Something that we find to be an outrage is not even getting a passing acknowledgment by mainstream media: most of the climate data collected and pedaled by NASA, NOAA and UK’s Met Office is (our word) falsified. Let us explain. When collecting data, there will be times that a given data point (say a temperature reading) seems incorrect. Usually scientists will discard such “outlier” data, or make adjustments to compensate–so the outlier data doesn’t throw off what would otherwise be accurate. Climate scientists often apply “adjustments” to surface temperature thermometers (i.e. change the readings) to account for “biases” in the data. A new peer-reviewed study titled “On the Validity of NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU Global Average Surface Temperature Data & The Validity of EPA’s CO2 Endangerment Finding” (full copy below) takes a close look at the adjustments made by NOAA, NASA and the UK in their global average surface temperature (GAST) datasets–and concludes the adjustments nearly always revise temps up. That is, the researchers are showing bias themselves. It is this revised (we call it falsified) data that is then used to proclaim the past three years are the warmest on record in the modern era. The peer-reviewed study, which was done by former rocket scientists, former EPA employees, economists, weather scientists and others, finds the “cyclical pattern in the earlier reported data has very nearly been ‘adjusted’ out of temperature readings taken from weather stations, buoys, ships and other sources.” That is, the warmers who work at NASA, NOAA and in the UK didn’t like the numbers they were getting (they didn’t like reality), so they put their finger on the scale and changed the result. It’s a lie. And now it’s exposed for the world to see…
Something that we find to be an outrage is not even getting a passing acknowledgment by mainstream media: most of the climate data collected and pedaled by NASA, NOAA and UK’s Met Office is (our word) falsified. Let us explain. When collecting data, there will be times that a given data point (say a temperature reading) seems incorrect. Usually scientists will discard such “outlier” data, or make adjustments to compensate–so the outlier data doesn’t throw off what would otherwise be accurate. Climate scientists often apply “adjustments” to surface temperature thermometers (i.e. change the readings) to account for “biases” in the data. A new peer-reviewed study titled “On the Validity of NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU Global Average Surface Temperature Data & The Validity of EPA’s CO2 Endangerment Finding” (full copy below) takes a close look at the adjustments made by NOAA, NASA and the UK in their global average surface temperature (GAST) datasets–and concludes the adjustments nearly always revise temps up. That is, the researchers are showing bias themselves. It is this revised (we call it falsified) data that is then used to proclaim the past three years are the warmest on record in the modern era. The peer-reviewed study, which was done by former rocket scientists, former EPA employees, economists, weather scientists and others, finds the “cyclical pattern in the earlier reported data has very nearly been ‘adjusted’ out of temperature readings taken from weather stations, buoys, ships and other sources.” That is, the warmers who work at NASA, NOAA and in the UK didn’t like the numbers they were getting (they didn’t like reality), so they put their finger on the scale and changed the result. It’s a lie. And now it’s exposed for the world to see…