Giving Credit Where Credit Is Due

It is easy to blame Obama for the corruption of climate science, but the real credit goes to Al Gore in 1993.

As of 1990, NOAA had satellite sea ice data going back to 1973, which showed that sea ice extent was much lower in the early 1970s than in 1979.



But all of the NOAA pre-1979 sea ice data disappeared after Al Gore took office, because it wrecked his CO2 agenda.


Arctic air temperatures highest since 1900, global report shows – Telegraph

As of 1990, the IPCC showed a much warmer Medieval Warm Period and much colder Little Ice Age.


But by the time Al Gore left office, the MWP and LIA had disappeared.

hockey stick mann

Similar story with sea level. As of 1990, sea level rise at the IPCC was less than five inches from 1880 to 1980.



Government agencies now claim almost twice that much sea level rise.

Under Al Gore, the criminal behavior of government agencies corrupting data, fraud and defunding skeptics began. Obama has simply extended and expanded Al Gore’s fraud.

About Tony Heller

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

29 Responses to Giving Credit Where Credit Is Due

  1. Oliver K. Manuel says:

    The expanding universe, the solar system and Earth’s climate are controlled by the FORCE indelibly recorded in precise rest masses of the 3,000 types of atoms that compromise all matter:

    • Oliver K. Manuel says:

      Copernicus reported the FORCE that controls planet Earth in 1543. Einstein explained it in 1905, and atomic bombs revealed that source of energy in 1945.

      False pride and blinding arrogance convinced Sixteenth (16th) Century popes and Twentieth (20th) Century world leaders they could hide the FORCE that they cannot control.

    Worked for CBS during Viet Nam War things change then…Clear Broadcast Science….now
    Climate Bull S___…you fill in the blanks thank Goodness!

  3. Steve Case says:

    Slightly off topic:

    GISTEMP came out with the January 2016 numbers the other day. Yes they changed the anomaly for January 1880 again. Not only that, of the 1632 monthly entries since 1880 they changed almost half of them (47%). Most of the changes (97%) were negative and most of those (78%) were before 1948. All but two of the positive changes were after 1948.

    So once again, the pattern emerges, warm recent temperatures and cool the past.

    Yes, the changes were miniscule (-0.01°C) but that’s not the point, these changes get made all the time. What the hell is going on?

    • Steve Case says:

      Hmmmm, I failed to say the comparison was to the December 2015 release.

    • Jason Calley says:

      “Yes, the changes were miniscule”

      Yes, and so is a snowflake — but enough of them can crush a house. Apparently they found new information about the data gathering procedure for 1880. Again. And again. And again…

      So-called “climate scientists” are shameless liars.

  4. ren says:

    “Solar cycles are numbered from a minimum to a minimum since Cycle 1 of 1755/1766, the maximum was in 1761. And now we come to the cycle No. 24 which had its absolute minimum in late 2008 and should have its maximum around 2013. According to the law of GO (Gnevyshev-Oh) an odd-numbered cycle is more active and thus more sunspots that the number is even cycle preceding it. This allows to have an idea of solar activity cycles odd.

    But during these 23 cycles, the law of GO was raped by three pairs of odd-even cycles. Those are the cycle No. 4-5 so the solar cycle from 1785 to 1798 and from 1798 to 1810, the cycles No. 8-9 so the solar cycle from 1834 to 1843 and from 1843 to 1856 and then the cycles No. 22- 23 from 1985 to 1996 and from 1996 to 2007 is because contrary to the law of the GO odd-numbered cycle is more active than the preceding even cycle.

    If as was indicated Mr Hathaway (NASA, member of the panel forecasting the solar cycle) cycle No. 25 could be one of the lowest in the last century then there will be violation of the law between the GO N cycles 24 and 25 °.

