Gross Suppression Of Science …Former NOAA Meteorologist Says Employees “Were Cautioned Not To Talk About Natural Cycles”

Note: This has been updated to a sticky post (hence the dark background). New posts are below.

Former NOAA meteorologist David Dilley has submitted an essay below that has 2 parts: 1) How the government has been starving researchers who hold alternative opinions of funding, and 2) climate cycles show we are starting a cooling period.

Readers will recall that David Dilley is a 40-year meteorology veteran and the producer of the excellent video: “Is Climate Change Dangerous?“, which first was presented at NTZ. Since then the video has been viewed more than 10,000 times and the NTZ story shared in social media over 800 times.

DilleySuppressing the Truth – the Next Global Cooling Cycle

By David Dilley, former NOAA meteorologist

For over 15 years an inordinate proportion of government and corporate research grants have been awarded to universities for a single specific purpose: to prove human activities and the burning of fossil fuels are the main driving mechanisms causing global warming.

Unfortunately agendas by strong arm politics and the suppression of contrary views have become the primary tools used to manipulate the media, local and state governments (and in turn the general public) into believing what they want us to believe.

Many former research department heads, such as Dr. Reid Bryson (known as the Father of Climatology), openly state that research grants are driven by politics, and in order to receive a government grant you have to play the game. Topics for grants go with the political wind.

In the mid 1990s government grants were typically advertised in such a way to indicate that conclusions should show a connection to human activity as the cause for anthropogenic global warming. The result: most of the research published in journals became one-sided and this became the primary information tool for media outlets.

According to some university researchers who were former heads of their departments, if a university even mentioned natural cycles, they were either denied future grants, or lost grants. And it is common knowledge that United States government employees within NOAA were cautioned not to talk about natural cycles. It is well known that most university research departments live or die via the grant system. What a great way to manipulate researchers in Europe, Australia and the United States.

Disinvited, views suppressed

Not only governments manipulate, but so do some universities in order to protect their grants. A perfect example happened in 2012 when I contacted the Eagle Hill Institute in Steuben Maine USA to see if they would be interested in a climate change lecture. It should be noted that the institute has very close ties with the University of Maine. So I indicted that my lecture would involve information on natural climate cycles, and they responded saying, “That is fine.” Then In May of 2013 they asked me to speak at their lecture series on June 29th – an invitation that I accepted. They even consequently advertised the event and posted it on their online calendar.

All seemed well as I prepared for the lecture. But then came the manipulation and suppression of views. Just four days prior to the lecture, three people from the University of Maine viewed our web site ( The next morning, just 3 days prior to the June 29th lecture, I received an email from Eagle Hill stating that my “lecture is canceled due to a staffing shortage”. Upon checking their web site, the calendar did show my lecture as being canceled, but carried the notation that “we hope to have a different lecture on the 29th”.

So what happened with the staffing shortage? A news service called “The Maine Wire interviewed the President of Eagle Hill, and he said that the University of Maine “felt some people in the audience may be uncomfortable hearing Mr. Dilley’s lecture”.

What did they want to hide from the public?

The IPCC and most anthropogenic believers want to maintain the belief that global warming during the past 100 years has been caused by human activity alone, and this is why most of their climate talks and lectures do not even mention prior global warming cycles.

The politically driven United Nations IPCC and United States global warming ruse will likely end up being one of the greatest scandals of the 21st century. If left unchecked it will continue to lead the world down a dangerous path that could jeopardize the lives of millions of people. Many have been led to believe the earth is heading into catastrophic global warming. Is this a political ruse, and will it likely blindside governments within the next few years? When it comes to climate, history does repeat itself.

Cooling has already begun

Alternating global warming and cooling cycles have historically occurred and ended like clockwork every 220 to 230 years, with nearly 4000 cycles occurring during the past half million years. The last global cooling cycle began around 1795, or about 220 years ago. If the time clock strikes on time as it has over and over again throughout history, the upcoming cooling cycle has already begun in the Arctic and Antarctic, as shown in my video, “Is Climate Change Dangerous?

Dilley_1Earth has experienced 5 global cooling cycles during the past 1,000 years (soon to be 6). The initial 20 to 40 years of a new global cooling cycle are historically the coldest period, and associated with the most rapid cooling (see attached graphic). If a large volcanic eruption occurs during this period, large amounts of sulfur dioxide will be emitted into the atmosphere with the cooling cycle being exacerbated by sulfate aerosols floating in the upper atmosphere ( The sulfate aerosols are highly reflective and can cool the earth for 1 to 3 years, with the end result being a year of no summer in some regions of the world.

Major volcanoes during cooling periods

Of the past 5 cooling cycles dating back to 900 AD, 4 were associated with strong volcanic eruptions during the initial 15 to 25 years of the cooling cycles. The volcanic explosive index (VEI) for these eruptions were between 5 and 7 on a VEI scale ranging from 1 to 8. The last occurrence was in 1815, when VEI 6 Tambora erupted. The combination of this massive volcanic eruption occurring some 15 to 20 years into the new global cooling cycle was instrumental in causing the year of no summer in 1816. During the next several years, nearly one third of Europe perished from famine, plague and civil unrest. Back then the earth had a population of 1 billion to feed; today there are 7 billion.

Similar cooling cycles and eruptions occurred in the year 1600 when VEI 6 Huaynaputina (Peru) occurred about 20 years into the new cooling cycle. In 1350 Rangitoto (New Zealand) about 25 years into a cooling cycle, and in the year 834 Eldgja (Iceland) a great VEI 6 eruption occurred about 25 years into the new cooling cycle. The current global warming cycle is now ending.

Shouldn’t governments around the world be preparing for a major event that is by far more dangerous than any warming cycle could possibly be?

168 responses to “Gross Suppression Of Science …Former NOAA Meteorologist Says Employees “Were Cautioned Not To Talk About Natural Cycles””

  1. Robin Pittwood

    Great article. Glad I live in the sunny South Pacific. By the way, the volcanoe referred to in New Zealand is Rangitoto.

  2. Der arktische Polarwinter hat begonnen: Dauerfrost nördlich 80°N – Grönlandeis wächst 2015 kräftig! | wobleibtdieglobaleerwaermung
  3. goldminor

    Great article,I would bet my last dollar that David Dilley,s assessment of the real future trend is correct. As a complete amateur, I also arrived at the conclusion that part of the ‘Why’ of a grand minimum is that changes in the Sun during the event are able to trigger seismic/volcanic events on the Earth. Check out the history of the New Madrid Fault in the US. The known large events that have struck on that fault line all correlate with a grand minimum cooling event, or with the Gleissberg cycle. The last rumbling on the New Madrid was in the early 1900s during a Gleissberg cycle. I think that the odds of experiencing another New Madrid quake in the next 20 years are greatly increased. This may even be the correct explanation of why there has been increased activity of quakes striking in Oklahoma and Kansas, plus in states east of those two states. I do not think that fracking has been the cause of the many quakes in these locations. Even the Iceland eruption is likely part of the shifting trends, along with the moderately strong eruptions which have taken place this year.

  4. DirkH

    Hey at least Gavin’s jolly GISS Gang will assure us that it’s the hottest time ever while we’re trying to find more heating fuel!

    1. Robin Pittwood

      It is a good time to buy coal shares Dirk. Price is low at the moment, and would be expected to rise as it gets colder. That’s if you can get some ahead of Mr Soros that is.

      1. DirkH

        You haven’t seen low yet. Wait til October and then some as the carnage unfolds.
        As to Soros: Yes, we noticed.

