It's been a while (since December) since I last wrote a post in this series. The reason is that nothing ever seems to change. On the one hand, the proponents of the official government warming line, most notably the bureaucrats at NASA/GISS, continue to make regular announcements that global temperatures have set some kind of new record. On the other hand, independent researchers continue to point out that government data, available online, contradict the contention of record-setting heat, at least if the data prior to recent "adjustments" is used; the entire apparent increase in temperatures existing in government so-called "final" (post-adjustment) data lies in the unexplained adjustments. Demands for detailed explanation of the adjustments continue to be made, and the bureaucrats simply ignore those demands. And of course the "mainstream" media go merrily on reporting whatever NASA/GISS says, without ever asking so much as a semi-intelligent question about such things as the adjustments or the discrepancies between the satellite and "surface" temperature records Really, it's bizarre.
Anyway, we're just going through another round of same, so I might as well inform you about it. On Tuesday, NASA/GISS made one of the regular announcements. It was reported upon by all of the usual "mainstream" suspects, with the usual complete lack of skepticism or curiosity: the New York Times here, livescience.com here, the Guardian here, USA Today here, Scientific American here ("First Half of 2016 Blows Away Temperature Records"), etc., etc., etc. Try to find so much as a hint in any of them that they are even aware of the massive adjustments or that they think their readers are entitled to an explanation. It's just parroting of whatever NASA's Gavin Schmidt says. From the New York Times:
Gavin Schmidt, the director of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies, said that while the first six months of 2015 made it the hottest half-year ever recorded, “2016 really has blown that out of the water.” He said calculations showed there was a 99 percent probability that the full year would be hotter than 2015.
But, you ask, why the strange timing? Why make an announcement in mid-July that 2016 has "a 99 percent probability" of being the warmest year, instead of waiting until later in the year (or after the end of the year) when you actually know? Of course, to people who follow what's going on, it's obvious: The most recent two months (May and June) have seen the largest two-month drop ever in satellite-measured tropical temperatures, and the second-largest two-month drop in satellite-measured global temperatures. Go to Roy Spencer's web site for more detail on the latest satellite temperatures. Spencer describes what is currently going on as "rapid cooling" following the break-up of the 2015-16 El Nino. In other words, if Schmidt had waited another month or two for his announcement, he would have a big risk of missing his opportunity to influence the election with his apocalyptic statements.
Meanwhile, on July 9 the estimable Tony Heller gave an excellent presentation on the subject of all of NASA's alleged warming being a result of the unexplained adjustments. You can watch him giving the presentation here; a copy of his slides and charts is here. It's just data, data and more data. He has actual temperature records from the 1930s and 1940s showing those years to be much warmer than today. And he has pdf copies of newspaper articles from the time to back himself up. And he has NASA charts and Hansen (then-head of NASA/GISS) articles from the 80s and 90s showing no warming to that time. And then he has the current NASA "final" (adjusted) data. In the "final" data, the 1930s and 40s temperature records have been made to disappear. Would you think that somebody from some media outlet -- New York Times, USA Today, Scientific American, et al. -- would at least ask Schmidt a question about this? It's beyond comprehension.