#NASA

NASA’s Hubble brains plan to end racism

One could be forgiven for thinking that with all the rocket scientists that grace the halls of NASA, at least one bright spark might have questioned the measurable impact of removing words from the space agency’s lexicon. It wrote,

“As the scientific community works to identify and address systemic discrimination and inequality in all aspects of the field, it has become clear that certain cosmic nicknames are not only insensitive, but can be actively harmful. NASA is examining its use of unofficial terminology for cosmic objects as part of its commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion...As an initial step, NASA will no longer refer to planetary nebula NGC 2392, the glowing remains of a Sun-like star that is blowing off its outer layers at the end of its life, as the “Eskimo Nebula.” “Eskimo” is widely viewed as a colonial term with a racist history, imposed on the indigenous people of Arctic regions…

Can NASA point to one triggered Eskimo who has filed a formal complaint? We always thought black holes were called that because of their colour. Many stars happen to be white. Are stars supremacist?

The Agency will be working with diversity, inclusion, and equity experts in the astronomical and physical sciences to provide guidance and recommendations for other nicknames and terms for review.

We look forward to NASA sending racism into orbit for good through the power of language. We can be absolutely sure that these “experts” will be the last people on earth qualified to make any suggestions.

We request that any organization that puts forward this kind of woke nonsense be forced to quantify the net impact of their actions on the very minorities they seek to protect.

For a group that put man on the moon, surely they should be lobbying to replace the racist American flag with a Eskimo Nebulas Matter flag instead.

“Houston, we have a problem” (with Hillary)

Poor Hillary! NASA (founded in 1958), back in the late 1950s & 1960s, probably weren’t rejecting applications based on gender as a form of sexism but because to be an astronaut in those days meant one had to be at the elite end of an exceptionally high pool of candidates that were invariably drafted from US Navy, Marine or Air Force jet-fighter corps where no women were serving in such roles at the time. John Glenn served as a fighter pilot in WWII, as well as Korea. Moonwalkers, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin were Korean War fighter pilots. Michael Collins, the spring chicken in that group was a USAF fighter pilot. Noticing a pattern Hillary?

Back then, spaceships weren’t as automated as today. The space programme 70 odd years ago required pilots with in-depth flight experience, as technology back then was very much in its infancy. Exploring the flight envelope was properly in the danger zone. Perhaps the mood at NASA back then was one of chivalry, not gender bias. Maybe they believed in keeping women out of harm’s way after the war, rather than acting like a cabal of white male supremacist misogynists?

Although if Hillary bothered to check her history it shows us that Sally Ride became the first American woman in space back in 1983. 36 years ago. Diversity and inclusion in the rocketship have been around for almost 4 decades!

Did Hillary forget the brave souls including Christa McAulliffe who lost their lives in 1986 on the space shuttle Challenger?

CM once wrote to BMW Motorsport racing as a clueless 16yo car fanatic with dreams to become a racing driver. Sadly, CM’s dimensions (6’2″ and 100kg at the time… err hem even worse now) were not the stuff that would have been suitable for anything other than semi-trailer rigs which BMW didn’t make. Sometimes, at the pinnacle of certain professions, physical attributes, unfortunately, rule certain folk out.

It is none-the-less amazing to witness the oppression Hillary Clinton has faced during her life. Doesn’t your heart bleed? CM thinks many Americans would gladly see Hillary as an astronaut with a one-way ticket. Jettisoned as space junk. Can you imagine if Apollo 13 had Clinton on board during that rescue mission? She would undoubtedly be arguing with Mission Control on how things should be done, not the other way around. At least now, she would have made up for the weight deficit that ill-fated mission required to get the module safely back to earth!

Macron talking utter bolloques on the Amazon fires

Jo Nova has done a cracking piece which undermines the hysteria surrounding the Amazon fires and how perfectly it fits in with the G7 summit angle on globalism. She tears shreds off Macron’s ludicrous claims and even more ridiculous antics at the G7. When the world needs to be focused on avoiding recession, these politicians are fixated on petty point-scoring issues where CO2 reduction will rapidly take care of itself if the world economy tanks. The peons will care not one jot about the climate once faced with economic hardship which is likely to be even worse than the Global Financial Crisis.

