The Fraudulent Foundations of 'Green' Ideology
The Global Warming — now "Climate Change" — fraud is crumbling. Not because the evidence of the fraud was missing earlier, if you took the time to look behind the propaganda, but because increasingly voters have caught on to the fact that that it’s all a power grab which will impoverish all but those grifting from it. Two of the major drivers of this farce have been the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and NOAA ( National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). Both have engaged in serious data skullduggery.
Last week it was the IPCC which took a major hit to its credibility when it was made clear that its most dire predictions were of low probability. NOAA whose job it is to measure temperatures in the United States was exposed some years ago for having engaged in statistical fraud. It was shown to have made repeated data adjustments, all of which lowered previously measured temperatures to "prove" that past weather was cooler. Then it raised the present temperature data to claim present warming. The reason for this jiggering of data is to create a fake scenario of ever-increasing temperatures. In short NOAA has been cooking the books.
As the editors of Investor's Business Daily explained when this scandal broke:
There have been hot years and hot decades since the turn of the last century, and colder years and colder decades. But the overall measured temperature shows no clear trend over the last century, at least not one that suggests runaway warming. That is, until the NOAA's statisticians "adjust" the data. Using complex statistical models, they change the data to reflect not reality, but their underlying theories of global warming. That's clear from a simple fact of statistics: Data generate random errors, which cancel out over time. So by averaging data, the errors mostly disappear.
That's not what NOAA does. According to the NOAA, the errors aren't random. They're systematic. As we noted, all of their temperature adjustments lean cooler in the distant past, and warmer in the more recent past. But they're very fuzzy about why this should be. Far from legitimately "adjusting" anything, it appears they are cooking the data to show a politically correct trend toward global warming. Not by coincidence, that has been part and parcel of the government's underlying policies for the better part of two decades.
You might ask why a governmental agency would ignore its task in favor of promoting a political agenda. That is, if you are very naïve. The agency has “never offered a convincing explanation” as to why these inaccurate and misleading “adjustments” were necessary but unless you were asleep you know that the officials at the head of the government, beginning in the Clinton era, wanted some basis for their claim that we are facing runaway global warming to grab more power to themselves in order to manipulate the economy. And if you’ve any experience with federal bureaucracies you know that the workers in them quickly get the message.
It's not just jiggering the data at NOAA which has been exposed. Almost a year ago we learned that the agency has for years been improperly placing its weather monitoring surface stations so even the raw data it collects are corrupted.
The report, published by The Heartland Institute, was compiled via satellite and in-person survey visits to NOAA weather stations that contribute to the “official” land temperature data in the United States. The research shows that 96 percent of these stations are corrupted by localized effects of urbanization – producing heat-bias because of their close proximity to asphalt, machinery, and other heat-producing, heat-trapping, or heat-accentuating objects. Placing temperature stations in such locations violates NOAA’s own published standards (see section 3.1 at this link), and strongly undermines the legitimacy and the magnitude of the official consensus on long-term climate warming trends in the United States.
“With a 96 percent warm-bias in U.S. temperature measurements, it is impossible to use any statistical methods to derive an accurate climate trend for the U.S.” said Heartland Institute senior fellow Anthony Watts, the director of the study. “Data from the stations that have not been corrupted by faulty placement show a rate of warming in the United States reduced by almost half compared to all stations.”
“The original 2009 surface stations project demonstrated conclusively that the federal government’s surface temperature monitoring system was broken, with the vast majority of stations not meeting NOAA’s own standards for trustworthiness and quality. Investigations by government watchdogs OIG and GAO confirmed the 2009 report findings,” said H. Sterling Burnett, director of the Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environment Policy at The Heartland Institute who surveyed NOAA surface stations himself this spring. “This new study is evidence of two things. First, the government is either inept or stubbornly refuses to learn from its mistakes for political reasons. Second, the government’s official temperature record can’t be trusted. It reflects a clear urban heat bias effect, not national temperature trends.”
People are finally catching on. We've all read about the political successes of the Dutch farmers. Fraser Nelson recently wrote a good summation in the Telegraph about other setbacks in the green movement throughout Europe:
It’s all moving quite quickly. Last autumn, Germany signed an E.U. target to ban the sale of internal combustion engine cars by 2035. It now opposes the idea, as do Italy, Poland and Czechia. That’s not to say the green agenda is collapsing under the pressure of public scorn: it’s simply being subjected to the kind of scrutiny that was never applied in the first place. How much will it cost? What will it achieve? Germany’s transport minister has been making a good argument: what’s the point in electric cars if the power that drives them comes from burning coal?
Rishi Sunak has been quietly dialling down the green agenda he inherited from Boris Johnson, using the language of Net-Zero while adding his own dose of realism. He has created the ‘Department for Energy Security and Net Zero’ – the first part of the job being the most important. So he has authorised new drilling in the North Sea and even the opening of a new coal mine in Cumbria, both projects over which Johnson prevaricated. His recent energy security speech was given in a fusion research centre in Oxfordshire: a nod to his hopes for technology, not diktats, to make the green running.
Just as I am certain the motivation for governmental agencies to cook the books is to please their bosses, I am certain that as more voters see the deleterious economic consequences of green ideology and its tottering weak foundations, political figures will realize it’s time to back off of this fraud.