http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/e...or-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-climate-data/ EXCLUSIVE: Study Finds Temperature Adjustments Account For ‘Nearly All Of The Warming’ In Climate Data The peer-reviewed study tried to validate current surface temperature datasets managed by NASA, NOAA and the UK’s Met Office, all of which make adjustments to raw thermometer readings. Skeptics of man-made global warming have criticized the adjustments. Climate scientists often apply adjustments to surface temperature thermometers to account for “biases” in the data. The new study doesn’t question the adjustments themselves but notes nearly all of them increase the warming trend. Basically, “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. In fact, almost all the surface temperature warming adjustments cool past temperatures and warm more current records, increasing the warming trend, according to the study’s authors. “Nearly all of the warming they are now showing are in the adjustments,” Meteorologist Joe D’Aleo, a study co-author, told The Daily Caller News Foundation in an interview. “Each dataset pushed down the 1940s warming and pushed up the current warming.” “You would think that when you make adjustments you’d sometimes get warming and sometimes get cooling. That’s almost never happened,” said D’Aleo, who co-authored the study with statistician James Wallace and Cato Institute climate scientist Craig Idso. Their study found measurements “nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history,” which was “nearly always accomplished by systematically removing the previously existing cyclical temperature pattern.” “The conclusive findings of this research are that the three [global average surface temperature] data sets are not a valid representation of reality,” the study found. “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.” Based on these results, the study’s authors claim the science underpinning the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) authority to regulate greenhouse gases “is invalidated.”
The first three dudes namedropped on the second page are the most telling, and thus, my favorite. The Undersigned Agree with the Conclusions of this Report: Dr. Alan Carlin Retired Senior Analyst and manager, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Author, Environmentalism Gone Mad, Stairway Press, 2015. Ph.D., Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA. BS, Physics, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA. Dr. Harold H. Doiron Retired VP-Engineering Analysis and Test Division, InDyne, Inc. Ex-NASA JSC, Aerospace Consultant B.S. Physics, University of Louisiana - Lafayette M.S., Ph.D., Mechanical Engineering, University of Houston Dr. Theodore R. Eck Ph.D., Economics, Michigan State University M.A, Economics, University of Michigan Fulbright Professor of International Economics Former Chief Economist of Amoco Corp. and Exxon Venezuela Advisory Board of the Gas Technology Institute and Energy Intelligence Group
When science becomes extremely politicized, it's worthwhile to ask "why does this piece of research exist?" The lip service to defense industry alumns, economists, and blatant anti-environmentalists casts a pretty long shadow.
At least you agree "science" is politicized. That's a start. When "science" becomes about "consensus" (that's a vote), it's actual politics and not Truth. It's a start.
Wow those quotes are around "science" blew my mind. My eyes are open now. There is no science being done in the field of climatology. These people aren't scientists. It's just cultural marxism all the way down. No but seriously, what do you expect? How else do you reach "Truth" in a field as complex as climatology?
Really? I think science is science. You know, like e=mc^2, or H2O. I think "science" is "let's have a vote on what the truth is."
Again, what is the alternative? Extremely complex systems cannot be boiled down to an elegant equation. Do you also reject the theory of evolution?
I don't reject the theory of evolution. I don't deny the earth is warming, either. I do think the measurements show warming. As if boiled down to an elegant equation. What "science" does is make adjustments to the data to fit a political agenda or to more easily get grants.
Oh, I see why you are posting climatology research sponsored by defense contractors and economists... because you don't like politically motivated science. Got it.
Because there isn't a consensus after all. There was a consensus that the earth was flat, a few hundred years ago. How did that turn out? The guys who said it is spherical worked for defense contractors and economists.
