Australian scientists ordered to stop deleting cold temperature data as part of climate change "fake science" narrative

Image: Australian scientists ordered to stop deleting cold temperature data as part of climate change “fake science” narrativeImage: Australian scientists ordered to stop deleting cold temperature data as part of climate change “fake science” narrative

(Natural News)
The conviction that global warming is “settled science” has become firmly established in the American consciousness. Truth be told, around the globe, those who do not accept catastrophic man-made global warming as fact are viewed as pariahs, delusional, out of touch with reality, perhaps even not in full possession of their mental faculties. After all, scientists from around the world have proved that climate change is a massive problem and our planet is headed down the path to destruction, right? Well, no, actually.

Though there are many scientists who do preach the religion of global warming, there are many, many others who do not. And, even those who insist that the data proves climate change should not necessarily be believed. An excellent example of this recently emerged in Australia, where temperature readings suddenly plunged after the Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) ordered an end to “tampering.”

Climate Depot is reporting that after the BoM began investigating temperatures recorded at weather stations in Australia, they determined that there were a number of cold weather stations that were not “fit to purpose,” and which would need to be replaced. At the Thredbo Station, for example, very low temperatures were somehow mysteriously not making it into the official record. After making changes to ensure that the station is now “fit to purpose,” recorded temperatures have suddenly dropped below -10°C (14°F), after showing readings of around -9.6°C in June and July.

The BoM was alerted to possible irregularities at the station by Lance Pigeon, an employee who claimed to have seen a -10.4°C reading on the BoM’s website change to -10°C and then disappear entirely. (Related: Discover what else they’re hiding at

Though the BoM has tried to downplay the incident and insist that these adjustments were just part of quality control measures, Climate Depot notes:

[B]ureau chief executive Andrew Johnson later told Environment Minister Josh­ Frydenberg that investigations had found a number of cold-weather stations were not “fit for purpose” and would be replaced.

The BoM has admitted that, in addition to Goulburn and Thredbo Top, stations at Tuggeranong in the ACT, Butlers Gorge and Fingal in Tasmania and Mount Baw Baw in Victoria would be replace­d.

Media sources have reported that electronic smart cards were fitted at some of the BoM weather stations which would automatically limit how low temperatures could drop in the readings.

Dr. Jennifer Marohasy, a scientist at Thredbo Top station who personally saw a reading of -10.6°C disappear from the record, stressed that this was no technical error or equipment failure.

Dr. Marohasy noted on her website, “To be clear, the problem is not with the equipment; all that needs to be done is for the smart-card readers to be removed. So that after the automatic weather stations measure the correct­ temperature, this temp­erature can be brought forward firstly into the daily weather observation sheet and subsequently into the CDO (climate data online) dataset.” (Related: Over 30,000 scientists say catastrophic man-made global warming is a complete hoax and science lie.)

This is by no means an isolated example of inaccurate research “proving” the global warming theory.

In 2016, the Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy (CCEP), affiliated with both the London School of Economics and the University of Leeds in Britain, was caught stealing millions in taxpayer dollars to produce phony global warming data. A paper produced by the CCEP, known as the Stern Review, was very influential in shaping global warming policy in the U.K. Now, the report’s contents and conclusions have come under serious scrutiny.

There are many more instances of serious tampering with the so-called “evidence” proving man-made global warming. It is now more important than ever before to find reputable sources of trustworthy scientific fact.

Sources include:



Source Article from

Climate scientists continue to sound the alarm: Global warming fueled record temperatures in 2016

The evidence behind global climate change continues to mount, and scientists keep speaking out. Now they hope the world will listen.

The latest international climate report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) confirms that 2016 was the third consecutive year of record global heat.

On Thursday afternoon the American Meteorological Society published the 27th annual “State of the Climate” report, which verifies last year surpassed 2015 as the hottest since record keeping began in 1880.

