German scientist: Researchers fiddling with temperature data

By |2015-12-12T08:53:58+00:00December 12th, 2015|Climate|102 Comments

A German scientist is raising serious questions as to whether government data-keepers have been tampering with scientific data to conjure up warming trends where none exist.

“It is important to understand whether CO2 truly causes climate change,” said Professor Dr. Friedrich-Karl Ewert, “We rely entirely on simulation models.  Reality looks very different from simulations.”

Dr. Ewert is professor emeritus of geophysics at the University of Paderborn.  He spoke at a scientific conference put on by EIKE, the European Institute for Climate and Energy in Essen, Germany that was co-sponsored by CFACT and the Heartland Institute.

Ewert conducted exhaustive research comparing climate computer models to real world temperature.  His findings confirm what others have concluded, that the models run far hotter than measured observations. He points out that the UN IPCC likes to carefully select the dates and data it presents, but that, “if we look at temperature changes over a larger period, any temperature trend disappears.”

In the course of his research, Ewert found something shocking.

“In 2012, we realized that the data offered by NASA was not the same as that offered in 2010.  The data had been altered.  If in 2010 someone had, for instance, looked up the data for Palma de Mallorca, they would have seen a cooling of .0076 degrees.  But in 2012 it suddenly showed a temperature increase of .0074 degrees.  This is not a one-off.”

“Until then measurements were sacrosanct.  Can you call it fraud or falsification?  I’m not a lawyer, but I can say it has been changed retroactively.  If I show you the data a negative judgment is justified.  In 2012 there was twice as much warming in the sample we examined compared with just two years prior.”

Warming campaigners have been confounded by a lack of any global warming since last century.  This contradicts large numbers of computer model projections that warming should have occurred.  They’ve attempted to gloss over this inconvenient fact by trumping up records.  They routinely claim some period of time as the “hottest ever,” in the expectation that the casual observer will never realize that their records are set by meaningless hundredths of a degree.  These tiny measurements run far below the margin of error.   Even the word “hottest” is unjustified.  Global temperature has been running around one half degree above baseline with just a few years above.  Nothing hot about that.

It is fundamental to the scientific method that scientists must adapt their conclusions to fit their data.  They must never alter their data to serve a favored conclusion.

In just a few hours we expect negotiators at COP 21, the UN climate conference in Paris to announce a final climate agreement that will shift global power, harm economies, redistribute fortunes and cost trillions of dollars.  It is ever increasingly apparent that that deal rests on false promises and false premises.

Dr. Ewert presents a powerful case.  If we cannot trust the keepers of the scientific data taxpayers paid for, what is there about global warming we can trust?

COP 21 slides temperature models v reality


  1. marlene December 12, 2015 at 8:06 AM

    Because they use complex progressive forecasts, the complexity of which increased forecasts errors up to 45% over a 7 year period; when they should be using Occam’s simple forecasts which takes into account periods of no progressive! They’re may be stupid, but they’re more likely deliberately deceiving us to push their devastating scheme on us.

    • Daniel F. Melton December 12, 2015 at 11:02 AM

      If they were to use simple forecasts, the fraud would be immediately evident.

      • marlene December 12, 2015 at 4:18 PM

        Exactly. But all of us who know this must educate people and get it out to as many of them as possible – we just can’t let these pickpockets get away with this. This will be the first phase of the TPP, which is the end of line for freedom, liberty and our present standard of living (which, no matter how bad it may already be, will get much worse). WE’VE BEEN ROBBED.. Obama signed it; cruz signed it – so many lying traitors in congress signed it and we must hold them accountable. Obama is now in the process of corrupting our country’s governors, just as he did by appointing his own people to appeals courts around the country. This leaves the State Legislatures. Does any branch of government on any level represent the people??

        • Daniel F. Melton December 12, 2015 at 4:56 PM

          The legislatures are corrupt, the courts are corrupt, that leaves the last option, which has a finality that scares those in power enough that they are attempting to abrogate the Constitution.

          • marlene December 12, 2015 at 5:08 PM

            Well said. This time, a final solution would be worth dying for.

            • Daniel F. Melton December 12, 2015 at 5:22 PM

              It’s their utopia, they do the dying.

              • marlene December 12, 2015 at 5:29 PM

                lol – it’s a pleasure discoursing with you. I don’t mean to have the last word and look forward to more of your sane comments. BTW – I noticed that this article has brought out more intelligentsia than government trolls – refreshing for a change.

                • Daniel F. Melton December 12, 2015 at 5:54 PM

                  Long ago I was a Staff Sergeant in a much less politically correct Army.
                  I suspect the trolls are off defending muslims after the San Bernadino massacre.

                  • marlene December 12, 2015 at 6:10 PM

                    lol. If it keeps them busy and out of our face, and space, so be it. Bless you for your service Staff Sergeant Melton. PC = presidential control. “Political correctness” is a euphemism for “the opposite is true.”

                    • Daniel F. Melton December 12, 2015 at 6:27 PM

                      pc as I learned it was a euphemism for cultural stalinism.

