New report on global warming debunks government temp data

Apocalypse Not

A new paper analyzing government temperature data says the Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) data published by NASA and NOAA are “not a valid representation of reality.”  In fact, the three respected scientists who published the paper hint strongly that the data may have been fudged.

Here are the money grafs from the paper:

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)

Using the government’s own data. the researchers showed that government agencies were able to “prove” that the Earth is warming simply by leaving out vital information.

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.

The scientists are not arguing that adjustments to temperature data are not necessary.  Over the 160 years or so of recorded temps, the weather stations where the data is gathered sometimes move, or a city grows up around them, or there is a change in sea levels where the temps are recorded.  All of these factors and more would make the data useless without “adjustments.”

The professors argue – and skeptics have been saying this for years – that it is just too convenient for these “adjustments” to almost always show an increase in temperature over the unadjusted data.  This is statistically impossible and leads to the inescapable conclusion that the books are being cooked.

Read more at American Thinker

Comments (7)

  • Avatar



    Three respected scientists? Obviously not friends with the 98% who don’t respect respect.

    • Avatar



      Despite the article & studies self righteous proclamation of “conclusive findings” are NO WHERE NEAR authoritative or honest.
      Certainly they are NOT CONCLUSIVE Findings.
      They are not PEER REVIEWED (red team blue team).
      They aren’t published for critique in Respected Scientific Journal(s).
      Recent attack on the so-called hockey stick graph is a compilation of 80 graphs from 2017 which consists of 76 graphs that describe local or regional situations, one graph that describes Northern Hemisphere situation, one graph that describes NH extratropics situation, and two graphs that describe global situation. As the hockey stick graph describes the situation in Northern Hemisphere, 80 graphs become 4 graphs,
      because local/regional graphs are meaningless in comparison to hemispheric/global situation.

      Furthermore, two of the four remaining graphs have originally been published before 2017. We are left with two graphs from 2017. Both of them have been published in the same study, Steiger et al. 2017. The two graphs are indeed interesting as they don’t show any sign of recent global warming. But see the figure below. Apparently, the graphs in Steiger et al. weren’t good enough for the author of the 80 graphs article, but the graphs needed some editing (both graphs were edited in the same manner). There are also some other problems with these 80 graphs as shown below.

      It is well known that there have been changes in the Earth’s climate in the past. We are fairly certain that there have been warmer times and colder times than the present at least some time in the past.

      The bad thing about climate changes in general is not the thermometer reading during or after the change but the change itself. The faster the change the worse are the impacts to nature and mankind.

      There are many factors which can cause climate to change. Those who have followed climate science are well aware that changes in the Sun’s activity, volcanic activity, Earth’s orbital parameters, aerosols, clouds, and greenhouse gases, among other things can cause climate to change. One change of the climate can happen due to changes in solar activity and the next change can happen due to greenhouse gases, or the climate can change due to many factors acting at the same time.

      So, if solar activity has caused climate changes in the past, that doesn’t mean that carbon dioxide cannot cause climate change now. Also, climate change can have bad impacts even if climate has changed before (and we actually have evidence for bad impacts of past climate changes).

      Despite of all this, so-called “climate skeptics” spend a lot of time arguing that climate has changed before. In fact, that argument is currently listed as number one in Skeptical Science’s Most Used Climate Myths.

      Lately, yet another chapter has been written to the continuing saga of climate-changed-before myths. An article about 80 graphs allegedly showing something interesting has been making rounds. The article shows 80 graphs from different research articles and gives some selected quotes here and there. The article has been debunked already in Climate Feedback by the authors of the studies from where the graphs were used for this 80 graphs article. I also took a peek at the issue. I looked at each graph and also clicked the links to the studies behind the graphs to see how the graphs were originally presented. I didn’t read the studies in full, though (it seems that neither did the author of the 80 graphs article). I recorded my findings for each graph, and then looked the results as a whole.

      Creating a straw man: Local, hemispheric, and global climate changes

      When climate changes, it does so at different paces at different regions. For example, current climate change has proceeded faster in some regions and slower in some regions, as can be seen from this global surface temperature trend map (from NASA GISS):

      If we want to compare the current climate change to past climate changes, we need to look at global, or at least hemispheric situation. Similarly, if we want to debunk the hockey stick graph, which describes the climate evolution in Northern Hemisphere, we need to look at the Northern Hemisphere situation.