Based on preliminary data, NASA and NOOA had made the same assessment back in January, but this week’s report is considered definitive.

“We’re scientists, and we’re providing objective information,” Jessica Blunden, a climate scientist at NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C., told Yahoo News. “We don’t go into policy, but we provide the information for people who want to go further with that.”

According to the report, the effect of long-term global warming and a powerful El Niño early on pushed 2016 into record-setting warmth. The global average sea level reached a new record high last year as well, to 3.25 inches above the average level in 1993, which marks the beginning of the satellite altimeter record.

Scientists also said that the average Arctic land surface temperature continued to warm and global ice and snow cover continued to decline. Sea ice extents in the Antarctic hit record daily and monthly lows in August and November.

The “State of the Climate” report is based on contributions from nearly 500 scientists from more than 60 countries, using tens of thousands of measurements from several independent data sets. This summary of the global climate confirms data released on Jan. 18 based on analyses from scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York.

Blunden said the use of additional independent data sets distinguishes this report from what came before.

“The big difference in this report is we don’t just look at NOAA data. There are about four different independent data sets we looked at to come to this conclusion,” Blunden told Yahoo News. “It’s not just NOAA who is agreeing with it. NASA, the U.K. Met Office and the Japan Meteorological Agency are agreeing.”

Since the previous data was released mere days before President Trump’s inauguration, this peer-reviewed report is the most thorough assessment of climate change officially released during the Trump era.

Deke Arndt, chief of the climate-monitoring branch at NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information, described the report as diagnostic when asked if anyone from the White House had weighed in on it or questioned its findings.

“This report is a diagnostic report. It basically diagnoses what is happening in the climate system,” Arndt said on a conference call. “It’s intended to provide intelligence to those sort of decision makers that you’re talking about.”

Concentrations of major greenhouse gases in the atmosphere also reached to new highs in 2016. For instance, the global average concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2), the primary driver of anthropogenic climate change, in the atmosphere reached 402.9 parts per million (ppm). This was the first time on record that CO2 concentration exceeded 400 ppm. The consensus of climate scientists is that the maximum safe level is 350.

Read more from Yahoo News:

Source Article from

Scientists Discover Massive Fish That Literally Weighs A Ton (Or More)

Scientists just found a new fish species after it avoided them for centuries.

Credit: Hiroya Minakuchi/Minden Pictures/Corbis

While sharks and stingrays are often touted as the biggest fish in the sea, their bodies are composed of cartilage and not, surprisingly, the biggest bony fish in the world. That title belongs to the Mola genus of fish, which can reach up to 5,000 pounds, well over two tons. The commonly known Mola Mola, which is also known as an ocean sunfish, was first described in 1758 by Linnaeus, but another species of Mola that was recently discovered is the Mola tecta.

The Mola tecta is also called the hoodwinker sunfish and was discovered after a 4-year search led by Marianne Nyegaard, a Ph.D. student from Murdoch University in Western Australia. Nyegaard originally analyzed 150 DNA samples from sunfish and found that there were four species but only three had been discovered.

Credit: Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division

“Finding these fish and storing specimens for studies is a logistical nightmare due to their elusive nature and enormous size, so sunfish research is difficult at the best of times,” she said, in a statement. “Early on, when I was asked if I would be bringing my own crane to receive a specimen, I knew I was in for a challenging – but awesome – adventure.”

She and a team of researchers and divers set out to find this mysterious fourth species that had never before been identified despite first being put on the radar by Japanese researchers in Australian water about 10 years ago. The researchers at the time had found genetic evidence of a fourth species, but the creature had not yet been found.

Credit: Marianne Nyegaard

This new team went based off of international tips in pursuing genetic evidence in areas where sunfish are found, and in one lucky instance they were made aware of four sunfish that had washed up on the beach in New Zealand. The tip came from a nearby fishery, and research teams from universities all over the world flew in to take samples. What they all confirmed is that these sunfish were indeed members of the elusive species they had been searching for.

