Climate Science Behaving Badly; 50 Shades of Green & The Torture Timeline


A casual reader would think very little about the recent revelations from the NOAA Whistleblower. The issue is too complex for the casual reader to comprehend, and to be honest, it doesn’t seem serious enough to raise concern. Most people simply think, “what’s the big deal,” and immediately lose interest. That is exactly the reaction climate alarmists are counting on, and so far, the public has not let them down. Aided by many in the government, environmental movement, academia, and the media, the truth has remained largely hidden from the public. President Dwight D Eisenhower foresaw events like Climategate happening over 50 years ago, yet today few connect-the-dots and understand the enormous consequences this issue has on society and the economy and the trillions of dollars that will be misallocated to left-wing causes that will deliver no measurable benefits.

In reality, this NOAA Whistleblower story has the possibility to become one of the most impactful events of all history. Why? Because it reinforces an established pattern of criminal behavior that so far has been protected through a modus operandi of denial, deflection, deceit, censorship, disinformation, dishonesty, coercion and ad hominem attacks. The cost of Bernie Madoff’s scam was near $10 billion, the cost of the global warming scam is measured in the trillions of dollars. The global warming scam, however, is much worse. Bernie Madoff is one man who acted alone. Exposing the Climategate Conspiracy threatens to undermine the public’s confidence in our most important and trusted institutions that make up the foundation of our society. The media, our elite universities, the organization that put a man on the moon NASA, the EPA, the Supreme Court, environmental groups, the Democratic Party and many of our elected officials all have been complicit in what will go down as the greatest scientific fraud since the Piltdown Man.


“Adjusting” data is nothing new to the field of Climate “Science,” in fact, the practice goes all that way back to the founding of the IPCC. The original IPCC Report contained a temperature reconstruction that failed to support the narrative of pending catastrophic global warming. The chart clearly showed the periods known and the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age, along with the current temperatures slightly above the average temperature of the past 1,000 years. Before the 1990 IPCC Report, there was never a reason to question the existence of the Medieval Warming and The Little Ice Age, both had plenty of archeological and historical evidence supporting their existence. The problem they created, however, was that their existence proved extreme natural climate variation prior to the period where man-made significant contributions to atmospheric CO2. To make matters worse, the period where man did contribute significant amounts of CO2 corresponded with a period of minimal temperature variation. In other words, the original IPCC Chart did more to calm people fears about CO2 than to support the CO2 driven climate catastrophe narrative the IPCC wished to promote. It simply wasn’t going to be possible to convince the developed world to redistribute countless trillions of dollars to the developing nations based upon that chart. It simply had to go.

In Orwellian fashion, the Climategate conspirators literally set out to erase the Medieval Warming Period and Little Ice Age from the historical records. The Conspirators, however, included an outsider named Dr. David Deming on an email string who ended up testifying before the US Congress about the “we have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period” email.

“I get the sense that I’m not the only one who would like to deal a mortal blow to the misuse of supposed warm period terms and myths in the literature.”

Jonathan T. Overpeck
Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
Professor, Department of Geosciences
Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences
Institute for the Study of Planet Earth

Over the next ll years, the Climategate Conspirators collaborated on a well orchestrated and elaborate scheme to rewrite the climate history of the past 1,000 years. The result was the now infamous “Hockey-stick” chart of the 2001 IPCC report. Miraculously, the Medieval Warming and Little Ice Age periods simply disappeared. figspm-1

As Dr. Demming pointed out in his congressional testimony, in real science there is a “tyranny of the status quo” where one has to reject the accepted explanation through the administration of the scientific method.   The IPCC simply replaced the inconvenient/problematic chart with a more convenient/agreeable chart that supported the narrative promoted by the IPCC. There was no science involved at all, there was no application of the scientific method, there was no rigorous public scientific debate, where was simply a decision made by the IPCC editors.

“Normally in science, when you have a novel result that appears to overturn previous work, you have to demonstrate why the earlier work was wrong. But the work of Mann and his colleagues was initially accepted uncritically, even though it contradicted the results of more than 100 previous studies. Other researchers have since reaffirmed that the Medieval Warm Period was both warm and global in its extent.”

U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works
Hearing Statements
Date: 12/06/2006

Dr. David Deming
University of Oklahoma
College of Earth and Energy
Climate Change and the Media

Dr. Demming was severely punished for his honesty and whistleblowing. This criminal behavior of intimidating and coercing critics is another pattern that is easily established and well documented.

“At the University of Oklahoma, the School of Geology and Geophysics attempted to silence Professor David Deming, a frequent critic of administrative policy and a politically outspoken faculty member. OU removed him from his department, stripped him of most of his classes, and moved his office to a converted basement lab.”

The construction of the “Hockey-Stick” exposes yet another pattern of criminal behavior. Real science is the process of discovery, an impartial exploration of the data and the acceptance that the data will determine the conclusion. Real science starts at the beginning and lets the data guide the scientist to the conclusion. Climate “science” is done in just the opposite manner. Climate “science” starts with the conclusion that CO2 is the cause of the warming and then tries to work backward. Climate “science” doesn’t try to explain why the climate is changing and what is causing it, they are trying to prove that out of the millions of factors that impact the climate, that CO2 is the most dangerous and important of those factors. This is evidenced by the IPCC themselves who admit that they know very little about climate factors other than the greenhouse gasses. The reason is obvious, funding has only gone to study the greenhouse gasses. Why? Because you can tax carbon, you can’t tax the sun, water vapor, and clouds. The IPCC knows, like any criminal organization, that you have to go to where the money is.


The “Hockey-Stick” was clearly constructed with a preconceived conclusion in mind. It wasn’t constructed to accurately explain the temperature history of the past 1,000 years, it was constructed to make it appear that CO2 was the cause of the recent warming. It is widely accepted that CO2 has been increasing since the beginning of the industrial age, so the Climategate Conspirators needed a temperature chart to match. The construction of the “Hockey-Stick” is almost laughable in its obvious attempts to manufacture the illusion of a sudden warming throughout the 20th Century and gave rise to one of the most hilarious skits on the Daily Show I’ve ever seen. This fraudulent construction method is easily proven because a statistical technique like “Mike’s Nature Trick…to Hide the Decline” is simply not reproducible, a critical requirement of any real science. This act of deliberately manipulating the data to get the desired result, however, is highly illegal, yet it was given a pass by the prosecutors. If a drug company CEO manipulated data to get FDA approval, he/she would be behind bars. If the CEO of a brokerage house manipulated performance data to outperform the competition, the SEC would have him/her behind bars, if the CEO of an auto company manipulated emissions data, the EPA would have him/her behind bars. All those infractions dwarf compared to the consequences of manipulating data on which the spending of trillions of public dollars will be based.


The problem is, the relationship between CO2 and temperature is complicated, and it is anything but linear. The IPCC and its modelers, blinded by ideology and a predetermined conclusion, refused to accept those facts, and the results were predictable. The IPCC models all failed by epic proportions.


In any real science where the data guides the conclusions, results like those generated by the IPCC models would send the scientist back to the drawing board to develop a new hypothesis. Simply studying the basic physics of the atmosphere should have clued these IPCC scientists into the fact that using ground temperature data was ill-founded, CO2 is well known not to impact the lowest levels of the atmosphere. Climate “science” isn’t like real science. Climate “science” isn’t an exercise in honest discovery, climate “science,” is really about pushing an agenda, a highly costly, mostly ineffective and extremely misguided and undemocratic agenda.

The failure of the models, however, establishes the criminal motive for the fraudulent data manipulations. The entire basis of funding for climate “science,” is dependent upon man-made or anthropogenic CO2 being the cause of the warming temperatures. If CO2 isn’t the cause, there is no basis for a carbon tax. CO2 is simply the Witch that has to be burned, or else the entire facade comes crashing down to expose a CO2 emperor that has no clothes.

The models are calculating excessive warming and overstating the effect by CO2. That is the core of the truth that you can take away from this.

Because the IPCC Models were designed with fraudulent intent, they will likely provide the prosecution the evidence needed to convict. The IPCC models have a few fatal flaws that will guarantee that they will NEVER be accurate. The ability to predict their failures is evidence of their fraudulent design. 10 years from now this article could be used as evidence in a court case detailing the predictable coming/continuing failure of the models. The fraud is so evident, any 1st-year econometrics student could identify the flaws.

Here are just a few:

  1. The models detail a linear relationship between CO2 and temperature. That relationship simply doesn’t exist. The result will be that CO2 will continue higher, and the inaccuracy of the models will increase over time. The potency of CO2 as a greenhouse gas decreases with increases in concentration.
  2. The models fail to account for the most significant variables impacting the climate; water vapor and the sun. This is the equivalent of doing a weight-loss study and failing to account for exercise and caloric intake, and only modeling the impact of the brand of shoe worn.
  3. The models assume CO2 is the most significant greenhouse gas. Water vapor, by far, is the most significant greenhouse gas. Controlling for water vapor, CO2 has been demonstrated to have no measurable impact on temperature.
  4. The models use ground temperature measurements. CO2 is known to have no material impact on the layer of the atmosphere where the thermometers are located.
  5. The ground measurements and satellite measurements don’t agree, and the ground measurements are widely known to be more inaccurate and subject to “adjustments.” It is worth nothing that the Climategate Conspirators exposed in the Climategate emails and NOAA Whistleblower cases implicate the centers involved with the ground measurements, not the satellite measurements.
  6. CO2 tends to lag temperature, it does not lead temperature. Never in 600 million years has CO2 resulted in catastrophic warming, even at levels 18x the level of today. Experiments done to prove CO2 can cause warming do just the opposite. The CO2 drives temperature model is akin to lung cancer causes smoking.
  7. Evidence shows that the rate of change in temperature is unrelated to CO2. The rate of change in temperature in the first half of the last century was the same as the second half of the century when man was creating the majority of the anthropogenic CO2.

Once the flaws of the models are known, the modus operandi of the criminal Climategate Conspirators becomes clear, and why the recent NOAA Whistleblower case is so damning. The trend in CO2 is near linear, and there is basically nothing man can or will do that will alter that trend. With a linear trend is CO2 established and unlikely to change within our lifetimes, the only way then for an essentially single variable linear model of “Temperature = Function of CO2” to work is to make the temperature data more linear. That is exactly what has been happening with the data from the main suppliers of ground level measurements; The Hadley CRU at East Anglia, NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and NOAA. Penn State UniversityBerkeley, and The Ohio State University should also be included because of their involvement in the Hockeystick creation, the BEST project and the Byrd Polar Research Center. It is important to note that the people running the NASA Satellite data were never implicated in any of the Climategate emails.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

The “adjustments” are extremely convenient in that they tend to lower distal/older temperatures and elevate proximal/more current temperatures. The result is to take a rather flat non-linear temperature chart and make it more sloped and linear. For these kinds of temperature “adjustments” to be justified one would have to demonstrate that there was a systemic error prior to 2000 that elevated temperatures above the actual reading, and then a systemic error post-2000 that depressed temperatures. Unlike most errors that are randomly distributed, these errors all seem suspiciously skewed in favor of a linear temperature/CO2 model. Because these “adjustments” are made behind doors by a select group of people, it may take a Congressional investigation to get to the reasoning. Tony Heller of the Real Climate Science Blog has made a career out of documenting the temperature “adjustments.”There are simply too many for me to cover in this article, but his work alone, if proven to be accurate, should be enough to put a few of the Climategate Conspirators behind bars.


As mentioned in the first paragraph, a casual reader of the news would think that the NOAA Whistleblower was a unique event, but as this article has attempted to document, it is just the latest in a clearly established pattern of criminal data manipulation. To add credibility to the NOAA Whistleblower’s story is the fact that his accusations are nothing new, and had been made by others much earlier. But like the Casandra of Greek mythology, their warning went unheeded. With the Obama administration’s fingers on the scales, the Green Gestapo,  complicit media and academia successfully silenced any opposition, the Climategate Conspirator’s criminal enterprise continued unhindered. Here are just a few of the articles that appeared in the Blogosphere immediately after the release of the “Pausebuster” paper that the media conveniently ignored.

