By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
The shocking truth is that the oldest readings have been cranked way down and later readings artificially lifted to give a false impression of warming, as documented below. There is nothing in the station histories to warrant these adjustments and to date Dr Salinger and NIWA have not revealed why they did this. One station, Hokitika, had its early temperatures reduced by a huge 1.3°C, creating strong warming from a mild cooling, yet there’s no apparent reason for it. We have discovered that the warming in New Zealand over the past 156 years was indeed man-made, but it had nothing to do with emissions of CO2—it was created by man-made adjustments of the temperature. It’s a disgrace.
NIWA claim their official graph reveals a rising trend of 0.92ºC per century, which means (they claim) we warmed more than the rest of the globe, for according to the IPCC, global warming over the 20th century was only about 0.6°C.
Consequences
The unexplained changes to the official New Zealand temperature record cast strong doubt on the government’s assertions of urgency regarding so-called “climate change”. Using NIWA’s public data, we have shown that global warming has not yet reached New Zealand (and what does that say for global warming?). At a minimum, the adjustments made to the official NZ temperature record must be made public. NIWA’s predictions regarding climate change, including changes in temperatures, precipitation, winds, storms and sea levels, must be re-examined in the light of the absence of any changes in temperature to date, from any cause. New Zealand’s contribution to the global statistics is now under a shadow, so there could be regional or even global implications of these disgraceful “adjustments” which should be investigated. Now we must ask: do we really need an ETS? For, if all that “nasty” carbon dioxide and methane we are “pumping” into the atmosphere has utterly failed to increase our temperature until now, why ever should it do so in the future?
We've flagged your houses to "enjoy" the first flooding from all the melting ice.
"The administration has proposed raising fuel-efficiency requirements 40 percent - to 35.5 miles per gallon - by 2016 for all new cars and light trucks sold in the U.S. combined. It plans to adopt final rules in April."
Obama to Target Cars in Greenhouse-Gas Proposal at U.N. Climate Change Summit (Green Car Advisor)
Turns out, by golly, that there is man made global warming !! They did it with a pencil !! Those things should be banned !! All golfers have known this trick for years !
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
November 29, 2009
Climate change data dumped
SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.
It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.
The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.
The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.
The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data.
In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”
The CRU is the world’s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible.
What is the odds on Obama asking questions about the GW lies and deception, when he wastes our tax dollars vacationing in Copenhagen?
I think it would be a safe bet that the subject will never come up...sort of like how the N.Y. Times has been treating it. Just pretend it never happened ! So much for journalism !!
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Would a president who would ask such questions actually be allowed to take office?
GW Bush was a skeptic and I would have expected him to ask some serious questions if that is part of the agenda at Copenhagen. I think it is just another big party on the tax payers of the World. No time allotted for questions and answers. The real issue is the total ignoring of the GW mess by all the left and their media cohorts.
Barry is losing credibility on a daily basis. This would be an opportunity for him to get the American people back on his side.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
It would be cool to see Barry fight this tide, but I can't begin to imagine that becoming reality. He'd be quickly removed if he became too loud.
It's becoming quickly OT and destined for the blunders thread, but if Barry is truly seeking to be kind of the world as some of the paranoid right fear, he's doing a terrible job. He's doing nothing but proving how broken a two party system is - no matter who the people choose, they lose.
The book lists the names of more than 31,400 American scientists who have signed a petition that states, "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the earth's climate.
Of these scientists, 9,000 hold Ph.D degrees in their field.
Sounds like that's debatable too. (Time)
Some 3,000 scientific robots that are plying the ocean have sent home a puzzling message. These diving instruments suggest that the oceans have not warmed up at all over the past four or five years. That could mean global warming has taken a breather. Or it could mean scientists aren't quite understanding what their robots are telling them.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025
Albert Einstein once said, “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” Einstein’s words express a foundational principle of science intoned by the logician, Karl Popper: Falsifiability. In order to verify a hypothesis there must be a test by which it can be proved false. A thousand observations may appear to verify a hypothesis, but one critical failure could result in its demise. The history of science is littered with such examples.
