[Emphasis added] The government's National Climate Data Center in its report on US climate for March states, "the average temperature for the contiguous U.S. was near average (ranking the 63rd warmest)". What are they trying to tell us?

If you have any question about the degree of objectivity government scientists have in trying to support very costly emission control regulations that will have no discernible impact on climate, your doubts have just been confirmed in print.

Government scientists at the National Climate Data Center as supposed to be providing unbiased, objective information about climate and climate change. Yet their annual budget is dependent upon the degree of interest that climate holds with the public. And there's nothing like a scare-mongering scam to get that interest worked into a frenzy. Bottom line: The more the NCDC can support the Algorean (credit for the term goes to Paul Driessen) theory of human-caused climate catastrophy, the higher the annual budget for NCDC operations.

To gauge the mindset at the NCDC it is important to understand that they have been working diligently to try to create a false picture of climate trends by selectively finding ways to "demonstrate" that there is no urban heat-island effect that is biasing historic climate trends. In a Guest Commentary to be published tomorrow, the light is put to their schemes.

To have any suspicions about their bias illustrated requires little more than a glimpse at their current report on US temperatures during March 2008 in which they state, "the average temperature for the contiguous U.S. was near average (ranking the 63rd warmest)". Whoa! "The 63rd warmest"! Things must really be getting hot!

Ahhh ... wait a second. 63rd "warmest"? Out of how many years of observation? Oh, that little tidbit of information comes later, hidden in another paragraph down in the story when we find that we're talking about only 129 years of records. So they might just as well have written that last March was the 66th coldest March on record!

An objective report would have stated, "the average temperature for the contiguous U.S. ranked about average for the past 129 years of records." Characterizing it as the "63rd warmest" is yet another example of the pervasive bias in the handling of climate data by many US scientists whose job is dependent on the free flow of federal funding for "global warming" studies.

A disgraceful misuse of our tax dollars with the likely result that we'll all be severely penalized by future Congressional action to solve a non-existent problem (human-caused climate change).

Given their clear bias and self-serving funding interest, any reasonable person would view with suspicion their pronouncements about global climate data. It's clear that government scientists have a great deal more to gain by promoting the notion that humans are causing "catastrophic" climate change than any oil company has to gain by trying to debunk such notions.

More about the shenanigans at the NCDC tomorrow in a Guest Commentary by Dr. Joseph D'Aleo, PhD, Meteorology.  Source

Average user rating