The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration released its new “State of the Climate 2009” report on July 28, claiming that evidence for global warming is “unmistakable” and that it’s happening because of greenhouse gases. But critics are already poking holes in the alarmist arguments as the press jumps on the story.

According to the researchers involved, over 300 in all, more than 90 percent of the added heat has gone into the oceans. Also, this decade has been the warmest on record, and the world has warmed by one degree over the last 50 years, they claimed.

“The temperature increase of one degree Fahrenheit over the past 50 years may seem small, but it has already altered our planet,” said NOAA climate buff Deke Arndt, a co-editor of the new report. “Glaciers and sea ice are melting, heavy rainfall is intensifying and heat waves are more common,” he claimed.

The agency’s temperature readings, however, have come under fire after it was alleged that data was "cherry picked" to create the appearance of warming. “NOAA performs manipulations to create false impressions from the data, including assigning temperature increases were there is zero data,” wrote famed meteorologist and founder of surfacestations.org Anthony Watts earlier this month.

Other experts have offered similarly damning analyses of the agency’s temperature-gathering methodologies. NOAA “systematically eliminated 75% of the world’s stations with a clear bias towards removing higher latitude, high altitude and rural locations, all of which had a tendency to be cooler,” explained climate researchers Joseph D’Aleo and Michael Smith in a study published by the Science and Public Policy Institute. “The thermometers in a sense, marched towards the tropics, the sea, and to airport tarmacs.”

Numerous other countries’ data have also been criticized over concerns that temperature records have been manipulating in favor of warming, including China, Russia, and New Zealand, all of which were involved in the new NOAA report. The “Chinagate” scandal attracted the most headlines, but the problem of data manipulation is seen as widespread. 

But this new climate change study was different, according to NOAA administrator Jane Lubchenco. “For the first time, and in a single compelling comparison, the analysis brings together multiple observational records from the top of the atmosphere to the depths of the ocean,” she said in a press release.

“The records come from many institutions worldwide. They use data collected from diverse sources, including satellites, weather balloons, weather stations, ships, buoys and field surveys,” Lubchenco explained. “These independently produced lines of evidence all point to the same conclusion: our planet is warming.”

In reality, not “all” of the evidence pointed to warming. Antarctic ice is growing at record levels. Arctic sea ice actually increased for 2009, but, as with everything that might contradict the alarmist warming theories, this was dismissed as part of a “natural cycle of climate variability.” Recent record snow falls across much of the United States were also downplayed, with the report’s authors warning people not to read too much into them.

This study did not claim human emissions were definitively the cause of the alleged warming. It also didn’t offer projections of future warming. But, as usual, alarmists have been quick to seize on the report to push for everything from cap-and-tax legislation to carbon taxes.

“The whole of the climate system is acting in a way consistent with the effects of greenhouse gases,” UK Met Office climate monitoring boss Peter Stott, who contributed to the report, told the Financial Times. “The fingerprints are clear. The glaringly obvious explanation for this is warming from greenhouse gases.”

Of course, the most important greenhouse gas by far is water vapor, accounting for some 95 percent of the atmospheric total, virtually all of which is natural. Man’s emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane make up a fraction of one percent of the total — less than 0.3 percent, in fact. But this is also rarely discussed, and almost never pointed out in the media.  

But the press is having a field day with the NOAA report, especially since the now-discredited United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report has already been exposed as biased and filled with errors. The IPCC report no longer serves as a useful tool in persuading people to accept lower living standards in an attempt to slow “climate change” by reducing the relatively miniscule emissions of greenhouse gases. So this new tool could prove valuable to the “cap-and-traders” like BP and Goldman Sachs.   

James Hogg, co-founder of the alarmist DeSmogBlog.com, illustrated the press’ general attitude perfectly in an article for the leftist Huffington Post. He criticized other media outlets for quoting so-called “skeptics” in articles about the new report, wondering, “Why bother to quote the skeptics here in an article about hard scientific evidence?”

But at least the Financial Times bothered to track some down for a story about the new report. “It’s clear that the scientific case for global warming alarmism is weak,” said Myron Ebell, the director of Global Warming and International Environmental Policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. “The scientific case for [many of the claims] is unsound and we are finding out all the time how unsound it is.”

Another “skeptic” quoted in the same article, CATO fellow and former environmental sciences professor Pat Michaels, said the new NOAA study and other evidence proved the computer models used to forecast temperature increases were inaccurate. “I think it is the lack of frankness about this that emerged with Climategate, and that seems to continue,” he said, referring to the scandal in which leaked alarmist scientists’ e-mails revealed evidence of data manipulation and other serious problems.

Other critics attacked the “incorrect, fabricated data” and the agency itself, saying it “lacks credibility.”

NOAA and other government climate-change outfits have come under increasing fire in recent years for myriad reasons, including inaccurate and distorted temperature readings (in its defense, NOAA claimed accurate readings weren’t important), placing monitoring stations too close to biasing influences that create the appearance of warming, and countless other reasons.

Of course, the fact that the agencies’ budgets depend on continually pumping out new, alarming reports on climate change also likely plays a little-mentioned but crucial role.

But NOAA wants everyone to know that climate change is real and is causing changes. In its press release about the report, the agency said, “More and more, Americans are witnessing the impacts of climate change in their own backyards, including sea-level rise, longer growing seasons, changes in river flows, increases in heavy downpours, earlier snowmelt and extended ice-free seasons in our waters.” It did not mention that, even if true, many of those changes could prove beneficial.

“People are searching for relevant and timely information about these changes to inform decision-making about virtually all aspects of their lives,” the press release concluded. It also directs readers to the agency’s climate-change website, climate.gov, which features a variety of articles on global warming.

Numerous media pieces have recently proclaimed the demise of the “global-warming cult,” noting that the public doesn’t buy it and that politicians who push the alarmism are dropping like flies. But with hundreds of billions of tax dollars invested in the alarmism machine, the movement will not go away quietly.

In the coming days, researchers will undoubtedly find more problems with NOAA’s report — most of which will be mentioned in the press but rarely. But whether the avalanche of alarmist headlines produced by the report will help salvage economy-destroying “climate” legislation remains to be seen.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (37)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

CB said:

Pollution Personally the actual warming of the planet doesn't worry me nearly as much as bad air quality, bad water quality, poisons in our food and other products that we face these days. Pollution of the rest of the planet concerns me to an extreme degree. Debilitating disorders for humans and other animals are caused by these factors.

July 29, 2010 | url

..., Lowly rated comment [Show]

Tim said:

So what? I don't really understand why people (on either side) would be closed off to the POSSIBILITY that our planet is in fact warming. What are the "skeptics" motives to deny it? For that matter, what are the "believers" motives for endorsing it? I'll tell you: MONEY, POWER, and potentially FAME. Really, what else is there?? Oh yeah, that's right: life on earth actually surviving the long haul.

July 29, 2010

Michael said:

History spells it out This isn't the "end all" necessarily. Look at history or what we have speculated and dissected as being true. Return back to about 300 years ago. Determine the population of "USA"...or for that matter, the world. Also, determine the untouched land which was considered wooded lands. Matter of fact, look up Pennsylvania as a good example. Also, consider the impact of a volcano exploding, or more recently, a tsunami smashing the banks and inland of a well-populated region. To some, time stopped. Things will happen which are out of our control - no matter what we do. However, we can be still responsible and try. (How? well, I would have to write an article...and probably more - focus on "misguided ambitions") Greed doesn't prosper except for ill-favored endings.

July 29, 2010

Regulas said:

Man Made Global warming is a Hoax 80% of the Earths history was warmer than now with no ice caps. Man made global warming is all a lie and Al Gore knows it too. It's money and power. That's why our hacks in DC still want to implement the scam of Cap & Trade. Look at one volcanic eruption, the amount that comes out of one good eruption dwarfs man and what we do. Volcanoes are going off all the time, mostly under the oceans. The worlds termite population gives off more C02 than all of man does. Wake up people, we are being lied to by our governments. Why do you think the keep those big international meeting secret, you know ones like the G20 summit and the likes.

July 29, 2010

Dumbfounded, Lowly rated comment [Show]

cjoki said:

maybe? I wonder more about climate instability in which we will have large swings in temperature from year to year. I am curious if our planet is coming out of an era of relative calm and starting one that will be chaotic. As I understand (read seen on history channel) the earth does go through periods of radical climate shifts. If this is the case then maybe we should focus on making Darwin proud.