    Violations of the law GO place near a time when the orbital motion of the Sun around the center of gravity is retrograde and when the orbital angular momentum of the Sun decreases a lot and quickly. At these times there was approximately an alignment of Jupiter-Sun-Saturn-Uranus-Neptune so the center of gravity is near the center of the Sun and reverse with an alignment of the Sun-Jupiter-Saturn-Uranus-Neptune around 6 years after the more or nearly one year. So a quick change in the distance between the Sun and the center of gravity. Because when Saturn-Uranus-Neptune are on the same side of the Sun while Jupiter has a shorter orbital period varies very quickly the distance between the Sun and the center of gravity.
    This alignment of gas planets happens every 179.60 years. This is why the Sun orbits the center of gravity and center of gravity of the solar system are reproduced sequentially with a period of 179.60 years. This must be the cause of the cycle Suess or Vries as the minimum of the solar cycle falls when the orbital angular momentum of the Sun varies rapidly or every time when solar activity and temperatures have weakened either at minimum Oort, Wolf, Spörer, Maunder and Dalton.

    In the figure below there is the variation of the distance of the centroid-Sun, the speed of the sun around the centroid of the orbital acceleration of the sun around the centroid, the rate of change of the orbital angular momentum of the Sun. the number of Wolf sunspot and temperature anomalies in the northern hemisphere. Two spaced vertical dashes of approximately 43 years appear every 179 years. The gap between the two close enough vertical dashes is around 43 years or the period conjunction of Saturn and Uranus.

    Each vertical dashes represent a rapid variation of the orbital angular momentum of the Sun occurs when the center of the Sun passes close to the center of gravity, resulting in variations in angle theta fast and therefore an angular velocity that can become very high. Either when Jupiter is the opposite of the four Jovian planets from the Sun, as was the case in 1632 and 1672, 1811, 1851, 1990 and soon in 2030.

    As we can see, the two dashes returning every 179 years or when the law of GO is not followed and thus the odd cycle is less active than the preceding even cycle contrary to what it should be. Each of these vertical dashes couples are near a periods of solar activity and temperature of the northern hemisphere are low or declining.”

    • omanuel says:

      Thank you, ren, for reminding us the Sun orbits the center of gravity of the solar system and this causes a 179.60 year cycle of solar cycles that alters Earth’s climate.

  5. smamarver says:

    You are right. Too many people are saying things about climate without having a clue of what climate is. And Al Gore was the loudest of them all. Al Gore’s book “Earth in the Balance”, 1992, was deploring and he has nothing learned since than. However, let’s not forget about IPCC, which put the energy issue far ahead of scientific reliability. IPCC remained superficial by stating : “Average Arctic temperatures increased at almost twice the global average rate in the past 100 years. Arctic temperatures have high decadal variability, and a warm period was also observed from 1925 to 1945.” Actually, the strong warming started at the end of WWI in 1918, extremely pronounced at Spitsbergen, as B.J. Birkeland observed in 1930. While this warming showed significant effect in Greenland from about 1920 to 1932, in Europe the temperature increased until WWII started. The two events even got names: “Greening of Greenland” and “Warming of Europe”. The timing can be given very precisely, namely winter 1918/19 (end of WWI) and winter 1939/40 (start of WWII).

  6. Marsh says:

    It’s true , Gore-bull Warming propaganda should not be attributed to any one leader today. The AGW Scam was a “team effort” and entrenched long before Obama entered politics in 1997.
    “But” we can blame Barack Obama, for sustaining the Climate Scam beyond its “use-by-date”,, plus the systemic support of extortion, upon every human being on a Global level…
    What makes it worse ; this “malicious agenda” has been perpetrated from the highest level of office & trust.! In the fullness of time ; history will not be kind to this President.

    • Oliver K. Manuel says:

      The AGW scam is a production of the same international team of scoundrels that brought us:

      1. SSM – The Standard Solar Model
      2. SNM – The Standard Nuclear Model
      3. BBC – The Big Bang Model of Cosmology

  7. gator69 says:

    Repeat after me, “These are not the satellite records you’re looking for”.

  8. cb says:


    The full and complete blame lies with atheism.

    Its ideology is humanism, its politics is socialism.

    Truth, fact, logic: atheists, on the personal level, on average, piss on such irrelevancies. With exceptions, of course: which, of course, makes the point.

    You can all cry as much as you want to about why this is so: but it most certainly, and so very obviously, is so.

  9. cb says:


    “…so far off topic… it looks like spam…”

    So much as look at the atheist in a non-worshipful manner, and its inner idiocy crawls out it head-anus, aka atheist-hole.

