UPDATE: We updated this article to address concerns after a reader cited research and recommendations by the fact-checking organization Climate Feedback.
Climate Feedback presented their analysis of our source article, including academic publications by several of its contributors. They concluded the article contained misleading and unsupported details:
Key Take Away
Temperature measurements made with different instruments and methods over time must necessarily be adjusted to ensure high-quality records of temperature that reliably represent changes. The adjustments needed for land stations in the United States often increase the apparent long-term warming, but overall, adjustments actually reduce the global warming trend.
What does an organization do when the real numbers don’t support the agenda they are pushing?
Sometimes they fudge the numbers. Cherry pick what helps prop up the lie and ignore the real facts.
This happens so often that The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has been doing just that in order to support their biggest science scandal: global warming. Selling their brand of science, their “truth” about global warming brings in extra funding, yet their data is off by 50%.
For the past 18 years, satellites have shown no global warming, where as the “the land based data sets like the ones maintained by NOAA for the US Historical Climate Network (USHCN) continue to show a warming trend.” How can this be?
One explanation, by meteorologist Anthony Watts, shows NOAA using readings from areas that experience Urban Heat Island effect, that is instruments surrounded by buildings, roads or airports nearby which raises the temperatures due to local “environment” and not climate or weather.
Read more on the next page.
Global smarming should be a criminal offense.
Thats how the politicians lie to the american people stretch the truth
Nick Noelte: I’ve a degree in Geology – Earth Science and my wife has here’s in Biology and Forest Ecology, and we both found the FEE article to be thorough. The PUNDITFACT article introduced their position with polling results. (Scientific method?) They then supported their position by cherry-picked, i.e., used urban-island climate measurements and discarded undesirable data. We need to take care of our environment, but world leaders want us focus on climate. Why? We’ll see a lot more of this in 2016, and especially after Hillary takes office in 2017.
So what do you think, global warming is a hoax? Why would 98% of scientists do that? Why? To take your money? Why?
The agenda is to equate co2 with pollution. Of course that’s bs. Commercial greenhouses use co2 generators because it is good for the plants. And doesn’t change the climate either. The average global temperature has increased only .8 degree in 100 years. And that is even if you could accurately get an average temp for the whole planet. We are certainly polluting the planet, it just isn’t causing climate change. The climate changes all the time and it is most significantly effected by the sun. Check out the Maunder Minimum to read about how the river Thames was frozen. The co2 causation agenda is the final currency. Your carbon footprint. Give them a foothold and you’ll eventually be taxed on the air you breath. Check out how this Nobel laureate of physics destroys the global warming/climate change agenda. I disagree with his comments about support of burning fossil fuels. Regarding the data and climate change, he is spot on.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Dk60CUkf3Kw
No matter what the reason, the air will be cleaner so what’s wrong with that?
Why would the whole world tell a lie? Why? It’s not helping them, why do you think?
Old news
Mars and Venus are warming, too. Is that our fault?
Louis White, you have a degree in geology and your wife has hers in bio and forest ecology, and yet you find fee’s article THOROUGH!?! It was written by a blogger for a rag called “Foundation for Economic Education”. How many climatologists write for them?
The guy used a handful of sources to beef up his claim, and he doesn’t even give solid evidence to his claim! Regarding Daniel botkin, he makes good points about certain things, but he completely glosses over real facts. Here are some of his findings during his written Congressional testimony:
Daniel Botkin:
“1. I want to state up front that we have been living through a warming trend driven by a variety of influences. However, it is my view that this is not unusual, and contrary to the characterizations by the IPCC and the National Climate Assessment, these environmental changes are not apocalyptic nor irreversible.”
Here’s what he’s not getting…while it is not unusual to go through warming and Cooling trends on this planet, it is highly unusual that we are seeing our warming trend happen so quickly. We are deviating from the milankovitch cycles, and he completely ignores this fact.
“2. My biggest concern is that both the reports present a number of speculative, and sometimes incomplete, conclusions embedded in language that gives them more scientific heft than they deserve. The reports are “scientific-sounding” rather than based on clearly settled facts or admitting their lack. Established facts about the global environment exist less often in science than laymen usually think.”
It seems he simply just cannot understand the data here. He can’t discern data regarding man-made influence and natural influence. It’s all too “sciency” for him.
“3. HAS IT BEEN WARMING? Yes, we have been living through a warming trend, no doubt about that. The rate of change we are experiencing is also not unprecedented, and the “mystery” of the warming “plateau” simply indicates the inherent complexity of our global biosphere. Change is normal, life on Earth is inherently risky; it always has been. The two reports, however, makes it seem that environmental change is apocalyptic and irreversible. It is not.”
There are already parts of the world that have displaced it’s human and wildlife population due to rising ocean waters. There are frogs and bees that are dying off rapidly and have already shown signs of destabilizing the ecosystem of those areas. Doesn’t your wife know this?!
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.ars.usda.gov/CCD&ved=0ahUKEwi6maHlzvnJAhXI7R4KHQ7-DIYQFghGMAk&usg=AFQjCNGaIGkH4mgbWZz1_1sMa1IMg8wtdw
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2008/08/12_extinction.shtml&ved=0ahUKEwiKkYH_zvnJAhUF9h4KHf5CB4sQFghCMAo&usg=AFQjCNG3ZDSJIaFZYYbkJkRLRQcaCXJCfg
But since it’s not happening in mr. Botkins backyard, it’s not really an issue I guess.
“4. IS CLIMATE CHANGE VERY UNUSUAL? No, it has always undergone changes.”
Yes, it has. And 100,000 years ago it wasn’t a big deal. Now that we have billions of people on this planet, it is indeed a serious global issue! Why does he keep ignoring this fact?
“5. ARE GREENHOUSE GASES INCREASING? Yes, CO2 rapidly.”
Huh, I wonder why? Oh that’s right, you folks say it’s because the cows are just faring more these days.
“6. IS THERE GOOD SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH ON CLIMATE CHANGE? Yes, a great deal of it.
7. ARE THERE GOOD SCIENTISTS INVOLVED IN THE IPCC 2014 REPORT? Yes, the lead author of the Terrestrial (land) Ecosystem Report is Richard Betts, a coauthor of one my scientific papers about forecasting effects of global warming on biodiversity.”
Huh, how convenient. The only scientist he claims to be good at his job is one that helped him write his books…and then he’s gonna sit there and say that all the other scientists out there are only stating their studies to increase their grants to keep them working. Go try to sell more of your books botkin!
“8. ARE THERE SCIENTIFICALLY ACCURATE STATEMENTS AT PLACES IN THE REPORT? Yes, there are.
9. What I sought to learn was the overall take-away that the reports leave with a reader. I regret to say that I was left with the impression that the reports overestimate the danger from human-induced climate change and do not contribute to our ability to solve major environmental problems. I am afraid that an “agenda” permeates the reports, an implication that humans and our activity are necessarily bad and ought to be curtailed.”
And what exactly is that “agenda” you’re talking about? Oh that’s right, the fee article claims it as some giant conspiracy to make money. Yet we are seeing record temperatures, serious droughts, entire villages under water, violent storms, and ecological destabilization andgendacross the globe. Nah, it’s just a way for us to sell t shirts to hippies and get the world to buy organic foods so we can all be hipsters. Tell that to these people:
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/03/29/world/asia/facing-rising-seas-bangladesh-confronts-the-consequences-of-climate-change.html?referer=
Or these people:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://earthfirstjournal.org/newswire/2014/04/06/first-official-climate-change-refugees-evacuate-their-island-homes-for-good/&ved=0ahUKEwizw5n-0PnJAhXKFx4KHUf5DpEQFggnMAM&usg=AFQjCNEseEs77g4yjpuRJA3QECA-XYjZbw
Or maybe these people:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/10/06/3709050/alaska-climate-threatened-community-relocating/&ved=0ahUKEwizw5n-0PnJAhXKFx4KHUf5DpEQFgg6MAc&usg=AFQjCNE9RmfmrAQKSuDjt9gJa5y1TUPbUw
But maybe you, your wife, Mr. Botkin, and Max Borders can all tell these people to their faces that climate change isn’t at all a big deal, and they shouldn’t have anything to worry about.
But hey, what do I know? I’m not a geologist, nor am I a park ranger, nor am I a “naturalist”, nor a blogger who writes for some economist website. I guess the health of the world is really no big deal.
10. ARE THERE MAJOR PROBLEMS WITH THE REPORTS? Yes, in assumptions, use of data, and conclusions.
11. My biggest concern about the reports is that they present a number of speculative, and sometimes incomplete, conclusions embedded in language that gives them more scientific heft than they deserve. The reports, in other words, are “scientific- sounding,” rather than clearly settled and based on indisputable facts. Established facts about the global environment exist less often in science than laymen usually think.
12. The two reports assume and/or argue that the climate warming forecast by the global climate models is happening and will continue to happen and grow worse. Currently these predictions are way off the reality (Figure 1). Models, like all scientific theory, have to be tested against real-world observations. Experts in model validation say that the climate models frequently cited in the IPCC report are little if any validated. This means that as theory they are fundamentally scientifically unproven.”