decades of service the bureau now claims the automatic stations are not fit for purpose at some cold weather locations.

<...> “Why this is happening now, unless they have changed their manufacturers who they get them from, I don’t know." <...>

The major concern has been the secrecy of BoM’s methods, the value judgments involved where changes are made without documented evidence of site changes or other factors, and the inability of those outside the bureau to replicate the adjustments.
Concerns have also been raised when homogenised temperature trends have diverged sharply from the raw, observational data.
In her introduction to the Institute of Public Affairs book Climate Change: The Facts 2017, Jennifer Marohasy says it is generally stated that without homogenisation, temperature series are unintelligible."

GRAHAM LLOYD (3 August, 2017). BoM faces storm over weather data inaccuracies. Retrieved August 11, 2017, from http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/bom-faces-storm-over-....

Fresh doubts over BoM records after thermometer read at wrong end

18 August, 2017. (Author: GRAHAM LLOYD; SAM BUCKINGHAM-JONES) "Fresh doubts over Bureau of Meteorology temperature records had arisen because a post office worker read the thermometer at the wrong end when the mercury plunged below freezing.

In a new twist, missing records of low temperatures have spread past automatic weather stations to those collected by hand in regional areas.

Taralga Post Office, north of Goulburn in NSW, is the latest unseasonal hotspot in an investigation in which several automatic weather stations have been declared “unfit for purpose”.

The handwritten entry showing -10C for May 10 at Taralga. Picture: John Feder

<...>
Mr Seton’s screen shots and meteorological interest predates the scandal that has engulfed weather records at Goulburn and Thredbo Top where temperature readings of below -10C went missing. BoM first claimed the low temperatures had been deleted and in one case at least reinstalled due to “quality control” procedures.

The bureau subsequently said equipment at some AWS network stations was “not fit for purpose”. A review is under way, led by senior BoM staff with outside experts.

Federal Environment Minister Josh Frydenberg said when the review was complete “in coming weeks”, he would make its findings public."

Reference: GRAHAM LLOYD, & SAM BUCKINGHAM-JONES. (2017, August 18). Fresh doubts over BoM records after thermometer read at wrong end. Retrieved August 23, 2017, from http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/fresh-doub...