The climate wars get exciting. Government conspiracy! Shattered warming records! Global cooling!

Summary: Today’s post shows how the climate wars about the public policy response to global warming, grow more interesting as both sides abandon science. Unfortunately the public remains apathetic. For good reason, after a decade of constant barrages of misinformation by Left and Right. Especially considering our history, with so much that we knew eventually proven to be false. The climate wars a powerful example of our broken observation-orientation-decision-action (OODA) loop. Let’s hope that the challenges of the 21st century don’t require America to act in a smart or effective way.
Choose to Know


  1. May’s temperature shattered the records!
  2. Government scientists conspire to fake climate data!
  3. About global cooling
  4. For More Information

(1)  May’s temperature shattered the records!

NASA Shows May Global High Temperature Record Shattered as Climate Policy Staggers Forward“, Robert Marston Fanney (fantasy writer; bio here), at his blog RobertScribbler, 18 June 2014.  The facts disagree with “shattered”. The datasets differ about the highest May. On the two that show May as a record, the differences are not statistically significant (the opposite of “shattered”).

  1. NASA GISS dataset: the highest May on record. The anomaly was 0.76°C (1.37°F) above the 1951-1980 average, and 0.06°C (0.11°F) higher than May 2012 and May 2010 (tied)
  2. NOAA’s NCDC: the warmest May on record. The anomaly was 0.74°C (1.33°F) higher than the 20th century average, and 0.02°C (0.03°F) higher than May 2010 (the second highest).
  3. HADCRUT4 — “Taking central estimates, May 2014 was globally the warmest May on record. Factoring in uncertainty, we can say it was a top 10 May.” (per Tweet by John Kennedy, UK Met Office)
  4. RSS satellite record: 6th warmest May
  5. UAH satellite: 3rd warmest May (details here)

But who cares about the facts when a fantasy writer spins an alarmist story! It has truthiness. Those who believe the alarmist accept each new story. Skeptics don’t believe the alarmists (even when they’re right), but too often believe equally exaggerated stories from activists on their side. For example …


I Want To Believe

(2)  Government scientists conspire to fake climate data!

Accusations about a secret conspiracy by government scientists sweep through the right-wing blogosphere, further eroding their readers’ confidence in the government (they love conspiracy theories). The truth will never catch up with these stories. That’s why propaganda works.

  1. The scandal of fiddled global warming data“, Christopher Booker, The Telegraph, 21 June 2014 — “The US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record”.
  2. Rigged ‘science’“, op-ed in The Washington Times, 23 June 2014
  3. Global Warming ‘Fabricated’ by NASA and NOAA“, Breitbart, 23 June 2014
  4. Data fudging: The great global warming scandal“, Thomas Lifson, American Thinker, 23 June 2014
  5. Busted! NOAA Using Fabricated Data to Bolster its Alarmist Claims“, Climate Change Dispatch, 23 June 2014
  6. Global warming data FAKED by government to fit climate change fictions“, Natural News, 23 June 2014”
  7. Global Warming Data FAKED by NOAA. No Global Warming since the 1930s“, Cassy Fiano, Right Wing News, 24 June 2014
  8. HOAX OF THE CENTURY: Radical Leftists Caught Manipulating Global Warming Data“, Jim Hoft, Gateway Pundit, 24 June 2014

Google shows scores more such stories in the past week. Not one in a thousand of the people reading these imagines the complexity of calculating an average global temperature from the the ever-changing patchwork of surface temperature records. But they’re sure it’s simple, like counting apples.

There might be errors in the calculations; for the facts behind this still-moving story see this post.

Update: This continues to get better. Belief in a secret conspiracy of government scientists manipulating US climate data to exaggerate global warming might join Benghazi BENGHAZI in the right-wing canon.