July 29, 2010

qwerty01 said:

Duh here's the deal; of course the climate is changing; how in the world did we get dry land where a sea once was. remember the ice age? at issue are the groups who want to take natural events and make it about being a man made event, and then profit from it. not a problem except we the middle class are the ones who pay for it and in the end, man cannot control the weather!! we might as well try preventing earthquakes, tidal waves, volcano eruptions, etc. Al Gore is a founding member of the newly formed exchange that will trade in the newly created market; he will make billions from man made global warming. yeah, he's worried about the bears

July 29, 2010

Charles said:

... Nebo, You ignore well documented and ever more confirmed history. It was WARMER during the Roman Warming Period (approximately 3 Degrees C) and during the Medieval Warming Period (approximately 5 degrees C). The planet did better during those warm times than now. It was prosperous for every living thing. The alarmists love to claim that those were only localised but the evidence is proving that wrong. The warming was global and long lasting. 300 years plus. The Chinese just did a survey of their last 2000 years and found that when it was warm and wet the empire was prosperous, when it was cold and dry there was famine, war and disease. Global warming is a non issue. If it does warm the planet will be a nicer place to live. If it gets colder (as many scientists are now predicting) things are not going to be so nice.

July 29, 2010

Worst debunking I ever saw, Lowly rated comment [Show]

mitchel44 said:

Sad, really... Here's a link to carbon dated wood fragments recovered from glacier tongues in BC Canada, with pictures for those more visually inclined. It was warm enough, long enough, to grow trees at various times over the past 10K years, then the glaciers advanced and killed them, then retreated and the cycle did it again. http://hol.sagepub.com/cgi/content/short/17/8/1069 All before that nasty CO2 we've been emitting was around. Is it still all our fault? Oh, and global sea ice is actually just about normal, or "average" at this time, we are talking about the planet after all. http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg hint, it's that red squiggly line at the bottom.

July 29, 2010

The New American is a disreputable publication, Lowly rated comment [Show]

R.F. Wollus said:

... What's a "direputable publication" Frank? Which part specifically was "anti-science"? LOL. The fact is, people have woken up to the global warming taxes scam. No amount of tax leeches making misspelled comments will change that. Even if global warming was real, which I'm not even close to convinced of, I think some warming would be nice. Longer growing seasons = more food (like back when they used to farm on Greenland). If you think the people of the world will agree to carbon taxes because we might have longer growing seasons, you need a wake up call...

July 29, 2010

nofreewind said:

better glacier picture Here is a picture which truly explains "climate change". http://alturl.com/wdkd3 The tree stumps are from trees that grew a short geological time ago, somewhere between 3,000 and 6,000 years ago. Modern glaciers forms 3,000 years ago and decimated the trees, recently the stumps have been uncovered. There is absolutely nothing remarkable in the recent climate change.

July 29, 2010 | url

Flu-Bird said:

The green consperacy Like with DDT,OVER POPULATION and POLUTION this whole GLOBAL WARMING is the biggist fruad ever perpatraited on the public by unscruplous underhanded persons like AL GORE,MUARICE STRONG,GREENPEACE,SIERRA CLUB and the rest of the eco-nazis the whole enviromental movment is based on fruad,lies,decite, and junk science

July 30, 2010

Steven said:

... I know! We caused it with the thousands of nukes that us and several other countries blew off for about 30 years! No seriously, "Global Warming" is happening. But man-made global warming is plain wrong. There are so many other, more significant variables (sun spots, solar wind, volcanoes, etc) We should be worried about pollution to a degree and even find renewable resources since coal and oil will be depleted before long (not to mention how expensive they are). But using this whole "Green movement" and man-made global warming is stupid. There's been hotter times on our planet and the Earth goes through multiple periods of hot and cold. And from what we've seen, life thrives on warmth, and the Earth would need to be scorched before it would be damaging. Besides, what happened to the whole "evolution" part of evolution? We evolve! So do other animals. If we got this far with natural selection, why can't we and other life keep on evolving. We're not warming that fast.

July 30, 2010

Famed?, Lowly rated comment [Show]

Jonathan said:

Famed? "famed meteorologist Anthony Watts"??? The guy was Chico's radio weatherman for 17 years and now he's "famed meteorologist"? All he ever did was claim that bad weather stations were messing up the data, and he had his butt handed back to him when multiple studies proved him wrong even with his own ratings. And sorry about your claims for counterevidence, but decade-wide averages matter far more than year-to-year fluctuations. It's like an aging football player - are you going to ignore that his season-to-season stats are dropping just because he happened to play well last week?