    “It is easy to blame Obama for the corruption of climate science, but the real credit goes to Al
    Gore in 1993.”


  10. rachase says:

    A most essential point is missing in the above Gore-related posts. Gore and his close associates have made a literal large fortune from the early investment in industries that grew out of his manufactured global warming scare. I suspect they all have a good laugh at the gullibility of all those who actively took up the alarmist cause as they look at their fat bank statement.

  11. Eric Simpson says:

    the real credit goes to Al Gore in 1993

    Don’t forget Al Gore in 2005:

  12. Andy DC says:

    Their hope is the change will be so gradual that no one will notice. Unfortunately for them, not everybody out there is a total idiot. Just loyal Democrats who are willing to go off a cliff in lockstep.

  13. ST says:

    OK OK OK – your cherry picking of data, using weather to explain climate, along with your conspiracy that all the data is wrong means you’re right. We get it. Unfortunately you haven’t explained anything or tested any hypotheses. Everything here is just noise without critical scientific thought.

    • Neal S says:

      It has escaped your notice that there are numerous demonstrations that we are continually being fed lies by NOAA and others concerning global temperatures. The simple fact that what we are told now doesn’t match what we were told before is proof of either incompetence at best, or just plain lying to support the CAGW agenda. Why do there have to be continual and ongoing adjustments to prior historical recorded temperatures. And even if some adjustment were called for, why are there more and more adjustments over time.

      Nothing we have seen is incapable of being explained by natural variability. When we are being told this is the hottest month or year ever, we find that there are fewer really hot days than previously. If it really were the hottest whatever, don’t you think that there would be more really hot days, or more in a row? I don’t see how any sane rational individual could reconcile the difference between the lies we are fed versus the reality if you just look at raw data, with anything other than some sort of a conspiracy.

      Fortunately, not everyone in the US or the world is stupid.

    • ST, you either pretend to or actually don’t understand the application of the scientific method. The skeptics don’t have to prove any competing hypothesis.

      Those who proposed the anthropogenic CO2 warming hypothesis have to show their predictions and results. If they fail then the null hypothesis remains accepted, i.e. that the observable changes in weather and climate are the result of the same natural forces as they have been during the entire previous existence of the Earth.

      Anybody truly interested in science should be very disturbed by the contrary evidence provided by this and other skeptical sources. You clearly are not.

      Arm waving doesn’t cut it here. Everything you posted above “is just noise without critical scientific thought”.

    • DD More says:

      Neal you have to forgive ST (or is thay you Marty) It seems he has gotten a ID# 10t input controller error on the computer keyboard.

      But did you do know that when Gruber said

      “It’s a very clever, you know, basic exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter,” Gruber said at the Honors Colloquium 2012 at the University of Rhode Island. And: “They proposed it and that passed, because the American people are too stupid to understand the difference,” he said at Washington University at St. Louis in 2013.

      he was talking about someone you now know?

  14. Beale says:

    It should be noted that Gore was only the Vice-President. He had no control over government agencies except what the President gave him.

    Also, to trace the origins of the fraud, we need to go back a good deal further than 1993. James Hansen’s infamous bit of theater was in 1988, when Ronald Reagan was President.

  15. Hifast says:

    Reblogged this on Climate Collections.

  16. Philip Shehan says:

    Your “schematic” from the1990 IPCC report is just that, A schematic, not a graph, from central England. It cannot be taken as quantitative. Central England is not the globe, or even the northern hemisphere, and where the “data” in the schematic comes from is unknown. There is no temperature scale on the graph.

    Central England does have the longest continuous temperature record, but it only goes back to 1659.

    Assuming the ticks on the schematic are supposed to represent 1 C, the “data” varies through a range of about 1.5 C. This is slightly less than the measured temperature range from 1659 of about 2 C. The range of Manns proxy plus instrument data for the northern hemisphere is 1.1 C from 1659, and a1.2 C from the year 1000.

    The schematic temperature change for the 20th century is clearly unrealistic, not matching that of the actual data. However overall, remembering that central England is not the globe nor the northern Hemisphere and the uncertainties in the proxy data, the central England data from 1659 and Mann’s proxy plus instrument data from that date are in agreement.

Leave a Reply