A hypothesis that cannot be falsified by empirical observations, is not science. The current hypothesis on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), presented by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is no exception to this principle. Indeed, it is the job of scientists to expose the weaknesses of this hypothesis as it undergoes peer review. This paper will examine one key criterion for falsification: ocean heat.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/06/the-global-warming-hypothesis-and-ocean-he- at/
Who's gonna write a story about and HONEST scientist? It's not news - it's a GIVEN that scientists are honest.
Only the cynical or someone with an axe to grind would worry about false scientification.
Just because there are no stories to post about honest scientists does not mean that the majority are liars.
That's using one piece of data to project an incorrect assumption based on that data.
This includes tactics exactly like your scientists were using in those incriminating emails: Shading the truth, destroying evidence, belittling the competition, and on and on. Defense lawyers also have giant egos and they also hate to lose... even when their client is guilty. Like these scientists they never admit they were wrong even when they lose. It is just part of the game.
It is in the best interests of most of the world to embrace mmgw because then they get billions of dollars from U.S. taxpayers so, of course, they are all rooting for this flawed science.
I just cannot see committing billions (that we don't have) to something that has not and can not be proven.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
That makes my point. The mainstream media have big articles daily about Man Made Global Warming. Little of it is about honest science. It is all alarmist theories trumped up to generate revenue.
Houdini hit it right on the head.
Some other scientist with a pet theory will design a study to try to support that theory and then will try to find some funding to pay for the study. And we're off to the races.
And often some good research results from the competition that actually helps cure people of stuff (or saves the planet). :shades:
It's interesting to see how the two competing superconductors are cooperating though, both in lending staffing and equipment, even though grant money and prestige are on the line.
I believe in what you say despite you having no evidence, it just makes me FEEL GOOD.
Anyone who disagrees with you is a racist. :mad:
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Have you seen the ads on TV promoting the GW cult agenda? As part of the propaganda they state "In the last 40 years the number of Cat 4and 5 hurricanes has doubled" Gee, I must have missed all those storms during the last two years
This is all a lead in to having Obama sign a similar agreement in Copenhagen.
I wonder where all the money for those ads is coming from? I haven't seen anything this phony since the WWF's ads about the drowning polar bears.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Unfortunately, the same presumption has not been extended to scientists who doubted that global warming has its roots in human actions; hence, the reaction over these uncovered e-mails. Looks as though this issue ISN'T settled after all, and the doubters were right to caution against a rush to judgment.
The end goal is to bring the U.S. down to the level of the rest of the world because most of the rest of the world hates and/or envies us because of our lifestyle and the fact that it was brought about by our system of freedom and capitalism. Just remember this and you will understand what is going on.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Isn't that also a desire of globalization, which seeks to do the same to the entire developed world? A "free market/capitalist" ideal it is, too.
But I do agree, that is the desire of the GW movement. For proof, just examine cap and trade. Make it more expensive to do business in a few areas. What a coincidence :sick:
A UN scientist is declaring that his three fellow UN climate panel colleagues "should be barred from the IPCC process." In a November 26, 2009 message on his website, UN IPCC contributing author Dr. Eduardo Zorita writes: "CRU files: Why I think that Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Stefan Rahmstorf should be barred from the IPCC process."
Zorita writes that the short answer to that question is: Short answer: "Because the scientific assessments in which they may take part are not credible anymore."
Zorita indicates that he is aware that he is putting his career in jeopardy by going after the upper echelon of UN IPCC scientists. "By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication," Zorita candidly admits, a reference to the ClimateGate emails discussing how to suppress data and scientific studies that do not agree with the UN IPCC views.
Loss of credibility
Zorita
The MMGW accolytes remind me of the John Dehner character in the TV western "Maverick" who used to say to James Garner: "If you can't trust your banker, who can you trust?" while preparing to seperate him from his wallet. My apologies to the youngsters who read this; "Maverick" was a popular TV western from the 60's.
Regards, DQ
There was Sheryl Crow, who had called upon the public to refrain from using more than one square of toilet paper per visit (“except on those pesky occasions when two or three are required”) and who was leading a Stop Global Warming concert tour across America. It was revealed that while Crow travelled in a biodiesel tour bus, her 30-person entourage followed in a fleet of 13 gas-guzzling vehicles.
John Travolta notoriously encouraged the British public to do its bit to fight global warming — after flying into London on one of his five, yes, five private jets (one of which is a Boeing 707). In 2006 his piloting hobby produced an estimated 800 tons of carbon emissions, more than a hundred times the output of the average Briton, according to the Carbon Trust.
It is less well known that Tom Cruise — who has campaigned for the LA-based environmental group Earth Communications Office — also has an air fleet and a licence to pilot his five planes, including a top-of-the-line customised Gulfstream jet he bought for his wife, Katie Holmes.
http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/celebrity/article6931572- .ece
And they want US to give up our SUVs. Well you know what I say :P :P :P :P
Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with the Climategate whitewash, says Christopher Booker.
A week after my colleague James Delingpole , on his Telegraph blog, coined the term "Climategate" to describe the scandal revealed by the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, Google was showing that the word now appears across the internet more than nine million times. But in all these acres of electronic coverage, one hugely relevant point about these thousands of documents has largely been missed.
The reason why even the Guardian's George Monbiot has expressed total shock and dismay at the picture revealed by the documents is that their authors are not just any old bunch of academics. Their importance cannot be overestimated, What we are looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Professor Philip Jones, the CRU's director, is in charge of the two key sets of data used by the IPCC to draw up its reports. Through its link to the Hadley Centre, part of the UK Met Office, which selects most of the IPCC's key scientific contributors, his global temperature record is the most important of the four sets of temperature data on which the IPCC and governments rely – not least for their predictions that the world will warm to catastrophic levels unless trillions of dollars are spent to avert it.
Dr Jones is also a key part of the closely knit group of American and British scientists responsible for promoting that picture of world temperatures conveyed by Michael Mann's "hockey stick" graph which 10 years ago turned climate history on its head by showing that, after 1,000 years of decline, global temperatures have recently shot up to their highest level in recorded history.
Given star billing by the IPCC, not least for the way it appeared to eliminate the long-accepted Mediaeval Warm Period when temperatures were higher they are today, the graph became the central icon of the entire man-made global warming movement.
Since 2003, however, 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.
Lots more damning evidence
In 2009, ocean surfaces have warmest summer on record.
The warming is happening, but the CAUSE is still up for debate.
Combined Global Surface Temperature Was Sixth Warmest for October
NOAA: Combined Global Surface Temperature Was Sixth Warmest for October
Global ocean surface temperature fifth warmest
November 17, 2009
The combined global land and ocean surface temperature was the sixth warmest October on record, according to NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. Based on records going back to 1880, the monthly National Climatic Data Center analysis is part of the suite of climate services NOAA provides.
NCDC scientists reported that the average land surface temperature for October was also the sixth warmest on record. Additionally, the global ocean surface temperature was the fifth warmest on record for October.
Global Temperature Highlights
* The combined global land and ocean surface temperature for October 2009 was the sixth warmest on record, at 1.03 degrees F above the 20th century average of 57.1 degrees F.
* The global land surface temperature for October 2009 was 1.48 degrees F above the 20th century average of 48.7 degrees F, and ranked as the sixth warmest October on record.
* The worldwide ocean temperature was the fifth warmest October on record, with an anomaly of 0.90 degree F above the 20th century average of 60.6 degrees F. Warmer-than-average temperatures dominated much of the world’s land areas. The greatest warm temperature variances during October 2009 were present across Alaska and northern and eastern Russia.
* Cooler-than-average conditions prevailed across Scandinavia, New Zealand, the contiguous U.S., and parts of northern Australia and southern South America.
Other Highlights
* According to New Zealand’s National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, New Zealand experienced uncharacteristically cool conditions, resulting in the coolest October since 1945. The national average was 51.1 degrees F, 2.5 degrees F below the long-term average.