                    • marlene December 12, 2015 at 6:51 PM

                      That’s right. Today, we have stalinism on steroids – radical New Age marxism because stalin is just one of the many players who have joined the team of genocidal despots. There’s a whole new world order of global demons planning on setting a new record. On a happy note, i’m really glad that at least on the fake issue of a false global warming catastrophe, not many of us are being fooled.

                    • Daniel F. Melton December 12, 2015 at 7:42 PM

                      Now to make it painful for those who are fooled or willing to be duped…
                      Lessons of that magnitude aren’t learned without some sort of discomfort, whether that be physical or mental, and sharper pain makes the lesson remembered longer.

  2. Poseidon December 12, 2015 at 9:19 AM

    I don’t believe anything the global warming people say. They’ve lied about nearly everything.

    They said the ‘pause’ (18 yrs, 9 months with no global warming) was due to the oceans and aerosols, but then realized that invalidates their CO2 hypothesis of being the main driver of global temps, climate, weather and extreme weather, so they simply changed the data to eliminate the pause to create a warming record.

    Yrs ago when they couldn’t deal with the southern hemisphere and Antarctica cooling, they interpolated new data from areas where surface thermometers don’t exist and suddenly wiped out the cooling and created warming where it didn’t exist before.

      • Flame Boar December 13, 2015 at 12:22 PM

        Thanks for the graphs. They do highlight that the surface records show considerably greater warming than do the satellite records. Without postulating as to why this might be the case, I trust that we can both agree that the only truly global dataset is the satellite records, since temperature measuring stations are not uniformly distributed over even the land, let alone over the seas. This leads me to believe that the satellite records more accurately represent the global temperature than do the partial coverage of the surface temperature datasets.

        • Dano2 December 13, 2015 at 1:06 PM

          The satellite data being fraught with manipulation and adjustments notwithstanding, the satellite folks say the surface data are better.



          • Flame Boar December 13, 2015 at 1:21 PM

            Reference of manipulation please.

            • Dano2 December 13, 2015 at 1:25 PM

              The fact that satellites don’t measure temperature, and data are manipulated with calculations based on models is a good start.



              • Go#Sand December 14, 2015 at 9:31 AM

                Flame Boar, this same troll, Dano2, claimed in an earlier post on another issue that it was legitimate to cut off tide chart data on sea level rise when satellite data kicked in, because satellite data is worldwide and clearly better. Wonder if it was purely coincidental that the satellite data implied an increase in the rate of sea level rise, albeit more like just a higher, constant rate. Hmm…

                • Dano2 December 14, 2015 at 9:40 AM

                  it was legitimate to cut off tide chart data on sea level rise when satellite data kicked in, because satellite data is worldwide and clearly better.

                  You are making that up. You must have nothing to go on and are dissembling away from the inferiority of satellite data.



                  • Go#Sand December 14, 2015 at 9:49 AM


                    Aside from the fact satellites cover the entire planet and are
                    therefore more complete than a small section of the planet, your comedy line fantasy
                    prediction gave me a giggle, thanks!



                    1:36 p.m., Friday Dec. 4 | Other comments by
                    Dipwad and a liar!

                    • Dano2 December 14, 2015 at 9:53 AM

                      Satellites do not cover the entire planet, do not measure temperature, rely on models for the temp calculation, are highly adjusted, and the data are manipulated.

                      Even the satellite people say the surface data (where people live) are more reliable.



                    • ColoBob December 15, 2015 at 2:24 PM


                      Re: “reliable”; Satellites don’t measure ground temperature, but atmospheric temperature at various heights, hence they aren’t as reliable at deducing ground temperatures as a thermometer on the ground. When you are trying to deduce the “average temperature of the world” (an imprecise concept by itself) satellite measurements are much better than unevenly distributed ground thermometers, many of which are placed near time-varying heat sources such as growing cities. Satellites measurements do cover the entire globe with a consistent measurement method, so are MUCH better at detecting trends than ground measurements where trends may be due to many factors other than changing global temperature.

                      Re Models: Satellites measure IR radiance from the atmosphere. Since warmer things radiate more infrared, the temperature can be inferred. The model is extremely well validated by laboratory and real-world measurements (such as balloon measurements). (This is in contrast to the models used to predict future temperatures, which have shown no predictive skill distinguishable from chance over the last 25 years.)

                      Re manipulation: There is a lot of evidence that ground measurements are manipulated (this article, for example). I’m not aware of any such evidence for manipulation of satellite measurements — how about a link or two? (Unless you’re just talking through your hat.)

                    • Dano2 December 15, 2015 at 2:48 PM


                      The head of RSS – the denialists’ fave dataset- disagrees with you. He states GST networks are better. And we can’t know if UAH models work cuz they won’t show their algorithm (paging Sen Smith!).

                      in contrast to the models used to predict future temperatures, which have shown no predictive skill distinguishable from chance over the last 25 years.


                      Here’s how the models are doing.

                      A different look at latest run.