Update: For more about this story see:

1. Did NASA and NOAA dramatically alter US climate history to exaggerate global warming?
2. Comment threads about global warming show the American mind at work, like a reality-TV horror show
4. Have the climate skeptics jumped the shark, taking the path to irrelevance?, 3 July 2014

If we’re in a credulous mood, why stop at belief in secret conspiracies of government climate scientists? What about …

Global Cooling

(3)  Speaking of global cooling

Scientists and Studies predict ‘imminent global COOLING’ ahead“, Climate Depot, 29 June 2014 – “Drop in global temps ‘almost a slam dunk’.” The article gives a potpourri of references, easy to believe if you reject the consensus of actual climate scientists.

Who do they cite? Some scientists with little experience in climate science. Some secondary or tertiary references to the work of Russian scientists (I’ve tried in the past to find English translations of this research, with no success). Some people with no experience in climate science. Solar scientists (much interesting work here; see these posts and links to some research).

For more information about global cooling:

  1. Articles from the 1970′s about global cooling/warming — Lots of talk in the news media, with quotes for scientists. Not as much supporting research.
  2. An important letter sent to the President about the danger of climate change, 21 October 2009 — Scientists concern about global cooling had big results, important to this day.
  3. About the headlines from the 1970s about global cooling, 2 November 2009 — Not what they seem.
  4. A look at global warming written in a cooler and more skeptical time, giving us a better understanding of climate science, 23 November 2009
  5. The facts about the 1970’s Global Cooling scare, 7 December 2009
  6. Looking into the past for guidance about warnings of future climate apocalypses, 17 October 2010
  7. Start of another swing of the media narrative – to global cooling?, 11 September 2013
  8. Global Cooling returns to the news, another instructive lesson about America, 25 January 2014

To learn about the consensus of climate scientists see this post (it’s often misstated). To learn about the complexities of consensus client see this post by Judith Curry (Prof, GA Inst Tech).

Truth Will Make You Free

(4)  For More Information

(a)  Posts about climate change:

  1. Posts about climate change
  2. Science & nature – studies & reports
  3. The important things to know about global warming

(b)  Some posts about our confusion:

  1. Facts are an obstacle to the reform of America, 20 Oct 2011
  2. Our minds are addled, the result of skillful and expensive propaganda, 28 December 2011
  3. Who lies to us the most? Left or Right?, 25 February 2013
  4. Facts are the enemy of both Left and Right in our America, 12 May 2014

(c)  Posts about ability to see our world

  1. Posts about Information & disinformation, by both the Left and Right. Overwhelming and sad evidence.
  2. Posts about our broken Observation-Orientation-Decision-Action (OODA) loop.



15 thoughts on “The climate wars get exciting. Government conspiracy! Shattered warming records! Global cooling!”

  1. The government’s credibility issues are of their own making; allowed, of course, by us. I recall standing where the street should have been, trying to remember where I parked my car so I could begin the process of removing it’s complete snow cover – on Halloween, 1991. I recall -70 wind chills in the early 70’s. We lived in NE Wisconsin and used a small wood stove to heat our home. (It wasn’t working very well!) Christ was coming (again). I couldn’t imagine how plagues, pests and locusts could possibly be cause for rejoicing, but we dutifully went to church and received the good news that soon we would all be sick, starving, and rounded up like animals by a government much like the one we see in old news reels from WWII’s Germany. Woo Hoo! Weather and climate are always changing; this we can depend on. We can also depend upon the fact that each generation has a group of megalomaniacal leaders who have been working on, and are hell bent on, achieving global control. In order to see the inner workings of these people citizens would need to read through long documents that make up the framework for the plan: Destination 2025, Agenda 21, Rio Accords…..and heaven forbid that we should read such boring drivel unless it is mandatory. The result of our ignorance and apathy is political ignorance. The price of political ignorance is steep.

