Research Team Slams Global Warming Data In New Report

Snopes did a major study of this story and concluded it was false.

“Not Reality… Totally Inconsistent With Credible Temperature Data”

By Tyler Durdin, ZERO HEDGE

As world leaders, namely in the European Union, attack President Trump for pulling out of the Paris Climate Agreement which would have saddled Americans with billions upon billions of dollars in debt and economic losses, a new bombshell report that analyzed Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) data produced by NASA, the NOAA and HADLEY proves the President was right on target with his refusal to be a part of the new initiative.

According to the report, which has been peer reviewed by administrators, scientists and researchers from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (M.I.T.), and several of America’s leading universities, the data is completely bunk:

In this research report, the most important surface data adjustment issues are identified and past changes in the previously reported historical data are quantified. It was found that each new version of GAST has nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history. And, it was nearly always accomplished by systematically removing the previously existing cyclical temperature pattern. This was true for all three entities providing GAST data measurement, NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU.

As a result, this research sought to validate the current estimates of GAST using the best available relevant data. This included the best documented and understood data sets from the U.S. and elsewhere as well as global data from satellites that provide far more extensive global coverage and are not contaminated by bad siting and urbanization impacts. Satellite data integrity also benefits from having cross checks with Balloon data.

The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever –despite current claims of record setting warming.

Finally, since GAST data set validity is a necessary condition for EPA’s GHG/CO2 Endangerment Finding, it too is invalidated by these research findings. (Full Abstract Report)

Of course, this won’t stop global climate normalcy deniers from saying it’s all one big conspiracy to destroy the earth. They’ll naturally argue that data adjustments to the temperatures need to be made for a variety of reasons, which is something the report doesn’t dispute. What it does show, however, is that these “adjustments” always prove to be to the upside. Always warmer, never cooler:

 While the notion that some “adjustments” to historical data might need to be made is not challenged, logically it would be expected that such historical temperature data adjustments would sometimes raise these temperatures, and sometimes lower them. This situation would mean that the impact of such adjustments on the temperature trend line slope is uncertain. However, each new version of GAST has nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history.

In short: The evidence has been falsified.

Karl Denninger sums it up succinctly:

It is therefore quite-clear that the data has been intentionally tampered with.

Since this has formed the basis for plans to steal literal trillions of dollars and has already resulted in the forced extraction of hundreds of billions in aggregate for motorists and industry this quite-clearly constitutes the largest economic fraud ever perpetrated in the world.

I call for the indictment and prosecution of every person and organization involved, asset-stripping all of them to their literal underwear.

The real data looks something like this:

global-warming-data1

(Via ZeroHedge.com)

And the establishment, along with their fanatical global warming myrmidons, continue to push the need for massive, costly initiatives to reduce green house gases and global temperatures to “normal” levels.

The problem, of course, is that there is no global warming according to the above referenced report.

Moreover, none of those supporting the Paris Climate Agreement and other initiatives have any idea what these behemoth regulations will actually do to curb climate change, as evidenced by the following video of Miami Beach Mayor Philip Levine, who despite his best efforts, can’t seem to figure out exactly how these agreements actually lower temperatures and help Americans:

July 17, 2017 | 6 Comments »

Leave a Reply

6 Comments / 6 Comments

  4. “Snopes, Politifact, or any such publication deciding which news stories are legitimate leads to editorializing as fact checking is prone to subjectivity.

    This notion is further evidenced in that not a single fact checker at Snopes comes from a conservative background, which a Daily Caller investigation revealed. In fact, Snopes employs liberals and leftists almost exclusively.