Jo Nova wrote,

“Global Fire Data shows this year is unequivocally a low fire season in the Amazon. But social media tears and outrage is running at 1000% driven by old photos and fake facts of the Amazon producing “20% of our planet’s oxygen”.

And the media experts reported the house was on fire in the lungs of the world or something to that effect. They didn’t check the data, didn’t ask hard questions.

Based on hyperbolic twitter pics French leader Macron is threatening to cancel a foreign trade deal. The hype serves the purpose of attacking the right-wing Brazilian leader Jair Bolsonaro in the lead up to a G7 summit this week…

Who’s feeding the twitter flames?

@EmmanuelMacron

The photo he used? It’s a stock photo from Loren McIntyre, a photographer who died in 2003.

Amazon Fires, Global Fire Count, 2019, graph

“US space agency NASA, meanwhile, has said that overall fire activity across the Amazon basin this year has been close to the average compared to the past 15 years.”

Remember when it comes to climate change, NASA are the definitive last word, but when it comes to Amazon fires, they’re just a casual addendum. “No comment”.

Jonathon Watts at The Guardian carefully words the panic. It’s almost as if he is aware of what is going on but not happy to make it too clear. With headlines like these, anyone would think the readers of The Guardian are 14-year-old girls.

Does this happen every year?

Yes, but some areas have suffered far more than usual. In the worst-affected Brazilian state of Amazonas, the peak day this month was 700% higher than the average for the same date over the past 15 years. In other states, the amount of ash and other particulates in August has hit the highest level since 2010.

Is the entire forest ablaze?

No. Satellite monitoring experts say the images of an entire forest ablaze are exaggerated. A great deal of misinformation has been spread by social media, including the use of striking images from previous years’ burning seasons.”

 

Hottest 5-yr period on record according to NOAA (which was busted for data manipulation)

75AECC61-489E-4849-9CC4-9B53470426AA.jpeg

IT’S official. The world has just experienced its hottest five-year period in history — and there are no signs of things cooling off.” No signs of cooling off? Even though 2018 has kicked off with huge freezes across Japan, Canada, NY, Florida and parts of Europe. The article went on,

The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) released climate data that confirmed global average temperatures between 2013 and 2017 made up the hottest five-year period since monitoring began more than 100 years ago…Agencies were split on whether 2017 was the second or third hottest year. NOAA and the Japanese Meterological Agency rated it the third hottest, while NASA, researchers from a nonprofit in Berkeley, California and European forecasters said it was the second hottest.”

It makes for sensational reading but had the authors preaching the global warming faith dug a little deeper they’d discover that NOAA was subpoenaed before Congress after a whistleblower showed that data was being fabricated ahead of the Paris Climate Summit to fit an agenda. According to Dr. John Bates, the recently retired principal scientist at NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, the Karl study was used “to discredit the notion of a global warming hiatus and rush to time the publication of the paper to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy.

Chairman of the Commitee on Science, Space & Technology, Lamar Smith said in Feb 2017,

I thank Dr. John Bates for courageously stepping forward to tell the truth about NOAA’s senior officials playing fast and loose with the data in order to meet a politically predetermined conclusion. In the summer of 2015, whistleblowers alerted the Committee that the Karl study was rushed to publication before underlying data issues were resolved to help influence public debate about the so-called Clean Power Plan and upcoming Paris climate conference. Since then, the Committee has attempted to obtain information that would shed further light on these allegations, but was obstructed at every turn by the previous administration’s officials. I repeatedly asked, ‘What does NOAA have to hide?

Indeed. What is there to hide? Surely the global warming data should speak for itself. Anything that requires manipulation to make a point can hardly be “settled” science. Fraud is fraud and it is a shame that climate scientists busted for manipulation are not  jailed. While evil banksters were charged for the devil’s work after GFC why should climate scientists escape the misappropriation of billions in taxpayer dollars based on lies. NOAA refused to hand over emails related to the Karl Study despite being politely asked at first by its boss (i.e. Congress) which was eventually required to subpoena the science body.

Even if you believe in global warming can you honestly look at the fraud taking place with these so called trusted government bodies and take their word for granted despite such lapses in ethics?