    We are currently being fleeced with another debt/swap scheme like the one which tanked our housing/mortgage sector. This is occurring in the energy sector, where Wall Street and their corporate cronies are creating a massive debt bubble via renewable energy. Debt which cannot by serviced is being moved to the investor side of the ledger. When the bubble grows to the point where it cannot be maintained by the banks, the bubble will burst. Obama promised that our electricity would “necessarily skyrocket” under his Administration. The public has called for the ruse that wind and solar can and will provide “free”, “clean” and “abundant” electricity. This is a lie easily seen if one simply reads the boring information – which few take the time to do. Documents on the MN Public Utilities Docket state, in black and white, that wind energy systems are Permitted based on politics and reality = perceptions….and still people cling to the false hope that a wind turbine will save them from the scary global climate change monster.

    It is beyond disappointing to see how dumb we have become in an age when we have abundant information at our fingertips.

    1. Mary,

      I fear you are beyond help, immersed in right-wing propaganda, but I’ll briefly try.

      (1) “Weather and climate are always changing; this we can depend on.”

      Do you believe that climate scientists disagree? Of course not. Why is this relevant?

      (2) “Destination 2025”

      Here’s the FAA brochure. The Executive Summary describes it. It’s the sort of thing the FAA is supposed to be doing.

      The Destination 2025 vision captures the ideal future we strive toward – a transformation of the Nation’s aviation system in which air traffic will move safely, swiftly, efficiently, and seamlessly around the globe. Flights will take off and land on time, every time, without delay and there will be no fatal accidents. Air travel will be routine and uneventful for everyone involved: passengers, crews, ground support, and communities. Costs will be contained for both operators and passengers, and there will be no negative impact to the environment. Manned and unmanned flights will each achieve safe flight, as will commercial launches to space. This is a vision that captures the future we will strive to achieve – to transform the Nation’s aviation system by 2025.

      (3) Obama’s statement about the cost of “cap and trade”

      Why does this support your case? You can disagree with Obama’s policy, but he forthrightly stated his intention early in the 2008 campaign — including the cost and the reasons he believes that’s necessary. We call this democracy. See the quote, and descriptions of what “skyrocketing” mean in dollars, in this article.

      (4) “The public has called for the ruse that wind and solar can and will provide “free”, “clean” and “abundant” ”

      Please provide a link to a government source saying wind and solar are “free”. They are clean and abundant; solar is rapidly getting cheaper; but they are not free. I doubt any government expert said otherwise.

  2. Thank you for your efforts at “saving” me. I will start here by saying I don’t listen to or have much tolerance for extremists on either side of the political aisle. Corruption, manipulation, rigging of elections/outcomes, propaganda, etc. etc. do not happen in a right-wing vacuum, but are rampant on both sides of the political aisle. Article 26 of the Nixon impeachment papers is instructive in that both Nixon and D-MN powerhouse Hubert Humphrey took $250,000.00 bribes from AMPI. Humphrey’s diagnosis of aggressive and terminal cancer saved him from indictment and prosecution. Why buy one side of the political aisle when you can buy both?

    Destination 2025 is much more than an FAA plan. If it was simply about air travel it would not concern me at all. Here is one link to a declassified report, which has gone through some significant changes since citizens here stumbled in to it back in 2009.

    This is not the first report, as the agenda has been growing and going through various phases for nearly three decades. When it was first released it was announced that we are in the implementation phase. It covers energy, social engineering, corridors for trade that include the creation of inland ports (which operate under different laws, rules and regulations), biotechnology, soil and water control, etc. etc. On the one hand I appreciate that our leaders are attempting to make long-range plans to secure the future, but the level of control necessary to secure the future they (whoever “they” are) envision is troublesome as attempts at the creation of utopia have historically led to mass suffering and war. WWII, a plan for global governance and the creation of utopia is a great example of how these things tend to go awry. Hitler wasn’t simply marching along exterminating Jews and Catholics, his goal was to create utopia. He expressed those wishes quite clearly in Mein Kempf – which most people have never read. Here is D2025 for civil engineers, the plan to get us to “social equity”:, among other things. Again, I commend them for trying, but this sort of thing only works if people do not act like people, and if leaders do not tip the scale from simply being narcissists to out-right sociopath’s.

