NYT Laments Climate Data Cuts: Two Quotes Expose the Divide in the Climate War
Over at the New York Times today, print edition, there is a big front page article documenting how their side is losing the latest battle in the climate wars. The headline is “U.S. Embraces Climate Denial In Science Cuts.” (online headline somewhat different). Also in the Times today (online version) is a feature called “Quote of the Day.” Today’s “quote of the day,” as selected by the Times, is taken from the “climate denial” article just previously linked. Here it is:
“It’s as if we’re in the Dark Ages.”
This quote is attributed to one Rachel Cleetus, identified as senior policy director with the climate and energy program at the Union of Concerned Scientists.
But then, if you take some time to read the article, you come to what I would propose as another excellent candidate for quote of the day. It’s from Brooke Rollins, recently confirmed as the new Secretary of Agriculture in the Trump administration. Here it is:
“We’re not doing that climate change, you know, crud, anymore.”
The focus of the article is what the Times calls “getting rid of data.” In Times spin, the purpose is to “halt the national discussion about how to deal with global warming.” But what kind of “data” are we talking about here? The article is short on specifics as to which exact data series are being cut back or eliminated, let alone whether those series are accurate or useful. But there is enough to give you a general idea:
In recent weeks, more than 500 people have left the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the government’s premier agency for climate and weather science. . . . NOAA also stopped monthly briefing calls on climate change, and the president’s proposed budget would eliminate funding for the agency’s weather and climate research. The administration has purged the phrases “climate crisis” and “climate science” from government websites.
Ah, NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). They’re the people who, via their branch called NCEI, put out the so-called “surface temperature” series that have been systematically altered to create a falsely-enhanced warming trend to support regular claims of “warmest day/month/year ever.” This is the subject of my now 33-part series “The Greatest Scientific Fraud Of All Time.”
Let me remind you of the basics of the temperature-alteration scam: (1) the surface temperature records as presented by NOAA/NCEI are not raw instrumental data, but rather have been altered, (2) NOAA admits that it alters the records, (3) NOAA gives seemingly-plausible reasons for altering the records (e.g., to account to station moves and instrument changes), (4) however, the alterations as implemented are not associated with any specific issues like station moves and instrument changes, and (5) the alterations systematically enhance the reported warming trend and are used to support the “climate crisis” narrative. For more detail, go to Part XXXIII of the “Greatest Scientific Fraud” series. Here are just a couple of backup points in case you are skeptical:
- As to whether NOAA alters the raw data, from ABC News, February 25, 2025, “Yes, NOAA adjusts its historical weather data: Here’s why.” Excerpt: “When digging into conspiracies claiming that the federal agency “manipulates” its historical weather data, ABC News chief meteorologist and chief climate correspondent Ginger Zee was able to confirm that it was true — but that the routine, public adjustments to records happen for good reason. . . . NCEI [a branch of NOAA] adjusts weather data to account for factors like instrument changes, station relocation and urbanization, and it does so through peer-reviewed studies that are published through its federal website.”
- As to whether the data alterations implemented by NOAA/NCEI can be tied to any specific legitimate bases like station moves or instrumentation changes, I cite a 2022 article by O’Neill, et al. (17 co-authors) from the journal Atmosphere, title “Evaluation of the Homogenization Adjustments Applied to European Temperature Records in the Global Historical Climatology Network Dataset.” I couldn’t get a pithy quote from the article, but here is my summary: “[The authors attempt] to reverse-engineer the adjustments to figure out what NCEI is doing, and particularly whether NCEI is validly identifying station discontinuities, such as moves or instrumentation changes, that might give rise to valid adjustments. The bottom line is that the adjusters make no attempt to tie adjustments to any specific event that would give rise to legitimate homogenization, and that many of the alterations appear ridiculous and completely beyond justification. . . .” There is much, much more detail if you follow the links.
It is not clear from the Times article whether the 500 recent departures from NOAA include the people who have been carrying out this temperature alteration scam. If those people aren’t gone yet, with any luck they will be soon; and maybe we’ll even get some details of how they have been practicing their dark arts.