July 30, 2010

Cliff Maurer said:

Meagre evidence for accelerated heating of the oceans The assertion that elevated sea-surface temperatures indicate that atmospheric heating has transferred to the oceans is nonsense. Near-surface sea temperatures vary according to the mean depth of the well mixed layer of the oceans. The depth of the layer is determined by the effect of the diurnal variation of penetration of solar radiation. Thermal instabilities from that diurnal variation induce the mixing- hence the name. Factors that modulate the depth of the layer include: declination of the sun (latitude & season), cloud cover, transparency of the ocean to short wave visible light, aerosol attenuation of solar radiation through the atmosphere. Higher sea surface temperatures could well correlate with reduced mean depth of the well-mixed layer and be an indication of a reduction in the mean mass (or volume) of the layer and also an indication of overall heat loss from the ocean to the atmosphere. There have been strong indications for decades that atmospheric aerosols have been affecting pan evaporation rates worldwide. NOAA, NSF and NASA field studies have shown how atmospheric brown clouds contribute to warming the lower atmosphere over vast regions and affect oceanic insolation. NASA has recently observed that the inordinate warming of the Arctic (over the world-wide trend) is effected by increasing aerosols. Note I am not arguing that greenhouse gases do not contribute to a global warming trend. I generally accept the evidence of the punctuated warming trend. I also accept evidence of atmospheric warming on synoptic scales by increasing aerosols worldwide and note that this is largely anthropogenic.

July 30, 2010

AMADEUS said:

What does "famed" mean? Dictionary.com defines famed as: –adjective very well known and, often, highly regarded; famous. Since both of you who criticized the description of Watts as "famed" seem to know a lot about him, I think it's pretty safe to assume he's famous. Nice try though Global warming scam artists are being exposed for what they are to the world. This is good news Saint Al of the Gore will probably be in jail soon, at least for sexual crimes, if not attempted mass murder through UN "global warming" regime-induced famine and global poverty. With so many real problems in the world, why are so many people so focused on this man-made problem of warming hysteria? Oh yeah! 'Cause of all the government bucks and the gold pot at the end of the lie - a global carbon tax. FORGET IT. STICK A FORK IN IT. The scam is finished.

July 30, 2010

Michael said:

We are not the Center of the Universe pt 1 It isn't about whether "we" are the only cause of change with weather/climate, it is about how we have influenced the change. The earth when first made was molten. So, yes...it was much..much hotter. We have layers upon layers of rock/soil which shows over the course of (millions/billions) years the change between multiple meteor impacts to volcanic activities have changed the climate and ecosystem much faster than anything we have currently done. My point of the matter is there is more to the whole picture than just global warming. Think about the food which is produced and where/how it is produced and the species suffer or become extinct through our "progress" or industrialization along with population growth. Question: if a worldwide famine hit, what do you think would happen? Do you think having money will be the "golden ticket" to save yourself and family - unlikely. America will be like the rest of the 3rd world countries.

July 30, 2010

Michael said:

We are not the Center of the Universe pt 1 It isn't about whether "we" are the only cause of change with weather/climate, it is about how we have influenced the change. The earth when first made was molten. So, yes...it was much..much hotter. We have layers upon layers of rock/soil which shows over the course of (millions/billions) years the change between multiple meteor impacts to volcanic activities have changed the climate and ecosystem much faster than anything we have currently done. My point of the matter is there is more to the whole picture than just global warming. Think about the food which is produced and where/how it is produced and the species suffer or become extinct through our "progress" or industrialization along with population growth. Question: if a worldwide famine hit, what do you think would happen? Do you think having money will be the "golden ticket" to save yourself and family - unlikely. America will be like the rest of the 3rd world countries.

July 30, 2010

Michael said:

We are not the Center of the Universe pt 2 Like with the dinosaurs, large growth of any species, mutating diseases/viruses, famine and natural catastrophes will be the theater for which we have no control over. Am I worried? No, because it has always been the reality of our planet and universe' life cycle when the world gets out of wack. My guess, everything will continue to reset/change based on the influences of the species on the planet until either a large enough meteor impact obliterates the surface and atmosphere or, the sun reaches the end of its life - a long ways away. However, we could still avoid some of the controllable problems. One example: being less destructive with the natural resources and attempt to make considerations/action plans which reduce the heat index by removing the large amounts of dark surfaces along with pollution in our cities. However, it does not guarantee our human existence will continue to thrive in the future. We may be our own destruction through virus, disease and/or famine. Who knows, another species may rise to become the dominant species. This wouldn't be the first time this has happened in history. Life and the creation of history will go on. "We have become a soft society with a misguided ambition to always expect everything and do nothing - especially if it messes with what we want."

July 30, 2010

Myron Mesecke said:

... cjoki said: I wonder more about climate instability in which we will have large swings in temperature from year to year. I am curious if our planet is coming out of an era of relative calm and starting one that will be chaotic. As I understand (read seen on history channel) the earth does go through periods of radical climate shifts. I remember reading an article in Reader's Digest probably 25 years ago where the author said this. He pointed out that for the last 150 years we had been enjoying a relatively calm period on Earth and predicted that weather would get more extreme.