Bureau of Meteorology also in on the junk(et) climate science

IMG_0634.JPG

Below is a piece from The Australian today on the woeful behaviour at the Bureau of Meteorology. The work of yet another one of these venerable institutions (e.g. NASA, NOAA) which we are told to respect without question. Turns out that last year the BoM spent $7.8mn on travel expenses or just shy of $5,000 per head. No doubt flying on taxpayer coin to exotic locations to fight the cause of global warming. As written yesterday a whistleblower at NASA claimed that climate change junkets are more important than the science. Why wouldn’t you fly around the world promoting baseless fear in order to keep your frequent flyer miles up?

Maurice Newman writes,

“Enough is enough. The Bureau of Meteorology yet again stands charged with fabricating temperature records.

This time, thanks to the diligence of scientist Jennifer Marohasy, the bureau has been caught red-handed regulating temperatures to keep them above a predetermined minimum — at least for two NSW automatic weather stations, one located in Goulburn, the other at Thredbo.

The BOM initially admitted it had set an arbitrary limit of minus 10C for the Goulburn station, but then changed the story to the equipment being “not fit for purpose” — because it got too cold — even though the same instruments are used in the Antarctic. The actual temperature measured was a record July low for Goulburn, at minus 10.4C, so why, if the equipment was faulty, didn’t the bureau leave a blank instead of rounding up to minus 10C?

Allowing the bureau to defend itself, Environment Minister Josh Frydenberg called for an internal review.

In 77 pages, it acknowledged that, indeed, Goulburn and Thredbo were governed and, minimum limits were set. This was blamed on a filter being installed into these weather stations 15 and 10 years ago respectively. No limits were imposed on maximum temperatures. Yet implicitly, we are asked to believe that the historical temperature record has not been compromised.

Before filters were installed, Goulburn recorded minus 10.9C in August 1994 and, in that cold winter, Thredbo went down to minus 13.6C and nearby Charlotte Pass to minus 23C on June 29, a record low for Australia. Charlotte Pass weather station was decommissioned in March 2015.

Ironically, the bureau’s newest location, near White Cliffs in NSW, home to some of the nation’s hottest temperatures, last August recorded minus 62.5C, due to a “hardware fault”.

A BOM-friendly technical forum, part of former minister Greg Hunt’s plan to buy time and “kill off” a proposed Abbott government probe, has foreshadowed “the need for a major revision of the dataset”.

Predictably, though, it did not address specific claims by Marohasy and others, and seems satisfied the bureau’s dataset is well maintained. Really? This may fool ministers, but for a sceptical public, time has run out.

British author and journalist Christopher Booker says: “When future generations look back on the global warming scare of the past 30 years, nothing will shock them more than the extent to which the official temperature records — on which the entire (global warming) panic ultimately rested — were systematically ‘adjusted’ to show the Earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified.” He says this practice has been observed by experts around the world and “raises an ever larger question mark over the entire official surface temperature record”.

He is joined by John Theon, retired chief of NASA’s Climate Processes Research Program and responsible for all weather and climate research, who testified before congress that “some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it.”

Take the article NASA published in 1999 showing 1934 was the US’s warmest year. Across the ensuing decade, by cooling the past and warming the present, 1998 jumped five places to become the warmest. Whistleblower John Bates, recently retired principal scientist at US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, described how his agency manipulated data to manufacture a non-existent increase in global temperatures.

Why should Australia be any different? We remember the Climategate emails from despairing programmer Ian Harris: “Getting seriously fed up with the state of the Australian data, so many new stations have been introduced, so many false references”.

Science writer and blogger Joanne Nova has raised scandal after scandal concerning the BOM’s record-keeping.

She refers to historic data being destroyed, and the influence of adjustments on Australia’s warming trend. She reports private auditors advising the bureau of almost a “thousand days where minimum temperatures were higher than the maxes”.

Taxpayers outlaying $1 million a day for reliable temperature data deserve better than this.

When Australia’s bureau transitioned from mercury thermometers to electronic sensors more than 20 years ago, to ensure readings from these devices were comparable with the old thermometers and complied with World Meteorological Organisation guidelines, parallel studies were undertaken at multiple sites.