Meanwhile, back in the world of climate reality, the Real Clear Foundation on Monday (May 19) held something they called the “Energy Future Forum.” Conference co-chairs David DesRosiers and Mark Mills gave opening key-notes. Kevin Killough of Just the News published a summary of the conference on May 20. From DesRosiers’ remarks:
“I think we’ve gone from scarcity to abundance — from the green gospel of scarcity and its Trinitarian ESG god — to the promised land of abundance guided by the values of affordability and reliability,” David DesRosiers, conference co-chair and founder of the RealClear Foundation, said.
And from Mills:
While many tech companies, such as Microsoft, embraced net-zero goals, Mills explained that the energy demands of data centers forced companies to contend with the reality that although fashionable in some circles, intermittent wind and solar power are not adequate. “Eventually, reality rears its ugly head, and we recalibrate around what reality permits,” Mills said.
Bottom line: the Times can scream all it wants, but the world is moving on. From my point of view, it can’t happen too fast.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Good news keeps coming. More please.
https://x.com/jadler1969/status/1925674338587459849
ooooh… I like that 🙂
https://freebeacon.com/energy/senate-votes-to-overturn-californias-ev-mandate-in-resounding-defeat-for-climate-activists/
😉
Here’s a quote:
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth famously said that the Department of Defense “does not do climate change crap”
“We’re not doing that climate change, you know, crud, anymore.” — Madame Sec’y Rollins [Agriculture]
[Defense] “does not do climate change crap” — Mr Sec’y Hegseth
These indelicate expressions (& others like them) are signs that these officials understand their first task is ‘unclogging the drains’ (the plumbing), i.e. to reverse the aberrations of the previous (4) years, or since mid-2020 A.D.
These rapid actions seem to confuse only those who forget that 2019 is not so long ago, or who deny the reversibility of the radical changes made since then.
In today’s interview of Michael Schellenberger, he made several quick points regarding the opposition coalition:
— the climate-change movement is dead
— the middle class is fled to the other side,
— the progressive (old elite) is discredited;
— only the radicals remain on the field,
and he actually compared them to the Maoist ‘Red Guard’ / Cultural Revolution, with all that entails.
In this view, what we’re experiencing is simply a test of reversibility:
[Treasury / Commerce / Interior – EPA] Can the restored policies actually reverse the recent debasing of the currency, starting with the return of fuel and power costs / prices to the ‘norms’ of ~ 2019? ~ 6-month time-lag promised
[ Defense / Security ] Can the 10 or 20+ millions who entered illegally actually be induced to return to their homelands.
… and so on, on all other fronts?
The jury is out; skepticism abounds.
Induced to return? I think ways can be found. 🙂
Yeah, but thinking mainly here of cutting off their benefits (DoGE’d) … and even that requires time to make it clear that those will not be restored.
Related to this is the fate of the human(+)-trafficking network / the so called Cartels.
They have the firepower (& funds, for now) and need to ‘feed their people’.
This is a War-a-coming that one cannot afford to lose, IMHO.
It was different back then, to have a lawless frontier, when there were only a few millions of Norteños living in the border region.
But now, with growth of all the major cities — if you haven’t seen them lately, it’s impossible to imagine:
San Antonio – RGV – Laredo – Monterrey [ Texas / N. Léon+ ]
El Paso – Juarez City [ Chihuahua / New Mexico ]
Tucson – Phoenix – Nogales – Hermosillo – Guaymas [ Sonora / Arizona ]
Tijuana – San Diego (+) [ Baja / CA ]
… it must be approaching 40 million, not even including all the ex-pats diaspora on both sides. People don’t realize this, but these places are the most prosperous regions of Mexico, which is crazy given that all its great wealth (minerals, cultural treasures etc.) are far south & separated from it by high-mtn wilderness terrain.
RIFing some bureaucrat is apparently
easier than firing them for cause.
Cue the usual suspects to claim the “adjustments” make no difference…
They used to try and claim that there were as many adjustments that cooled as there were adjustments that warmed.
What they forgot to mention was that almost all of the cooling adjustments were in the past, while almost all of the warming adjustments were in the present.
“let alone whether those series are accurate or useful.”
If it’s involving “global temperature”, it’s not useful in any way.
There were not too many reasons the private sector would go to space before the general populace forgot how to read road map books. I think some of the seemingly wasteful government space ventures might have bridged the gap with satellite launches that kept parts of the space industry alive while the private sector caught up.
Taking the temperatures of thermometers doesn’t tell you anything except how hot they are. Early observations of things like temperature, wind speed and direction, and air pressure were made out of curiosity, and later hoping that observations would enable weather to be accurately predicted.
Aneroid barometers can still be purchased showing predictions of “Rain, Change, Fair” based on air pressures. Probably as accurate as multi million dollar supercomputers, much cheaper, and can look very decorative.
Cynical? You bet. Anybody who believes that they can forecast the weather better than a smart 12 year old (or me), is not strongly attached to reality.
Sad but true.
Go to check out the Farmers Almanac. There are regional and seasonal forecasts for US weather. IFIRC, their forecasts are about 80% accurate.
Harold, in temperate regions, forecasts of maximum temperature by assuming tomorrow will be the same as today, are about 85% accurate. Really.
Here’s a statement from a commercial forecasting competitor about Farmer’s Almanac –
Slightly better than chance. You can probably do better by looking out the window, or using a crystal ball, if you have lived in your present location for a while.
Forecasts of wind speed and direction, paid for by wind farm operators, are generally of the same type – naive predictions, extrapolating the past. Numerical Weather Prediction is, unfortunately, “voodoo science”. Its supporters refuse to accept that it is not possible to predict future states of the atmosphere any better than a smart 12 year old – or myself. It depends on extensive and expensive computing resources, giving it an air of authority – if it’s complicated and needs a big computer, it must be scientific, surely?
The Australian BOM is spending about $1 billion to upgrade its computer system. Their present supercomputing numerical weather prediction seems not to be doing too well.
Maybe you should check out a fortune teller.
No need for Madam Zelda and her crystal ball. I just click on the lower left corner of MS 11 desk top and the MSN weather info for Burnaby, BC is displayed with forecast for the next week and even for the next month.
My cable TV has the Weather Chanel and has weather info and forecasts for BC.
Even in the UK, renowned for its changeable weather four seasons in one day, the best forecast for tomorrow is that the weather will be the same as today. It’s worked well for the last 3 months
I remember as a not so smart 12 year old boy scout in 1955, visiting the “weather room” at the Wold-Chamberlain airfield ( now better known as the MSP International Airport. It had a facsimile machine (now known as a ‘fax’ machine) that printed out weather-maps of the area. The maps had pressure areas and fronts and markings that we were told how to interpret. The weather forecasters would look at older versions of the maps and estimate where current things might might be moving toward. This seemed very high-tech to me. Those were the days that ‘predicting’ that tomorrow would be like today was often most accurate. I suspect that today’s weather ‘models’ don’t have to assume that weather moves in a straight line, and their accuracy seems to be quite a bit better, though not perfect by any means, especially for more than a day.
There is a 50/50 chance of rain today!
When I was 12, I made a milk bottle barometer. It worked great.
general idea of a milk bottle barometer.
Has the NYT, or anyone else for that matter, ever found someone who denies climate?
I’ve been tired of this one for ages. No-one denies the climate, and no-one denies the climate changes. It’s the crisis people deny. Get it right.
If somebody could describe this crisis, it would be helpful. Climate is the statistics of weather observations, so maybe you believe there is a weather crisis?
Is that right?
The anti climate change mantra is growing because the people are seeing that the cure isn’t working, causes more harm then good, and costs outrageous money that could be better spent elsewhere. ALso, climate change lost their biggest supporter in the media because their trust has deteriorated to zero on every subject.
More good news. I want the names of the data adjusters and their bosses. Lying and cheating is not okay. Especially on my dime.
Abraham Lincoln got it right when he said, “You can fool all the people some of the time, and some people all the time, but you can’t fool all the people all of the time”.
It was one of the key reasons snake oil salesmen had to move on all the time….
Hopefully to Europe, so it sinks deeper into its own vomit
The U.S. should reject and not do trade with any partner that “does climate change crap”
“I don’t always hide the decline, but when I do, I prefer Dos Equis. Stay thirsty my friends.”
-Michael Mann
“We’re not doing that climate change, you know, crud, anymore.”
Unfortunately it’s not Oz but NZ across the ditch-
(275) BRAVO! New Zealand ABANDONS Net Zero! | MGUY Australia – YouTube
Saw that while having breakfast. I didn’t expect it. I watch all of MGUY’s videos.
It’s as if Rachel Cleetus and her ilk want us to go back to the Dark Ages. Fortunately, it appears cooler heads are prevailing.
“(1) the surface temperature records as presented by NOAA/NCEI are not raw instrumental data, but rather have been altered…”
Let’s be precise about this. The digital records (in the form of text files) of daily station readings of Tmax and Tmin are not what is at issue here. Those files remain available. I have accessed and analyzed them. NOAA/NCEI even used 655 of them in the U.S. to produce figure 2b in this report issued in 2022 using data through 2020. https://statesummaries.ncics.org/chapter/wy/
I asked for and promptly received a list of those 655 station ID’s to generate similar plots updated through 2024. Results here. https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1fssK0Rijse5t3mM5JX4BFD0rnH7Bp-qn?usp=sharing
The adjustments show up in the monthly files for USHCN stations, and in the processing of GHCN daily station data for the newer nClimDiv gridded dataset. It is easy to show the end result of those adjustments for the USHCN stations, because both the “raw” and adjusted values BY STATION are published and can be downloaded if you know where to look. Not so for nClimDiv. The individual stations disappear in the processing.
In any case, the key point is that skeptics should be precise in commenting on what is happening to the reported station values. It is also absolutely correct, that the published trends and graphs are from adjusted values, not directly from measurement.
Thanks for that clarification David. I have been doing some analysis of the daily readings myself (of course none of them are alarming in any way) and I didn’t have a lot of confidence that I was looking at raw data, because the files don’t explicitly say that. I could only assume that they hadn’t been secretly adjusted when no one was looking.
Thanks for your reply. It’s true that one must assume that the digital files themselves report the original daily readings faithfully. So far I have no good reason to suspect foul play along those lines. Your point that “none of them are alarming in any way” is important.
That is true. I got my eyes awakened several years ago when I downloaded the daily data for Topeka, Ks Forbes Field. The standard deviations were constant as were the temperatures. They were generally within the control limits of 1 sigma since 1950. That is no growth whatsoever. Since both the standard deviations and mean temperatures were almost constant, they appear to be stationary time series with little statistical significance for growth.
I will say that NOAA’s graphs pretty much show the same thing for the state’s Tmax monthly averages during the summer. The winter Tmax temps show some growth since 1980. I am suspicious that is due to the installation of ASOS devices at weather stations. Other state’s Tmax during the winter show the same thing which makes me even more suspicious that there is a systematic cause.
Oh, one more thing. I note that the files of daily station readings report Tmax and Tmin in an integer number of tenths of degrees C. E.g., “211” means 21.1C. This is obviously not a transcribed value from original written records. So there is an element of false precision from older records where eyeball readings of liquid-in-glass thermometers were written down.
So many artifacts exist in automation where the person who figured out how to get data from devices did strange things to avoid having to parse text symbols like a decimal point. It’s like file names in old systems could not have spaces so older computer users still use underscores or capitalization schemes.
(And then engineers learned what a database does)
(And then computer programming languages stopped caring so much about text strings)
According to the IEA current data centres consume as much electricity as 100,000 households but the largest now under construction consume as much as 2m households.
They also note half a trillion dollars was invested in data centres in 2024 which has led to concerns about “skyrocketing electricity demand” and that data centres will account for “10% of global electricity demand by 2030”
However, advanced countries whose electricity demand has been “essentially stagnant” for decades will see data centres “account for over 20% of growth demand by 2030”
They note that electricity grids in many places are already under strain and “unless these risks are addressed around 20% of planned data centre projects could be at risk of delays”
IEA ‘Energy and A!’ April 2025
Yaaaay, great news for anyone who can answer, “Why three phases?”
“[The authors attempt] to reverse-engineer the adjustments to figure out what NCEI is doing,”
Went to find out, what is this NCEI thing? (National Centers for Environmental Information)
The web page leads with a Featured News item dated March 10 2025.
The Feature News item is a retrospective to March 10 2011.
The site aggregates data from satellites and displays it on some well made map graphics.
NCEI seems like a good way to take the smartest people they could get and pay them very well not to be productive to the general population/economy in a measurable way.
Congratulations, you have opened a can of worms. However, it’s but one tiny can.
Now stare into the abyss. It’s full of worms.
“Eventually, reality rears its ugly head,
But in the meantime, we all carry the enormous costs and shameful waste, not to mention the unnecessary environmental damage.