    I have been involved in conservation for several decades. As a result I do not put much faith in what the government or corporations say, but place much more emphasis in what they do. The 2011 Policy and lobbying document for the American Wind Energy Association that used to be available on-line was instructive. The document was pulled because it made it perfectly clear that the goal is $$, not conservation or environmental awareness. Indeed, changes to the rules protecting bald and golden eagle populations were demanded in order to “bring certainty to developers and investors”. Wind and solar are about subsidies. I haven’t pulled the latest data, but back in 2011 we heard that wind was “cost competitive” with other forms of electrical generation. Laura McCarten of Xcel Energy, one of our nation’s largest utilities, told me that wind has been as cheap or cheaper than gas and has saved ratepayers in one state over $200 million dollars. Never mind that this is not what Xcel posted to the state Utilities Commission docket when they requested an 11% rate increase because production was low and maintenance costs were high, but that’s what she tried to peddle. At that same time the Energy Information Administration posted the following in terms of taxpayer subsidy per MW of electricity generated by a particular source of generation:

    gas – 0.64
    coal – 0.64
    hydro – 0.82
    nuclear 3.14
    wind – 56.29
    solar – 775.60 (no, that isn’t a typo)

    Yes, some of the costs associated with solar have come down, but not enough to make it anywhere near the cost per actual MW produced by gas, coal, hydro or nuclear power. (I am digging for the link to our Secretary of Energy’s interview, wherein he stated that wind energy is “free”. ) This is a common refrain from developers, but to hear it and see it come off of the lips of a high-ranking government official was troublesome. The other thing you hear and see most frequently is the claim that renewables will end our dependence upon foreign oil. The notion that electricity produced by wind will do much of anything to reduce our dependence upon foreign oil would only be true if we produced more than 1% of our electricity from oil, which we do not. A meeting with FBI agents who wanted a peek at documents citizens had accessed on a particular wind farm was enlightening: they don’t need to generate any electricity to get our money. This was but one stunner tossed out on the table to us while we walked the Special Agents through the information they asked us to bring. President Obama is so illiterate on the topic of electrical generation that he stood in a turbine manufacturing plant in Ohio and gushed about the wind power stored for future use. I’m not sure which planet he was on but it was not earth.

    I am pleased that the President was so forthright in his plans regarding cap and trade, the necessity of skyrocketing electrical prices, etc. etc. etc. It’s much easier to follow the money trails to find the corruption, personal agenda’s, and favor’s for friends when our politicians don’t try to hide it. Of course, it would appear that the days of them needing to make any effort at hiding their lies and bad behavior are far behind them, as evidenced by our inability to hold Bush or Bush light and criminals on their staff or James Clapper, Lois Lerner and any number of other disreputable liars and political shills responsible accountable for any of their bad behavior.

    I think America is a great country that has been manipulated onto a road to hell. Niether party is to blame as they have both participated in the grand lies and schemes that laid the groundwork for the “implementation phase” of our march toward the next utopia. I cannot help but wonder if climate change is the vehicle they are going to use to get us there. Time will tell.

    1. Mary,

      That’s quite a rant, mixing all sorts of unrelated things together. I will make just one comment: developers of new tech, and their supporters, always oversell. It’s life, and does not warrant your conspiratorial wraith. There are ample realistic sources of information about actual costs and potential of renewables — quite a big reported here (see the peak oil and energy reference pages on the right side menu).

      Experts such as Robert Hirsch. Utilities and their assn. The National Renewable Energy Labs. It’s not as if the boosters have no counter-balance.

      More broadly, almost everything is oversold. Dams, airports, canals, railroads- while these usually prove to be worthwhile, they seldom hit the lofty promises of their backers.

      I think you need to find more accurate information sources, to break out of the closed loop you are obviously in. My guess is that you will not. Which is sad, but not fixable by any outside entity.

