Skip to main content
  1. News
  2. Politics
  3. Nonpartisan

NASA Obvious Finger With AGW Discrepancies

See also

NASA Gets Political

It’s very interesting to see huge differences in how organizations view Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). Some think since humans are generating more [CO2], it is necessarily causing the ramp-up of temperatures. As a result sea levels are rising, glaciers are melting, and Arctic and Antarctic ice is decreasing.

The other side sees a typical temperature variation, with a cold spell likely lasting until 2020.

NASA has equipment, personnel, and investment for AGW. Many organizations follow their lead. But more organizations are convinced climate change is completely natural.

If one “follows the money”, intentions not purely scientific emerge. Take the major proponent of AGW, NASA. As the leader of those espousing the detriments of elevated [CO2] in the atmosphere, NASA has 80,000 employees with a $18 trillion budget in 2014. The current Obama administration holds all NASA’s purse strings, and Obama is convinced AGW is occurring.

All of this is separated from most of the scientific work NASA conducts, totally unrelated to earth’s climate. Bottom line: if Obama coughs, NASA will hold the hanky. That is why one sees such large temperature discrepancies in the report NASA Finds Long-Term Climate Warming Trend - NASA Science, all other temperature reports.

Shooting Itself In Foot

Again! Massive fudging on global-warming temps from Bob Unruh, WND, is an expose on exactly how temperature data was manipulated.

An independent analyst published in Principia Scientific, where scientists deliberate and dispose of political results in favor of scientific correct data, also says AGW activists are manipulating data. They lowered historical temperatures for years prior to 2000, making the temperatures after that look like they’ve risen, and therefore AGW.

“A newly uncovered and monumental calculating error in official government climate data shows beyond doubt that climate scientists unjustifiably added a whopping one degree of phantom warming to the official ‘raw’ temperature record,” the report says.

It comes from the discovery by independent analyst Steven Goddard, who checked official temperature records of NASA. “The ramifications are that hundreds of billions of tax dollars have been misallocated to ‘solve’ a non-problem, all due to willful malfeasance and/or incompetence in data handling.” He said, “NOAA made a big deal about 2012 blowing away all temperature records, but the temperature they reported is the result of a huge error. This affects all NOAA and NASA U.S. temperature graphs …”.

Per the report: “A newly uncovered and monumental calculating error in official U.S. government climate data shows beyond doubt that climate scientists unjustifiably added a whopping one degree of phantom warming to the official ‘raw’ temperature record.”

At the CATO Institute, separate on 2013 temperatures: “Please be advised that this history has been repeatedly ‘revised’ to either make temperatures colder in the earlier years or warmer at the end. Not one ‘adjustment’ has the opposite effect, a clear contravention of logic and probability.”

Columnist Vox Day wrote at Absolute Rights: “What Goddard has uncovered is that the U.S. temperature records are being massaged and manipulated by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in much the same way that the Bureau of Labor Statistics manipulates the unemployment rate.”

Reality sets in when one reads 100 reasons why climate change is natural | UK | News | Daily Express. The one should read Christopher Monckton’s OpEd Exploiting the dead to hype climate change – WorldNetDaily. In his column, [CO2] has risen from 290[ppm] to almost 400[ppm] in almost 30 years. Temperature has been falling for the last 17 years, so it’s not affected by small increases in [CO2].

The facts on [CO2] are at: 1), 2), 3) and 4) Paul Dreissen discusses Dr. Craig Idso’s [] website with hundreds of studies of crops, forests, grasslands, alpine areas and deserts enriched by additional [CO2].

Statewide, Popular Science opines: “[C]ommenters shape public opinion; public opinion shapes public policy; public policy shapes how and whether and what research gets funded–you start to see why we feel compelled to hit the “off” switch.”

Dr. Harold Doiron worked on NASA's Apollo project. Doiron [dwahr-on] about his group: “It is a volunteer group. I think we’re very objective. We don’t belong to any special interest group. Our conclusion is humans are not [causing] a significant warming of this planet.”

Living in Pearland, close to previous worksite Johnson Space Center, Doiron told State Impact why he and 20 of his other colleagues decided to get involved in the highly political, and publicized AGW issue. “Well, the thing that really pushed me over the edge was the public statements of NASA’s chief climate scientist Dr. James Hansen.”

Consensus With Natural Variability

Global warming controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia shows the controversy built up over AGW. Checking closely, most major scientists and researchers involved such as Khabibullo Abdusamatov, Svend Hendriksen, Sallie Baliunas, Ian Clark, Chris de Freitas, David Douglass, Paul Driessen, Don Easterbrook, William M. Gray, Brian Sussman, William Happer, Ole Humlum, Richard Lindzen, Wibjörn Karlén, William Kininmonth, David Legates, Alan Caruba, Tad Murty, Tim Patterson, Ian Plimer, Tim Ball, Nicola Scafetta, Tom Segalstad, Fred Singer, Dennis Avery, Willie Soon, Senator James Inhofe, Roy Spencer, Marc Morano, Henrik Svensmark, and Jan Veizer espouse natural climate change as well as many others.

The author has had personal contact with scientists Willie Soon and Henrik Svensmark who moved out of the states. Sussman and Spencer have both written books on the subject.

The disunity is documented by the Petition Project, launched 10 years ago when the first few thousand signatures were gathered. The effort by Art Robinson, a Chemistry research professor, now lists tens of thousands of qualified scientists who endorsing the following:

“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of [CO2], 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. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

AGW is no longer about science. According to “left-wingers”, it is a religious tenet that cannot be questioned. If Democrats/leftists continue as America’s ruling party, it’s likely media will never give the true story.


Kevin Roeten can be reached at