'The Earth’s recent temperatures rank in the lowest 3 per cent of all those recorded since the end of the last ice age'Photo: AL
Although it has been emerging for seven years or more, one of the most extraordinary scandals of our time has never hit the headlines. Yet another little example of it lately caught my eye when, in the wake of those excited claims that 2014 was “the hottest year on record”, I saw the headline on a climate blog: “Massive tampering with temperatures in South America”. The evidence on Notalotofpeopleknowthat, uncovered by Paul Homewood, was indeed striking.
Puzzled by those “2014 hottest ever” claims, which were led by the most quoted of all the five official global temperature records – Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss) – Homewood examined a place in the world where Giss was showing temperatures to have risen faster than almost anywhere else: a large chunk of South America stretching from Brazil to Paraguay.
Noting that weather stations there were thin on the ground, he decided to focus on three rural stations covering a huge area of Paraguay. Giss showed it as having recorded, between 1950 and 2014, a particularly steep temperature rise of more than 1.5C: twice the accepted global increase for the whole of the 20th century.
But when Homewood was then able to check Giss’s figures against the original data from which they were derived, he found that they had been altered. Far from the new graph showing any rise, it showed temperatures in fact having declined over those 65 years by a full degree. When he did the same for the other two stations, he found the same. In each case, the original data showed not a rise but a decline.
Homewood had in fact uncovered yet another example of the thousands of pieces of evidence coming to light in recent years that show that something very odd has been going on with the temperature data relied on by the world's scientists. And in particular by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which has driven the greatest and most costly scare in history: the belief that the world is in the grip of an unprecedented warming.
How have we come to be told that global temperatures have suddenly taken a great leap upwards to their highest level in 1,000 years? In fact, it has been no greater than their upward leaps between 1860 and 1880, and 1910 and 1940, as part of that gradual natural warming since the world emerged from its centuries-long “Little Ice Age” around 200 years ago.
This belief has rested entirely on five official data records. Three of these are based on measurements taken on the Earth’s surface, versions of which are then compiled by Giss, by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and by the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit working with the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction, part of the UK Met Office. The other two records are derived from measurements made by satellites, and then compiled by Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) in California and the University of Alabama, Huntsville (UAH).
The adjusted graph from the Goddard Institute for Space Studies
In recent years, these two very different ways of measuring global temperature have increasingly been showing quite different results. The surface-based record has shown a temperature trend rising up to 2014 as “the hottest years since records began”. RSS and UAH have, meanwhile, for 18 years been recording no rise in the trend, with 2014 ranking as low as only the sixth warmest since 1997.
One surprise is that the three surface records, all run by passionate believers in man-made warming, in fact derive most of their land surface data from a single source. This is the Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN), managed by the US National Climate Data Center under NOAA, which in turn comes under the US Department of Commerce.
But two aspects of this system for measuring surface temperatures have long been worrying a growing array of statisticians, meteorologists and expert science bloggers. One is that the supposedly worldwide network of stations from which GHCN draws its data is flawed. Up to 80 per cent or more of the Earth’s surface is not reliably covered at all. Furthermore, around 1990, the number of stations more than halved, from 12,000 to less than 6,000 – and most of those remaining are concentrated in urban areas or places where studies have shown that, thanks to the “urban heat island effect”, readings can be up to 2 degrees higher than in those rural areas where thousands of stations were lost.
Below, the raw data in graph form
To fill in the huge gaps, those compiling the records have resorted to computerised “infilling”, whereby the higher temperatures recorded by the remaining stations are projected out to vast surrounding areas (Giss allows single stations to give a reading covering 1.6 million square miles). This alone contributed to the sharp temperature rise shown in the years after 1990.
But still more worrying has been the evidence that even this data has then been subjected to continual “adjustments”, invariably in only one direction. Earlier temperatures are adjusted downwards, more recent temperatures upwards, thus giving the impression that they have risen much more sharply than was shown by the original data.
An early glaring instance of this was spotted by Steve McIntyre, the statistician who exposed the computer trickery behind that famous “hockey stick” graph, beloved by the IPCC, which purported to show that, contrary to previous evidence, 1998 had been the hottest year for 1,000 years. It was McIntyre who, in 2007, uncovered the wholesale retrospective adjustments made to US surface records between 1920 and 1999 compiled by Giss (then run by the outspoken climate activist James Hansen). These reversed an overall cooling trend into an 80-year upward trend. Even Hansen had previously accepted that the “dust bowl” 1930s was the hottest US decade of the entire 20th century.