                      An interesting depiction of latest run.

                      Here’s how some older models are doing.

                      And some older ones.

                      And some older ones.

                      And some older ones.

                      And some older ones all together.

                      And what several scientist said in the 1980s that was surprisingly accurate about Arab Spring.

                      Here is the the very first climate projection from 1981, constructed from this paper. Pretty dang good, no? Not what the disinfo sites tell you, is it?

                      Here is something from the 1970s that is surprisingly accurate as well.

                      Here is an early prediction from an early pioneer of climate science, from 1975, 50 years ago. Pretty darn good. (source, and original paper)

                      Heck, even Exxon scientists were pretty durn close in the early 1980s!

                      This is where we are now.



                    • Chris Fuller December 22, 2015 at 12:33 AM

                      Dano, as someone who has personally designed radiometers and science instruments for NASA missions, you either don’t know what you are talking about or are misinformed about measuring temperatures using radiometers (i.e. radios which measure temperature based on the radiometric thermal noise emitted by the source). Radiometers incorporate references as part of the design to ensure accuracy. There are algorithms for deducing the temperature vs. altitude with radiometers, but the raw data from radiometers is accurate. I have no doubts that NASA and NOAA may be manipulating the data, but they would manipulate it to show whatever effect gets them more funding as they did when I worked on SSBUV when our PI, Ernie Hilsenrath claimed that ozone over North America was decreasing based on data which I knew showed no such effect.

                    • Dano2 December 22, 2015 at 9:01 AM

                      We are talking about the satellites that UAH and RSS use. They don’t calculate temp from radiometers.



                    • ColoBob December 23, 2015 at 1:32 PM

                      Satellites measure radiances — hence they are radiometers.

                      ( )

                      Speaking as an optical engineer (who has actually designed radiometers to measure air temperature) — you don’t know squat about what you’re talking about.

                    • Dano2 December 23, 2015 at 1:50 PM

                      Thank you. They calculate temperature from equations from models using data collected from the Microwave Sounding Units – that is: they take the microwave data through several adjustments and then calculate temperature. They don’t measure temperature, it is inferred from data collected in the microwave spectrum.



                    • ColoBob December 23, 2015 at 5:10 PM

                      Dano2: “They (satellites) don’t calculate temp from radiometers.”

                      You really are a dope. The “Microwave Sounding Units” you refer to measure radiance in the microwave bands specific to molecular oxygen. This is the definition of a “radiometer”. The intensity is a direct function of the gas temperature.

                      By your ‘logic’, mercury thermometers don’t measure temperature either — they measure the expansion of mercury, which is also a direct function of temperature. To get the thermometer to read temperature (rather than, say, mercury volume) you have to (gasp!) calibrate it.

                      The main adjustment to satellite data is to calibrate a new satellite to give the same reading as the one it replaces (and to match the balloon data). This is needed mostly because of the changes in sensor construction. There is no comparative “tweaking” like the land data has undergone over the last several decades — i.e., serially reducing old data by a degree or more, just to make it look like there is an increase. Unlike the land data, the adjustments haven’t varied over time, so the trends in the satellite data are much more believable than land data where most of the claimed trend is caused by serial adjustments. (The rest is probably due to Urban Heat Island increases.)

                      The satellite temperature data has been verified by thermometer measurements on radiosondes (balloons), and the agreement is to within a small fraction of a degree. Unlike the balloon data, however, the satellites cover nearly the entire globe (97%).

                      Unfortunately for the alarmists (and trolls like yourself) the data has shown no trend for nearly 20 years now — in contrast to the models, which have predicted a continuous upward trend.

                      Since you seem unable to educate yourself, I supply this statement from the link I attached (which you obviously didn’t read):

                      “…the Advanced Microwave Sounding Units on NOAA polar orbiting satellites have measured the intensity of upwelling microwave radiation from atmospheric oxygen. The intensity is proportional to the temperature of broad vertical layers of the atmosphere, as demonstrated by theory and direct comparisons with atmospheric temperatures from radiosonde (balloon) profiles.”

                    • Dano2 December 23, 2015 at 5:15 PM

                      Calculate. Calculate. Calculate.



                    • ColoBob December 23, 2015 at 1:27 PM

                      The models only “predict” the highly modified land thermometer ‘measurements’. (The scare quotes is because the final output of NASA, et. al., is far removed from the actual thermometer readings — what this article is all about. I guess you didn’t read it.)

                      The GCMs also predict upper and mid atmospheric air temperatures (remember the ‘hot spot’?). These predictions have failed completely to match the satellite measurements of those temperatures.

                      All your graphs show is that the organizations producing the models and controlling the ‘adjustments’ of the data work to make sure that they agree.

                      I challenged you to show that the satellite measurements were serially adjusted (in the manner of the ground measurement, as documented by this article). You have no reply except to flood us with ‘fiddled’ ground data.

                    • Dano2 December 23, 2015 at 1:55 PM

                      GCMs “project”, they don’t “predict”.



