Climate Change Religion and Related Cover-Ups: What the Hell Is NASA Hiding?

-edited

The shrill voices of climate change hucksters get louder every day. Supposedly the world will end in 12 years. It won't.

Someone asked me on Twitter today "who are you to debate climate scientists."

Well, who are priests and clergy to debate Darwinism? Should we prevent debate that does not suit us?

Here's a widely held view: Climate Change Denial Should Be a Crime

In 1663, leading scientists all thought the sun revolved around the earth. The Catholic Church Convicted Galileo of Heresy for disputing the claim.

Supposedly, we are brighter today.

But why do we have scientists faking data and suppressing data that does not meet the cause?

Climategate

The Climate Scandal of the Decade involves fundamentally flawed methods and data manipulation to produce a "hockey stick" rise in temperatures.

When the statistical methods used to create the "hockey stick" were first exposed as fundamentally flawed by an expert Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre , an increasingly heated battle has been raging between Mann's supporters, calling themselves "the Hockey Team", and McIntyre and his own allies, as they have ever more devastatingly called into question the entire statistical basis on which the IPCC and CRU construct their case.

There are three threads in particular in the leaked documents which have sent a shock wave through informed observers across the world. Perhaps the most obvious, as lucidly put together by Willis Eschenbach (see McIntyre's blog Climate Audit and Anthony Watt's blog Watts Up With That ), is the highly disturbing series of emails which show how Dr Jones and his colleagues have for years been discussing the devious tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data to outsiders under freedom of information laws.

They have come up with every possible excuse for concealing the background data on which their findings and temperature records were based.

This in itself has become a major scandal, not least Dr Jones's refusal to release the basic data from which the CRU derives its hugely influential temperature record, which culminated last summer in his startling claim that much of the data from all over the world had simply got "lost". Most incriminating of all are the emails in which scientists are advised to delete large chunks of data, which, when this is done after receipt of a freedom of information request, is a criminal offence.

But the question which inevitably arises from this systematic refusal to release their data is – what is it that these scientists seem so anxious to hide?

What the Hell Is NASA Hiding?

Forgive me for asking, but What the Hell Is NASA Hiding?

If you click on that link it will display "Access Denied"​

The article has been suppressed since 2010.

Blocked Article

Thanks to the WayBack Machine, we have recovered the article.

Here is a working link: What are the primary forcings of the Earth system?

Here is a partial transcript starting with the opening paragraph, with all pertinent views from both sides captured fully. Emphasis is mine.

The Sun is the primary forcing of the Earth's climate system. ... In short, the Sun drives almost every aspect of our world's climate system and makes possible life as we know it.

Earth's orbit around and orientation toward the Sun change over spans of many thousands of years. In turn, these changing "orbital mechanics" force climate to change because they change where and how much sunlight reaches Earth. (Please see for more details). [Mish Comment: Unfortunately we can't.]

Thus, changing Earth's exposure forces climate to change. According to scientists' models of Earth's orbit and orientation towards the sun indicate that our world should just be beginning to enter a new period of cooling - perhaps the next ice age.

Human Impact

The text does discuss humans.

After the industrial revolution, humans introduced increasing amounts of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, and changed the surface of the landscape to an extent great enough to influence climate on a local and global level.

I can accept that. I can also accept that temperatures are rising, while disputing the amount for many reasons.

NASA Conclusion

Scientists are using NASA satellites to monitor all of the aforementioned forcings of Earth's climate system to better understand how they are changing over time, and how any changes in them affect climate.

Left Unsaid

Any data that does not agree with climate foregone conclusions, will be wiped away. I just offered strong evidence.

What else has NASA suppressed?

Why do we need to suppress well-written articles when many scientists have doubts?

Precession

Humans

Humans breathe oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide.

Perhaps we have a solution that no one will endorse.

At the very minimum, why aren't any of the global warming advocates promoting distribution of free birth control pills?

Earth's Magnetic Field Flip Could Happen Sooner Than Expected

Scientific American reports the Earth's Magnetic Field Flip Could Happen Sooner Than Expected.