Assiduous researchers have since unearthed countless similar examples across the world, from the US and Russia to Australia and New Zealand. In Australia, an 80-year cooling of 1 degree per century was turned into a warming trend of 2.3 degrees. In New Zealand, there was a major academic row when “unadjusted” data showing no trend between 1850 and 1998 was shown to have been “adjusted” to give a warming trend of 0.9 degrees per century. This falsified new version was naturally cited in an IPCC report (see “New Zealand NIWA temperature train wreck” on the Watts Up With That science blog, WUWT, which has played a leading role in exposing such fiddling of the figures).
By far the most comprehensive account of this wholesale corruption of proper science is a paper written for the Science and Public Policy Institute, “Surface Temperature Records: Policy-Driven Deception?”, by two veteran US meteorologists, Joseph D’Aleo and WUWT’s Anthony Watts (and if warmists are tempted to comment below this article online, it would be welcome if they could address their criticisms to the evidence, rather than just resorting to personal attacks on the scientists who, after actually examining the evidence, have come to a view different from their own).
One of the more provocative points arising from the debate over those claims that 2014 was “the hottest year evah” came from the Canadian academic Dr Timothy Ball when, in a recent post on WUWT, he used the evidence of ice-core data to argue that the Earth’s recent temperatures rank in the lowest 3 per cent of all those recorded since the end of the last ice age, 10,000 years ago.
In reality, the implications of such distortions of the data go much further than just representing one of the most bizarre aberrations in the history of science. The fact that our politicians have fallen for all this scary chicanery has given Britain the most suicidally crazy energy policy (useless windmills and all) of any country in the world.
But at least, if they’re hoping to see that “universal climate treaty” signed in Paris next December, we can be pretty sure that it is no more going to happen than that 2014 was the hottest year in history.
As humanity becomes more conscious to the language of nature, it is clear that mushrooms in their many forms come in peace and are here to help. The uses, benefits, and applications of mushrooms currently seem to be limitless cutting across all industries, cultures, and modalities. Embraced by the medical community, gardeners, architects, spiritualist, religions and others, their boundaries are yet to be found.
The intricate matrix of mushroom mycelium under our feet represents rebirth, rejuvenation, and regeneration. It waits patiently to reveal secrets for those with the courage to sidestep mainstream assumptions in search of something better. “Fungi are the grand molecular disassemblers in nature, decomposing plants and animals, creating forests…they’re soil magicians“, according to Paul Stamets, world renown mycologist.
Confirmed! Mushrooms Saving The Bees
Presenting at the recent Bioneers Annual Conference, Paul Stamets gave bombshell evidence that there is hope for bees, colony collapse, and our entire ecosystem. Washington State University recently completed a longevity stress test on bee populations that appears to confirm that the genes for the detoxification pathways in bees are turned on by beneficial fungi they collect from their environment. What’s more, it has been confirmed in previous testing that the red belted polypore mushroom degrades pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides. It has also been confirmed in previous tests that fungicidal contamination reduces beneficial fungi in honey bee colonies. So what does this all mean? The widespread pesticide, herbicide, and fungicide have created an absence of beneficial fungi in bee colonies. This turns off the proper detoxification pathways within the bees and their colonies leading to a hyper-accumulation of toxins. Colony collapses typically follows shortly thereafter.
What appears to hold a key to slowing down or even stopping the current epidemic of bee colony collapse is a solution called “Mycohoney,” made from the polypore mushroom mycelium. When fed to bees in the University of Washington trials, it showed extraordinary significance in life extension of the honey bees. Walter S. Sheppard, PhD P.F. Thurber Professor, Chair, Department of Entomology Washington State University gave this comment:
“As an entomologist with 39 years’ experience studying bees, I am unaware of any reports of materials that extend the life of worker bees more than this.”
Mushrooms Elevate Humanity As Well
Beyond bee-support, mushrooms have an laundry list of other uses and benefits that read like a dream come true for humanity. According to the research performed by Donald Smee, PhD of the Institute of Antiviral Research at Utah State University testing for the U.S. government’s Bioshield and Biodefense programs, mycelial extracts from chaga, Red Reshi, agarikon, and others showed highly effect antiviral effects against many flu strains. This study was done using weak mushrooms extract dilutions of 100:1. What’s even more promising is that these mushrooms show no toxicity to human cells and high selectivity against the viruses. This is in stark contrast to our questionable vaccine protocols currently that contain know toxic adjuvants causing permanent damage on record. Perhaps we are looking at the future of preventative medicine and immune defense minus the needles and injections.
The well heavily studied and well documented mushroom cordyceps sinensis is proving to be a wonder of nature. It is one of eight modalities used by Dr. Richard Alan Miller implemented to elevate the first Navy Seal team into superhumans. It’s well-known to increase physical stamina, is effective against all sorts of bacteria that have developed resistance to other antibiotics, and it assists in DNA repair. Taking things a step further, it is suspected that the same chemicals that are discriminating the bees and their colonies are also causing DNA damage in humans. While we fight to put an end to this genetic contamination in the form of pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides could mushrooms be here to assist us physically, mentally, and spiritually in the battle?
A global warming expert has said the poles are not melting
In fact, the poles are "much more stable" than climate scientists once predicted and could even be much thicker than previously thought.
For years, scientists have suggested that both poles are melting at an alarming rate because of warming temperatures - dangerously raising the Earth's sea levels while threatening the homes of Arctic and Antarctic animals.
But the uncertainty surrounding climate change and the polar ice caps reached a new level this month when research suggested the ice in the Antarctic is actually growing.
And there could even be evidence to suggest the polar bear population is not under threat.
Ted Maksym, an oceanographer at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts, conducted a study in which he sent an underwater robot into the depths of the Antarctic sea to measure the ice.
His results contradicted previous assumptions made by scientists and showed that the ice is actually much thicker than has been predicted over the last 20 years.
Dr Benny Peiser has spoken out about the melting ice caps
Dr Benny Peiser, from the Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF), said this latest research adds further proof to the unpredictability of the supposed effects of global warming.
He said: "The Antarctic is actually growing and all the evidence in the last few months suggests many assumptions about the poles was wrong.
"Global sea ice is at a record high, another key indicator that something is working in the opposite direction of what was predicted."
He added: "Most people think the poles are melting... they're not. This is a huge inconvenience that reality is now catching up with climate alarmists, who were predicting that the poles would be melting fairly soon."
The Antarctic is actually growing and all the evidence in the last few months suggests many assumptions about the poles was wrong
Dr Benny Peiser
Separate satellite data released this month showed evidence that at the other end of the globe, the ice in the Arctic sea is also holding up against climate change better than expected.
The data from the European Space Agency CryoSat-2 satellite suggests that Arctic sea ice volumes in the autumn of 2014 were above the average set over the last five years, and sharply up on the lows recorded in 2011 and 2012.
According to this research, Arctic sea ice volumes in October and November this year averaged at 10,200 cubic kilometres.
This figure is only slightly down on the 2013 average of 10,900 cubic kilometres, yet massively up on the 2011 low of 4,275 cubic kilometres and the 6,000 cubic kilometres recorded in 2012.
Dr Peiser, who believes the threat of global warming has been overstated by climate scientists, described this occurrence as "some kind of rebound" adding that no-one knows what will continue to happen to the poles.
He added: "This depends on whether or not we have further warming to come... and this is not certain.
"We do not know what the climate will be in 10, 20 years."
The polar bears are 'actually doing very well'
As well as melting ice, scientists have also been concerned about the population of the polar bears is rapidly decreasing.
But a previous report this summer by Dr Susan Crockford, an evolution biologist at the University of Victoria in Canada, suggested that the polars bears are actually a "conservation success story".
She told the GWPF that the current polar bear population is "well above" the official estimate of 20,000 to 25,000, and could be as high as 27,000 to 32,000.
Dr Peiser said: "People said the poles are melting, so therefore the polar bears will become extinct. They are actually doing very well."
However, other scientists have remained adamant that the poles are melting
However other experts have questioned the accuracy of the latest reports and say it is too early to declare there is no problem with the poles.
Professor Peter Wadhams, a Professor of Ocean Physics at Cambridge University, suggested the research from the Antarctic is based on thick ice which had previously not been sampled by scientists.
He confessed that while the Antarctic sea ice area is increasing, experts do not know how thick the ice really is because they lack the means to measure it.
The reason for this is that "satellites don't work for Antarctic ice thickness because the ice is too wet, while submarines are forbidden to go there", he explained.
He also added that these recent figures on the Arctic "mean little" on their own, and that the trends should be looked at from a wider range.
He explained: "I would say the consensus view of climate scientists is that the trend of area and thickness in Arctic sea ice is very strongly downwards, despite this year's partial recovery.
"It is best to look at five-year running means since annual fluctuations mean little."