    1. @NOAA ‘s desperate new paper: Is there no global warming ‘hiatus’ after all? Guest Blogger / June 4, 2015
    2. Despite attempts to erase it globally, “the pause” still exists in pristine US surface temperature data Anthony Watts / June 14, 2015
    3. Dissent in the climate ranks over Karl’s “pause buster” temperature data tweaking Anthony Watts / October 27, 2015
    4. The Oddities in NOAA’s New “Pause-Buster” Sea Surface Temperature Product – An Overview of Past Posts
    5. Correcting Ocean Cooling: NASAChanges Data to Fit the Models Adjusts Data from Buoys

Fast forward to today, and one will see that many of the claims made back in 2015 are being made by the NOAA Whistleblower, only this time, people are sitting up and listening. The Obama Administration and his cronies in the EPA are no longer there to run interference, and there is a new Sheriff in town with no patience for a dishonest press, dishonest government, dishonest academia or any form of dishonesty. The claims made by the Whistleblower combined with the pattern of criminal data manipulation exposed in this article should give President Trump plenty of material to use in court.

Even without the past pattern of criminal behavior, the NOAA Whistleblower’s claims are damning enough. The NOAA Whistleblower’s name is John Bates, and he wrote a detailed explanation of his claims on Judith Curry’s blog, Climate Etc. I will try to summarize the most important accusations.

      1. The “Pause Buster” report, referred to as K15, conveniently erased a period called “the pause,” much like the inconvenient Medieval Warming and the Little Ice Age were erased from the “Hockeystick,” and why not, no one was punished for doing it.
      2. The date supporting K15 was not archived, making it impossible to reproduce. In other words, dead men tell no tales. Any evidence was bit-cleaned away, or put in the shredder.
      3. The timing of the report was very convenient and issued just prior to the Obama Administration’s Clean Power Plan submission to the Paris Climate Conference in 2015.
      4. The data used in K15 was not properly processed for “adjustments,” and the resulting data set was offered only on the website, lacking any warnings that the data was not operational and not released in digital form. This had the effect of preventing skeptics from easily analyzing the data. The question here has to be what motivated the authors of K15 to intentionally act is a manner consistent with a coverup?
      5. The authors of K15 “had their thumbs on the scale” to ensure that the report demonstrated the desired warming and absence of the “pause.” Findings critical for President Obama to present at the Paris Conference.
      6. The article published in Science Magazine violated the archival requirements, and no disclaimer was given.
      7. From the UK Daily Mail article, about the K15 authors, “Dr Bates said: ‘They had good data from buoys. And they threw it out and “corrected” it by using the bad data from ships. You never change good data to agree with bad, but that’s what they did – so as to make it look as if the sea was warmer.” This is reminiscent of “Mike’s Nature Trick…to Hide the Decline,” and the bizarre combinations of the Hockeystick proxies.

This quote says it all and would be considered fraud in any other industry. This is a clear and intentional distortion of the data to reach a predetermined conclusion. If a drug company did they there would be criminal charges. This quote demonstrated fraudulent criminal intent.

“Dr Bates said: ‘They had good data from buoys. And they threw it out and “corrected” it by using the bad data from ships. You never change good data to agree with bad, but that’s what they did – so as to make it look as if the sea was warmer.”


The response from the media to the NOAA Whistleblower has been predictable. They are attempting to portray it as much ado about nothing. Even Science, whose credibility stands to be severely damaged, is trying to pass this off as a simple argument about archiving procedures.

Rose’s story ricocheted around right-wing media outlets, and was publicized by the Republican-led House of Representatives science committee…But ScienceInsider found no evidence of misconduct or violation of agency research policies… Instead, the dispute appears to reflect long-standing tensions within NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)… over how new data sets are used for scientific research.

The claim of the Science Insider finding “no evidence of misconduct” is reminiscent of the Penn State University finding no evidence of misconduct after the release of the Climategate emails.

So for now, it appears like not much has changed, and the Climategate Conspirators are relying on their old friends in the media, academia and the Green Gestapo to run interference for them, but this time, they will not be able to rely on the Government for protection. We can only hope that President Trump takes a more in-depth look at this issue and connects all the dots. Each event taken by itself can be discounted as much ado about nothing, but when taken in their entirety paint a mosaic of crime and corruption. Even if you don’t buy the arguments laid out in this article, most people will agree that we simply can’t afford to spend trillions of dollars based on research done by biased, careless and manipulative researchers and administrators.


What then are the solutions?:

      1. There must be some accountability and standards. No one gets punished for violating even the most basic of scientific practices.
      2.  There is way too much power concentrated if too few unelected people. The entire climate research industry must be broken up. No longer can one self-interested group collect, adjust, analyze and publish conclusion with basically no oversight.
      3. Good enough for government work isn’t acceptable when trillions of dollars are at stake. Much of this process should be outsourced and modernized. Google could manage the collection of the thermometer data. IBM could compile the data. Oracle could process the data. The final data would then be released to an open source temperature reconstruction society that transparently analyzes the data, and releases their finding to the public for honest and open peer review.
      4. Government funded research projects should be broken apart and duplicated to ensure verification. The “Hockeystick” is being used to justify spending trillions of dollars, and there is zero chance an open source society would ever reconstruct it on their own. “Mike’s Nature Trick…to Hide the Decline,” would never pass public scrutiny.
      5. Conclusions reached from government funded research need to be validated using double-blind and other statistical validation procedures. Climate research simply can’t be taken as valid any more than a drug company’s research should be considered valid without further verification. The IPCC climate models all have failed, and yet the funding of CO2 centric climate research continues. Why? If the results from the IPCC climate models were used by a drug company to get FDA approval it would be rejected in a heartbeat. Funding for climate research needs to be directed away from CO2 and towards the areas identified by the IPCC where scientific understanding is “very low.” (See chart above)
      6. Any research must apply the scientific method to its findings, and valid conclusions must either accept or reject the hypothesis. Failed computer models are not evidence, a consensus is not validation, peer/pal review is not validation nor is the formulation of a hypothesis without any experimental evidence to back it up. Real science is done through the application of the scientific method, experimentation, transparency, objectivity and findings are independently reproducible.

We have anti-trust laws to prevent the kind of concentration of power seen in the climate science industry, and the results are as President Eisenhower predicted. Transparency, accountability and the removal of conflicts of interest is greatly needed to ensure the public’s trust in the results produced by the climate research complex.

Please forward this article to President Trump, share, reblog, repost and comment.

Be sure to “Like,” “Share,” “Subscribe,” and “Comment.”

Read more: How to Discuss Global Warming with a “Climate Alarmist.” Scientific Talking Points to Win the Debate.

Post Publishing Headlines:

The Battle For Truth And Credibility Over Global Warming Pause

Congress Investigates Climate Study After Scientist Exposes Fake Science



29 thoughts on “Climate Science Behaving Badly; 50 Shades of Green & The Torture Timeline”

    1. LOL, I also like “The Guilty Flee when No one Pursues.” and “Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely.” Both help understand the behavior of the climate “scientists.”


      1. Also of note is that the AGW crowd keep going on about it all being science, and that all this catastrophic climate stuff is due to a Greenhouse Effect or even an Enhance Greenhouse Effect (or some such similar blather.)

        Well I have nearly 100 supposedly scientific definitions of this effect from US agencies like EPA, NOAA, NASA, and many, many universities and climate gangs research groups around the world. As this is all supposed to be science yet each ‘definitive’ description is different from each other.
        As I said before — In science if an effect can not be accurately defined then it ain’t science.

        You could try it for yourself just search for ‘greenhouse effect definition’ and see thousands of variations.

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s