Changes measured by the Swarm satellite show that our magnetic field is weakening 10 times faster than originally predicted, especially over the Western Hemisphere

Scientists do not know why. What else don't they know? What do they think they know, that's false?

Background Radiation - Cloud Mystery - Cosmic Rays

The Cloud Mystery is a documentary that explores the published theory by Danish scientist Henrik Svensmark on how galactic cosmic rays, the earth's position in the Milky Way, and solar activity affect cloud cover, and how this influences the earth's climate.

Svensmark believes the earth's position in the milky way as it moves in and out of various spiral arms affects the amount of radiation hitting the earth and affecting long temperature cycles.

Fossil evidence suggest his theory is reasonable, if not entirely correct. Perhaps Svensmark is the modern day Galileo.

The video is long. But please play it!

"You must take the Milky Way Into account if you want to take past variations of the climate into account. The whole solar system rotates around the Milky Way once every 250 million years. That's one galactic year".

Those clips start at about the 30 minute mark or so.

The video is quite fascinating. I suggest you play it all.

Hardly anyone will. Most prefer to believe Al Gore's lies.

Inconvenient Truth - Al Gore Lies

On October 12, 2007, ABC news commented on An Inconvenient Verdict for Al Gore.

One day before Friday's announcement that he was a co-winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, a British High Court judge ruled that Gore's global warming film, "An Inconvenient Truth," while "broadly accurate," contained nine significant errors.

High Court Judge Michael Burton said that the film is "substantially founded upon scientific research and fact" but that the errors were made in "the context of alarmism and exaggeration."

In the late 2000s, Al Gore made a series of high-profile statements suggesting the possibility that Arctic sea ice could be completely gone during the summer by around 2013 or 2014.

Gore said the probability was 75%, a figure he claims was from other scientists.

Onward, Climate Soldiers

Please consider 'Onward, Climate Soldiers'

Former politician and current entrepreneur Al Gore has been preparing an army of devotees to fight for the atmosphere. This air force has been trained in multi-day indoctrination sessions via slick PowerPoint slides that have become part and parcel of the former vice president’s tactic. Such training, under the flag of the Climate Reality Project, has reportedly produced more than 15,000 Climate Reality leaders worldwide. The Climate Reality website urges participants to: “Fight like your world depends on it.” The political world of command and control certainly does.

Prophets of doom use the power of the purse to pursue penitent proselytes to produce profits from PowerPoints. OK, the alliteration may be a bit much, but the catastrophe promoters certainly reap fortune from misfortune. The misfortune includes skewed science.

Everyone seems to be cashing in on the doomsday predictions, from private companies (consulting and technology firms) and academic institutions (university research and education) to governments with their expanding power and workforces.

The big losers are, as usual, the ones stuck paying the bill — the middle-class taxpayers and the world’s poor. Science also ends up losing thanks to a system of penalties and rewards favoring the crisis-mongers.

Yet, onward, climate soldiers, marching as to war, with the power and purse of politics going on before.

Anthony J. Sadar is a certified consulting meteorologist and author of “In Global Warming We Trust: Too Big to Fail” (Stairway Press, 2016).

Complex Systems

Reducing extremely complex systems that evolve over hundreds of millions of years to a single component, CO2, measured over hundreds or even thousands of years, is logically absurd.

I am willing to concede - and always have - that man is responsible for a percentage of global warming. I do not know what that percentage is, but it is clear that it has been exaggerated and that contrary evidence has been suppressed.

True Believers

The true believers think we can take "all of the aforementioned forcings of Earth's climate system", reduce them to man-made CO2 and ignore the sun, ignore random fluctuations, ignore Precession, ignore the earth's position in the Milky Way, ignore background radiation, ignore sunspot cycles, and ignore any other scientific data that does not fit their model.

Of course, that means ...

Mish is a Climate Denier Criminal

Who am I? Who is Galileo, and How Dare NASA Scientists Write That!

