It was nearly two decades ago that I first became aware that “new” science was negating “old” science in a way that did not properly refute the data gathered by scientists of “the past”.

For example, the Vikings of Greenland buried their dead in soil that now is permafrost. There is simply no way to dig graves six feet deep in permafrost, without blowtorches or jackhammers, neither of which the Greenland Vikings owned. Furthermore, in the early days of their colony they were able to grow barley for beer, which became impossible later in the four-hundred-plus years Vikings existed as an entity in Greenland. (The evidence for this is husks of barley found in various locations, in sites identified as early sites.) The conclusion that it was obviously far warmer in Greenland a millennium ago is also borne out by other evidence, including casual references in Sagas to Greenland Vikings swimming in waters that now would paralyze a man with hypothermia in less than five minutes.

In other words, scientists of the past had done their homework, and had traveled to God-forsaken landscapes, (or at least Viking-forsaken), and gathered quite a body of evidence it was much warmer a thousand years ago. While one might be able to quibble about one or two items in this body of evidence, to chuck the conclusions en mass would take the gumption of a complete con-artist, or amazing and stunning new evidence gleaned from field work.

When no amazing and stunning new evidence was provided, and no field work was involved, I could not help but sniff the aroma of a colossal con. It is a smell I know all too much about, for I have lived among poor poets who have been amazing cons, and could get people to pay them for being losers. (It wouldn’t be so bad if they had written good poetry, but, as I said, they were poor poets.)

Originally I simply asked to see the evidence about Greenland Vikings, and to see the field studies, and got the run-around. At best I was directed to papers that had no actual field studies, or IPCC reports that ignored the actual field studies, or I was simply spoken to in a condescending tone. Because I was quite familiar with such run-arounds, (because poor poets like to impress rich widows with tales of how they hobnobbed with Bob Dylan and Joan Bias, and advised Simon and Garfunkel on their lyrics, and are smooth as oiled silk when asked to provide evidence), my suspicion only worsened, and I became more strident in my demands to see the evidence that showed it was not much warmer in Greenland in the year 1000 than it is during our current warm period.

When I finally hit the roof was when the Toronto Star proudly reported the Canadian Steve McIntyre had forced NASA to back down from its attempt to show modern warming was worse than the Dust Bowl. NASA’s adjusted adjustment looked like this:

GISS U.S. Temperatures (deg C) in New Order

Year Old New 1934 1.23 1.25 1998 1.24 1.23 1921 1.12 1.15 2006 1.23 1.13 1931 1.08 1.08 1999 0.94 0.93 1953 0.91 0.90 1990 0.88 0.87 1938 0.85 0.86 1939 0.84 0.85

Here’s the old leaderboard.

Year Old New 1998 1.24 1.23 1934 1.23 1.25 2006 1.23 1.13 1921 1.12 1.15 1931 1.08 1.08 1999 0.94 0.93 1953 0.91 0.90 2001 0.90 0.76 1990 0.88 0.87 1938 0.85 0.86

The reason I hit the roof was because up until this point I did not know “adjusting the data” was even allowed. I mean, when I do my taxes I always have to resist the temptation to “adjust the data”, but don’t adjust my data because it is my understanding that such adjustments are criminal behavior. It has been my experience that the IRS doesn’t give a hoot about “extenuating circumstances”. (My wife’s father, for tax purposes, listed his daughter as a “partner”, and when he unexpectedly died the IRS didn’t want to hear me say I was unaware of this agreement; I had to pay the old man’s taxes, though we were dirt poor.)

To me, data is data. For over a hundred years countless people had gone to thermometers and taken the temperature, and sent it in to the weather bureau. Undoubtedly there were occasions when certain individuals looked out at foul weather and chose to fudge the data, however more often the individuals involved took fierce pride in their roles, and struggled out through appalling weather with flashlights, and before that lanterns, to squint at thermometers in Stevenson Screens. They were gutsy people. often in rough locals, and the data they gathered may not be perfect down to a hundredth of a degree, but it the best we’ve got.

In order for congress to OK the huge expense of Doplar radar, the weather bureau had to agree to cut back on the expense of hiring so many people to measure the actual temperature. A lot of the folk who had worked long and hard gathering actual data were basically fired, so meteorologists could look at a flickering radar image in some warm and cozy room. More humble meteorologists will confess to you that initially they thought Doplar radar would allow them to track individual thunderstorms like hurricanes, but in actuality they gazed into a seething cauldron of storms appearing and vanishing like bubbles in a boiling stew. The less humble meteorologists liked being cozy, and looking at screens, and never having to go outside when you have a bad cold, and never having to read an actual thermometer.

I myself have often wished I could stay in where it is warm and cozy, but to feed my wife and five kids, and to pay my wife’s father’s IRS debts, I have had to go out and work even when as sick as a dog. I have a sort of code of honor, even if my doctor might disapprove of it. Sneer at it as “Puritan Work Ethic” if you will, but I figure some things are worth suffering for. Therefore it pisses me off royally when I see people altering the raw data, claiming they have some sort of “extenuating circumstances.”

It pisses me off even more when the people “adjusting” are living off the taxes I suffer to pay. (Not that I haven’t been so dirt poor that I have qualified for some bizarre thing called “Earned Income Credit”, which on occasion has given me a refund I certainly don’t deserve, but that is written into the law and the tax code, which constitutes a sort of raw data all its own. I am not breaking any law to obey the tax code.) The people “adjusting” raw data at NASA are suppose to obey higher and more scientific laws. We pay them to be so adept they can shoot a rocket to Mars and put a lander where it should land, when a mistake of .01 degree could miss the planet by thousands of miles. In fact they have been less than perfect, and had to resort to mid-course-corrections, and that involved “adjustments.” But such “adjustments” involve data: Data says this should be the course and we are off-course that much, if our destination is point X on Mars. Therefore, to arrive at our destination we must adjust Y amount.

No such adjustments are allowed, when you are dealing with thermometers. What is the destination of a thermometer? Thermometers only report what is. However, if for some reason you feel the thermometer should be reporting Global Warming, then maybe your objectivity would be polluted by what kind people call ” bias”, but I call “the temptation to resort to corruption”.

As soon as I saw the above charts of how NASA was “adjusting” temperature I called foul. The reek of corruption was nauseating to me, and I stated the entire concept of “Global Warming” was a fraud. The date? August 8, 2007. I actually got snipped at “denier” sites, because I was too rabid. However the good part of this rejection was I learned to be more civil, especially because in my research I discovered Steve McIntyre’s site at Climate Audit, which combined humor with civil procedure.

http://climateaudit.org/2007/08/08/a-new-leaderboard-at-the-us-open/

Unfortunately, as eight long years have past, it has become increasingly apparent that the people “adjusting” temperatures at NASA and NOAA do not believe in civil procedure. Apparently they do not believe in even the United States Constitution. Now, when congress asks for their records, they feel able to tell congress to go get lost.

http://iceagenow.info/2015/10/noaa-refusing-to-give-up-its-records-to-congress/

http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2015/1028/NOAA-refuses-to-comply-with-House-science-committee-subpoena-video

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/28/ncdcnceis-karl-and-peterson-refuse-congressional-subpoena-on-flawed-pausebuster-paper/

If their “adjustments” were valid (which I have never felt was possible) then they would be glad to bring proof of their validity before Congress and the American People. However they not only hold Congress in contempt, they hold the American People in contempt.

In other words, they do not believe we are all created equal. They do not believe a poor man should have the same vote as a rich man. Instead they seemingly believe (and I do not understand how anyone could be so idiotic) that their falsified data has more import than Truth.

They must be out of their minds. Even an engineer aged six knows falsified data cannot build a tree-fort that will stay on the branches of the tree where it is built. How can it? Where a thick stick is needed the kid is handed a thin stick, and told it is thick.

This entire “adjustment of temperatures” thing is past being a national embarrassment. It is now international. The United States is the laughing stock of the world.

It is high time we hold the people responsible accountable. After all, “Falsifying Public Documents” is a crime.

It is also high time we ask these liars what they are lying for. What is so worth “adjusting” the best efforts of men and women who recorded temperatures for the rest of us, in out of the way places in all weathers? What is worth defying congress for? What is worth betraying our Founding Fathers and the Constitution for?

They are “adjusting” a lot more than temperature records. They are adjusting the scientific and civil procedures many a young man has died for, because such procedures are the foundations of our freedom.

Ask them. “What is your “adjusting” for?” In many cases the answer is horribly shallow. They are doing it for filthy lucre, and look no further. However others have some idea of utopia in mind, as they are dishonest. These especially need to be confronted. Ask them to explain the utopia that is worth lying to the American people for.

The best “peer review” was devised by our Forefathers, and inscribed into our constitution with a quill dipped into liquid gold. It involves ordinary people demanding the privileged to explain themselves. The leaders must explain the reasons for their policy.

We need to demand NASA and NOAA explain the reasons for their deceit.