    2. Don’t mind “fabius” Mary, he’s part of the cognitive disconnect machinery that is the liberal mind. No matter what is said or shown to them they must deny for the sake of the “righteous cause”. All while pretending no to of course. :)

    3. Mary, nobody who knows anything about the energy industry would ever try to make the claim that reducing our dependence on foreign oil has anything to do with electricity…in large part because most of the electricity in this country is generated by coal and natural gas, not oil.

      Two of the most significant reasons why people want to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and find other solutions — that is, above and beyond the issue of our interference in the affairs of other countries and the massive costs which this often necessitates — focus on agriculture and the multitude of products which include petroleum as an ingredient (and this is before you include all the petroleum used to ship products from place to place). Petroleum is involved in just about every step of our agricultural process — preparing the soil, seeding, fertilization, watering, pest control, harvesting, packaging, and transportation — since the bulk of our agriculture takes place on large farms where mechanization is a must. Also, petroleum is a major ingredient in so many household products that if you were to throw out everything in your house which includes it, you actually wouldn’t have nearly as much left as you think — for one thing, you’d probably have to throw out just about anything which contains (or is contained in) any sort of plastic.

      It seems sensible to presume that one of the major reasons why tax subsidies are so much higher (at least at present) for wind and solar than oil and gas is because the technology and the infrastructure for utilizing wind and solar is not as well-established as that for oil and gas. Technological and infrastructural improvements are, of course, still being made in the oil and gas industries but the basic underlying structure and process has been in existence for a long time and actually hasn’t changed very much in that time — drilling and pumping is still the only way to get at the fuel. By contrast, the infrastructure for wind and solar is nowhere nearly as widespread as that for oil and gas and parts of the underlying structure and process — such as how to store the energy generated — are still being worked out.

  3. These days, I find myself seeing more wisdom than ever before in the line by the great poet Alexander Pope…”A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring. There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again.”

    One of the challenges of the internet (and technology in general, it seems) these days is that it enables half-truths or outright lies to be spread just as easily if not more so than facts and knowledge — in part because it’s easier to either believe or reject than question and investigate, and the actions of the American public suggest that they prefer to take the path of least resistance whenever possible. As I said in response to a post a couple of days ago, a growing number of Americans seem to think that anything which you have to wait or work for is just too much trouble.

    I remember watching a panel of science fiction writers several years ago which included Harlan Ellison — and even though Ellison is well-known for being cynical and something of a misanthropic curmudgeon, I’m convinced that he was right to compare the internet to a back fence over which housewives exchange gossip. Even though I’m only in my 40’s, I can remember a time not so long ago when a writer of fantasy novels who tried to position himself as any kind of knowledgeable resource on anything outside of writing would not have remotely been taken seriously — he would have been dismissed as a charlatan or else pitied (or laughed at) as someone who was only embarrassing himself. Nowadays, however, just about anyone can create a blog on the internet and promote the most outrageous kind of half-baked nonsense — whether out of misguided conclusions or out of the twisted desire to stir the pot and rattle people’s chains — and a certain percentage of people will be credulous enough to believe it even though this person has none of the credentials (journalistic or otherwise) to suggest that they have the slightest clue what they’re talking about and in many cases make little or no effort to provide reliable evidence in support of their claims.

  4. You’ve just made an illogical statement. My response to you doesn’t validate anything. It surely doesn’t negate what Mary said… that’s your ego talking.

    And if it was gibberish why feel the need to reply at all? Using your “logic”… you replying validates what I said about you then lol

    Whether or not you acknowledge that some people throughout history have wanted to rule the world and have set about to those ends is irrelevant. It has been tried, is being tried and will be tried perhaps in the future. If there were never such things as conspiracies we wouldn’t have a word nor laws for such. The unwillingness of some to see them as a potential is short-sighted. It shows the cognitive issues I spoke about earlier.

    You think that you’re being uber logical but its just mental masturbation on your part.

