NOAA Says "NO" To US Warming Since 2005

All remaining Democrat presidential candidates consistently claim that our climate is warming and that is an "existential threat" to life on the planet.

NOAA is saying "No, there has been no warming in the past 15 years."

This from their new improved system to access surface temperatures in 114 pristinely maintained temperature stations across the US.

Be informed.

The difficulty of accurately measuring average temperatures around the globe and across the United States has helped fuel the conflicting claims regarding climate change.

The "Green Movement" has created a group of new celebrities---and a new take on hypocrisy.

While Prince Harry and a group of Hollywood notables jet halfway around the world---each in their own private jet--- to have an emergency conference on "global warming" and discover ways to force people to stop creating "deadly carbon"---Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez presents her "Green New Deal" to the nation and the world, and Bernie Sanders told us last week that solving this "existential threat" will only cost $16.3 trillion to save us all from peril.

James Taylor with the Heartland Institute says if a politician says his plan will cost $16.3, in the end, it will cost twice that much.

NOAA says no to the existential threat message.

While historically the US has been considered to have the best records, surveys show that over half the nation's weather stations do not comply with written standards.

Some are next to airport runways and many are in cities where temperatures are artificially inflated.

Powerline contributor, John Hinderaker says,

"In addition, alarmists who curate weather records have systematically fiddled with them, lowering temperatures that were recorded decades ago and raising recent ones, to exaggerate the supposed phenomenon of global warming."

This is true and well known.

All data that's related to temperature has been adjusted for each reporting period.

NOAA's new system utilizes locations far away from urban and land-development impacts, eliminating the need to adjust the data.

The new weather stations have been in operation since 2005. The actual data shows no increase in temperatures during that period.

Weather expert says there's a good reason to believe US temps haven't warmed at all since the 1930s.

James Taylor, director of the Arthur B. Robinson Center for Climate and Environmental Policy at Heartland Institute, says "Raw temperature readings at the present preexisting stations indicate temperatures are the same now as 80 years ago."

He says,

"All of the asserted US warming since 1930 is the product of the controversial adjustments made to the raw data. Skeptics point out that as the American population has grown, so has the artificial warming generated by growing cities, more asphalt, more automobiles, and more machinery."

He contends that, if anything, the raw temperature readings today "should be adjusted downward relative to past temperatures (or past temperatures adjusted upward in comparison to present temperatures) rather than the other way around."

Taylor reasons "If raw temperature readings are the same today as they were 80 years ago when there were fewer artificial factors spuriously raising temperature readings, then the US temperatures today may actually be cooler than they were in the early 20th century."

The deception.

Taylor says,

"The lack of warming in the United States during the past 14 years is not too different from satellite-measured global trends. Globally, satellite instruments report temperature have risen merely 0.15 degrees Celsius since 2005, which is less than half the pace predicted by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change climate models."

He says, "Climate crises advocates attempt to dismiss the minor satellite-measured warming by utilizing ground temperature stations around the globe, which tend to have even corrupting biases and problems than the old US stations. Of, course they adjust readings as well."

The solution.

Taylor says, "Perhaps the time has come for American officials to direct some of the billions of dollars spent each year on climate-research and climate-change programs to building and maintaining a global Climate Reference Network."

That's a great idea. But it is problematic. Here's why.

The motives.

Much more than the average folks on Facebook keeping a running account of how much fun they're having and how well things are going---Hollywood types really, really have a need to feel good about themselves.

Private jetting off to faraway places to discuss how to save the world gives them the sense of being involved, being in charge---it brings reality to their otherwise make-believe life. They can't let that go---forget the data. "Climate Change" is an "existential threat" to humanity. As Obama said, "The discussion is over. It's time to act."

It also gives the otherwise hollow Democrat presidential campaigns something big to reach for, plan for, dream for.

The root motive is bigger than the Democrat Party and the Hollywood celebs---and even bigger than the Al Gore's of the world who have personally made millions of dollars off the "climate crises."

A paper published in "Nature" identifies the "good life within all planetary boundaries," as the authors reveal the push for redistribution of wealth on a global scale.

Globalism.

What better way to unify the globe than through the fear of extinction by global warming.

The far-Left progressive globalists talk democracy, but they don't mean it---their climate plans lead to tyranny, not freedom.

Their plan as outlined in the "Nature" article visualizes sustainability in terms of a doughnut-shaped space where resource use is high enough to meet people's basic needs---which they call the inner boundaries---but not so high as to transgress planetary boundaries, (the outer boundaries) which are arbitrarily fixed by those in power.

The authors of this article argue that thriving societies are transgressing their resource use quotas. All this global community talk is coupled to CO2 emissions and carbon or material footprint.

The paper's conclusion is that we just can't continue to thrive, because it will undermine the "Earth system processes upon which human development ultimately depends."

By all accounts, if you peel back enough layers, the Green movement, by any name, is an attempt to redistribute wealth---particularly America's wealth---and establish a world order of equality and fairness using a socialists model.

"Green" really isn't about private jets and carbon and recycling and melting icebergs and polar bears.

It's about power and control by the few under the guise of saving the masses.

God help us.

Be Informed. Be Discerning. Be Vigilant. Be Prayerful.