“The new species managed to evade discovery for nearly three centuries by ‘hiding’ in a messy history of sunfish taxonomy, partially because they are so difficult to preserve and study, even for natural history museums,” said Nyegaard.

“That is why we named it Mola tecta (the Hoodwinker Sunfish), derived from the Latin tectus, meaning disguised or hidden.”

Credit: Marianne Nyegaard

Biologists studied the characteristics of this new sunfish species, the first to be discovered within the Mola genus in over 130 years, and found a few differences. The hoodwinker sunfish has a slimmer and sleeker adult body shape and doesn’t develop lumps, bumps, or a snout, like other sunfish, according to the team’s paper published in the Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society. The hoodwinker sunfish is smaller when compared to the more common Mola mola, but can still grow to be a length of 2.5 meters.

Their first discovery of the Mola tecta was groundbreaking because from then on the researchers knew what to look for. They have since been spotted in colder parts of the Southern Hemisphere. We’ve found them all around New Zealand (mostly around the South Island), off Tasmania, South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales (Australia), South Africa and southern Chile.

Credit: César Villarroel, ExploraSub

Sunfish aren’t particularly rare, but studying them has proven to be more difficult than anticipated because of their location and movements. They tend to live solely in areas that humans don’t visit too often and they dive hundreds of meters just to feed. Although they don’t need air like sea mammals, they also tend to surface often to bask in the sun and invite sea birds to pick the many parasites off their bodies. Now that researchers have finally confirmed the existence and wide presence of the fourth sunfish, they can rest easy and excitedly learn even more about this elusive fish.

True Activist / Report a typo


Do you like our independent & investigative news? Then please check these two settings on Facebook to guarantee you don’t miss our posts:




window._taboola = window._taboola || [];
mode: ‘TA-G1-Below-Content’,
container: ‘taboola-below-article-thumbnails’,
placement: ‘Below Article Thumbnails’,
target_type: ‘mix’


Source Article from

Scientists Cross Hurdle in Growing Pig Organs for Human Transplant

For many years, some members of the scientific community have been absolutely engrossed in trying to solve one of the biggest health conundrums in the United States: how to get more people to donate their organs. And if that can’t happen on a grand scale, well, scientists are turning to cloned pigs for organs.

In 2016, there were just 33,600 organ transplants, while there were 116,800 patients on transplant waiting lists. Since you can’t force people to become organ donors, scientists figure the only other option is to look elsewhere for organs. Now, through gene-editing and cloned some pigs, scientists have come a step closer to solving the problem, but the process is risky. [1]

You can’t transplant pig organs into humans because the body would assuredly reject them. There is also a concern that pig retroviruses could spread to human cells. With the help of pig cloning and CRISPR-Cas9 gene-editing technology, researchers have been able to solve the latter problem. [2]

The CRISPR-Cas9 is a medical and scientific advancement like no other that holds the potential to eradicate genetic diseases and create transplantable organs for humans. However, the technology is still relatively new and hasn’t been around long enough for scientists to know if gene-editing could cause serious, irreversible damage to animals and the environment.

(One recent study by researchers at Columbia University found that while CRISPR-Cas9 did correct blindness in mice, using the technique also resulted in unintentional mutations in more than 1,000 other genes.)

Humans, Organs, and Pigs

Researchers took cells from the pigs, then snipped the viral DNA from their genomes using CRISPR technology. [1]

Each pig cell was restored to its earliest developmental stage and then placed in an egg, giving it the genetic material to allow the egg to develop into an embryo. The embryos, now genetically identical to the pig that supplied the initial cell, were implanted in sows, who eventually gave birth to the piglets.

Read: Scientists Create Human-Pig Embryo for Transplant Research

Most of the cloned piglets died shortly after birth, but 15 of them lived, and the oldest is now 4 months old. Scientists will monitor the genetically-modified piglets throughout their lives looking for any long-term adverse effects from the procedure.

Pigs are considered one of the “best” viable sources for organ transplants for humans because their organs are similar in size. Studies have looked specifically at the possibility of transplanting swine hearts, kidneys, livers, and lungs into human patients. [2]

Dixon Kaufman, president-elect of the American Society of Transplant Surgeons and a transplant surgeon at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, believes kidneys and pancreases will be the first animal organs to be transplanted into humans.

Humans can live without a pancreas and can survive with only 1 working kidney, so if the body were to reject the organs, someone who needs a kidney could still receive dialysis, and someone who needed a pancreas could still receive insulin. [3]

Read: Mouse Pancreas Grown in GMO Rats Reverses Diabetes in Mice

To many patients facing suffering and death, receiving a genetically-modified pig organ probably doesn’t sound much more life-threatening than not finding a human donor.

But it could be.

Kaufman said:

“The field is inherently sort of risky to begin with, and I think a lot of patients have already processed that. I tell patients in the grand design we were not meant to swap body parts between ourselves.”

The pig experiments were conducted by scientists from eGenesis, a company based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and is detailed in the journal Science.


[1] The New York Times

[2] Reuters

[3] Newsweek

Storable FoodStorable Food

About Julie Fidler:

Author ImageAuthor Image

Julie Fidler is a freelance writer, legal blogger, and the author of Adventures in Holy Matrimony: For Better or the Absolute Worst. She lives in Pennsylvania with her husband and two ridiculously spoiled cats. She occasionally pontificates on her blog.

Source Article from

Huge backlash against gene editing of human embryos as scientists decry ethical quagmire of "designer babies"

Image: Huge backlash against gene editing of human embryos as scientists decry ethical quagmire of “designer babies”Image: Huge backlash against gene editing of human embryos as scientists decry ethical quagmire of “designer babies”

(Natural News)
For several years now, there has been a vigorous and ongoing debate in this country regarding the ethics of gene editing on human embryos. While many people argue that the practice will lead to incredible advancements in technology and could even one day save lives, others decry gene editing as an immoral procedure that humans should not be experimenting with. Regardless of which side of the debate you find yourself on, one thing that we know for a fact is that scientists are beginning to come out in opposition to gene modification, which they say should only be taking place inside of laboratories for the time being.

Recent technological achievements have allowed us to tap into an embryo’s DNA code and “fix” whatever health problems they may experience in the future, from fibrosis to breast cancer. It is a process similar to hacking into a computer and modifying the coding to prevent it from getting viruses. But while this technology may be an incredible breakthrough for science and biology, some scientists have very real concerns. (Related: Genetically modified humans are now a reality in China.)

According to a statement made by international experts that was published in the American Journal of Human Genetics, work on gene modification technology should continue, but not on embryos that are to be implanted in the womb, a practice that is illegal in both the United States and in the United Kingdom.

The experts went on to warn the scientific community against “playing God” in an effort to create a society with only the “best children” science can create. Indeed, there is a strong argument to be made that says that human beings should not be going out of our way to make an impact on the natural order of things. Humans were created a certain way for a reason, and it is not our place to change or alter it.

The statement concludes: “At this time, given the nature and number of unanswered scientific, ethical and policy questions, it is inappropriate to perform germline gene editing that culminates in human pregnancy.”

Although the debate over gene editing and modification is relatively new, the importance of maintaining a sense of morality is something that has been discussed since the birth of our country. The Founding Fathers made it explicitly clear that the Constitution was written for a moral people, and that once those ethical standards start to erode, so too will the Constitution and all of society. That is why it is so important that we as a country always strive to do the right thing, not just on an individual basis, but also with regards to the law and legislation coming out of Washington DC.

But when it comes to gene editing, it’s not just issues of morality that people are concerned about. According to a 2015 article published in The Telegraph, British scientists were among 150 experts who made a unified call to end the practice of genetic editing on embryos, claiming that it would “irrevocably alter the human species.”

“Permitting germline intervention for any intended purpose would open the door to an era of high-tech consumer eugenics in which affluent parents seek to choose socially preferred qualities for their children,” the scientists explained. “The implementation of heritable human genetic modification could irrevocably alter the nature of the human species and society. Experiments could lead to miscarriage, maternal injury and stillbirth. Genetically modified children who seem healthy at birth could develop serious problems later in life. We must not engineer the genes we pass on to our descendants.”

Between the moral issues and the potential health risks, gene editing on embryos is not something that we should be experimenting with. Human beings are not God, so why should we pretend to be?

Sources include:



Source Article from

Big Pharma’s toxic drugs will kill over 45,000% more people than global warming by the year 2100, scientists discover … Media SILENT

Image: Big Pharma’s toxic drugs will kill over 45,000% more people than global warming by the year 2100, scientists discover … Media SILENTImage: Big Pharma’s toxic drugs will kill over 45,000% more people than global warming by the year 2100, scientists discover … Media SILENT

(Natural News)
A study by researchers from the University of North Carolina (UNC) at Chapel Hill has sent shock-waves across the globe with its finding that over 260,000 people will die prematurely by the year 2100 because of air pollution triggered by global warming. The “catastrophic man-made global warming” alarmists love these kinds of studies, of course, because they reinforce their doomsday predictions. However, even if these researchers’ alarming findings are 100 percent reliable (and there is enough conflicting evidence out there to make that highly unlikely), even a quarter of a million people would be a drop in the ocean compared to the number of people that Big Pharma will likely kill by 2100. More on that later.

The UNC researchers reached their alarming conclusions after analyzing data from the globe’s top climate change modeling groups. Well, that already puts their findings on shaky ground, doesn’t it? (Related: The REAL FAKE NEWS exposed: ‘97% of scientists agree on climate change’ is an engineered hoax … Here’s what the media never told you.)

According to the Daily Mail, the researchers believe that hotter temperatures will cause an increase in the speed of the chemical reactions that cause air pollutants, and that as areas become increasingly drier, there will be less rain to remove these pollutants. These higher temperatures will also cause trees to emit more organic pollutants.

The study predicts that this toxic combination will result in killer smog that will kill 260,000 people across the globe (with the exception of Africa) by 2100.

The Mail reports:

The rise in toxic air pollution adds to other risk of death from climate change including heat stress, a lack of clean water and food, severe storms and the spread of infectious diseases.

The study was published in the Nature journal, Climate Change.

Of course, the mainstream media has been quick to jump all over this story, blasting readers with headlines like the Mail’s “Global warming will cause 260,000 premature deaths from air pollution by 2100, shocking study finds.” While that number does seem high, and it is true that pollution causes many deaths worldwide each year, there is a far more alarming number that the mainstream media has made no attempt to disclose: The number of deaths attributable to Big Pharma and its toxic chemicals.

The website has been shining a light on this disturbing number for some time now. It constantly updates real-time numbers of victims killed by Big Pharma in the U.S. and worldwide since January 1, 2000. Some of the numbers included are for deaths which are not directly attributable to the pharmaceutical companies, including things like medical error, hospital errors and hospital malnutrition.

Nonetheless, if we include only the figures for deaths which can directly be blamed on Big Pharma, a staggering 21,483,350 (at the time of writing) people died at their hands since 2000. That’s a mind-blowing average of 1,227,620 per year for the past 17.5 years.

Figures included were for deaths resulting from: Chemotherapy; adverse drug reactions; SSRIs; prescription drugs; non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; opioids; benzodiazepines; antidepressant overdoses; anti-epileptic and anti-Parkinsonism drugs; systemic and hematological drugs; antipsychotic and neuroleptic drugs; acetaminophen-related deaths; respiratory drugs; cardiovascular drugs; barbiturates; autonomic nervous system drugs; anesthetics and therapeutic gases; hormones, insulins and glucocorticoids; anti-infectives; diuretics and other drugs, medicaments and biological substances; and topical drugs.

Based on the aforementioned average, by the year 2100, 122,762,000 people will have been killed by Big Pharma – a number that is more than 45,000 percent higher than the number of people predicted to die from so-called global warming.

This begs the question: Why is the media silent? Who will speak for the millions who have died and will continue to die at the hands of the greedy pharmaceutical giants?

Sources include:



Source Article from

Sugar & depression: Scientists just found another worrying link


Lately, the science has really been stacking up evidence against consuming sugars in excess.

In addition to being linked to conditions like obesity, diabetes, inflammatory diseases, eating high levels of sugar has been associated with mental illnesses like depression. In a study published July 27 in Scientific Reports that followed over 8,000 adults over 22 years, researchers from University College London found that men who reported consuming foods that contained 67 grams of sugar per day or more were 23% more likely to be diagnosed with clinical depression after five years from when the study began.

For their work, researchers followed the a cohort called the Whitehall Study II, which tracked health and stress data for civil servants aged 35 to 55 in London beginning in 1985. Every few years, participants filled out surveys about their diets and other markers of health-including whether or not they had been clinically diagnosed with mental health conditions like depression and anxiety. Participants didn’t have any mental illnesses diagnosed to start, and researchers used their food questionnaires to estimate how much sugar each person was eating per day.

After the first five-year follow up, men who ate the most sugar, which the authors categorize as 67 grams or more per day-almost twice the amount of sugar intake recommended by the American Heart Association, and roughly three and a half regular sized Snickers bars-had higher rates of mental health diagnoses than those who ate less sugar, regardless of whether or not they were overweight. Even during years when participants reported eating less sugar, levels of mental illness stayed the same, which suggests that previous sugar habits had led to depression or anxiety and not the other way around. In this study, the relationship between sugar and mental illness wasn’t well-defined among women.

Anika Knuppel, a doctoral candidate in epidemiology at the University College London and lead author of the current paper, cautions that these studies can’t prove added sugar causes mental illness. Studies that follow self-reported health data over time are inherently flawed because even when participants have honest intentions, they have poor memories about what they eat. The only thing that could would be a randomized controlled study, which would be unethical to perform knowing the links between sugar and other health consequences, Knuppel says.

But there are theories as to how excess sugar may affect mental health. James Gangwisch, a psychologist at Columbia University who found a link between sugar and depression in postmenopausal women, has postulated that foods high in sugar that are easy to break down may cause our blood sugar to immediately rise, and then plummet. This crash puts a stress on the body, and it responds by releasing hormones like cortisol and adrenaline, which, over time may lead to anxiety or depression. Furthermore, animal research in rats has shown that diets high in fat and sugar can lead the brain to produce less of a protein called BDNF, which has been associated with anxiety and depression in humans, Knuppel says.

All this is to say that there isn’t proof that sugar causes mental illness, but that there is a growing amount of evidence that suggest that eating a lot of extra sugar has consequences that go far beyond our waistlines. It’s worth considering how much added sugar is in your own diet beyond what’s found naturally in foods like fruits, which don’t give us the same blood sugar spike that foods like candy do. The US Food and Drug Administration has mandated that all food labels include added sugars by July 26, 2018.

Source Article from

Congressman Stuns NASA Scientists – ‘A Civilization On Mars Thousands Of Years Ago’

hearing before the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology on Tuesday was interrupted when Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-California) requested additional time to ask the panel of scientists with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) if there was any evidence of archaic extraterrestrials living on the red planet.

You have indicated that Mars was totally different thousands of years ago,” said Rohrabacher, who is the vice chairman of the Science, Space and Technology Committee and a member of the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee since he first entered Congress in 1989.

“Is it possible that there was a civilization on Mars thousands of years ago?” he asked.

Source Article from