Despite the lies, the data manipulations, the article suppression, and Lord only knows what we don't see but should, anyone who does not accept obvious bullshit that the earth will end in 12 years (or whenever) is a criminal climate denier.

Who am I? Scientifically Nobody

I may be nobody, but scientist Henrik Svensmark is somebody, and he makes sense to me. Fossil evidence supports his theory.

Sunspot cycle theories also make sense to me.

On the other side we have the blatant lies of Al Gore, coverups and lies by hockey stick proponents, data manipulations, and evidence suppression by NASA and elsewhere.

The fact that we have all these lies, coverups, data revisions, and even theory revisions is damning evidence that something is seriously wrong with the simple man-made CO2 global warming thesis presented.

To top it off, we have totally absurd hype by AOC who warns us the World Will End in 12 Years if we do not address climate change.

People are willing to embrace such total and complete nonsense while ignoring genuine debate from reputable scientists who by the way do not manipulate data to their benefit.

Misinterpreted

No doubt I will be branded as a denier. Curiously, I am not.

  1. I accept that temperatures measurements have been rising.
  2. I agree with the climatologists that in isolation, an increase in CO2 will lead to an increase in temperature.
  3. I am all in favor of reducing pollution.
  4. China is a basket case. China is literally poisoning its population right now.

Regarding point number one, many temperature measurements are distorted beyond belief. Gauges are in places like airports and cities surrounded by asphalt and accompanied with increasing airline exhaust and traffic.

Watts Up With That has an entire series on absurdly placed temperature gauges. That link is to rebuttal number 30!

Regarding point number two, I seriously question what percentage of the temperature increase is man-made as opposed to long-term cycles, solar activity, Milky Way Radiation, random fluctuations, or something we just do not understand.

Why Should I Give a Damn?

I care about pollution. It affects me here and now. Those with kids can also relate.

But global warming?

This question will shock some, but quite frankly: Why should I, or anyone else give a damn about global warming, even if one believes the absurd hype?

The Yellow Vest Movement in France has as its heart, that very question. French president Emmanuel Macron raised gasoline taxes to save the world.

In the face of massive protests, now going on 14 weeks Macron rescinded the gas taxes.

Fake Sense of Urgency

The world will not end in 12 years or even 200 years. But, no one would be concerned about problems 200 years from now, would they?

Thus, the false prophets must create a fake sense of urgency today.

They did. And they succeeded.

Thus we see AOC's Stunningly Absurd "New Green Deal": Far More Ridiculous Than Expected.

Amusingly, the World needs $90 Trillion infrastructure overhaul to avoid climate disaster, according to the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate, which is co-chaired by prominent climate economist Lord Nicholas Stern.

Regardless of what you believe, the notion that the government would do something sensible about this problem or any problem is ludicrous in and of itself.

Governments don't solve problems, they create waste.

Yet, we are told the world will end in 12 years if we do not act today.

Florida Question of the Day

To those living in Florida, if you believe the claims, why are you still there?

Seriously, get the hell out because the entire state will soon be underwater.

Time's a wastin! Pack up the babies and grab the old ladies, cause everyone goes. Evacuate now!

Global Warming Religion

Global warming is a religion. Anyone who doesn't believe is branded as a heretic.

It's religiously sexy and very easy to promote end of the world doomsday scenarios, until people are told their taxes need to quadruple.

The alternative, "There is no story here because the world won't end tomorrow" is not easy to promote. The media has no interest.

Similarly, the media does not want to hear or repeat anything by scientists like Henrik Svensmark.

Doom sells.

Frankly My Dear, I Don't Give a Damn

In France, people decided, and rightfully so, they were a bit more concerned about living today than supporting the religious belief that the world will end in 12 years if we don't raise taxes today.

Looking back, the earth was here 4.5 billion years ago. It has survived countless warming and cooling cycles. I am confident it will survive another set of cycles.

Finally, I am tired of the ridiculous hype, fake sense of urgency, and absurd fearmongering.

Taking all of the above points into consideration, please ponder this entirely logical position: Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn, and I wouldn't even if I believed your preposterous lies.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock

Comments (90)
View Older Messages
ksdude
ksdude

I think so many people are upset with so many different things they'd go along with nutcase bug eyed AOC just for spite despite the lunacy of it all.

Stuki
Stuki

"..hold those who do the denying accountable"

"..British High Court judge ruled that Gore's global warming film, "An Inconvenient Truth,"

That's The West in a nutshell, anno now. "We", which always and everywhere is shorthand for nothing but a rabble army of of utterly worthless, despicable beyond all and any belief, trash; useless for anything at all beyond literal firewood, are running around "holding" and "ruling." And "deeming." And "finding." And absolutely anything else, aside from actually producing. And contributing. Anything of any value whatsoever.

abend237-04
abend237-04

Flog on, Mish. It's an incredible time, analogous to the Catholic church's conviction of Galileo for the heresy of supporting Copernican theory that the earth circles the sun, but don't expect them to relent. It took 392 years for the church to formally admit Galileo was right. Global warming is their new religion; facts don't matter.

JohnH
JohnH

Mish, you may not be a climate scientist, but former senior NASA climate scientist Dr. Roy Spencer is and says it simply: climate scientists "have the mistaken belief that climate sensitivity is high, when in fact the satellite evidence suggests climate sensitivity is low”.

Corto
Corto

Just like Ancel Keys and saturated fat being the supposed cause of heart disease, you've got a group of people who cannot admit even being partially wrong. And the fat in diet not being bad is finally getting traction over the past few years, but look how many decades it was preached as gospel under cherry picked data. And we are fatter and unhealthier because of it. A tragedy.

I would hope with the internet and wisom of crowds and so much data being out there that climate change at least becomes more a reasonable topic of discussion over the next decade vs. fearmongering.

2banana
2banana

Wanna know how to see the "global warming" scam? How it is not for saving the world, not to help save people, not for saving the polar bear and is all about massively growing government power?

  1. The most far left wing rich/celebrity/politician supporters of "global warming" continue to buy uber-expensive beach front property. Beach front property, all around world, continues to rise in price. If they believed their own hype, beach front property should be worthless and they wouldn't go anywhere near it.

  2. The most far left wing rich/celebrity/politician supporters of "global warming" are the most radical anti-nuclear power nuts you can find. Think about it, a power source that is capable of providing the power needs to an entire country without adding one "green house" gas or emission. If "global warming" was that real and that imminent, they would be screaming to close down every fossil fuel power generation station (to include natural gas) and replace it with nuclear power.

  3. When "scientists" or government bureaucrats find flaws in their data or models suggesting that their global warming doom predictions are not true or greatly exaggerated - they are sad or angry about it. Or even try to hide the new data. Any normal person, when told they were basically were about to die in a melting earth in the very near future, would be jumping for joy on finding this new data. They would partying on their new lease on life singing “We are saved from destruction!”

killben
killben

"According to scientists' models of Earth's orbit and orientation towards the sun indicate that our world should just be beginning to enter a new period of cooling - perhaps the next ice age."

In fact Martin Armstrong has been speaking on this for a long time (exactly opposite of what the climate change guys talk about-increase in temperature). Links below...

and

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/climate/the-new-mini-ice-age-coming-rapidly/ (Nov 2016)

Realist might believe that since Armstrong has done time he will not having worthwhile to say. But he was at the other end of the spectrum of climate change when everyone was talking of global warming for quite some time and is now proving to be correct too.

I am dead against any hype machine, including the one on climate change that Al Gore seems to have invented out of thin air when he had nothing better to do really. More so when it does not allow any differing opinion.

Mish
Mish

Editor

A couple of people found links to the article. I clipped a much better image and put in the link. Thankls

JanNL
JanNL

Not global warming but the resilience of the electricity supply should be of most concern. Everything depends on it, including the supply of water, fuel and food. And we are sure to get another Carrington event.

RonJ
RonJ

Mayor Garcetti chooses ideology over common sense, abandoning refurbishment of 3 natural gas power plants.

"The mayor’s decision marks an abrupt change of course for the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, where top staffers have argued in recent months that the gas plants are critical to keeping the lights on in the city."

Garcetti doesn't care about the gas plants being critical to keeping the lights on in L.A., during times when renewable energy won't be able to provide sufficient power. Virtue signaling is more important.

KidHorn
KidHorn

Near spot on. The earth is very slowly warming and it's most likely due to rising CO2 levels. So far, we've warmed about 1C in aggregate. More towards the poles and less towards the equator. Also, if not for rising CO2 levels, there's a good chance we would be in the early stages of an ice age. So without humans, the earth may be 2C or so colder than it is now.

People I know who understand the science agree that the earth is warming but don't expect a catastrophe. I agree with that.

themonosynaptic
themonosynaptic

Mish you obviously have a far better understanding of the science than people in multiple fields, who, for over a century have built an understanding of climate that is accepted around the World, internally consistent at its core, and matches the physical evidence.

Man are these people going to be upset when a Finance blogger shows them the error of their ways.

I wonder if there is a climate scientist who will explain to you in simple terms why all your theories of markets are completely wrong because you didn't take into account inflation.

Sechel
Sechel

Nobody says the world ends in 12 years. They are saying that the longer we wait the harder it is to correct the problem and they're not sure its correctable after 12 years.

awc13
awc13

what i question is how do we know that the climate we have enjoyed over the last 100 years is the climate we should have, for ever and ever? that is the way the warming religion sells their snake oil, that if we tax ourselves we can keep that climate forever.

seriously, the last 100 years out of the 3 billion the earth has been around the climate we have experienced over the last 100 years is the "correct" climate? really?

airballs
airballs

Top-down Federal political responses like the GND won't work to address climate concerns for the simple reason that the US is only 5% of the world's population, and uses "only" 25% of the worlds resources. Changing consumption patterns for that small a segment of humanity is ultimately meaningless as a mechanism to address a global issue.

Reducing energy consumption by our military by ending occupations world-wide is likely a more expedient approach to reducing consumption. But you don't hear the politicians talking about that approach, do you?

Sechel
Sechel

climate change denial should not be a crime but on the flip side, denying without a valid scientific basis is voodoo science. we have ways to test theories. but the climate deniers simply say " no it isn't"

shamrock
shamrock

People believe in science when they want to. I've yet to find someone who agrees with the all of the following 3 things, all of which have strong scientific consensus.

  1. Human CO2 emissions are a leading cause of climate change.
  2. GMO food is safe to eat and safe for the environment.
  3. Childhood vaccines are safe and effective, and do not cause Autism.

Items 1 and 2 seem to have an extremely strong negative correlation, if you believe #1 then you dispute #2, and vice versa.

WildBull
WildBull

Interesting 3 things.

  1. Has an effect, but overblown. More about Leftist politics and making us "properly" poor.
  2. Safe to eat. Sometimes wonder about stray genes mixing in the environment. Many combinations have probably happened in the past but have been eliminated through natural selection. Evolution is a very fine sieve. It is probably very difficult to make something more viable in nature than what has evolved over billions of years.
  3. Safe now, maybe not so a few years ago. Problems were identified, with some vaccine producers showing 5x the autism rate in recipients compared to others (saw this in a Congressional hearing on C-Span one sleepless night). Probably linked to mercury preservatives that have since been removed.
TomKathQld
TomKathQld

Once we see the whole thing as a profit driven money making exercise, it all makes sense and we can regard it with the contempt it deserves.

Joshua Lizard
Joshua Lizard

Why? Well, it isn't about money. It's about control.

No. 26-41
WestCoastPolack
WestCoastPolack

Idiocy is, of course, quite prevalent on the internet, but this article succeeds in being quite a bit above the normal level of online idiocy.

A quick question for you folks who dispute the reality of human caused global warming, okay?

Could you please disprove the simple and basic physics behind the absorption and re-radiation of long-wave radiated energy by large, active molecules such as CO2, CH4, N2O, and the like, and how that absorption and re-radiation warms the troposphere in quite easily measurable and quantifiable amounts while also measurably cooling the stratosphere, as has been well-demonstrated for many decades?

Climate contrarians would simply prefer to ignore the well-vetted and carefully analyzed science created — and thoroughly argued over, trust me on that one — by thousands of researchers from a broad range of countries. They also discount the easily correlated temperature measurements by multiple independent international sources, such as NOAA, NASA, the UK Met Office, BEST, the Japan Meteorological Agency, and others over the past half-century or more. Some contrarians even go as far as to imply that all of those scientists' work is somehow an insanely complex and conspiratorial fraud — a charge that is not only ludicrous on its face, but also more than a little insulting. And silly.

Folks, anthropogenically exacerbated climate change is a problem — a real, quantifiable, demonstrable, and most importantly solvable problem. We’re smart Americans. We’re inventive. We’re innovative. We can fix it. And we can create good, American jobs doing so.

We can fix it, that is, as long as we understand, carefully examine, and vet the data-driven science, and don't confuse it with politics. Science is science — it's neither left nor right, neither conservative nor liberal. How we respond to the reality of global warming and its concomitant climate change ... well ... that's policy, not science — and as such it's well within the arguable political arena. So let's argue about that, shall we?

LTK
LTK

Great article, as always. Just one question re: "I agree with the climatologists that in isolation, an increase in CO2 will lead to an increase in temperature." - Why? How the devil can CO2 at minus 50C in the troposphere "heat up" - i.e. create a "heat flux", or net transfer of heat energy to - an earth with an average temperature of plus 17C. Can ice boil water? Did I miss something in my thermodynamics classes, or is the whole "backradation theory" of the "greenhouse effect" bogus? One of the biggest groupthink hoaxes on record. Can anyone point to a legitimate lab experiment that demonstrates, unquestionably, that a cold substance can cause a warmer one to get warmer? Because I sure haven't seen one.

pgp
pgp

Sensationalism alert: Undermining science is easy, just focus on a singular controversy or one set of corruptions. The environment doesn't revolve solely around C02 nor is its condition completely limited to changes in global temperatures.

It is irresponsible to debate one isolated incident of corruption when there is a greater issue at stake... the one that politicians have been ignoring for more than100 years. Besides unsustainable population growth the poisoning of the environment has been proceeding unabated since man burned the first coal ore.

Let's take a look at the big picture, where species extinction, particulate plastic are just the latest ecological disasters for which man is undeniably responsible. They go along side lead poisoning, mercury levels in the sea, acid raid and nuclear waste or strontium 90 contamination. None will destroy the world on their own, it is the culmination of neglect that is finally taking its toll.

People should stop focusing on excuses and isolated controversies like sensationalist whores and attempt a broader mind.

Riptide
Riptide

CLIMATE DATA FAKED

by John Bates (leading climate scientist)

In the following sections, I provide the details of how Mr. Karl failed to disclose critical information to NOAA, Science Magazine, and Chairman Smith regarding the datasets used in K15. I have extensive documentation that provides independent verification of the story below. I also provide my suggestions for how we might keep such a flagrant manipulation of scientific integrity guidelines and scientific publication standards from happening in the future. Finally, I provide some links to examples of what well documented CDRs look like that readers might contrast and compare with what Mr. Karl has provided.

ReadyKilowatt
ReadyKilowatt

I've heard the phrase something like "when a man is told that his livelihood is damaging the world, he's going to squirm to justify his livelihood." Which is probably true. What no one ever seems to effectively counter with is "When your livelihood depends on finding problems, you're going to find them." We see this all the time with regulators finding problems when inspecting small businesses, or threatening to condemn houses over minor issues, etc.

Even if atmospheric CO2 is a problem, we already have a very effective solution to capture and sequester it, just grow a bunch of trees. When the trees mature, just bury 'em. Continue for 1000 years. Come back and "harvest" them for new fuel. If that's not concentrated enough, grow a bunch of plankton or some other single celled animals. Pump the slurry down old mineshafts and oil wells. Wait 1000 years and pump it back out again.