Fears are growing for the long-term future of the satellite temperature record compiled by two former NASA scientists at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. The UAH record stretches back to 1979 and measures the lower troposphere. It is highly regarded in sceptical scientific circles, but it shows less warming than the adjusted, heat-corrupted and sometimes invented figures supplied by state-funded meteorological operations that help promote the Net Zero project. Funding is likely to stop when Professor John Christy retires in July 2026, bringing an end to an honest and it seems unwanted source of climate information.
The knives have been out for years. Christy’s partner Dr. Roy Spencer promotes a monthly update of the UAH record and in 2022 it was kicked off Google AdSense for publishing “unreliable and harmful claims”. Dr. Spencer notes that the UAH team has a Department of Energy contract, “but it is ending and we have very few friends in Washington since we remain on the ‘wrong side’ of the science”. Of course their luck could change with the Trump and Republican victories, but climate science funding is difficult for all but the true ‘settled’ believers. “The peer review process (which determines what proposals the government will fund) has been stacked against us for many years, making it almost impossible to get funded to investigate the issues we believe are important to the climate debate,” observes Spencer.
As the two scientists note, they are not getting any younger. New, young researchers would need the same federal contracts to continue the work. ”Unfortunately, any projects that smell like climate scepticism are generally not funded and young researchers will likely hurt their careers if they are considered to be replacements for John and me,” says Spencer. Advancing science that doesn’t support global warming being a ‘crisis’ remains an uphill battle, he adds.
What Spencer is talking about of course is free speech and the trashing of the scientific process by activists working in and out of science to brainwash and frighten populations into accepting the Net Zero fantasy. The disgraceful retraction of the Alimonti paper by Springer Nature lives in the memory. As readers will recall, a gang of journalists and activist scientists managed recently to cancel a group of Italian physicists who dared to state the data didn’t support a climate crisis. Commenting on the scandal, Francis Menton of the Manhattan Contrarian noted that “every once in a while something happens to bring aspects of the orthodoxy enforcement mechanism momentarily into the open”. “Climate sceptics can’t get jobs in academia, and go into other careers; when sceptics write papers, they get rejected and are never heard again,” he added.
The UAH record is obviously hated in alarmist circles. While state operations were retrospectively adding 30% extra recent warming to compiled and frequently adjusted global datasets, the UAH figures kept us informed of the temperature pause from 1998-2012. Of course, warming is shown since the start of the satellite record, but uncorrupted data from above the ground provides a reliable benchmark. The cynical might ask who knows what the temperature manglers would get up to without this watchful eye in space?
The biggest problem with the surface measurements is the corruption caused by urban heat. Christy and Spencer have been to the fore in attempting to measure the serious problems that pollute the surface temperature record. As the Daily Sceptic has reported on numerous occasions, many temperature stations are positioned in unsuitable sites near airport runways, car parks, electricity sub-stations and solar farms. Estimates of the corruption range from 20-50% extra warming. “Personally,” continues Spencer, “I would like to continue the work I have started – especially on urban heat islands (UHI) – if possible.”
In fact, Dr. Spencer has recently added to his urban heat island research by considering its effect on daily record high temperatures. This follows the declaration of an all-time record high temperature of 124°F recorded at Palm Springs Airport on July 5th this year. For those following the global warming narrative, it is noted that such records almost always mention climate change as a cause, “yet they have no way of knowing how much urbanisation has contributed to those record high temperatures”.
Spencer notes that there are 26 other daily temperature stations within 40 miles of the Californian desert town at various levels of urbanisation and elevation. Plotting the high temperatures as a function of station elevation, it turns out, claims Spencer, that Palm Springs is an “outlier” with 5°F extra warmth compared to nearby stations. In addition, that figure is likely to be an underestimate of how much urban warming contributed to the Palm Springs record.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Well done to Martin Durkin and as ever huge respect to Patrick Moore et al for calling out this scam. It is really starting to break through which is pleasing.
