NOAA Releases New Pause-Buster Global Surface Temperature Data and Immediately Claims Record-High Temps for May 2015 – What a Surprise!

GEORGE NAY TOWHOWCON
All the signs point to a cold winter again 2015/2016 like the last one and this translates to a cold year 2016 in North America , particularly the first 6 months . The YEAR TO DATE FIGURE (JAN-MAY) for CONTIGUOUS US is dropping at -0.73F/ decade since 1998 . The warm ‘blob’ of surface SST off the north west coast of North America is still there and this could mean that the jet stream may again be diverted further south dragging the POLAR VORTEX over Canada and cold weather to US also . Don’t count on NOAA to advise you on this as they seem to have a fixation on global warming news only( as it appears to me at least) instead of helping the public to prepare and plan for the colder weather that may be coming in their own country.

This entire agenda driven “science” (or “seance,” to be completely forthright) reminds me of the Cold War era and a famous joke from the Soviet Union: “The future is known with certainty. It’s the past that keeps changing.”
The Soviet Union was famous for editing out photos of people close to rulers, such a Stalin, who were later found guilty of crimes in show trials, only after having been lionized earlier by rulers, such at Stalin. Anyone recall, for example, the biologist Lysenko? Who’s political privilege and avoidance of actual empirical testing set back Soviet science for more than half a century? And resulted in the deaths of millions of people through famine?
Yes, the late physician turned king of the techno-novel, Michael Crichton, noticed this same dangerous folly in the global warming crusade in the past decade. He wrote about it in “State of Fear” in 2004.
Sadly, the valuable “Appendix” entitled “Why Politicized Science is Dangerous” seems to be no longer available at the author’s website. It contains a crucial lesson from history, being repeated this year, these months, today, over global warming – exactly as Crichton feared it was.
Therefore, please allow me to quote his essay at some length. (And I invite Anthony or the mods to elevate the entire essay by Michael Crichton as a new post, here; it is called for.)
“A second example of politicized science [after eugenics] is quite different in character, but it exemplifies the hazard of government ideology controlling the work of science, and of uncritical media promoting false concepts. Trofim Denisovich Lysenko was a self-promoting peasant who, it was said, “solved the problem of fertilizing the fields without fertilizers and minerals.” In 1928 he claimed to have invented a procedure called vernalization, by which seeds were moistened and chilled to enhance the later growth of crops.
“Lysenko’s methods never faced a rigorous test, but his claim that his treated seeds passed on their characteristics to the next generation represented a revival of Lamarckian ideas at a time when the rest of the world was embracing Mendelian genetics. Josef Stalin was drawn to Lamarckian ideas, which implied a future unbounded by hereditary constraints; he also wanted improved agricultural production. Lysenko promised both, and became the darling of a Soviet media that was on the lookout for stories about clever peasants who had developed revolutionary procedures.
“Lysenko was portrayed as a genius, and he milked his celebrity for all it was worth. He was especially skillful at denouncing these opponents. He used questionnaires from farmers to prove that vernalization increased crop yields, and thus avoided any direct tests. Carried on a wave of state-sponsored enthusiasm, his rise was rapid. By 1937, he was a member of the Supreme Soviet.
“By then, Lysenko and his theories dominated Russian biology. The result was famines that killed millions, and purges that sent hundreds of dissenting Soviet scientists to the gulags or the firing squads. Lysenko was aggressive in attacking genetics, which was finally banned as “bourgeois pseudoscience” in 1948. There was never any basis for Lysenko’s ideas, yet he controlled Soviet research for thirty years. Lysenkoism ended in the 1960s, but Russian biology still has not entirely recovered from that era.
“Now we are engaged in a great new theory [like eugenics and Lysenkosim] that once again has drawn the support of politicians, scientists, and celebrities around the world. Once again, the theory is promoted by major foundations. Once again, the research is carried out at prestigious universities. Once again, legislation is passed and social programs are urged in its name. Once again, critics are few and harshly dealt with.
“Once again, the measures being urged have little basis in fact or science. Once again, groups with other agendas are hiding behind a movement that appears high-minded. Once again, claims of moral superiority are used to justify extreme actions. Once again, the fact that some people are hurt is shrugged off because an abstract cause is said to be greater than any human consequences. Once again, vague terms like sustainability and generational justice — terms that have no agreed definition — are employed in the service of a new crisis.
“I am not arguing that global warming is the same as eugenics. But the similarities are not superficial. And I do claim that open and frank discussion of the data, and of the issues, is being suppressed. Leading scientific journals have taken strong editorial positions of the side of global warming, which, I argue, they have no business doing. Under the circumstances, any scientist who has doubts understands clearly that they will be wise to mute their expression.
“One proof of this suppression is the fact that so many of the outspoken critics of global warming are retired professors. These individuals are not longer seeking grants, and no longer have to face colleagues whose grant applications and career advancement may be jeopardized by their criticisms.
“In science, the old men are usually wrong. But in politics, the old men are wise, counsel caution, and in the end are often right.
“The past history of human belief is a cautionary tale.”
SOURCE
https://www.msu.edu/course/lbs/332/bellon/R0124b.pdf