        1. David Appell

          Coal stocks in the US are down about 90% from their highs. Go ahead and buy them — plenty of people will be happy to sell.

  5. on Black

    Is there any backup for the NOAA claim? “…United States government employees within NOAA were cautioned not to talk about natural cycles.”

    1. David Dilley

      If you remember the head of NASA began talking about natural cycles a few years ago, then 1 week later he would no longer talk about this subject…
      And yes employees of NOAA have been cautioned not to talk about climate change, especially cycles. I cannot name names, they are still employed with NOAA.
      Also…most television meteorologist have been told not to talk about natural cycles as a possible cause of global warming. This has been done not only by their employers, but also the American Meteorological Society (AMS) has pushed strongly to quiet the TV meteorologists.
      Hope this has helped.

      1. Don Black

        David, I’m sorry, that’s not enough evidence to rely on your assertion. I am a hard over cynic of the climate alarmism, but need more than that. I cited your comment on another blog then took it down for lack of back up evidence. Sorry, your response does not add enough support even for this cynic.

        1. Paul Vaughan

          Are you kidding Don Black??

          They don’t even admit that their ERSSTv4 “bias” “corrections” match the decadal IPO (interdecadal pacific oscillation)!

          That’s a fatal error. V4 should have been retracted by now.

        2. empiresentry

          Here is a call for coordinated effort to shut down any weatherperson who dares to say otherwise.

          A new campaign, Forecast the Facts (, launches Sunday to pressure TV meteorologists to inform their viewers about climate change. The launch coincides with the kick-off of the American Meteorological Society’s (AMS) annual meeting in New Orleans, LA.

          “This is an important moment in the history of the AMS,” said Daniel Souweine, the campaign’s director. “It’s well known that large numbers of meteorologists are climate change deniers. It’s essential that the AMS Council resist pressure from these deniers and pass the strong statement currently under consideration.”

          How many examples do you need? Perhaps the adventures of the 3 researchers including Dr. Soon whose crime was the audacity to try to find out why ALL the climate change models fail…no through coordinated effort, his career and job are gone.

      2. David Dilley

        Possibly the link below will shed some light upon government censorship. This particular article refers to Dr. James Hansen former head of NASA being censored by the government. This particular censorship actually occurred under the Bush administration and to his energy program. But all near, close and within the government know this is still occurring because we now have a different administration, but one with a strong policy.
        The link below describes part of what I am referring to.

        Also..a couple years ago I was on a climate change discussion panel in Boulder Colorado, two other climatologists/meteorologists, one from NOAA and a glacier expert from Colorado State University had different views than I. When I asked them about the warm cycles 1,000 years ago, 7 thousand years ago etc., their answer was; we do not recognize them.

        Now as for TV meteorologists… probably cannot get a now working meteorologist to put their name out for fear of losing their position. One did at the Weather Channel a few years back. I have heard first hand about this, and that they would lose their job.

    2. H. D. Hoese

      Evidence is important, but check the definition of anecdote. There was a run of using it between ‘only’ and ‘data’ as a pejorative about observations. I heard first hand evidence from fishery managers that the reason for ignoring natural cycles is that you could not control them, unlike fishing. This was before the hockey stick and the treatment of those claiming ability to control climate as normal.

      One example was “…human actions would be considered harmful unless proven otherwise.” (Restrepo, V. R., P. M. Mace and F. M Serchuk. 1999. The precautionary approach: a new paradigm or business as usual? pp. 61-70, IN, Our Living Oceans, Report on the status of U. S. living marine resources. NOAA Tech. Mem. NMFS-F/SPO-41. )

      While I never heard direct evidence in the grant world, an examination of numerous papers in marine ecology and fisheries would show bias against natural cycles. One example is the ”Dead Zone,“ which is not metabolically dead, admitted in some of the main advocate’s papers if you read the fine print. More properly called a hypoxic area, the one off Louisiana is seasonal but the discipline followed the climate treatment pattern, with nitrogen as the demon. Noted after the Mississippi River floods of 1973-75 as caused by stratification, it turned to emphasis on increasing nitrogen levels, ultimately involving advocacy against nitrogen from the National Academy of Sciences. Stratification has been restored in the literature as the primary driver, with nitrogen as a modifier. The use of spring Mississippi River nitrogen as a (poor) predictor is still used, a recent example of the problem—

      Again, as another example of the confusion of science and advocacy– (Rabalais, N. N., R. E. Turner and W. J. Wiseman, Jr. 2002. Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia, A.K.A, “The Dead Zone.” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 33:235-263, concluded “Fortunately, …decrease(s)(of) excess nutrient loads proceeded without complete scientific consensus.”.)

      At least there was evidence that nitrogen levels did increase and does push systems into hypertrophy, but its treatment followed a pattern like the climate development which overshadowed it. I suspect similar events occurred in many other cases based on observations in marine science covering over a half century.


    […] Fonte: NoTricksZone  […]

  7. Joe Chang

    “to prove human activities and the burning of fossil fuels …”
    Perhaps it is more appropriate to say: “assume that human activities …, figure out how to fudge the models and adjust the number to support this, and then speculate on the horrible consequences” despite the fact that warming might actually be good, but unfortunately its not coming because the original premise was baloney to begin with?

  8. mauri ses. italy

    great and deeply interesting piece, it has been immediately translated into italian and it’s now posted on –

  9. Ruth Hertzberg

    This article makes a lot of sense to me. What I don’t understand is why so many individuals want to prove that it is getting warmer.

    1. Harry Dale Huffman

      The short answer is, because they believe that climate science is too big, and too settled, to fail.

      All of our institutions have been suborned by the global warming narrative (it should never have been taken seriously within climate science, and scientists in other, related fields, especially physicists, should have never let it prosper, especially before the public). At its root, the global warming narrative is due to a general, gross incompetence among all physical scientists, foremost those in positions of authority over other scientists. It is the yet-unadmitted, and unadmittable, utter failure of (global) climate science, for none of it is true, and cannot be saved. For all of those in authority, in any affected field from education to the media, it is a matter of absolute power corrupting absolutely. It is now like a train going at high speed, and it will not just wreck countless lives (it has been doing that, to honest and competent scientists’ careers, for the last 25 years and more, since the inception of the scientifically and politically criminal IPCC), its inevitable crash will likely lead to World War III–there is simply too much general weakness of mind and character, too much intellectual division and confusion, for the incipient tyrants and terrorists of the world to ignore; they will sniff the blood in the air as the predators they are (that, in fact, is what the radical Left–the Insane Left, as I call them, since Obama came to power–is doing now: Attacking the US and the West, supposedly in the name of justice and sustainability, but really only for power to coerce the masses to their will).

      Too-long-nurtured dogma in science–going all the way back to Darwin and the fundamentally false paradigm, of uniformitarian, undirected evolution of everything science can observe in the world–has bred first general incompetence, and now the current political power struggle for dominance, using the hysterical global warming narrative. Society–civilization–cannot live on lies, just as it cannot live on deep divisions (“a house divided against itself cannot stand”).

    2. vdc

      I have this same question. They call us nut cases for not falling into lock step but there are so many unanswered questions with the biggest being WHY?

      1. Kenneth Simmons

        An oldies song goes, “Money, money, money, money”. I believe the songs answers the why question quite nicely.

      2. DirkH

        Because NWO / UN World Government.
        The idea was always to repeat the successful trial balloon of “The Montreal protocol ban of Halon gases” with CO2 – giving the UN ultimate control over every country’s energy sector, and therefore, ultimate power.
        Of course the Montreal ban looks, just like warmunism, like a hoax today… There’s not much science in anything non-classified these days…

      3. David Appell

        WHY? Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. (And black carbon.)

    3. David Appell

      It is wrong because our climate is not very sensitive to changes in solar intensity.

      This is easy to estimate. The simpliest climate model treats the Earth as a rotating sphere with no GHGs. That leads to the extremely well known equation for Earth’s surface temperature

      (1-albedo)S/4 = epsilon*sigma*T^4

      where S is solar intenstity and T is its surface temperature. Sigma is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, and epsilon the atmosphere’s (gray) emissivity.

      For S=1360 W/m2, albedo=0.3 and epsilon=1, we find T=255 K — the temperature of Earth with no atmosphere. It’s not far off from the observed T=288 K. The difference is the greenhouse effect.

      Differentiating, we find

      dT/dS = T/4S = 0.05 K/(W/m2).

      That’s small. Especially compared to CO2. The Sun’s irradiance over a solar cycles changes by only 1.5-2 W/m2. It was, at most, 3 W/m2 lower during the Maunder Minimum.

      No realistic change in the Sun’s output can compete with decadal warming from CO2.

      1. S Allnutt

        It is strange then that others link the onset and end of ice ages to changes in solar activity. How do you explain the phenomena?

        1. DirkH

          There were no ice ages. Nor anything else remotely interesting in the past. A figment of the imagination of the Big Oil funded denialists. Global Warming models prove that climate was eternally benign before the invention of the steam engine, which was given to James watt in exchange for his soul by Satan. Who is coal powered. (Hell is just one big underground burning coal seam.)

        2. David Appell

          S Allnutt wrote:
          “It is strange then that others link the onset and end of ice ages to changes in solar activity.”

          Wrong. They are attributed to Milankovitch forcings and resulting ice-albedo feedbacks and CO2 feedbacks.

      2. cheshirered

        David Appell 28. August 2015 at 5:58 AM

        “No realistic change in the Sun’s output can compete with decadal warming from CO2.”


        David, for a so-called ‘expert’ it’s astonishing you’re willing to publicly post such unutterable drivel. Thanks for the laugh.

        1. AndyG55

          “for a so-called ‘expert’”

          only by himself..!

          Everyone else thinks he’s an ingorant clown.

        2. David Appell

          cheshirered wrote:
          “David, for a so-called ‘expert’ it’s astonishing you’re willing to publicly post such unutterable drivel.”

          In my world, calling an argument “drivel” necessitates that I disprove the argument first.

          But clearly not in your world.

      3. Bernd Felsche

        assuming that albedo is constant.

        It isn’t. Nor is the spectral content of the sun as nearly-invariant as TSI at the top of the atmosphere. Albedo and (depth of) absorbtion are dependent on spectral content.

        The real world isn’t nearly as grey as modelled.

        Nor is it as thermodynamically simple as modelled by the above simplistic equations. Nowhere near that simple. The model is at best a teaching model in Physics 100 for instruction about radiation.

        Such a model is unsuitable as a basis for making decisions that affect peoples’ lives. The model omits about 99% of applicable thermodynamics; 100% of fluid mechanics and 100% of the effects of a living planet that e.g. absorbs energy and stores it chemically and alters the physical state influencing the thermodynamics and fluid mechanics.

        1. David Appell

          Bernd: Read again — I said, “in the simpliest climate model.” This model is used as a heuristic device to see that, to a first approximation, the climate’s sensitivity to solar changes is small. I’m hardly proposing this model be used for policy decisions.

          BTW, this model does predict the pre-GHG surface temperature (288 K) to within 12%. Do you have a imple model that can do that?

          1. Bernd Felsche

            That’s not a “pre-GHG surface temperature” David.

            It’s argument from ignorance to attribute those (meaningless) “12%” to GHG.

            It’s ignoring most physical factors that actually translate irradiation into “temperature”; factors like thermal capacity; and factors that modulate surface insolation such as cloud albedo and depth of atmosphere.

            Also; I do know when a model is too simple.

          2. David Appell

            Bernd wrote: “It’s argument from ignorance to attribute those (meaningless) “12%” to GHG.”

            That’s confirmed by a more detailed and complete study:

            “Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth’s Temperature,” Lacis et al, Science (15 October 2010) Vol. 330 no. 6002 pp. 356-359

            See especially their Figure 2 (p 358).

          3. Bernd Felsche

            David Appell:

            That’s confirmed by a more detailed and complete study:

            Nothing of the sort. The paper assumes the magnitude of GH effect and its existence. It doesn’t TEST it. Not against real-world observations.

            The paper tests nothing at all. It’s full of e.g. GISS ModelE runs.

            Further, the paper contains absurd statements in its abstract:

            Ample physical evidence shows that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the single most important climate-relevant greenhouse gas in Earth’s atmosphere. This is because CO2, …, does not condense and precipitate from the atmosphere at current climate temperatures, whereas water vapor can and does. Noncondensing greenhouse gases, which account for 25% of the total terrestrial greenhouse effect, thus serve to provide the stable temperature structure that sustains the current levels of atmospheric water vapor and clouds via feedback processes that account for the remaining 75% of the greenhouse effect. Without the radiative forcing supplied by CO2 and the other noncondensing greenhouse gases, the terrestrial greenhouse would collapse, plunging the global climate into an icebound Earth state.

            How on Earth (and above it) does the majority of the atmosphere, composed of O2 and N2, cool after being heated by the surface and convecting upwards, out of contact with the surface if there were no “greenhouse gases” at all?

          4. David Appell

            Bernd: Model runs are just calculations.

            Do you have a better way to test this idea?

            No, of course you don’t.

            Blanket disparagement of models is the lazy man’s way out.

          5. David Appell

            Bernd wrote:
            “How on Earth (and above it) does the majority of the atmosphere, composed of O2 and N2, cool after being heated by the surface and convecting upwards, out of contact with the surface if there were no “greenhouse gases” at all?”

            Read more carefully.

            The statement was about noncondensable GHGs.

            Water vapor is condensable.

          6. Bernd Felsche

            You’re running away from the answer David.

            I posed a question based on simple model with an atmosphere without any “greenhouse” gases. One that would lead to a null hypothesis about all “greenhouse gases”. I thought you liked simple models.

            What would be the near-surface atmospheric temperature absent all “greenhouse” gases?

            Why are your simplified models more valid than mine?

          7. David Appell

            bernd wrote:
            “I posed a question based on simple model with an atmosphere without any “greenhouse” gases. One that would lead to a null hypothesis about all “greenhouse gases”.”

            For God’s sakes….

            A model without GHGs can’t say anything about a hypothesis about GHGs.

            This has become comical.

          8. Bernd Felsche

            A model without GHGs can’t say anything about a hypothesis about GHGs.

            The simplistic model that you use to attribute the difference between modelled temperature “prediction” with the alleged, actual, average atmospheric temperature to the presence of “greenhouse gases” includes no “greenhouse gases” in the model at all.

            There are no gases at all in the model that you (mis)use; the radiative surface temperature it taken to be the atmospheric temperature; without there having been an atmosphere.

          9. Konrad

            you asked –
            “How on Earth (and above it) does the majority of the atmosphere, composed of O2 and N2, cool after being heated by the surface and convecting upwards, out of contact with the surface if there were no “greenhouse gases” at all?”

            This is an excellent question, and David’s response was disingenuous.

            The answer is that without radiative gases (condensing or non condensing makes no difference) strong vertical tropospheric convective circulation would stall and the bulk of the atmosphere would super heat.

            The above link is to a simple 2D CFD (computational fluid dynamics) run. On the left a gas column hated at the base and cooled at altitude like our atmosphere. On the right, conductive cooling at disparate locations at the base only. While the model is to small to show adiabatic cooling on ascent, this is matched by adiabatic heating on decent and plays no role in driving tropospheric convective circulation.

            As to condensing water vapour, the evaporation / precipitation cycle is a driver of vertical circulation, but again it is dependant on radiative energy loss to space to remove latent heat of evaporation.

            The net effect of radiative gases in our atmosphere is cooling and the net effect of our radiatively cooled atmosphere is surface cooling.

            The trick climastrologists use to show additional radiative gases causing near surface warming is to invoke “immaculate convection” in their flawed radiative / convective modelling. They ignore the known meteorology of “radiative subsidence” and hold the speed of tropospheric convective circulation constant for increasing radiative gas concentration. This is where they get their “warming at low altitude / cooling at high altitude” claims.

          10. Bernd Felsche

            Thank you Konrad.

            I wouldn’t have asked the question of David if I’d not already known the answer.

            While playing with the Gedankenexperiment; I realized that in a “real world” those gases might get hot enough to form significant amounts of ozone and nitrous oxides which would act as radiators and; being heavier molecules; would increase the rate of convention. That would reduce the peak temperatures compared to the inert gas case.

            By how much; I don’t know. Unlike you Konrad, I’m too lazy to build a model using e.g. OpenFOAM to incorporate such “multi-physics”.

      4. PeterK

        David Appell strikes again. Always love your posts. Thanks for my morning laugh as I roll on the floor in hysterics.

      5. AndyG55

        Only a complete moron thinks that TSI is the only variable of the sun..

        Oh.. its David Appell… I was right !

        1. Gordon J. Fulks, PhD

          David Appell is a journalist who is thoroughly sold on climate hysteria. Because he has a scientific education but worked as a journalist his whole life, you will find that the best he can do is repeat the details of the Global Warming paradigm without deviation and without any critical thinking. He is perhaps the only person who still defends Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick.

          1. David Appell

            “He is perhaps the only person who still defends Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick.”

            A hockey stick has been found over 36 times by now:


            which isn’t surprising, because basic physics and mathematics show how easily a hockey stick curve is obtained:


            The real surprise would be if the data DO NOT show hockey sticks.

          2. Bernd Felsche
          3. empiresentry

            thumbs up to Berndt Felsche

          4. AndyG55

            Linking to your non-scientific GARBAGE again..

            [snip, pls stop the name-calling -PG]

          5. David Appell

            Bernd: I’ll go with my scientific reasoning over BH’s personal insults.

          6. Bernd Felsche

            David: Seems like you’re in denial.

            BH made an observation about a useful study that you used to prop up your argument.

            You took it as a personal insult because the curve looks as much as the goggles in synchronised swimming as it does a hockey stick.

            Perhaps you should have looked at the individual papers before recycling somebody else’s “useful list of studies”.

      6. Konrad

        ”That leads to the extremely well known equation for Earth’s surface temperature

        that 255K figure for “surface without radiative atmosphere” is utterly wrong. It is derived by simply imputing 240 w/m2 of average solar insolation into the Stefan-Boltzmann equation with absorptivity and emissivity set to unity. But this effectively treats our deep SW translucent oceans as SW opaque and constantly illuminated and ignores that hemispherical SW absorptivity is asymmetric with hemispherical LWIR emissivity for water.

        71% of our planets surface is an extreme short wave selective surface, nowhere remotely close to a “near blackbody”. Empirical experiment shows that sun alone could drive the oceans to around 335K were it not for cooling by our radiatively cooled atmosphere. A better estimate of global average “surface without radiative atmosphere” is 312K. Given the current average is 288K, this tells us the net effect or our radiatively cooled atmosphere is surface cooling not warming. As there is no net atmospheric radiative GHE, global warming due to CO2 is a physical impossibility.

        That inane 255K figure is the permanent burning shame of the climastrologists. They got the “basic physics” of their “settled science” utterly wrong.

        1. David Appell

          Konrad: Again, I said “the simpliest climate model.” It is….s-i-m-p-l-e. It’s a heuristic device, a first guess, a simplification used to begin working on a problem.

          It predicts the Earth’s surface temperature to within 12%. So it has that going for it, and it suggests what much more detailed work confirms: the climate is not very sensitive to changes in solar output.

          1. Konrad

            that “simplest climate model” is rubbish. For the most critical “surface without radiative atmosphere” calculation it returns an 80K error for 71% of the planets surface. 80K!

            The utterly wrong 255K figure is the foundation for the whole hoax. It is spread from one side of the Internet to the other. It is in hard copy papers and textbooks. The shame can never be hidden. Going full “flappy hands” about complexities will do no good. There is a massive fist-biting mistake in the very foundation of your hoax.

            As to your repeated claim that this “simplest model” can prove solar variability has no influence on climate? You are just being ridiculous. If you don’t treat the oceans as an extreme SW selective surface, how can you possibly model the effect of cloud cover changes or solar spectral variance on ocean heat accumulation?

            For our oceans, the shorter the incident wavelength, the deeper it penetrates and the more it heats. 1 watt of UV has a greater heating effect than 1 watt of SW. The use of TSI variance to dismiss solar climate effects is clearly disingenuous. Solar spectral variance is far more pronounced, and to the oceans, this is what is critical.

            Climastrologists have proven beyond doubt they don’t understand how the sun heats the oceans. Therefore they don’t understand climate on this planet.

          2. David Appell

            Konrad wrote:
            “that “simplest climate model” is rubbish. For the most critical “surface without radiative atmosphere” calculation it returns an 80K error for 71% of the planets surface. 80K!”

            False. For albedo=0.3 and emissivity=1, that baby model predicts a surface temperature of 255 K.

            At least get the simple things right, Konrad.

          3. David Appell

            Konrad wrote:
            “For our oceans, the shorter the incident wavelength, the deeper it penetrates and the more it heats. 1 watt of UV has a greater heating effect than 1 watt of SW.”

            When we talk about climate sensitivity, we mean the warming after equilibrium has been reestablished — after all feedbacks have played out.

            For that discussion, a Watt is a Watt. It’s a Watt added to the climate system; it will raise the temperature accordingly. Whether that Watt first goes into the ocean or into the atmosphere, it is, at equilibrium, the same Watt.

            So, no, spectral changes in solar irradiance don’t affect climate solar sensitivity. Climate sensitivity depends on energy balance, and the planet will heat up until the energy imbalance created by a forcing is restored to equilibrium.

          4. Konrad

            Fervent AGW propagandists destroys last shreds of credibility defending inane 255K “surface without radiative atmosphere figure”.

            Priceless! Thanks for the screen-shots David 🙂

            Here are just two simple experiments that show that liquid water is an extreme SW selective surface, not a “near blackbody” –
            – In each, the samples have equal ability to absorb SW and emit LWIR, the only difference is the depth of SW absorption. Equal SW illumination of the samples returns very different temperatures, but attempting to model using the S-B equation does not.

            Of course engineers have known for decades about SW translucent surfaces and solar heating. Only climastrologists would be so stupid as to ignore the engineering basics. This stuff is spacecraft thermal control 101. Even swimming pool cover manufactures know it. But not David Appell and the climastrologists!

            Sure all watts are equal, the question is delay (accumulation) of energy within the climate system. Penetration depth for UV causes greater delay in the oceans than it does for SW. Dare I say “It’s basic physics”? 😉

            There is a radiative GHE on this planet, but it is in the oceans not the atmosphere. Climate on planet Ocean is simple –

            The sun heats the oceans.
            The atmosphere cools the oceans.
            Radiative gases cool the atmosphere.

            On this ocean planet “surface without radiative atmosphere” is well over 300K. You have spent years defending garbage David.

          5. David Appell

            Konrad: The approximation made in climate science is the atmosphere is a blackbody in the infrared, not in the shortwave. Huge difference.

          6. Konrad

            “Konrad: The approximation made in climate science is the atmosphere is a blackbody in the infrared, not in the shortwave. Huge difference.”

            Oh no you don’t David!
            Everyone knows your tricks, trying to weasel away from the subject at hand when your lack of science is exposed.

            My claim was that the inane climastrologists treated the SW illuminated surface of our planet as a near blackbody, thus falsely treating the oceans as SW opaque and constantly illuminated to obtain their false “255K for surface without radiative atmosphere” figure.Y ou have even posted the maths behind that false figure showing that it was for solar illumination of the surface.

            You don’t get to put words in my mouth. You don’t get to imply that I ever claimed the climastrologists were treating the atmosphere as a blackbody in the SW band. I claimed they were stupid enough to treat the SW selective surface of our oceans as a blackbody in the SW band, and you do not get to change that claim.

            I claim the oceans are an extreme SW selective surface and 240 w/m2 (delivered intermittently) would drive them to 335K were it not for cooling by our radiatively cooled atmosphere. The record shows your attempt to refute this has you pointing to the misuse of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation which treats the oceans as SW opaque.

          7. David Appell

            Konrad, you are still wrong.

            You don’t understand climate sensitivity. Are you aware it is the temperature change when equilibrium has been reestablished?

            Do you know what that means?

          8. Konrad

            “Konrad, you are still wrong. You don’t understand climate sensitivity. Are you aware it is the temperature change when equilibrium has been reestablished? Do you know what that means? “

            No David, I’m still right and you are still trying your old tricks. Trying to change the subject when you lose the debate.

            Who mentioned equilibrium climate sensitivity? Why would I bother, empirical experiment shows that “surface without radiative atmosphere” would be above 300K for this ocean planet? Our current average is 288K. Therefore ECS must be negative for all concentrations of radiative gases above 0.0ppm.

            For you there is no way out David. All your claims ride on your “255K surface without radiative atmosphere” figure. No amount of thrashing and flexing gets you off the hook. Empirical experiment shows that figure to be utterly wrong. Our oceans act as an extreme SW selective surface. Your failed maths treats them as SW opaque. No bleating about ECS can change this.

  10. Maarten Woerlee

    Great article with the most important part on the end :

    Shouldn’t governments around the world be preparing for a major event that is by far more dangerous than any warming cycle could possibly be?

    Who knows?

  11. The Climate Change Debate Thread - Page 5110

    […] […]

  12. Pointman

    Smashing article David. It’s good to see an insider with the guts to speak out.


  13. Eliza

    This should be a major news story, not necessarily here but MAJOR mainstream. This guy was an insider in NOAA and highly qualified, this will be believed. The TEAM is probably trembling like hell hoping this fellow does not get close to MSM media…

    1. DirkH

      These days no “MSM” would report anything truthful. I refuse to call them MSM, they are not the mainstream anymore, they are a vicious government propaganda entity (of the true government – CFR, Bilderbergers, Fabians etc – not of the elected puppets) – I prefer the term hatemedia now. I call the google news frontpage “The Evil Blog”.

      1. David Appell

        The media are all conspired against you, huh Dirk?

        1. DirkH

          Yes, they are, David. I can tell you the owners of the German and American media blocs and their connections to CFR/Bilderberger/political parties circles. In case you wondered who calls the shots. This is of course nothing new. Hearst is famous for inciting the 1898 attack on the failing Spanish empire.
          NY times is famous for lying about the Holodomor.

          1. David Appell

            “Bilderberger” is ruining your life, Dirk?


            I’ve published lots of articles on climate science in lots of outlets. No one from Bilderberger has ever called me telling me what to write. Or censored what I wrote.

    2. David Appell

      Eliza: Why is this guy “highly qualified?”

      Where is his CV?
      Where is his list of research publications?

      1. nightspore

        Dilley is talking about research being deflected away from its normal course by bullying tactics from higher-ups. Why does he need a “list of research publications” to tell us about that? And why are you seizing on that point – if it’s not to deflect attention away from the basic subject of this posting?

        (And why is someone with a Ph.D. in particle physics from a reputable institution reduced to shilling for Stalinist thugs?)

        1. David Appell

          Dilley needs research publications because that’s where colleagues and experts go through claims very carefully and affirm or refute them. It’s where science actually takes place.

          No real scientist is going to watch Dilley’s little video and take the time to critique it, let alone ever cite it, because Dilley himself hasn’t cared to take the time to carefully lay out his arguments with supporting data and evidence, as he would have to in a scientific paper submitted to a journal.

          Anyone can make a video. Writing and publishing one’s scientific ideas is difficult.

          1. AndyG55

            OMG, still the moronic peer-review journal meme.

            Peer-review is NOT about science, its about journals. !!

            The video is out there for ALL to review.. peers and everyone..

            It IS PUBLISHED. !!

          2. David Appell

            Pierre: Viewing a video is hardly taking it seriously.

            Serious scientists publish in the peer reviewed literature. Dilley is not a serious scientist.

          3. David Appell

            Peer review says a paper meets scholarly standards, and is not obviously wrong.

            Why does that frighten David Dilley into not publishing?

        2. David Appell

          The video is self-published. Anyone can do that now.

          1. oeman50

            And being self-published makes it wrong?

            Ad hominem.

          2. David Appell

            It shows the author lacks the confidence to submit his claims to peer review by experts.

            I can see why.

    3. Mauri Ses. - Italy

      There is no chance the (horrible) mainstream media will pay attention anytime soon to any person moving outside the borders of the huge GW lie! But still David Dilley is gaining lots of attention over the internet these days and apart from his last articles posted here and few other ‘climate sites’, (4 ex. in italy and in the us) the US news site WND has just published two days ago an omnicomprehensive piece about global cooling (is it turning into a “movement”?) and D. Dilley is leading the “cold front”: there are almost 600 comments to that article, the gc issue is getting some attention for sure –

      1. David Appell

        WND plays to the choir. No one else takes it seriously.

        1. Mauri Ses. - Italy

          It might be so but still the choir looks pretty big! The ‘no one else’ group is still too busy diving (and drowning) into the big GW lie!

        2. AndyG55

          “No one else takes it seriously.”

          David lives in a maze of mirrors. 🙂

  14. ”GLOBAL COOLING’ – World Temp Forecast 2019-2150 ‘Gross Suppression Of Science …Former #NOAA Meteorologist Says Employees “Were Cautioned Not To Talk About Natural Cycles”’ | Telcomil Intl Products and Services

    […] Sourced through from: […]

  15. Gross Suppression Of Science …Former NOAA Meteorologist Says Employees “Were Cautioned Not To Talk About Natural Cycles” | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
  16. Peter Wells

    I suspect another example of suppression. See the website
    Solar cycles are a prime cause of climate cycles. Note the transfer of Dr. David Hathaway. For a while the website was updated every couple of months. Now, no update since March, and no new person to update it.

    1. empiresentry

      Thanks for link.
      Most interesting was the Cycle 24 prediction.

  17. Gross Suppression Of Science …Former NOAA Meteorologist Says Employees “Were Cautioned Not To Talk About Natural Cycles” | The Next Grand Minimum

    […] post is HERE. Suppressing the Truth – the Next Global Cooling […]

  18. David Appell

    Isn’t it odd how cooling is supposed to be JUST around the corner…. Yet it never is. So people like Dilley just keep pushing it out a few years, then, in a few years, a few years more.

    There is no cooling in our future until our emissions of GHGs cease. Period.

    1. ClimateOtter

      Lead the way, lil’ Davey. Sell your car, shut off the heat to your home, refuse to buy anything which generated GHGs during manufacture, stop breathing. That should pretty much End your contribution of GHGs, and provide and example for the rest of us.

      1. David Appell



        Breathing is carbon neutral. Go learn at least a little science.

        1. Bernd Felsche

          Breathing is carbon neutral.

          So how does the food get to your plate?

          The carbon in food comes from the air but it doesn’t spontaneously form chocolate.

          1. AndyG55

            There is one, and only one, chemical reaction that produces the world’s food.

            That is PHOTOSYNTHESIS.

            It requires H2O, CO2 and a light frequency energy source.

            CO2 and H2O provide for ALL LIFE ON EARTH..

            Only a moronic low-life twerp would ever want to actually restrict CO2.

            Oh.. there’s David again !!
            Description .. precise.

          2. David Appell

            Bernd: The nutritional value of food comes from fixing nitrogen, not carbon uptake.

            Higher CO2 degrades the nutritive value of crops:

            “Higher CO2 tends to inhibit the ability of plants to make protein… And this explains why food quality seems to have been declining and will continue to decline as CO2 rises — because of this inhibition of nitrate conversion into protein…. “It’s going to be fairly universal that we’ll be struggling with trying to sustain food quality and it’s not just protein… it’s also micronutrients such as zinc and iron that suffer as well as protein.”-– University of California at Davis Professor Arnold J. Bloom, on Yale Climate Connections 10/7/14

          3. Bernd Felsche

            Bernd: The nutritional value of food comes from fixing nitrogen, not carbon uptake.

            That’s your response to

            So how does the food get to your plate?

            Which was asked in response to your assertion that

            Breathing is carbon neutral.

            Do you expect us to fall for “Look!… Unicorns!”?

      2. AndyG55

        That computer of his, and the heating and cooling for his Grandma’s basement..

        He should probably wean himself off them as well….

        ….if he wasn’t a total HYPOCRITE !!

    2. AndyG55

      “There is no cooling in our future until our emissions of GHGs cease.”

      If you were capable of feeling embarrassment, you are in for a world of it.

      But your posts show that you are not capable of feeling embarrassment.

      1. David Appell

        I’m not embarrassed. I know the science, and its implications.

    3. David Smith

      Isn’t it odd how total thermageddon is always just around the corner but never happens e.g.”we only have x years to save the planet” (pick any value for x that you like.)
      Where are the 50 million climate refugees? When is the imminent collapse in food production supposed to occur? Because food production levels are rising just fine right now.
      When is Wadhams going to stop pushing the date of “polar ice collapse” forward into the future each time his last prediction failed to occur?
      When are sea levels going to start rising catastrophically? The current rise of a risible 3mm/year is not really worrying anyone. 30cm in 100 years – who cares?
      You can bleat about people not being allowed to comment unless they have published a climsci paper in a scientific journal, but I don’t need to have produced something for Nature to include in one of their editions to realise that the science is alarmist nonsense. If someone wrote a paper claiming the moon was made of cheese would you believe it just ’cause it got published in a journal?
      I like reading your comments David, as they make me laugh. So please don’t stop typing on that computer of yours made out of fossil-fuel derived plastic…

      1. AndyG55

        “The current rise of a risible 3mm/year ”

        Actually , it more like 1 – 1.5mm/years.

        It appears the satellites are referencing to a geodetic region that is actually sinking by some 1.5-2mm/year.

        The tide gauges are correct, and while there are outliers at either end because of land movement, the mean is around 1-1.5mm/year.. SCARY , hey ! 🙂

        1. David Appell

          Local sea level change is, of course, exactly what one needs to know about sea level change.

          1. AndyG55

            Local sea level change here is around 0.65mm/year.

            Unlike you.. I am not panicking !!! 🙂

          2. David Appell

            Sea level varies with local characteristics, of course. In the western Pacific it’s been increasing ~ 10 mm/yr.

    4. David Dilley

      Appears you didn’t watch my full video on NoTricksZone called “is climate change dangerous”.
      1. It shows the rapid cooling in the Arctic and Antarctic….not the
      warming you are professing.
      2. Also appears you did not read my article about the coercing that the
      University of Maine has done.
      4. Also appears that you do not believe government strong arming does
      not exist, like it did with Dr. Hansen
      5. Why is it that just about all news releases by NOAA are politically
      written about how hot it is… they should just be stating the
      facts and not cherry picking data to prove something that did not
      6. Why is it that Great Britain’s Met Dept. had to call NOAA out
      about saying 2014 was the hottest year on record…because it was
      a lie of course.
      7. Why is it that no individuals within NOAA are talking about the
      climate … it is only political news releases for agendas
      9. Why is it that you never see a TV meteorologist discuss Climate
      10. And most importantly … why are you not presenting facts that
      support continued global cooling… probably because there are none
      11. Why are so many places in the northern and southern hemisphere
      now experiencing their coldest summers in 20 to 50 years, and or
      in southern hemisphere colder weather.

      1. David Appell

        I’ll read your stuff when it appears in a quality peer reviewed quality.

        Why aren’t you submitting your Earth-shaking conclusions to them?

      2. David Appell

        David Dilley wrote:
        “It shows the rapid cooling in the Arctic and Antarctic….not the
        warming you are professing.”

        What are your data sources?? The graphic above doesn’t give any.

        The surface and (esp) the ocean have been warming fast, according to a host of datasets.

        UAH’s data shows the last 10 years of the lower troposphere above the Arctic (60N-85N) are +0.19 C warmer than the previous 10 years.

        They show the last 10 years of the LT above the Antarctic (60S-85S) have cooled by all of…. 0.02 C.

        And no reconstructions show a globally warm medieval period, as your graph above shows. Again, what are your data sources?

        1. David Appell

          Why won’t David Dilley tell us his data sources?

          That is the first, most necessary thing to any scientific claim.

          Why is Dilley hiding them?

          And why am I the only one here who noticed, and cares?

          1. David Appell

            Still wondering why David Dilley is hiding his data sources….

    5. nightspore

      Where I am I’ve already witnessed cooling over the last several years. And it’s because the North Atlantic has cooled (much like it did in the 50’s, although this time the decline seems more dramatic).

  19. Mauri Ses. - Italy

    GHGs have nothing to do with climate. Period.

    1. Hugh

      Like H20 has nothing to do with climate? 😀

      1. mauri ses. italy

        Like CO2 has nothing to do with climate… change! 😉

    2. Howard R. Hamilton

      Actually, GHG provide the buffer that prevents temperature extremes like you will find on the ISS surfaces or the moon.

    3. David Appell

      “GHGs have nothing to do with climate. Period.”

      So do you think GHGs don’t absorb infrared radiation, or do you think the Earth doesn’t emit any?

      1. Mauri Ses. - Italy

        So do you think GHGs don’t absorb infrared radiation, or do you think the Earth doesn’t emit any?

        1. Mauri Ses. - Italy

          I just don’t think that GHGs have nothing to do with climate…change!

          1. David Appell

            Then you’re wrong. Everyone else is well aware than GHGs affect climate.

          2. AndyG55

            The effect of CO2 is miniscule !!

            In fact, since the 1997-2001 El Nino/La Nina added about 0.26C to atmospheric temperatures, there is ABSOLUTELY NO CO2 WARMING SIGNATURE in the whole of the reliable, un-tampered satellite temperature record.

            So little effect, as to be NONE !!

  20. Boyfromtottenham

    Hi from Oz. Several years ago I searched for ‘sunspots’ on the Australian Bureau of Meteorology website, and got the response ‘the Bureau does not keep data on sunspots as there is no evidence that they affect climate’, or something very similar. As a former radio amateur, I am we’ll acquainted with the effect that sunspots (or at least the EM radiation that corresponds to them) have on radio propagation, and this extraordinary statement caused me to look further into the whole AGW story. I have been deeply skeptical of the AGW story ever since.

    1. David Appell

      Because sunspots affect radio waves does not mean they affect climate.

      1. Bernd Felsche

        Sunspots, like e.g. ENSO, are a symptom of variability; not drivers. They constitute signs of variability.

        Sunspots have been “meausred” for many centuries and correlated with e.g. crop yields; crop yields depending on long-term weather conditions. The results of changes in solar activity evident through sunspots are far more significant and “predictable” than the changes in CO2 levels; the latter having risen substantially over the past ca. 18 years without any correlated rise in near-surface global average atmospheric temperature.

  21. global warming, nothing but a scam of the left … | pindanpost

    […] Jonova adds the context: Pierre Gosslin has a great post: Former NOAA Meteorologist Says Employees “Were Cautioned Not To Talk About Natural Cycles”. […]

  22. Gross Suppression Of Science …Former NOAA Meteorologist Says Employees “Were Cautioned Not To Talk About Natural Cycles” | wchildblog

    […] From NoTricksZone, bAug 2015 […]

  23. Paul Vaughan

    100% guaranteed this distorts 101-level sun-climate relations:

    Since the release of ERSSTv4 anyone trusting NOAA on climate change is a naive fool who won’t get any sympathy or leniency from me. Whether it’s ignorance or deception it’s dark and it’s devilish and it’s due to be fired without mercy.

    1. David Appell

      How do you feel about the recent adjustments made by UAH — which were about 3 times larger than NOAA’s?

  24. Peter Wells

    In a previous post I indicated that the NASA Solar Physics website had not update their solar cycle charts since March, a fact that I check prior to posting. Two days later I see that an update has taken place.
    We are now into the lowest solar cycle in 100 years. This past February was reported in the news in March as the coldest February in Canada in 115 years.
    The earth does not cool equally. Cooling is greatest toward the poles. Ice age glaciers were pretty much limited to beyond the 40th parallel except in higher elevations where even today there is snow near the equator.

  25. Felix

    How long and when did Dilley actually work for NOAA? From his webpage it seems he left in 1992.

    Of course NOAA scientists routinely study nature climate cycles. Dilley’s claim is that “climate change is the combination of the elliptical paths of the moon and earth, changes in solar radiation and changes in the gravitational pulses and electromagnetic pulses.” He also claims he can predict earthquakes and hurricane seasons years ahead. So, he is an obvious crackpot.

    1. David Dilley

      Felix….II have over 40 years of experience and research. Believe this would make me an expert, not a crackpot. Can you back up your assertions? I can backup my predictions and research!

      1. AndyG55

        David, you have to realise that now you have put yourself forward, the alarmista cult members will fight back with the only weapon they have… slime.

      2. Felix

        Well, you dodged my question. That’s a telltale sign of being a crackpot. Not publishing in professional journals is another. You are probably a nice guy and I wish you well, but you are clearly a crackpot.

        1. David Dilley

          Felix… I run a private business and do not receive grants to publish. Universities live on grants and are paid to publish. As a private business we create and research so we can put forth new forecast techniques. As I said, a private business so we do require keeping some of our research private and I have been very generous in proving information to the public…of which I did not have to. So our publishing is via Ebooks for the public, public lectures and sharing some data on sites such as NoTricksZone.

          If you give a the same grant money as many universities receive…I will gladly publish some of our secret data. We are a different organization than governments and universities, but have provided very beneficial information publicly, free of charge. If you have problems with free of charge, then give me a grant.

          And by the way…my video “is climate change dangerous”. my EBook “Earth’s Natural Climate Pulse”, and my article on this site are ALL Published.

      3. David Appell

        “climate change is the combination of…changes in the gravitational pulses…”

        What does that even mean?

        Just what do you think is pulsing gravitationally???

        1. Bernd Felsche

          It seems that you’ve not been paying attention in class, Mr Appell. Watch the video again.

    2. Paul Vaughan

      Felix, there’s hard proof that NOAA is corrupting the record of natural oscillations:

      If you want to verify that remarkably trivial fact for yourself, brace yourself because you’ll need the following skills:
      1. ability to subtract one column of numbers from another in a spreadsheet.

      That’s it. Literally. No further skill is needed to verify the dead simple fact.

      Are you willing to bluntly call NOAA out on this blatant unethical distortion of recorded nature??

      So far they have not even acknowledged the fatal error. They’ve been informed of it and admitted nothing. It takes mere seconds to verify the fatal error, so they’re unnecessarily accruing additional reputation damage by not retracting corrupted v4 without delay.

      These people are due for a firm lesson on integrity and the community is remiss if we don’t vigilantly see it through all the way to completion. I advise the community to organize for this historic event. It’s a 100% guaranteed success.

      It’s so clear-cut and simple they’ll only succeed in evading correction if the community relents, so I would advise them that if their aim is to continue facing this deviously their best option is to pay off climate blog hosts to not report the fatal error. (They don’t need to worry about MSM because MSM & MSM audience don’t have a clue about how to interpret the simple graph.)

      Because the fatal error is so simple and so effortlessly verified, NOAA’s delays in admitting the fatal error and promptly retracting v4 are scandalous. One gets the impression they’re delaying until after the upcoming climate talks, but the negative impact on their reputation is more severe this way. Delaying was a short-sighted, ill-advised choice. It’s guaranteed to harden and mature the cynicism directed their way and they’ll never be able to recover from that.

      It’s clear that their leaders are choosing hubris and blunt force over integrity, so that narrows the range of viable counter-strategies. We know with 100% certainly that they aren’t playing fair in response to a dead simple, effortlessly verified, 100% administratively defensible grievance, so again: that narrows the range of viable counter-strategies that are sensibly applicable in dealing with this particular adversary. It’s pretty creepy. It’s crystal clear that the circumstance demands a high office firing (it’s not the muzzled workers’ fault) and we have to settle for no less since the offense is so over-the-top in-your-face hostile & egregious.

      I recommend that someone check into their whistle-blower protection rules. No doubt there are good people of integrity on the inside who are incredibly frustrated with their fatally naive &/or incompetent “leadership”. Some of them might want to report the failure formally, but I can’t imagine it being safe for them to do so given the darkly devilish indicators we’re seeing in clear focus.

      1. David Appell

        Raw data are input into a data model to correct for known biases; an accurate and consistent time series is the result.

        How would you correct for those biases, Paul?

        1. Bernd Felsche

          Raw data are input into a data model to correct for known biases

          … as determined by the Ministry of Climate Truth but with no physical basis.

          an accurate and consistent time series

          Like a soufflé; it’s up to the chefs to define the recipe and the Cooks to spoil. The result may taste nothing like any of the original ingredients but it pleases the crowd.

  26. Robert H

    As a layperson and very much so, I have to ponder the following in trying to sort out climate matters (1) despite what I read here solar cycles, ice ages etc. are considered by the IPCC (2) contrary to what David Tilley and others write , the globe has warmed significantly in the last 20 years ; the situation is that less of the heat is going into the surface and more into the oceans – such global warming for that period is very clearly shown by the continued and faster rise in sea level that occurred (3) David Tilley has published nothing in the science journals despite his long research career.

    1. Paul Vaughan

      Robert, there has been a thoroughly saturating amount of misleading brainwashing about sun-climate relations. The brainwashing is (deliberately or accidentally) based on false assumptions that harshly fail careful diagnostics. Top so-called “experts” have been devilishly shameless policing beliefs. It’s downright creepy.

      The way the strategy works is they hold up a story about how they say sun-climate relations are supposed to work. It’s a straw man argument, because careful diagnostics on observations clearly indicate that the narrative is based on false assumptions. They kill the straw man and declare sun-climate relations “tiny” (“0.1 degrees Celsius per solar cycle” is the way they tell their story). They pretend that the narrative isn’t based on false assumptions (notably static uniformity, which they’ll deny) and they apply militant thought policing and relentless merciless hostile bullying tactics to coerce blog commentators into line with their false-assumption-based narrative (or at least into silence).

      Given that the campaign is based on shamelessly false assumptions that fail elementary observation-based diagnostics, it’s of historical significance how vulnerable the online climate discussion community has been to the militant sun-climate thought policing campaign.

      Pushing aside the false-assumption-based (dead straw man) brainwashing campaign, here’s what observations actually show:

      Multivariate sun-climate attractor identified by constraining aggregation with laws of:
      A. large numbers.
      B. conservation of angular momentum.

      The vital information needed to deduce all of that was leaked visually by way of illustration (but mentioned nowhere in the accompanying text) by Dickey & Keppenne (NASA JPL 1997). (See figures 3a & 3b.)

      From the starting point exposed by Dickey & Keppenne, it’s just a trivial exercise in geometry: intersection of a family of straight lines with a single curved line in phase space, affording an effortless generalized solution.

      Surface sampling occurs at a cross-section of air-sea interactions. The phase error of the attractor estimated in this manner is what we know as interannual variations, for example notably ENSO in the case of surface temperatures.

      Thusfar few have adequately appreciated the significance and implications of Dickey & Keppenne’s seminal work.

  27. jipebe29

    Two lectures by Pr François Gervais and Pr Weiss, about climate cycles (1000, 230 and 60 years):

  28. jipebe29

    “Climate: 22 Inconvenient Truths”:

    Not too bad, is’n’t it?

  29. “Suppressing the Truth – the Next Global Cooling Cycle” By David Dilley, former NOAA meteorologist | budbromley
  30. Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #194 | Watts Up With That?
  31. Divergence: climate predictions and “warmest year on record” versus observable reality | Atlas Monitor
  32. Paul Vaughan

    I’ve posted a kindergarten-level cookbook recipe to help people detect NOAA’s corruption of the natural record firsthand:

    This isn’t something esoteric. On the contrary it’s clear cut, simple, immediately tangible, and within full local control. Anyone who can subtract one column of numbers from another in a spreadsheet can fingerprint NOAA’s corruption of the natural record firsthand.

    I’m going to suggest that all community members have a responsibility to pursue this dead simple exercise that shines a bright light exposing taxpayer-funded corruption of the natural record.

    1. David Appell

      Paul: Are you aware the adjusted temperatures LOWER the long-term warming trend?

      1. Paul Vaughan

        David, are you suggesting that a manipulated globally averaged trend makes it ok that natural spatiotemporal features of the record have been corrupted??

        I hope not …because that’s the kind of rationale I would expect from someone who’s part of the problem (letting a political agenda eclipse devotion to sound nature exploration) rather than part of the solution.

        Sound exploration of nature demands that natural spatiotemporal features of the record be left intact (rather than systematically corrupted by devilishly dark agents of ignorance &/or deception).

  33. NOAA Meteorologist: Politics and Money Drive Global Warming Hysteria | The Penn Ave Post

    […] Hinderaker) David Dilley has been a meteorologist for 40 years, 20 of which he spent with NOAA. At NoTricksZone, he writes about how government money and political pressure have distorted climate research: For […]

  34. NOAA Meteorologist: Politics and Money Drive Global Warming Hysteria | Western Free Press

    […] Dilley has been a meteorologist for 40 years, 20 of which he spent with NOAA. At NoTricksZone, he writes about how government money and political pressure have distorted climate […]

  35. Evan Jones

    Excellent article. They can’t touch me, though. Our work on surface stations (me, Anthony Watts, John Christy, and John Nielsen-Gammon) is entirely unfunded. We find that Tmean land surface trends are spuriously exaggerated by 60% to 100% from bad siting (moreso to Tmin trends), with a kick upward from equipment (CRS units carry their own heat sink around on their backs, leading to a spuriously and staggeringly high Tmax trend). That not only casts current LST trends into serious question, but the whole pre-MMTS record, as well).

    This will notch overall warming trend down by perhaps ~15% (as land surface is only ~30% of the globe.

    FWIW, in terms of actual studies, I think funding is overrated. A liberal application of good old elbow grease proves an extremely satisfactory proxy.

    1. David A

      Good and interesting comment Evan. However I caution you to not accept the overall trend reduction as adequate, as continues changes to the past have altered the record far more. The removal of the 1940s blip in and of itself is massive, and the .01 degree cooling of the past continues today, month after month, with no explanations even offered.

  36. arationofreason

    Apparently the admonition to NOAA employees was effective.
    “And it is common knowledge that United States government employees within NOAA were cautioned not to talk about natural cycles.” – See more at:

    The ARGO ocean volume temperature/energy measurement world wide buoy system is a NOAA flagship technology which they continue to extol its technology on the internet and press releases. They mention as have all other warmist scientists on the subject that the great energy collection (93%) will show the global warming numbers.
    They even go so far as to mention that ARGO shows continual global warming found in the oceans.
    Try searching the net for a discussion of the measurement quantity found. The data was analyzed by Levitus et al in 2012. The number when converted to the familiar global heating units used by CO2 proponents is in average watts/m^2 of earth surface. The ARGO data shows this number to be 0.4 watts/m^2 LESS than 1/10 of the power required to reach the vaunted IPCC ‘projection’ of 3 C per century.
    Even NOAA who should be proud of their technological achievement fails to mention this embarrassing detail in any of their public statements.
    Warming alarmists who want to try to take advantage of the data leave it in Jouls/decade giving them numbers in the 100’s of gigajoules. They never mention this actual low power figure except in their favorite calibration units of 2 atomic bombs / sec.
    I think this is a prime example of just how deep the cover up has penetrated into our government and academic labs.

  37. Regan

    Great article Mr.Dilley, Global Cooling is defiantly among us and humanity needs too prepare for the upcoming weather change. I was hoping you would have some more in depth information on weather forecast for specific location across the globe during global cooling or at least point me in the right direction. I cant seem to find much information for specific location to live during global cooling. Thanks Mr. Dilley.


    […] Dilley has been a meteorologist for 40 years, 20 of which he spent with NOAA. At NoTricksZone, he writes about how government money and political pressure have distorted climate […]


    […] Dilley has been a meteorologist for 40 years, 20 of which he spent with NOAA. At NoTricksZone, he writes about how government money and political pressure have distorted climate […]

  40. Schockierende Wetterwarnung: Kältester Winter seit 50 Jahren soll monatelange heftige Schneefälle und Kälte nach Großbritannien bringen! | wobleibtdieglobaleerwaermung