If it were not for free-speech this kind of dangerous clap-trap would not be tolerated.
We need to ban urgently all kinds of free speech – right away.
PS. I’m going for the DS down-vote world record – please help me achieve it. Its an election year so do your bit and down-vote for me.
And yes that means even the two people who down-voted wokeman‘s seriously deranged comment.
For about the last year I have been commenting on Chris Morrisons articles and have praised him for the research and valuable investigative journalism that is sadly non-existent on mainstream TV.—— BBC and SKY NEWS eg are simply Climate Change Activist Channels that question NOTHING. I have also been calling for another Documentary that could reach a wider audience and try to make people see that climate change and its alleged solutions like Net Zero are not all they seem. I regularly used Martin Durkins film (The Great Global Warming Swindle 2007) as an example of the kind of thing that we need again, and Lo and Behold here we have it. ——-But just as back then we should prepare for the backlash from the Climate Establishment who cannot stand any questioning of their dogma and who want us to live in their scientific dictatorship, where truth is simply declared from bureaucrats standing at UN podiums, and then regurgitated by bought and paid for media.
PS ————-What Mainstream Channel will break ranks and screen this film? _I suspect NONE of them —-Why not?—– I think we know why.— In “Science” you question everything. In “Official Science” you question NOTHING.
“Science” is used primarily to launder ideology.
Cracking comment. 👏👏👏 Will definitely borrow 😁
Stewart is more insightful than 99.999% of MSM commentators.
Stolen from Scott Adams. I steal only from the best.
Beautifully put.
97% of climate crisis scientists would be unemployed if there was no crisis. That is the main reason.
The “main reason” is the reorganising of the global economy away from free market capitalism and control of the worlds wealth and resources. At UN level it has been decided that with the population heading for 10 billion we cannot all have the same standard of living as the wealthy west. And our own politicians are fully onboard with this eco socialism which is why they waved Net Zero through Parliament with no questions asked.
Thanks to Chris Morrison for all the articles. And great news about the new film.
Patrick Moore’s book Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom was one of my first routes into the details of seeing through the nonsense. The chapters detailing temperature and CO2 histories of the earth are particularly good. My copy is currently out on loan to someone who has bought into the climate change nonsense, so hopefully that will make her at least question her current belief system.
Seconded on Chris.
There are many many valuable books on this issue that dare to question the “Official Science” —–Infact this is not just a scientific issue. It is a Political, economic, social and moral one as well ———For anyone interested, and we all should be as this is one of the most important issues for all our prosperity and welfare I would like to recommend a few. —–“Hubris” Michael Hart.—- “Energy and Climate Wars” Michael J Economides and Peter Glover.——-“Watermelons” James Delingpole and “Taken by Storm” Christopher Essex and Ross McKitrick. ——–There many more I could mention. —Just ask
Buckle up, I think we have at least another ten years of fight against this particular form of justified tyranny…
And I’ve been fighting it since 1995. When, aged 14, I asked my arrogant geography teacher the question,
“Sir, do you know, can you tell us, when did the Hole in The Ozone Layer first appear?”
He refused to answer. Because, obviously, he couldn’t. With one question, I had exposed the fragility of the whole premise. Yet he continued to push the “continued, unprecedented, extreme weather events because of man’s burning of oil” narrative down our throats for the rest of the year.
Hated the guy. Today, if he is still alive, he probably can’t even remember what CFC stands for.
I am surprised he didn’t know the answer. Scientists on Antarctic stations began to notice the hole in the early 1980s.
Why does one man’s ignorance on this specific question expose the fragility of the whole premise?
You seem to be being out-downvoted.
That is to be expected on this site. However, no one has answered my question.
I have. On your comment above. You need to re-read my comment. And engage brain .
Ah! I see – a subtle distinction between when it first appeared and when we first noticed it. Here is some more detail:
Antarctic Ozone levels were monitored by the British Antarctic Survey from 1956.
A decline in observed levels started in 1976 but this didn’t amount to a hole, there were no theories as to the cause, and it could have been a temporary phenomenon.
Observed levels continued to decline and by 1984 the British Antarctic Survey were convinced this was a real effect and wrote a letter to Nature which got published in 1985 and drew the attention of the scientific community. This was confirmed by NASA scientists based on satellite data the following year. This was the first time the phrase Ozone Hole was used although it wasn’t actually a hole at that stage – just very much depleted. It became a real hole later in the 1980s.
I am not sure which of these events counts as the hole first appearing but that is a matter of definition not a question of fact.
To return to my question. Why does your teacher’s ignorance about this specific question expose the fragility of the whole premise? (And what premise are you referring to?).
The distinction is not at all subtle.
If we don’t know when it appeared then we can’t say what caused it.
Very simple.
Forget my teacher. He’s just part of the overall story. Which was to make the above point. Which is lost on you, it seems. How surprising. Not.
Have you noticed that the hole is still there? And where it was when we first noticed it, i.e. above that hotbed of manmade emissions of CFCs, the Antarctic? (sarcasm).
But, as I explained, scientists did know with an accuracy of a few years when the ozone hole first appeared. I can’t see how the fact your teacher didn’t know that exposes the fragility of the whole premise.
(In any case this is about the ozone layer – the article was about climate change. I rashly assumed that the “premise” that was being exposed as fragile was something to do with climate change).
They did not know that. The hole was already there when they first started measuring ozone in the atmosphere above Antarctica.
To paraphrase what I wrote before:
Antarctic Ozone levels were monitored by the British Antarctic Survey from 1956* onwards. They didn’t observe any decline until 1976.
*correction they started in 1957.
And what’s that supposed to mean? Does anybody know anything about ozone levels in the arctic for the 1956 years before 1957? Or the about 3100 years of history before that? Or the about 3 million years before?
Someone observes something in the 1970s he has never experienced before. Hence, he “concludes” that it cannot ever happened before, that it must have been caused by humans releasing dangerous gasses into the atmosphere, the specific kind of gas changing about every decade or so, and that doom will certainly ensue unless releasing of dangerous gasses is stopped.
Doesn’t that sound awfully close to someone preoccupied whith chemtrails hijacking naturally occurring phenomenons nobody understands (yet) to pseudo-substantiate his apocalyptic fantasies?
I am sorry but if something is being continuously monitored, as the ozone column was in the Antarctic, then the distinction between first appeared and first noticed is unclear. But you are right that the overall point is lost on me. What on earth (sic) has this to do with climate change?
Have you noticed that the hole is still there?
The hole is gradually diminishing.
And where it was when we first noticed it, i.e. above that hotbed of manmade emissions of CFCs, the Antarctic? (sarcasm).
CFCs are well mixed gasses that are evenly distributed through the stratosphere after about a year.
And, indeed, satellite images only started monitoring it in 1979…who knew what it was doing before then.
You clearly can’t read, nor think.
I didn’t ask him to tell me when we noticed it. That’s my point.
The DS poster MTF will be happy to distract from the subject of this article which is about the new film by Martin Durkin called “Climate, The Movie. ———This film has nothing do with ozone or holes in the atmosphere (of which there are by the way none). —-Please don’t be drawn into discussing things that this movie had nothing to do with.
Yr correct mtf is a good waste of carbon atoms. One can only have contempt for a person who supports authority making the poor poorer because he hates poor ppl living too well.
I am not sure if MTF will even watch the Martin Durkin. When you have a severe case of confirmation bias and you have already decided what is true 20 years ago you decide that anything that questions your dogma is some kind of “conspiracy theory”.——You have to feel sorry for people who think science is something you don’t question. They are getting mixed up between “science” and “official science”. ——One is the genuine search for truth and the other is the hijacking of science for political purposes.
I wonder how long before youtube censors
Can’t even find it on YouTube.
I just keep being suggested BBC videos of that idiot Brian Cox.
Try this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3Tfxiuo-oM
The Fat Emperor (Ivor Cummins) has it on his YouTube site. But I bet it won’t be there for long.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4vSMj4R5Rg
Already shadow-banned!
Tom Nelson gives links to all the locations hosting it, see https://tomn.substack.com/p/climate-the-movie-faq.
It is clearly there. I just watched it. Type in “Climate the Movie”. ——-The first one that comes up is just a trailer, but if you scroll along you should find it.
There is a UN “context” note attached to the YouTube one…grrr. Here is their “context” – my bold text:
“Climate change refers to long-term shifts in temperatures and weather patterns. Such shifts can be natural, due to changes in the sun’s activity or large volcanic eruptions. But since the 1800s, human activities have been the main driver of climate change, primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas.”
And I’ll quote Shelley on where I think the UN and their ideology will end up (I think the sands are shifting slowly):
“Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair! Nothing beside remains. Round the decay. Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare.”
Thanks to Chris Morrison for all your work on this topic. Still trying to download the Vimeo vid…takes a while.
I doubt if this film will remain on YouTube for long 🙂
Well it’s still on YouTube 12 hours after you posted that comment.
Absolutely first class expose on the entire climate scam. The first hour is occupied by facts delivered by real scientists unafraid to speak out. The last 20 minutes crystalise the the whys and hows by building a framework on which to hang the aforementioned facts. Mesmeric viewing. Should be a compulsory watch for the entire population.
I watched under Vimeo: https://vimeo.com/924719370?share=copy
All seemed reasonable at least out to 43m. Also, it kind of introduced the concept of financial psychology – or money talks, and it suggested that a lot of the research and campaigning has been done that way.
In effect, it alleged that a lot of modern industry associated with renewable energy is built on a lie.
Well worth watching.
It was a good job, well done. However, some might say that it is a bit long, and might not be easy to watch for some.
It occurred to me that it’s a bit topsy-turvy, if the main aim is to criticise the activities of certain groups. Moving the first 40 minutes or so to the end, with the rest of it being from the start might capture more support? Then all the evidence in the first 40 would be backup evidence to support the argument.
This won’t be a “gamechanger” mainly because most people who have objectively been looking into this issue have known all of this for at least 20 years, and also because it will be squeezed out and kept out of reach of 90% of the public who don’t have the time or inclination to investigate every issue, either because they are too busy with work or family life. ———-I urge everyone to watch it because it is focussing on something that is very important to everyone. —–Freedom and prosperity. There is no point in worrying about interest rates, or a 2p reduction in National Insurance Contributions etc etc when Net Zero policies put in place by governments are lowering living standards under false pretences that over the next 20 years or so will cost trillions and impoverish us to such an extent that people simply cannot comprehend what is coming their way.
The film has excellent material but lacks punch because it’s twice as long as it should be. I think uncommitted audience members would peel away; those opposed will breathe a sigh of relief.
Th public can only “peel away” for so long. Net Zero based on phony climate science will bring down governments all over the western world as impoverishment bites, and remember the impoverishment is DELIBERATE. —–That is what Sustainable development is all about.
When will the film be banned/censored/ignored?
Great film and so grateful to Martin Durkin putting this together, would be marvellous if C4 found its 2007 inner self and broadcast this – fat chance lol
Just another convenient excuse for more authoritarianism
This is a splendid film— even the music is perfect, and the whole thing is light-hearted and cheerful, unlike the endless doom & gloom of Saint Greta’s mob. And no, it is not too long, but just right.
Some commenters on the Youtube film site said Youtube had lowered the first 1.6 million views to 67,000 overnight, and it has remained at that figure, as well as remaining at less than 500 comments.
As one of them said,
“We are the carbon they want to reduce.”