Ever since I saw this 2015 photo I have had grave doubts regarding the quality of the numbers coming out of the various international climate research groups.
A new peer-reviewed study by scientists and a statistician claims to reveal that “nearly all” of the warming shown in current temperature datasets from NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Met Office in the United Kingdom are the result of adjustments made to the datasets after temperatures were recorded, calling into question just how much warming is real and how much is pure fantasy.
In the report, titled “On the Validity of NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU Global Average Surface Temperature Data and the Validity of EPA’s CO2 Endangerment Finding,” authors James P. Wallace III, Joseph S. D’Aleo and Craig Idso examine the accuracy of global average surface temperature data.
Yea, that’s what I thought. It goes a long way to explain this article from last week:
If the facts don’t fit the theory, change the facts! The scientists in charge of the climate satellite data produced by Remote Sensing Services (RSS) in California have decided to adjust their satellite data to increase the warming trend since 2000 and make that data more closely match the surface temperature data that NASA and NOAA have already altered to show that same warming trend.
Heh, Power Line notices some slight discrepancies with Climate Change predictions lately: “Settled Science” in Two Headlines | Power Line
Climate science is ‘settled,’ right? To the 97th percentile! Anyone who asks pesky questions about what we might not know, or what might be a meaningful uncertainty, is a ‘denier,’ the moral equivalent of a Holocaust denier. Well then:
Amazing how one wet winter can change the science.
You CAN have your cake and eat it too … because Science!