      In this sense, it was strange to find out that almost all of the graphs in the 80 graphs thing were local or regional graphs. Of the 80 graphs, 76 are local or regional (so 95% of the graphs are not comparable to the hockey stick graph, or are not important for current global climate change). One of the graphs was about Northern Hemisphere but it turned out to be a 2005 graph from Moberg et al. (2005), so no news there. One of the graphs was claimed to be Northern Hemispheric, but consulting the study in question (Büntgen et al. 2017) showed that it actually was only extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere, and the graph in question actually shows 20th century warming, so it’s close but no cigar. Two of the graphs were global, but for these there were some graph trickery involved, as was shown above.

      This is what Nathan Steiger wrote about this issue in the Climate Feedback article: “The blog post maliciously tampered with figures from my paper, removing lines from the figures. My paper is just not relevant to the arguments about global warming.” Aside from graph trickery, the two graphs from Steiger et al. are interesting. They have been cut out from Steiger et al. figures 12 and 14, which both contain three panels where temperature reconstructions from ice cores are compared to real temperature evolution in Greenland, British Isles, and globally. The result from this comparison is that reconstructions match real temperature best in Greenland, and in British Isles and globally match is not so good. Steiger et al. emhasize in the paper that the ice core reconstructions work best as local reconstructions. The 80 graphs article only included the global graphs. Furthermore, elsewhere in the paper there were other graphs where reconstructions also showed warming globally, which obviously is good enough reason not to include the graphs to the non-warming-showing-graphs collection such as the 80 graphs article.

      Basically, we could stop here and conclude that there’s not much to see here, but actually I did find some climate mythology related things I would like to show you.

      Before present means 1950, not actual present

      The 80 graphs article contains 36 graphs which stop at 1950 or before that. In other words, almost half of the graphs don’t even show the modern times, when current climate change has occurred.

      The author of the 80 graphs article apparently does not know that in palaeoclimatology, one of the standard methods to describe time is setting zero point to 1950 and call that point of time the “present”. This is usually abbreviated as “BP”. The author of 80 graphs article has included lot of graphs that end at 0 BP or even before that, which in standard palaeoclimatology means that they end at 1950 or before.

      Perhaps worst of these is a graph from Markle et al. This graph shows temporal evolution during an idealized Dansgaard-Oeschger event, so the time shown in the x-axis doesn’t even show real time but time from the start of such event to the end of the event. The data used in the study in question runs from 70000 to 10000 years ago, so the most modern data-point available in the study is from 10000 years ago.
      Cherry-picking graphs and doing tricks on them

      • Avatar



        Rakooi, confirm or deny: temperatures at the equator and temperatures at the poles are converging. The result, stability and fewer hurricanes.
        Trying to pin down an average temperature is a mug’s game. The Warmists invented it for propaganda purposes. Thermometers were never located for the purpose of determining an “average” global temperature. Therefore historical data is worse than useless, it’s misleading. Thermometers were located locally to population centers, because those were the temperatures that people needed to know. We are certain of the urban heat effect. The majority of western civilization live in cities and are the people most likely to believe in global warming, because their brains are hard boiled.
        Why are climatologists conjuring readings for places in Africa that didn’t have thermometers?
        Satellite readings are incorruptible, that’s why the Warmists argue against them.
        If Earth is warming, all factors must be considered, instead of blaming only our use of fossil fuels.

      • Avatar



        Another Fact Free post from Rakooni… Found those skillful model predictions yet?

  • Avatar

    R. Johnson


    Allez Obama, personne ne soupçonnera que nous avons menti sur les données sur la température, mon ami. En plus, un milliard de dollars finira par nous apporter tout ce que nous voulons – Tout le pouvoir sur tous les humains sur Terre!
    Translation: We don’t give a damn about the data we just want all the money and all the power!

  • Avatar

    Spurwing Plover


    A submerged NYC was one of the scienes from Kevin Kosners big stinkeroo movie WATERWORLD where h swims dolphin style and make himself look like a total baffoon ma,ed Mariner with silly little gills and webbing between his fingers

  • Avatar



    Science is NOT a “belief” system. Science does not rely on believers, and it never will. Science stands on its own proven methodology and is ALWAYS open to questioning and challenge.

    “Belief” is of faith and religion – it has a place there – but NOT in science.

Comments are closed