    Snopes’ fact-checking skills have been called into question after numerous attempts to invalidate certain stories backfired.”

    http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/09/caught-snopes-deliberately-omits-key-details-to-protect-kerrys-state-dept/

    “CAUGHT: Snopes Deliberately Omits Key Details To Protect Kerry’s State Dept.”

    http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/09/caught-snopes-deliberately-omits-key-details-to-protect-kerrys-state-dept/

    “Snopes.com Ignores Fact Checking on Target Boycott Success”

    http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/09/caught-snopes-deliberately-omits-key-details-to-protect-kerrys-state-dept/

    “……when fact checkers do examine the same statement, Lim says “there is little agreement in their ratings.”….
    Of 70 statements evaluated by both organizations, Lim notes, 14 “received two completely opposite ratings from the fact-checkers.”
    “While 14 may not seem as big a number, it implies that 1 out of every 5 times, one fact-checker considers a statement true while the other fact-checker flags the same statement as a lie,” Lim writes.
    The agreement rate of fact checkers is “much lower than what is acceptable for social scientific coding.”
    As Mark Hemingway, writing at The Weekly Standard, noted, “if you know what a garbage fire the issue of accuracy in social science is, that is really saying something.” Yet Lim’s findings will surprise few who have read media fact checks closely…”

    https://reliablesourcessite.wordpress.com/2017/06/01/bogus-fact-checking-should-you-trust-politifact-fact-checker-snopes-etc/

    “…With no experience in journalism or fact-checking, Young is one of the administrators at Snopes. Her job specification is unclear, but it is said she wields much influence as to what can and cannot be done in the organization.

    A particular concern — given Snopes will soon wield the almighty censorship hammer for Facebook — is her deeply political past. In 2004, Young was an unsuccessful candidate on the Libertarian ticket for U.S. Congress in Hawaii. She even became a public ridicule after misspelling her Republican competitor’s name on her official campaign website…”

    “Fake News ‘Fact Checker’ Snopes Accused of Fraud, Prostitution – Boss Admits No Fact Checking “Standardized Procedure”
    By Amando Flavio – April 30, 20170”

    http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/09/caught-snopes-deliberately-omits-key-details-to-protect-kerrys-state-dept/

  5. Every year or two we read about some Big, bureaucratic, politically connected tech firm setting a new processing (X-flops/sec) record while testing a massively-parallel supercomputer it had just developed.

    When the reporter, who couldn’t pass high skool algebra, asked the lead researcher who might buy that the new, $50M computer and what it could be used for, the computer scientist proudly disclosed that it will be purchased by NOAA/NASA/whatever (some taxpayer-funded, USG political science bureaucracy) in order to crunch the 2,874,567 simultaneous differential equations (unknowns) and the 56.3 petabytes of data which were then-used to model global warming.

    In other words, the whole project was one, Big, cost-plus, government contract.

    Abolish government-funded, “scientific” research.

  6. Received from Mario Goveia.

    My skepticism is simply based on basic facts and an 8th Graders common sense.

    It started when I read that the original Kyoto Protocols had exempted India, China and every less developed country.

    I thought, they want only the western industrialized nations to reverse their economic growth, and yet, how is that going to reduce emissions much because those countries that have been exempted have fast growing economies without controls even on emissions of particulates and noxious gases for health reasons, leave alone CO2. It was like having a growing smoking section in a space and pretending the atmosphere therein will improve.

    Then i saw that they were trying to calculate one number for the average global temperature for the whole world for a whole year – which is absurd on its face given that the temperature changes constantly 24/7/365 from pole to pole and around the world. This is also something Ivar Giaevar ridiculed.

    Then we find that their number had increased by 0.6 +/- 0.2 degrees C since 1880, which is 137 years. That was in spite of a 43% increase in CO2 over the period which was accompanied by a massive increase in plant growth and food production, fueled in part by the increased CO2. So, nothing close to a catastrophe had occurred during the entire industrial age. In fact, everything about the human condition had improved, from food production to energy usage to health to life spans to recreational opportunities. So what catastrophe were they worried about?

    Then, over the last 20 years we find that the PREDICTIONS produced by computer models that this entire hoax is based on have been consistently wrong. The reason for this is that they are building models that do not reflect reality as actually experienced in back tests. When they are wrong they simply produce another dire prediction of dire consequences decades from now, and the gullible Europeans and the American left, ever on the lookout for any excuse for increased government intervention, swallow the garbage hook, line and sinker.

    Until Trump, who realized that there was a hoax in progress and kept the US out of the Paris Accords, just as Bush 43 had kept us out of the Kyoto Protocols.