July 30, 2010

lee Gonzales said:

Water vapor - the big gorilla in the science lab Man and his machines contribute very little into making water vapor the largest of the "greenhouse" gases, it was all put there there by natural forces. Mr.Newman says: " Of course, the most important greenhouse gas by far is water vapor, accounting for some 95 percent of the atmospheric total, virtually all of which is natural. Man’s emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane make up a fraction of one percent of the total — less than 0.3 percent, in fact. But this is also rarely discussed, and almost never pointed out in the media." Scientist Ian Clark makes the observation that Co2 (carbon dioxide) was never a weather driver in the past (judging by the ice core record) so it is only logical that C02 is NOT driving the warming today. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...re=related "The relationship between C02 and temperature is very complicated" claims Al Gore. This rich politician claims that the tiny mount of c02 is causing the planet to warm up. But the ice core record shows the opposite is the case! Ian Clark says in the documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, that planet earth warms first then C02 follows. Why are the politically connected "warmists" telling lies and why the major Media is covering for the lies? They operative word is "control." The weather is too massive to control but massive lies can be blantantly broadcast daily. Their target is our freedom and our economic system. The "warmists" are also population control freaks who want less people walking and breathing oxygen on the planet. If they truly believed in their theories (that massive deaths would occur with a warmer earth) then why fuss over the warming? Eco-freaks fuss over "global warming" but "global warming" is a good thing not a bad thing. Maybe English farmers will again harvest a hearty crop of grapes in foggy London as in the medieval warming period! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...re=related

July 31, 2010 | url

shape ups said:

http://www.uggbootsonlinesales.com gucci online shop mbt shoes women

August 03, 2010 | url

shape ups said:

http://www.mbtshoesale.net mbt shoes women ugg boots online

August 03, 2010 | url

Johnny said:

It's all.... HOG WASH.

August 04, 2010

Jerry Rivers said:

Global Warming Apocalypse Over 50 years ago scientist warned us of what was coming.But we've refused to act very quickly.now we're getting closer and closer to the point of no return.It will began with the drought,fires,superstorms,oil spills,sea level rise,blackouts,floods,famine and plagues..And ends with the breakdown of societies,violence,economic collapse and world war.A global heat wave have just return in 2010 to 2014,there would be more climate and environmental disasters in years to come.World leaders and congressional leaders have failed to come up with the solution to stop climate change...We need safe clean and renewable energy and preserve our biodiversity and tribal peoples+lands...my name is Jerry Rivers,Sen.Environmental Scientist from Roosevelt,NY.

August 06, 2010 | url

JJ Suprise said:

Jerry Rivers And Chicken Little believed that the sky was falling! You need to quit reading The Book of Gormon. Sir, if you are a "Environmental Scientist", then I am Albert Einstein and the Sun will NOT be rising tomorrow morning! Amazing that you would actually sign your name to such drivel. JJ Suprise Sandy, Utah

August 07, 2010 | url

Paul Gordonson said:

... This is starting to get old. How many more billions will our self-proclaimed rules shovel at these nut jobs before people say enough? We will not ever consent to any cap and tax theft, ever, no matter how much propaganda the warmist cult produces at taxpayer expense.

August 08, 2010

Sally McCiaville said:

What the Club of Rome says "The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself." - Club of Rome, premier environmental think-tank, consultants to the United Nations

August 10, 2010

supra shoes online said:

http://www.cheapsuprashoesale.com A couple drove down a country road for several miles, not saying a word. gucci outlet online An earlier discussion had led to an argument and neither of them wanted to concede their position. As they passed a barnyard of mules, goats cheap supra shoes and pigs, the husband asked sarcastically, "Relatives of yours?" "Yep," the wife eplied, "in-laws."

August 12, 2010 | url

omega watches said:

... winni2078 08 13 juicy couture omega watches

August 13, 2010 | url

Moncler said:

Moncler Moncler this brand is not only our love, also many Hollywood stars.Moncler foray into fashion fields, from the age of 8. At that time Europe's most famous is called a Paninari fashion followers, they will be the media of fashionable magnified indefinitely became trend-setters. And moncler jacket is one of the most expensive clothes is not an error. Especially the orange and yellow, these two at the time of the shops are very difficult to find.

August 18, 2010 | url

http://www.suprashoes365.com said:

supra shoes http://www.suprashoes365.com

August 21, 2010 | url

chanel bags said:

chanel bags http://www.chanelbagsoutlet.com

August 21, 2010 | url