* Average Arctic sea ice coverage was 2.9 million square miles during October. This is 19.2 percent less than the 1979-2000 average and the second smallest October extent, behind 2007, since records began in 1979.
* Antarctic sea ice extent in October was 1.6 percent above the 1979-2000 average, the ninth largest October extent on record.
* Hurricane Rick became the second-most intense Northeast Pacific hurricane on record, behind 1997’s Linda, and the strongest hurricane to form in October since reliable records began. Rick made landfall near Mazatlan, Mexico on October 21st, resulting in two fatalities.
Scientists, researchers, and leaders in government and industry use NOAA’s monthly reports to help track trends and other changes in the world's climate. This climate service has a wide range of practical uses, from helping farmers know what and when to plant, to guiding resource managers with critical decisions about water, energy and other vital assets.
NOAA understands and predicts changes in the Earth’s environment, from the depths of the oceans to surface of the sun, and conserves and manages our coastal and marine resources.
Science never proves anything. Any true scientist will tell you that what they do is disprove by gathering info and testing existing hypotheses. Yet, all you and these discredited scientists offer is more so called evidence supporting this global warming hypothesis, and hiding, discarding, or attempting to minimize any evidence to the contrary. The whole thing is so transparent that it is ridiculous.
If you see wave after wave of white geese flying overhead and conclude that all geese are white, you don't keep counting all the white geese. What a scientist does is look for that one black goose that disproves the theory.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
If it was the 6th which year was the warmest?
Logic says we have increased our GHG output every year for at least a couple centuries. If CO2 causes the earth to warm it should be parallel with growth. Global climate goes its merry way as it has forever. Our contribution has little affect. Even if it did we are not going to get the emerging countries to move back into the caves. They want what we have and will work in that direction. Coal will be the major producer of energy.
Second: The last two administrations have put restraints on the agencies such as NASA and NOAA. Do you really believe they will push an agenda that the President does not agree with? Both Clinton and Bush were accused of suppressing information that was not in line with the direction they wanted to take. This President will replace a Czar in a NY second that does not follow his agenda.
PS
That article failed to mention the findings of ARGO. The oceans still determine most of our climate changes. Along with the Sun of course. No mention of sunspots and the cooling trend either. All factors the MM/GW Cult would like to suppress.
http://www.argo.net/
Are you?
Does ClimateGate mean that ALL reported weather data is invalid?
No, of course it does not. That would be ridiculous.
Does ClimateGate mean that ALL reported weather data is invalid?
If you follow the news you should know that NASA is being sued for not handing over the raw data under the freedom of information act. What you posted is an opinion piece with no backup data to verify. It was probably written by a student working Summers in some program tied to NOAA. They have 100s such people all over the globe.
They do not depend on grants, climate-change-related or otherwise, for their money. They are an arm of the Department of Commerce.
Gary says, "What you posted is an opinion piece with no backup data to verify."
You must have my post mixed up with someone else's. Mine was a report based on current 2009 temp data gathered by the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C., and posted directly on the NOAA website.
Not an opinion piece in any way, shape, or form.
They are just another agency vying for our tax dollars every year. They get cuts when times are tough and people laid off. Do you think for a second that with this Congress and President they would get their fair share of the pie if the data they reported flew in the face of what is being proposed to deal with GW? NOAA would get big budget cuts if they said we don't think from the evidence that the earth is warming in conjunction with Man Made GHG. If you look at their charts they use the IPCC massaged data that is in dispute as a result of Climategate.
The IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios determines the range of future possible greenhouse gas concentrations (and other forcings) based on considerations such as population growth, economic growth, energy efficiency and a host of other factors. This leads a wide range of possible forcing scenarios, and consequently a wide range of possible future climates.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#q11
Professor Ian Plimer condemned the climate change lobby as “climate comrades” keeping the “gravy train” going.
In a controversial talk just days before the start of a climate summit attended by world leaders in Copenhagen, Prof Plimer said Governments were treating the public like “fools” and using climate change to increase taxes.
He said carbon dioxide has had no impact on temperature and that recent warming was part of the natural cycle of climate stretching over billions of years.
Prof Plimer told a London audience: “Climates always change. They always have and they always will. They are driven by a number of factors that are random and cyclical.”
His comments came days after a scandal in climate-change research emerged through the leak of emails from the world-leading research unit at the University of East Anglia. They appeared to show that scientists had been massaging data to prove that global warming was taking place
The Climate Research Unit also admitted getting rid of much of its raw climate data, which means other scientists cannot check the subsequent research. Last night the head of the CRU, Professor Phil Jones, said he would stand down while an independent review took place.
But Professor Plimer, of Adelaide and Melbourne Universities, said that to stop climate change Governments should find ways to prevent changes to the Earth’s orbit and ocean currents and avoid explosions of supernovae in space. Of the saga of the leaked emails, he said: “If you have to argue your science by using fraud, your science is not valid.”
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/143573
... why do we always get a knee-jerk reaction that ends up with the belief that all people who do not believe in AGW are paid by Oil companies?
I wish I was - nope I work for the largest University in the country and my department develops wind-turbines and alternative energy storage. And we're not paid by Oil companies. And we don't believe in AGW, so we must be in the 1%....
"The fact [FACT? - what FACT? Show me the figures] is that 99% of scientists qualified to have a view and 100% of all genuine professional and scientific bodies throughout the world, accept the reality of man made global warming".
I'll leave you with this:
If you’d asked any scientist or doctor 30 years ago where stomach ulcers come from, they would all have given the same answer: obviously it comes from the acid brought on by too much stress. All of them apart from two scientists who were pilloried for their crazy, whacko theory that it was caused by a bacteria. In 2005 they won the Nobel prize. The “consensus” was wrong.’
The warming IS happening - that part is simple.
The causes? Not so simple to explain.
Everyone still looking for that answer.
Yes, they are. But here is the part that makes me frustrated with this particular discussion with you:
What makes you think, or should make anyone believe, that they need to LIE about GW to get that tax money !?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!@#$@?#!@?%!@?@!~#$?@~#$?@~!#?!$?!@$?!@#$?
They DON'T, is the answer to that question.
There is no "global warming tax program" that they can lie and collect more money from.
There is no way to get money from a non-existent tax !!!!
U.S. Government weather agencies CANNOT PROFIT from lying about Global Warming !!!
That has always been my complaint with THE AGW CULT. They decided with a scrap of evidence that man is the cause, and any dissenting voice should be crushed and discredited. Well now the truth is coming out and we need to get rid of the bad apples that have destroyed the science and made it a political football. Starting with tossing Al Gore into prison for fraud with his movie forced onto our children. It is more likely we will never find a cause to pin the blame on. The universe which we are a part of is in constant change. The planet has been changing since it was created. Man has destroyed some of it in the process of surviving. Aside from killing off a few billion, I don't see that changing much.
I said nothing about profit. I said they can and do get their budgets cut. legislation is not so blatant as to state the budget is cut because we don't like your position on a given subject. Maybe this will give you some insight as to how our government controls what the various agencies do and say.
October 13, 2009
Vote Likely on $172 Million Cut From NOAA Budget
Ocean-research advocates are rallying the troops today to build opposition to a proposed $172 million cut from the 2010 budget of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration as part of debate on the $65 billion Commerce, Justice, and Science spending bill for next year. Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R) and three other Republicans have proposed cutting that money from the NOAA operating account and using it to fund the "State Criminal Alien Assistance Program," which the Obama Administration wants to slash from the budget next year. The program provides federal funds to state and local jails to help them pay for detention of criminals who are undocumented immigrants, and the Obama Administration said it would save $400 million by cutting it from the federal budget.
Obama proposed a $4.5 billion budget for NOAA, and the House passed a budget that would give it $4.6 billion. The bill coming to the floor would fund the agency at $4.8 billion.
Hutchinson's amendment does not specify what operations within the NOAA operating account would get cut. If the amendment passes, it will be up to the Administration to wield the ax. NOAA may decide to keep its core intact and carve into proposed boosts to satellite-research programs and conservation-management programs.
Washington, D.C., advocacy group Ocean Leadership emphasized how the cut might affect climate research, specifically satellite observations, in an alert it sent out today to its supporters:
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Australia's Parliament defeats global warming bill
By ROHAN SULLIVAN, Associated Press Writer Rohan Sullivan, Associated Press Writer – Wed Dec 2, 2:45 am ET
SYDNEY – Australia's plans for an emissions trading system to combat global warming were scuttled Wednesday in Parliament, handing a defeat to a government that had hoped to set an example at international climate change talks next week.
The Senate, where Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's government does not hold a majority, rejected his administration's proposal for Australia to become one of the first countries to install a so-called cap-and-trade system to slash the amount of heat-trapping pollution that industries pump into the air.
The 41-33 vote followed a tumultuous debate in which the conservative main opposition party at first agreed to support a version of the government's bill, then dramatically dumped its leader and switched sides after bitter divisions erupted within the party.
The new leader, Tony Abbott, said Australia should not adopt an emissions trading system before the rest of the world.
Guvmint agencies get their budgets adjusted EVERY YEAR.
What the NOAA says about GW does not affect the amount of money they get or don't get for any given year.
It just doesn't.
It's ridiculous to say or think that the NOAA would get more money for lying about something and less money if they told the truth about something.
Totally goofballish.
Imagine the meeting:
Purse String Holder: "So, NOAA, you guys have not been doing much lying this year about MMGW. That's gonna cost you.
NOAA: "Aw, C'Mon, AlGore is not even in the country !!"
PSH: "No, regardless of that, we've got to keep the lie alive. I need more stories about how HOT HOT HOT all those HumVees are making the Planet. More More More."
NOAA: "OK, so let's say we tell 15 more lies this year. Can we get $150 million more?"
PSH: "Sold !!!"
See how stupid that sounds??
Pursestringholder: " So if you guys are telling me there's no real evidence of MMGW, as the temperature over the last 10 years is rather flat-lined, what exactly are you going to do? Why do we keep so many of you employed and spend money on expeditions and to publish reports?"
If they don't have SOMETHING important to work on - they're out of a job. If there is no serious MMGW-concern, many of these guys are cut and will have a hard-time in the private sector. So each agency head in order to keep their little empire going, must make sure they have something important to work on.
A good example is NASA. After man walked-on and explored the moon, they had nothing real important to do, and they saw their funding and status seriously cut. Seeing that the people in an organization usually are very interested in their subject, they hate to see the funding cut; therefore there certainly is an incentive to hype the importance of what you're researching.
And the great thing about MMGW is that other groups such as politicians (cap&trade $ and power) and ardent ecologists (general reduction in man's energy usage which is needed for all development) see benefits in promoting MMGW.
They are a research and reporting agency, with projects on all sorts of weather issues, not merely GW.
My point is, and remains, that they are not going to LIE about something to get funding for something they want to LIE some more about.
The adviser, John Holdren, said scientists generally are capable of defensiveness, bias and "misbehavior." But he said the meaning of some of the statements in the emails isn't clear, and that the significance of others has been exaggerated.
Human activity is "beyond any reasonable doubt" the primary cause of warming temperatures, Mr. Holdren said."
Obama Science Adviser Urges Climate Action Amid Uproar (Wall St. Journal)
And here's the quick fix:
European Mini Ice Age Took Hold in Months, Not Decades (Treehugger)
Yes I do. That is the reason they legislate page after page of nonsense to avoid looking like they are doing just as you have stated. Look at the legislation giving one Senator from Louisiana $300 million to sign the health care bill.
It's ridiculous to say or think that the NOAA would get more money for lying about something and less money if they told the truth about something.
You have a much higher regard for our Government than I do. Too bad it is not as you believe.