                    • ColoBob December 23, 2015 at 5:28 PM

                      Dano2: “GCMs “project”, they don’t “predict”.”

                      Ah, so there are no actual “predictions” of ‘dangerous’ future warming due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions? Nothing to worry about then — no reason to crash the global economy by trying to avoid fossil fuels. (Especially since the atmospheric temperature hasn’t increased in the last 2 decades, even as CO2 emissions have increased dramatically.)

                      “The microwave data must be adjusted via channel, drift, time of day, then run through equations derived from a model to derive temperature.”

                      But the radiosonde (balloon) data is just measured with high accuracy thermometers and the satellite data agrees extremely well with the balloon data where the two geographically overlap. Therefore, there is every reason to believe that the processed satellite data is accurate.
                      Your “argument” to the contrary is nothing but wishful thinking and hot air.

                      Let’s see you apply your “skepticism due to complexity” argument to the GCMs “projections”….

                    • Allen Eltor December 27, 2015 at 6:47 AM

                      I already pointed out to you in the FEB 2010 PHIL JONES BBC interview,

                      that after we had seen him say ”The scientific world would come down on e in no uncertain terms if I said the world cooled since 1 9 9 8. OK IT HAS but it’s
                      ONLY seven years of DATA (every year between ’98 and ’05 when he said it)
                      and it

                      I pointed out to you that when the WHOLE WORLD saw PHIL JONES tell MIKE MANN a BBC reporter said the world hadn’t warmed, he said ”MAYBE we ought to do HIM like we did the OTHER one.”

                      And how we all THEN saw TRENBERTH melting down about how thair warn’t no warmin frum thuh magic heetur,

                      and we saw HANSEN’s name on that email and SCHMIDT’s name on that email and we saw
                      telling everybody YOU issue a press release at 2:00
                      and YOU issue a press release at 4:00, and YOU issue one TOMORROW and
                      and how
                      the only data that matched that number is the
                      RAW DATA PLACED ONLINE THAT WAY to prevent what?
                      committing FRAUD like they did with ”POT is like HEROIN.”

                      And we already talked about how that
                      PHIL JONES FEB 2010 BBC INTERVIEW
                      involved the BBC ASKING the
                      world’s CLIMATE DATA SCAMMER in CHIEF
                      ” ISN’T it TRUE that there has been NO WARMING since 1 9 9 8 and that there has in fact been some slight COOLING?”

                      JONES: YES. I CALCULATED the temperature and THERE HAS BEEN NO WARMING SINCE 1 9 9 8 and there has in FACT been some SLIGHT but not statistically SIGNIFICANT,
                      C O O L I N G.”

                      We PRE BUNKED your ADJUSTED DATA
                      by placing the RAW DATA online that way by LAW
                      because you’re too stupid to know hotter from colder
                      and would be out throwing rocks at your own retirement invester screaming ”divest my account of the devil fire!!”
                      so the guy who started your religion, about coal being the devil fire,
                      could buy your pension for a DIME on the DOLLAR.

                      He must be a REEL smart MANN to LOVE yew ENOUGH to TAKE away the CLIMATE SIN all for just a little TEN CENTS SUR CHARGE to HIM because we DO have LAWS an’ awl…

                      you ignorant hick. Throwing rocks at your OWN investor because a guy told you he was holding the DEVIL FIRE.

                      come to find out he was holding it in YOUR retirement fund, and now, your guru Georgie Porgie Soros, OWNS it.

                      LoL you ignorant hick.

                    • Allen Eltor December 27, 2015 at 6:36 AM

                      The hicks who taught you magic gas makes the sky get hot if you use fire make predictions, hillbilly. By extensions the instrument of that prediction is the MAGIC GAiS maykes thuh SKY uh HEETuR if ya WiNT tuh GuBMuNT SCHooL,

                      WaTCH the BiRDiE you goofy m*******r, it’s called THAY GOT MOaR’n WUN MEEniN
                      fur AWL thim WERDS thay GOT!



                      verb: project; 3rd person present: projects; past tense: projected; past participle: projected; gerund or present participle: projecting
                      estimate or forecast (something) on the basis of present trends.”spending was projected at $72 million”synonyms:







                      Wuhl… GAwLiE thay … THAY meene THUH SAyme THANG?

                      yEP that’s RIGHT BILLY bob and the ATMOSPHERE isn’t really,
                      a big ol’ giant heater in the sky like your
                      where POT is like HEROIN
                      told you.

                    • Dano2 December 23, 2015 at 1:58 PM

                      I challenged you to show that the satellite measurements were serially adjusted (in the manner of the ground measurement, as documented by this article). You have no reply except to flood us with ‘fiddled’ ground data.

                      You wrote prior (at the end of your prolix comment):

                      I’m not aware of any such evidence for manipulation of satellite measurements — how about a link or two? (Unless you’re just talking through your hat.)

                      The microwave data must be adjusted via channel, drift, time of day, then run through equations derived from a model to derive temperature. Your very link to Wiki on this topic illustrates it for you.




                    • Dano2 December 23, 2015 at 1:59 PM

                      Hot spot!




                    • Dano2 December 23, 2015 at 1:59 PM

                      These predictions (sic) have failed completely to match the satellite (and balloon) measurements of those temperatures.

                      [citation needed]



                    • RealOldOne2 December 21, 2015 at 10:57 AM

                      As you’ve discovered, Dano is a troll. He plays silly games, denies reality, and merely repeats his global warming religion’s propaganda.

                      He claims that satellites don’t cover the whole world. Well, they cover ~97% of the surface area (82.5N-70S) and 100% of the lower troposphere above it. The land data is based on a few thousand locations and none of the atmosphere above them.
                      “Satellites provide global coverage at much higher densities than attainable with in situ observations. In situ observations also suffer from non-uniform temporal coverage and undocumented changes in the instrumentation used that can lead to local biases and increased uncertainty.” – Remote Sensing Systms, –

                      “thermometers can not measure global averages – only satellites can. The satellite instruments measure nearly every cubic kilometer – … – of the lower atmosphere on a daily basis. You can travel hundreds if not thousands of kilometers without finding a thermometer nearby.” – ( )

                      Dano claim that satellites don’t measure temperature is handwaving obfuscation. Using that obfuscation, thermometers don’t measure temperature either, they measure expansion of a fluid.
                      The satellite measurements of temperature have been verified as being accurate to 0.03C by direct radiosonde temperature measurements of the same locations.
                      “the satellite temperature measurements are accurate to within three one-hundredths of a degree Centigrade (0.03 C) when compared to ground-launched balloons taking measurements over the same region of the atmosphere at the same time.” NASA, ( )

                      I don’t feed the Dano2 troll.

                    • Scottar April 24, 2017 at 11:52 PM

                      It looks like I’m being censored on the Discovery website too. Here is my reply to your last post to me concerning the 2 papers on the Green House Effect:

                      Sorry for the late reply, I got buried in other stuff.

                      The is like the referenced link you provided but it’s less complicated. I think it’s a good intro for the second referenced webpage.

                      The shows that when a molecule of CO2 absorbs an IR energy source wave in it’s reactive bandwidth it gives off a lower IR wavelength in accordance with the quantum energy theory.

                      What are your thoughts on the second paper and do you have another similar source concerning this paper?

                      I think the Dailycaller is safe to post on but I couldn’t find where I posted to you.

                      I don’t expect to get censored here.

  3. Karen Stickney December 12, 2015 at 9:53 AM

    If global warming doesn’t exist, then why is New England getting fifty degree weather in December? The last few years at this time, we have had snow.

    • Sam December 12, 2015 at 10:13 AM

      Karen, weather changes all the time… it is natural. We need to watch the trends and the fact is, overall, there has been no average increase in temperatures in the past almost 20 years. Here is a factual meme that shows why the climate alarmists are so off base. It’s a cartoon but look at what it is saying…

      • Dano2 December 13, 2015 at 10:45 AM

        You were duped.



        • Sam December 13, 2015 at 5:59 PM

          No, you were duped. “Global warming” (or climate change as it is known as since the earth is no longer warming and the alarmists got caught) is a ruse to implement the global redistribution of wealth. It’s a sham. The temperature data records have been cooked as described in this article. Amazing how so many lefties are so easily fooled.

          • Dano2 December 13, 2015 at 6:48 PM

            Justin Data! Will the right’s new heartthrob finally be THE ONE to validate their self-identity?!?!?



    • Daniel F. Melton December 12, 2015 at 10:59 AM

      El Nino. The same reason my sled is growing roots up here in NW Minnesota.

    • marlene December 12, 2015 at 4:44 PM

      Weather changes historically. Warm air goes to different places; cool air goes to different places. But the balance is always maintained. The Sun causes global warming, which has always waxed and waned in insignificant amounts. More importantly, geo-engineering is a fact.

      • Peter Osborne December 12, 2015 at 6:16 PM

        And our orbit is pulled out of round by the gravity of Saturn and Jupiter. Then there are pesky cosmic rays that influence cloud formation…..all affect the weather/climate , all more than the CO2 we put out does.

        • marlene December 12, 2015 at 6:23 PM

          Far be it from us to play God. Rather, we should just enjoy what HE made. And fight against those who steal it all, try to sell it back to us (at prices that increase poverty), and call it progress! What I’d call it is something entirely different.

          • Peter Osborne December 12, 2015 at 7:21 PM

            I cannot disagree with you!

        • Daniel F. Melton December 13, 2015 at 6:46 PM

          Read up on the Milankovitch Cycles. Orbital variation, axial tilt, and solar variability are all factors.

          • Peter Osborne December 13, 2015 at 7:11 PM

            Don’t need to, already read the theory. Here’s more research on the effect of changing climate.

            Dr. Willie Son, Donald Easterbrook, Spencer, Bailiunas, Singer and others add to the information available if you search.

            • Daniel F. Melton December 13, 2015 at 7:23 PM

              The global warming screaming-monkey crowd have claimed that all those esteemed scientists are funded by the global oil companies and the Koch brothers, dontchaknow…(extreme sarc)

              • Peter Osborne December 13, 2015 at 7:32 PM

                Naturally, cannot refute the science, attack the scientist. Rules for radicals…. Yet that crowd always refuses to list a scientist in the correct field. They’ve even eschewed Bill Nye the (non) science guy since he has been made to look foolish a few times. .

                • Daniel F. Melton December 13, 2015 at 8:58 PM

                  “Warmists” don’t like to use verifiable fact to support their arguments, mainly because their “facts” are easily disproved when the figures and methodology are examined.

      • Herb1949 December 12, 2015 at 6:20 PM

        “geo-engineering is a fact”

        No, it is impossible with any known technology.

        • marlene December 12, 2015 at 6:53 PM

          Geo-engineering is a fact. I’ll go with the documented evidence and you can have your opinions.

          • Herb1949 December 12, 2015 at 7:02 PM

            wrong again.

            “Geoengineering is the artificial modification of Earths climate systems through two primary ideologies, Solar Radiation Management (SRM) and Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR)”

            We DO NOT have the technology to do this, now, or in the forseeable future.

            It is part of the MMGW/MMCC/whatever the buzz word is this week, crap that the GW freaks are pushing on us.

            • marlene December 12, 2015 at 7:32 PM

              Geo-engineering is a fact. The more scientific you comment pretends to sound, the less I agree with you. I have a long list of original patents going back to the 1950’s, including recent patents that have been upgraded for the additional scientific proof of geo-engineering that is available. Some of the patents are for second and third stages weather manipulation, since the first stage or two were so successful.

              • Herb1949 December 13, 2015 at 4:10 AM

                So which technology has actually worked on a regular and sustained basis over more than a small area?

                NONE. You are dreaming of something that will probably never be possible to do.

                Even if we were to reduce the atmospheric CO2 to the point it was in 1800, we still would not be in control of the weather.

                • marlene December 13, 2015 at 6:01 AM

                  Wrong again. YOU are dreaming that something that is, isn’t. I’ve already told you where there’s proof of it and it’s not your problem to research it, as I’m tired of this moot discourse. Have a nice day.

                  • Herb1949 December 13, 2015 at 3:06 PM

                    Again you lie, I just went back through all your posts, there is NO PROOF of what you say in any of them.

                    I have doen the research and there is NO place that even comes close to claiming dominion over the climate/weather.

                    You are really tiring to deal with. Gotta be a lib.

                    • marlene December 13, 2015 at 3:13 PM

                      I told you about the patents, fool. Now look them up and fcough!

                    • Chris Fuller December 22, 2015 at 12:56 AM

                      Marlene, your comment reminds me of a patent I saw recently for preventing lightning strikes by building giant metal towers several miles high every 100 yards or so to discharge the atmosphere. Completely impractical and impossible just like all the patents you’re probably referencing. Don’t try to cite a patent as something useful or practical without providing more details. I have many published patents (short list: 7467014, 7742816, 7672731, 8046072, 7928900, 20120274147, 20120228563)

                    • marlene December 22, 2015 at 1:28 AM

                      Like I said, I don’t believe. Geo-engineering is a visible, proven and documented fact. If you had any real knowledge, you wouldn’t be changing the issue in listing what you claim are your own patents. You are obviously trolling on behalf of those who deny it. The US and China have already manipulated the weather in various places and in various ways. Like I said, I don’t believe you and actually, your comment confirms my position. Goodbye and have a nice day.

  4. Jigsaw December 12, 2015 at 10:19 AM

    This a hoax to take taxpayer money away from them. These are climate criminals and should be arrested for crimes against the people for using bogus data. Shame on them. The world has more problems that they should focus on than this BS.

  5. paasingby December 12, 2015 at 10:38 AM
    • Dano2 December 13, 2015 at 10:45 AM

      The issue is global temps. Who knows why your transparent fibbing was attempted.



      • paasingby December 13, 2015 at 10:59 AM

        who knows why they changed the temps from the past –

        From: Tom Wigley
        To: Phil Jones
        Subject: 1940s
        Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
        Cc: Ben Santer

        It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”.

        Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise… Can you also email Gene [Wahl] and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar [Ammann] to do likewise.
        Cheers, Phil

        • Dano2 December 13, 2015 at 11:20 AM

          Climategate! Drink!



          • paasingby December 13, 2015 at 11:28 AM

            we can see where they removed the blips- cheers!!

            • Dano2 December 14, 2015 at 8:22 AM

              You were duped.



              • paasingby December 14, 2015 at 9:23 AM

                how is the past being changed being duped when i have pointed it out?

                • Dano2 December 14, 2015 at 9:38 AM

                  You were duped by “tampered”, and Climategate.



                  • paasingby December 14, 2015 at 9:45 AM

                    you mean this was not said-

                    From: Tom Wigley
                    To: Phil Jones
                    Subject: 1940s
                    Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
                    Cc: Ben Santer

                    It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”.

                    • Dano2 December 14, 2015 at 10:01 AM

                      You were duped. But I’ll take the points on offer:

                      o Climategate showed X [20 points]

                      o Scientists have been caught tampering, trashing, falsifying, suppressing [25 points]




                    • Chris Fuller December 22, 2015 at 12:41 AM

                      When I worked at NASA GSFC in the Lab for Atmospheres I personally witnessed first hand the PI of the SSBUV project (Ernie Hilsenrath) fraudulently claim that ozone was decreasing over North America. He made this statement to me and others in the room and showed a graph of ozone measurements which essentially showed no change, but no one dared challenge his results. Sincere scientists at NASA GSFC are fired as soon as they are found to be sincere. In fact, scientists were openly proud that a post-doc was fired for daring to ask to consider alternatives to AGW.
                      Me: 25 points. You: NIL

                  • paasingby December 14, 2015 at 9:46 AM
                    • Dano2 December 14, 2015 at 9:56 AM

                      It’s from Heller/Goddard, so is being used to lie to you.



  6. Daniel F. Melton December 12, 2015 at 10:57 AM

    Fraud on this scale is an international crime akin to the atrocities of socialist dictatorships of recent history, and the perpetrators have the same goal.

    • toejam December 13, 2015 at 6:09 PM

      Its all about fleecing money from the working class to the ruling class.

      • Daniel F. Melton December 13, 2015 at 6:38 PM


  7. Dennis McLain December 12, 2015 at 11:25 AM

    Looks like another way to rob the USA because they pay 1/5 of the budget for the UN. That is why we need to be getting out of the UN by defunding the UN in Congress. We need to be away from this mafia style of governing people!

  8. Kathy Hamilton December 12, 2015 at 11:28 AM

    How could the fallacies and follies driving the “dangerous, man-made climate change” crusade produce anything but a deal that rests on false promises and false premises? Any scepticaemiac would have recognized this motherlode for what it really was from the get-go and anticipated nothing else.

  9. wally12 December 12, 2015 at 12:42 PM

    This fudging of data was the favorite expression we used in high school when talking about how to get a good grade. That expression was ” If you want a good grade, first draw your curve and then plot the data to conform to the curve”. It seems that the climate scientists have discovered that the practice of drawing the curve first really works with Obama, Al Gore and many warmers and liberals believing the B.S.. Some of the discussions and disagreements over warming are due to not correctly defining what is really happening. When “Warmers say the earth is warming by X degrees and will reach 2 degrees by 2020 or whatever date they pick, they mean that humans and CO2 are causing the excess warming. When skeptics say the earth is not warming, they mean that the earth actually may be warming but at no greater rate that historical average and that there is no evidence that human burning of fossil fuels and CO2 emissions are a significant factor in the average warming rate. The models used by the climate scientists showed that there was no significant warming until the data was adjusted.

    The River Tornio in Finland gives general proof that warming is occurring. This river has been monitored and data recorded for the earliest ice break each year from 1693 to 2000. The graph furnished from the data shows that the northern hemisphere has been warming on average with cycles of cooling and warming for over 300 years. Even the climate models have not shown this type of average warming over that span of history. Of course, the “warmers attempt to state that the warming is due to CO2. If that is true, then there should be a rate of increased warming to account for the industrial era of 1940 to the present. Instead, the graph remains a straight line. There is no evidence of an inverse”hockey stick”. NONE. That also means that CO2 has shown to be a insignificant factor in the warming.

    • marlene December 12, 2015 at 4:39 PM

      Exactly. There is a totally separate response to CO2 which causes other processes, notably the “re-routing” of escaping heat, which leaves via other pathways, such as more radiation from water vapor in the upper troposphere. Thus, CO2 emissions are not only self-correcting, but good for the Earth, the forests, and the environment. CO2 is not driving the climate. The Sun causes global warming and we have already experienced all the global warming we’re going to get without paying for this CGA scheme to steal our wealth and re-distribute it to themselves! Global temperatures have plateaued and we can expect a cooling off. These fanatics had the arrogance to tell us that failure to raise taxes is going to cause giant boulders to fly through the air!! They also refer to pre-historic times “when the Earth was warmer than it is today” – which must have been caused by all those pre-historic coal mines and tractor trailers!

  10. Martha Ball December 12, 2015 at 12:44 PM

    Latest book and documentary.

    ‘The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science’.

    Debate between Dr Tim Ball and Elizabeth May
    Scroll down to Ian Jessop part 1

    • Dano2 December 13, 2015 at 10:44 AM

      More comedy from Tim’s sockpuppet. Say hi to Mary Rosh for me!



  11. CMELK4RE December 12, 2015 at 3:13 PM

    Follow the money. Who profits/gains from “proving” that “man caused global warming” is real?

    • marlene December 12, 2015 at 4:41 PM

      The global corporate oligarchy which now controls most of Europe and will soon control the West; control meaning owning all of our resources, our financial assets, and our lives.

      • Chris Fuller December 22, 2015 at 12:47 AM

        and don’t forget to visit Santa Claus at the mall to tell him what you want for Christmas!

        • marlene December 22, 2015 at 1:32 AM

          So the troll’s salary has been increased – in direct proportion to it’s ignorance. I don’t need to ask a mythological creature for what I need. and don’t forget to ask satan to reward you for your faith in him.

    • Duke Silver December 12, 2015 at 5:43 PM

      Obviously you’re right.

      More specifically, I think only a very select few warmunazis stand to become rich and powerful from this charade.

      1) We all know who these politicians are and they will never elicit a second of guilt or remorse when all is said and done. In the end they will blame their actions on deceit by the professionals in group 2.

      2) A larger set of actual weather professionals are guilty of patently fraudulent activity. They have intentionally altered data, or otherwise misled the public. They won’t become rich or famous, but will remain employed and will have “furthered” the cause. They fervently believe the end justifies the means. In the end they will blame the leaders in group 1) for their actions.

      3) A much larger set of weather professionals are guilty of negligent fraud in that they tolerate patently fraudulent activity within their own profession in order to remain gainfully employed in the interim. They know very well who they are and that this won’t end well. They will have only themselves to blame when it comes to an end. As they say, there’s a special place in hell for those who know but don’t say.

      4) The remaining hordes are simple rubes who are either unable or unwilling to weigh evidence but feel good proclaiming allegiance to a cause. When this rabble disbands they will do absolutely nothing, declare victory, high-five each other and simply move on to another cause. Much like the “depleted ozone layer” crowd has.

      Now looking at these 4 groups of zealots I would submit that substantial headway could be gained in appealing to the honesty and professionalism of those specifically in category 3. Those who know but aren’t telling.
      I wish I could think of a way to facilitate their emergence into the light of open, honest skepticism. Lil help?

      • Chris Fuller December 22, 2015 at 12:46 AM

        I’m neither a billionaire nor employed by any oil company, but if any want to give me a suitcase full of money to share my experiences witnessing fraud first-hand at NASA GSFC’s Lab for Atmospheres, I welcome an email or call!

  12. MarcJ December 12, 2015 at 5:53 PM

    There are 159 heads of state meeting in Paris talking about saving the planet from the
    ongoing Climate Change disaster (not a word about those Muslim terrorists
    murdering the infidels by the hundreds in the same city of Paris). That coming
    disaster was renamed as the Climate Change hoax after 20 consecutive years of
    GLOBAL COOLING from the previous Global Warming scam. Those government-paid
    drones ($25 billion per year of taxpayer funds) worked overtime to
    “recalculate” their computer equations and “recalibrate” their instruments to
    “demonstrate” how it was still getting hotter instead of colder. The chant of
    the coming irreversible Planet Earth demise was led by our Marxist Muslim
    President from Kenya – B. Hussein Obama – who among many other idiotic
    statements also declared that fighting the Climate Change is the best way to
    fight the ISIS Sunni terrorists. I feel sorry for the citizens of Paris who are
    still having nightmares about the recent wave of jihadist mass murders there.
    To complete that tragi-comedy we just have to wait for the concluding speech by
    our Hussein shouting “Allahu akbar!”

    • Daniel F. Melton December 12, 2015 at 5:57 PM

      We’ve got to sacrifice our national and global economy to save the world from “anthropogenic global warming”; uh, “climate change”; no, wait, it’s “climate disruption”; well, maybe it’s “global climate weirding”, perhaps it’s the dreaded but ever popular “climate collapse”,”Climate Chaos”,“Global Weirding”,”Tipping Point”, “Ocean Acidification”, or “Extreme Weather“…. Nope! It’s “Catastrophic Climate Disruption” Nope again! It’s yet again been renamed “Dramatic Changes in Temperature and the State of the Atmosphere!” (commonly known as weather and seasons) which means something of an undefined nature might possibly occur at some unknown point in the future and maybe have unexplained negative effects, until they rename the non-phenomenon again, and now they come up with Anthrpogenic Climate Change. Never mind what we call it WE’VE GOTTA DO SOMETHING! Even if it increases the stranglehold of government regulations, makes rich liberal socialists even richer, collapses the global economy, and advances the cause of one world government with no discernible effect on the climate.

    • Dano2 December 13, 2015 at 10:43 AM

      after 20 consecutive years of GLOBAL COOLING

      They tell themselves stories to have the good feels.



  13. Dusty Koellhoffer December 13, 2015 at 6:40 AM

    Climate change – nature being used by Democrats to dupe those
    ignorant of actual science into believing man can destroy the Earth with carbon

    Democrats claim they have moral authority over Republicans

  14. Dano2 December 13, 2015 at 10:42 AM

    Oh, this guy is the right’s newest heartthrob: someone with a presentation from 3 years ago, data from which never published.

    All of a sudden the trumpets are blaring to high heaven.

    Got it.



  15. Scottar April 28, 2017 at 11:28 PM

    You need to blow up the chart at least 2x.

Comments are closed.