A Classic Example Of Climate Fraud By The Union Of Concerned Scientists

The United States is already experiencing more intense rain and snow storms.

As the Earth warms, the amount of rain or snow falling in the heaviest one percent of storms has risen nearly 20 percent on average in the United States—almost three times the rate of increase in total precipitation between 1958 and 2007.

Are Severe Rain storms, Snow storms, Drought, and Tornadoes Linked to Global Warming?

Look what these UCS crooks did. They cherry picked starting their graph at the minimum during the drought of the late 1950’s, because the earlier years wrecked their claim. So they simply threw the other data out.

ScreenHunter_6371 Jan. 24 15.42

In fact, there is zero correlation between global temperatures and heavy US rainfall events, with all of the heaviest rain years occurring during years of below average global temperature.

ScreenHunter_6370 Jan. 24 15.35

This is blatant fraud by an organization calling themselves scientists. These crooks are worse than Bernie Maddoff

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

28 Responses to A Classic Example Of Climate Fraud By The Union Of Concerned Scientists

  1. gator69 says:

    Did they consult Dr Kenji?


    “Since becoming a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists when I found out
    all you needed was a valid credit card, my curiosity about who and what they
    really are has spiked.

    I decided to put that theory to the test. I am very proud to announce that a
    member of my family has been accepted into this prestigious organization. With
    pride, I present new UCS member, Kenji Watts:

    Yes, Kenji is our dog. Apparently, the claim is true, all that is required to be
    a member of the illustrious group of “concerned scientists” is a valid credit
    card. No discerning questions were asked of me when I prepared Kenji’s
    application and no follow up check after the application was done. I simply put
    in his name, address, and provided a valid credit card that matched the


  2. Kevin Kissman says:

    If there is more rainfall, more energy is taken out of the system, converted to potential energy instead of thermal energy which means lower temperature – I believe this is based on the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It is this conservation of energy that seems to messing with all of these climate models.

  3. sfx2020 says:

    I’ve been researching precipitation and temperatures for years now. There is little doubt that the more precipitation, the cooler the average temperature, for any period you choose. Daily, weekly, monthly, season or year. Even decades. Run the numbers yourself, It’s a direct relationship.

    • sfx2020 says:

      Whoops. The above should have included “for any small region of the planet”. The connection does not work for large areas of course, like the entire US. You can have a drought in the west and heavy rain in the east, so obviously this connection is for the area having the precipitation. Or not having any.

      • Gail Combs says:

        I would expect lower temperatures to correlate with more rain and drought to connect with higher temperatures. After all the deserts are where the highest temperatures are recorded because little of the sun’s energy goes into the latent heat of vaporization and you do not have cloud cover reflecting some of the sun’s energy. (Albedo)

        Now why can these idiotic so called ClimAstrologists figure out something that simple?

        • sfx2020 says:

          I have no idea. It’s simple enough you can show it with the NCDC data, Even a little thought leads to the obvious reason. It’s cooler when it rains a lot. It’s hotter when there are no clouds. Except for winter, when the relationship is more complex.

  4. Dave says:

    “Are Severe Rain storms, Snow storms, Drought, and Tornadoes Linked to Global Warming?”

    Is there anything that is not linked to global warming?

    • McGehee says:

      Climate alarmists’ personal behavior.

    • Menicholas says:

      Billions of dollars in grant money is in no way linked to global warming.
      Every single one of the Hoax Deniers assures me of this is the strongest language possible, so it must be true.
      Every fictional dollar spent by oil companies, however, is iron clad proof that skeptics are only in it for the money.

      • philjourdan says:

        So many skeptics among the alarmist elites. Joanne Nova documented how “Big Oil” gives more to the alarmist cause than to skeptic causes by 10-1 margin.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Of course Big Oil gives to the Alarmist cause. BP, Shell Oil and Standard Oil (Rockefeller Foundations) set up the Climate Research Unit of East Anglia in the first place. A Shell Oil VP, Ged Davis wrote the Agenda 21 ‘Sustainability’ scenario as the IPCC lead Author.

          Banks, Shell Oil and CAGW

  5. nielszoo says:

    I’m not a statistician and do very little work with statistics but I do use polynomial fitting primarily for rough optical mapping work. I can’t say that I have ever seen an R² so small. A magnitude of 10^-5… wow that’s tiny. You know it’s bad when the coefficient of determination is 4 orders of magnitude below a value that would be considered to be almost zero.

  6. Scott Scarborough says:

    The first plot has “Percent” and “Temperature Anomaly (C)” I think the second one needs to be removed.

  7. Pathway says:

    UCS always has been and always will be a Communist front group.

  8. philjourdan says:

    The only part of their name that is accurate is “Union”. They are a cabal of witch doctors who do not care about anyone but themselves.

  9. Phil Jones says:

    Great work busting the Science Cheats day in… Day out…

  10. Don says:

    The Union of Confused Science.

  11. nickshaw1 says:

    They use 1880 as a start point for the rise of temperature yet, despite having the data available, they start in 1950 for rainfall.
    If they used the same start date for temps, the rise would be even more insignificant, if that is even possible.

  12. Centinel2012 says:

    Reblogged this on Centinel2012 and commented:
    FRAUD is all they have their theories have all been debunked!

  13. roaldjlarsen says:

    Reblogged this on Roald j. Larsen.

  14. globalcooler says:

    Reblogged this on Globalcooler's Weblog and commented:
    More cherry picking. This is unbelievable!

  15. g5cats says:

    The labels on the two charts are swapped. The top one should be “% of rain” and the bottom one “Temperature”. Correct?
    This has greatly vexed the AGW supporters I shared it with, they claim the data is false because of a typo!

Leave a Reply