moonbattery logo

Jan 31 2016

300 Scientists Sign Letter Opposing Federal Data Fudging Regarding Global Warming

Again and again we are fed the lie that 97% of scientists are going along with the global warming dogma leftists have been using as a device to achieve higher taxes and more centralized control. Why don’t they claim that 100% of scientists have been bullied and/or bribed into compliance? Because some scientists are sounding off:

Hundreds of scientists sent a letter to lawmakers Thursday warning National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) scientists may have violated federal laws when they published a 2015 study purporting to eliminate the 15-year “hiatus” in global warming from the temperature record.

“We, the undersigned, scientists, engineers, economists and others, who have looked carefully into the effects of carbon dioxide released by human activities, wish to record our support for the efforts of the Committee on Science, Space and Technology to ensure that federal agencies complied with federal guidelines that implemented the Data Quality Act,” some 300 scientists, engineers and other experts wrote to Chairman of the House Science Committee, Texas Republican Rep. Lamar Smith.

“In our opinion… NOAA has failed to observe the OMB [Office of Management and Budget] (and its own) guidelines, established in relation to the Data Quality Act.”

The Data Quality Act requires federal agencies like NOAA to “ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information, including statistical information.”

What kind of climate criminals signed this letter?

Of the 300 letter signers, 150 had doctorates in a related field. Signers also included: 25 climate or atmospheric scientists, 23 geologists, 18 meteorologists, 51 engineers, 74 physicists, 20 chemists and 12 economists. Additionally, one signer was a Nobel Prize winning physicist and two were astronauts.

The scientific malfeasance is too outrageous to let pass.

The NOAA study in dispute claims the scientists found a solution to the 15-year “pause” in global warming. They “adjusted” the hiatus in warming [in] the temperature record from 1998 to 2012 [so that the] “new analysis exhibits more than twice as much warming as the old analysis at the global scale.”

As climate expert Bob Tisdale and meteorologist Anthony Watts write,

It’s the same story all over again; the adjustments go towards cooling the past and thus increasing the slope of temperature rise.

Their intent and methods are so obvious they’re laughable.

Kudos to scientists with the integrity to stand up for reality in the face of tremendous pressure to endorse fiction.

On a tip from Shawn R.




23 Responses to “300 Scientists Sign Letter Opposing Federal Data Fudging Regarding Global Warming”

  1. ddcannady says:

    Sunshine is the best disinfectant. The climate change scam makes Bernie Madoff look like a philanthropist. It’s merely an attempt to divert private sector profits into a revenue stream for the UN.

  2. ddcannady says:

    Sunshine is the best disinfectant. The climate change scam makes Bernie Madoff look like a philanthropist. It’s merely an attempt to divert private sector profits into a revenue stream for the UN.

  3. Wilberforce says:

    Nailed it. 🙂

  4. Wilberforce says:

    Nailed it. 🙂

  5. Fiberal says:

    One of the worse things that has happened with the appropriation of science by liberals as a front for for their global taxation agenda, has been the growing distrust of science.

    So it is disheartening to see in a recent IBD editorial, the casual sentence, ‘today we cannot trust the numbers that science provides.’

    And that is correct. As with everything liberals touch, scientific credibility too has been seriously damaged.

  6. Fiberal says:

    One of the worse things that has happened with the appropriation of science by liberals as a front for for their global taxation agenda, has been the growing distrust of science.

    So it is disheartening to see in a recent IBD editorial, the casual sentence, ‘today we cannot trust the numbers that science provides.’

    And that is correct. As with everything liberals touch, scientific credibility too has been seriously damaged.

  7. olddog says:

    (D)=(D)ysfunction by (D)esign…and eventual (D)isaster for America..ELIMINATION is the ONLY OPTION!!!!

  8. olddog says:

    (D)=(D)ysfunction by (D)esign…and eventual (D)isaster for America..ELIMINATION is the ONLY OPTION!!!!

  9. Xavier says:

    The best way to convince people of AGW would be to publish the raw data online and let peer review validate it.

    That doesn’t happen, and for a reason: the man behind the curtain would lose control.

  10. Xavier says:

    The best way to convince people of AGW would be to publish the raw data online and let peer review validate it.

    That doesn’t happen, and for a reason: the man behind the curtain would lose control.

  11. Fiberal says:

    ….it is disheartening to see in a recent IBD editorial, the casual
    sentence, ‘today we cannot trust the numbers that science provides.’

  12. Fiberal says:

    ….it is disheartening to see in a recent IBD editorial, the casual
    sentence, ‘today we cannot trust the numbers that science provides.’

  13. JacksonPearson says:

    Buh, bye Al….:

  14. JacksonPearson says:

    Buh, bye Al….:

  15. bullet2354 says:

    Well, this is it – 2016. This is the year Al Gore said is was all over. We have reached the POINT OF NOOOOOOO RETURN.

    It is all over.

    It was good knowing you.

    Hold out as long as you can.

    Tell my wife I love. (well,)

    God bless you.

  16. Well, this is it – 2016. This is the year Al Gore said is was all over. We have reached the POINT OF NOOOOOOO RETURN.

    It is all over.

    It was good knowing you.

    Hold out as long as you can.

    Tell my wife I love. (well,)

    God bless you.

  17. chuck_in_st_paul says:

    yeah, but they are NOT “climate” scientists so STFU (and renew my research grant into creative numerology)
    .

  18. chuck_in_st_paul says:

    yeah, but they are NOT “climate” scientists so STFU (and renew my research grant into creative numerology)
    .

  19. chuck_in_st_paul says:

    ahh but we DO have raw data – from balloons and satellites. They agree with each other and BOTH disagree majorly with the “adjusted” surface temps published by NOAA and NASA.

    We also have dozens of papers from around the world now determining the Middle Ages Warm Period was global, not isolated to Europe as the hacks and scammers keep insisting.

  20. chuck_in_st_paul says:

    ahh but we DO have raw data – from balloons and satellites. They agree with each other and BOTH disagree majorly with the “adjusted” surface temps published by NOAA and NASA.

    We also have dozens of papers from around the world now determining the Middle Ages Warm Period was global, not isolated to Europe as the hacks and scammers keep insisting.

  21. chuck_in_st_paul says:

    Agenda 21

  22. chuck_in_st_paul says:

    Agenda 21

Alibi3col theme by Themocracy