A key conclusion was that readings from the new electronic sensors needed to be averaged over one to 10 minutes. However, rather than implement practices consistent with their finding, the bureau records one-second extremes (or noise), which can be announced as new record highs.

Inherent inconsistency aside, this calls into question whether Australian data is WMO compliant. Marohasy discovered this as part of her investigation and believes it is more damning than even the imposition of minimum limits, as it affects the recording of temperatures from all 695 automatic stations.

Marohasy is a respected scientist, known for her forensic work. While attempts will be made to dismiss her evidence as an arcane academic skirmish over recording methodology, it is a smoking gun that threatens the integrity of global temperature records.

It affects every Australian. It strikes at the heart of renewable energy policies. Globally, trillions of taxpayer dollars are at stake.

The government has a duty to inform the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, should it have sufficient grounds, that the bureau is not complying with WMO guidelines. Sooner or later, closed eyes must open.

Now, with Marohasy’s evidence adding to the credible findings of other experts, there can be no confidence in any future official assurances. Further delay of a proper independent audit, which includes dissidents, can be interpreted only as a cover-up. One way or another, the truth will out.

Blowing the whistle on NASA over climate data

IMG_0884

Jo Nova has an excellent piece exposing the scams inside NASA with regards to their climate models and allegations of misappropriated taxpayer funds. She notes whistleblower Dr Duane Thresher who worked seven years at NASA GISS “describes a culture of self serving rent-seekers, mismanagement and incompetence. These are the top experts in the climate science field that we are supposed to accept without questioning. Those who say they are working to “save the planet” care more about their junckets than they do about the data or their “best” model…NASA GISS’s most advanced climate model is run from the Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC). Thresher recounts a story from someone on the inside:“NASA GISS’s climate model — named Model E, an intentional play on the word “muddle” — is called the “jungle” because it is so badly coded.” I know this to be true from my own extensive experience programming it (I tried to fix as much as I could…)…”

Of course I can hear the alarmists cry  that Thresher is a ‘discredited’ scientist as they do for anyone who disagrees,. Much in the spirit of the Harvard piece I put out last week, venerable organizations like NASA (which has put humans into space) carry almost untouchable status. This is the problem. Do we just suck up aything we are told by these organizations or do we need to add an extra layer of skepticism because of the ‘reputation’?

It is truly hard to imagine that the brain’s trust that makes up an organization that can launch rockets and space shuttles can be guilty of such sloppiness. Such whistleblowing will  lead to a congressional testimony which will bring many things to light. It wasn’t long ago that NOAA was subpoenaed after a whistleblower said the group had rushed a report ahead of the Paris climate summit with obviously fiddled data that fit a narrative. NOAA refused to hand over the emails for months on the grounds of privacy  when the head of House Science Committee Chairman Lamar Smith explained the reality that they worked for the government and had no choice.

Smith noted, “According to Dr. John Bates, the recently retired principal scientist at NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, the Karl study was used “to discredit the notion of a global warming hiatus and rush to time the publication of the paper to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy…I thank Dr. John Bates for courageously stepping forward to tell the truth about NOAA’s senior officials playing fast and loose with the data in order to meet a politically predetermined conclusion. In the summer of 2015, whistleblowers alerted the Committee that the Karl study was rushed to publication before underlying data issues were resolved to help influence public debate about the so-called Clean Power Plan and upcoming Paris climate conference. Since then, the Committee has attempted to obtain information that would shed further light on these allegations, but was obstructed at every turn by the previous administration’s officials. I repeatedly asked, ‘What does NOAA have to hide?’

Once again whenever people try to use the ‘credibility’ argument to sway debate, there is a treasure trove of evidence to show in this case that it is politics not science. With billions if not trillions at stake, such fraud has not resulted in any of these climate scientists being fined, deregistered or jailed for the very things that have happened to people in the financial sector. What is the difference I wonder? Maybe because the government has been in on the act…

Even Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology has been recently exposed for divisive behaviour in temperature measurement. Putting hard floors on cold temperatures with no such restrictions on warm weather. We’re supposed to trust these bodies? More on that tomorrow.

Well as the old adage goes, “there are lies, more lies and then there are statistics”