    1. Ant,

      (1) “My response to you doesn’t validate anything.”

      “Validate: demonstrate or support the truth or value”

      Your inability to provide supporting logic or evidence is significant. As does your recourse to insults.

      (2) “And if it was gibberish why feel the need to reply at all?”

      I respond to most comments, gibberish or brilliance. It’s SOP here.

  5. (1) “My response to you doesn’t validate anything.”
    “Validate: demonstrate or support the truth or value”
    Your inability to provide supporting logic or evidence is significant. As does your recourse to insults.

    Thanks for making my point. I was here to give an opinion based on an observation. You stated that my doing so validated your side but I never gave anything that I was trying to pass off as supportive evidence so how could it possibly validate anything when it wasn’t meant so? Why because you didn’t like my observation about you and your blog?

    I have to ask as well.. If you’ve had such a large amount of views in 7 years, where is everyone? Long weekend perhaps? Out squashing those ebil conservatives no doubt! You know… those that lie to US more. Sheesh you’re so obvious while trying your damndest to not seem so.

    Good luck with that but I think you’re losing the liberal game worldwide. Again just an opinion. Do I need links for that?

    By the way… typical socialist victim mentality crying insults over observations. You don’t see me crying the blues over anything you’ve said that I might not like lol

    Anyway Happy Independence from a Socialist-fascist day.

    1. Ant,

      I’m uncertain what you are attempting to say, as that seems more like a rant. However you give some specific points.

      “If you’ve had such a large amount of views in 7 years, where is everyone?”

      95 thousand hits in May, 86 thousand in June. Five million since starting in November 2007.

      “typical socialist victim mentality crying insults over observations.”

      READING FAIL. That you reply with insults shows your inability to provide substantive rebuttal, using logic or facts. As I said before. Isn’t this clear?

      Also, it’s a sign of our neutrality that right-wingers complain that the FM website is leftist — and left extremists call us right-wingers. It also shows the blink tribalism of both political extremes in America today. For a few examples see the Politics of the FM website page.

  6. Evidently you have direct replies to you turned off or something…

    There are fallacies in your last comment. Again you see validation in things where there is no real proof of any. Its just your desire to see it that way.

    “Also, it’s a sign of our neutrality
    that right-wingers complain that
    the FM website is leftist — and left
    extremists call us right-wingers.”

    Only in the sense that you disagree with both on particular issues but it says nothing of your personal political neutrality which as I’ve stated isn’t neutral from what I’ve seen.

    “It also shows the blink tribalism of
    both political extremes in America

    Could be or it could be that they just disagree with you. Maybe it “seems” like it but how can you be for sure? Is there a tribalism detector on Google play? :)

    It appears maybe that I was correct on the liberal thing. I mean someone that was “neutral” probably would’ve voted either way last election nor would he have made a comment such as below. Neoliberalism corparitism IS a form of fascism. But you knew that huh.

    Fabius Maximus on 14 May 2013
    at 5:47 am
    “I voted for O v RMoney because
    the latter was even worse. Better
    neoliberal corporatism than
    outright fascism.”
    I agree. The difference between
    bad and worse is much sharper
    than between good and better.
    But meaningful reform will require
    sharper vision and more political
    involvement than Americans display
    today. My guess — emphasis on
    guess — is that we are waiting for
    strong leadership. We can only
    guess at what form it will take, but
    I suspect we will follow. Eagerly.
    Loki’s speech in Germany (in The
    Avengers film) is the best
    statement of our situation.

  7. Oh, nevermind, I see why you come off as “bashing” but still have the lust for government. Most of your authors have a long history of it. Nothing neutral about that.

  8. Oh, one more “observation” then I’m outta this joint.

    Hell I thought you were a single writer behind a pseudonym but you’re a collection of writers using that name. That sure adds to your mirage of neutrality lol

    I suppose if you mean the site allows differing views but all of the writers have the same backgrounds almost lol.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Scroll to Top
%d bloggers like this: