The Greatest Scientific Fraud Of All Time — Part XXIII


Week Three: Ninth Anniversary Fund-Raising Drive for Behind the Black
 

It is now the third week in my annual anniversary fund-raising campaign for Behind the Black.


Please consider donating. I am trying to avoid advertising on this website, but will be forced to add it if I do not get enough support from my readers. You can give a one-time contribution, from $5 to $100, or a regular subscription for as little as $2 per month. Your support will be deeply appreciated, and will allow me to continue to report on science and culture freely.


Regular readers can support Behind The Black with a contribution via paypal:

Or with a subscription with regular donations from your Paypal or credit card account:


 

If Paypal doesn't work for you, you can support Behind The Black directly by sending your donation by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman, to
 
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652

Link here. The author continues a long running series outlining the data manipulation and tampering that has been going on at NOAA and NASA to distort the global temperature record so it will confirm the theories of global warming activists. As he notes,

Sure enough, there have been additional adjustments, as always in the same direction — older down, and newer up. But those adjustments between v.3 and v.4 have been relatively minor. More significantly, Kirye discovered a different maneuver which is even more incredible, and which he proves by direct links back to NASA’s own website: In the v.4 graphs that it provides, NASA has relabeled the hugely-adjusted v.3 data as “unadjusted.”

He pinpoints how NASA is now taking its adjusted data and labeling them unadjusted, so that it can justify even more adjustments, all always cooling the past and warming the present. As he adds,

Funny that once again, each one of the adjustments somehow enhances the warming trend. Is it really possible that never once does any new data, or adjustment to data, lead to a change in the other direction?

This is political hackwork disguised as science. Until the climate science community does something to stop this and clean up the mess in its global temperature data, they will find themselves unable to convince anyone of their scientific credibility. Which by the way is generally in the sewer.

Share

9 comments

  • Diane Wilson

    Thank you. Bookmarked.

  • Phill O

    The data indicates glaciers are, on average, shrinking for the past couple of hundred years. Well, at least from the “Little Ice Age” (LIA) in the mid 1800s.

    I took a day and went up to the Athabasca glacier last week to look at the documented recession. Interesting that Parks Canada is now admitting that this glacier was not there 5000 years ago but forest covered the mountains there. This was a discovery by a prof from the U of A (Alberta not Arizona).

    When looking at a toe marker, there was a map of where the toe was dating from the end of LIA. Looking at the time frames for markers, it is clear that the recession is slowing, being greatest in the early 1900s (after the Dalton minimum). This was not easy to see as markers were placed a times where it appeared to be speeding up. One had to look at the time intervals.

    Interesting to see what lay below the ice we used to do crevasse rescue teaching; shocking too. The surface was pretty smooth in comparison to the underlying rock; by a long shot.

    The thing is: the recession rate is slowing. Should the current solar minimum and cycle change continue as the last 20 years, things could change to advancing. The Athabasca at this time is stil receding, do not get me wrong.

  • Foxbat

    I still say the real fraud is the proposed solutions.

  • Andrew_W

    You shouldn’t believe everything you read on blogs just because it suits what you want to believe.

  • wayne

    Andrew_W:
    That, is good advice.

    That having been said— I distinctly recall in the mid 1970’s, we were facing an “imminent catastrophic ice-age.” (requiring massive government intervention, dontchaknow) And concurrently, “all the oil on earth would be gone by the year 2000.”

  • Cotour

    Thats great for the Norwegians, but all they have really done is exported their pollution to “other” places that produce the electricity that they charge their autos with and burn the oil that they themselves draw from the ground and introduce into the market place.

    https://news.yahoo.com/princes-undertakers-norways-motorists-electric-024503594.html

    One way or another the work must be done to produce the electricity, and that work is either accomplished by burning oil, or burning natural gas or through nuclear processes. All three have their draw backs.

    “But I charge my auto using solar panels”. Fine, but what work was done to produce the materials that constitute the solar panels and the batteries and other components in your auto? One way or another the work must be done, no way around it.

    The Ecat may be an interesting solution to dial down the amount of power required to do that work through the phenomenon that allows it to apparently produce more output power than input power.

  • Phill O

    Cotour remember coal is a big unit for power production as are hydro dams.

    You are absolutely correct in the concept of what is required to get the electricity and looking at the production of solar panel, windmills, tidal projects, geothermal etc.

    That being said, new technology is required to find optimal solutions. Just think about the technologies used in North America for clean coal versus what China is doing. If solar panels could be developed where printers would be used, the productions costs could drop orders of magnitude. New battery technologies and more efficient battery production is also required.

  • Cotour

    Yes, lots of interesting and innovative ways to do the work, both old and new.

    But the Out of sight / Out of mind technique can be deceiving.

    One way or another the work must be done.

    What is the “carbon” foot print of a hydro electric dam amortized over its life? Its clean while in operation but on the back end massive work has been accomplished to achieve the front end “clean” operation.

    There are not many ways around the equation. I propose the Ecat as a possible “way around” the equation but we have not heard a lot about it even though it does seem to be being tested and apparently proven on an ongoing basis.

  • MarcusZ1967

    This is a site that does this work, also, alot of programming.

    https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2019/04/07/ghcn-v3-vs-v4-all-regions-graphs/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *