Well this isn’t going to please the Warmer cult. It seems a new peer-reviewed scientific study is about to drop a bomb on the heart of the Al Gore/James Hansen/Barack Obama climate hysteria movement.
For years now, climate realists have pointed out the undisciplined and irrational tactics of the man-made catastrophic global warming agenda. Whether it was falsified data, dire predictions, continually incorrect computer models, or even the name changes from “global warming” to “climate change” to even “climate disruption,” the fraudulent attempts to hijack science for the sake of a political power grab has been unconscionable.
The more patient realists even went so far as to attempt to engage the Warmers, explaining that natural, scientific, solar forces were at play impacting Earth’s climate exponentially more than man’s feeble contributions through gas emissions ever could.
But the “man-made” part of the Warmer hysteria has been the most critical to them. If it’s not man-made, then there’s no reason to seize the industries and energy production of every major civilized nation on Earth. If it’s not man-made then our posture becomes one of reactionary and precautionary rather than proactive and authoritarian.
Given that the Warmer movement is conducted by leftist progressives intent on seizing and then expanding the role of government anywhere and everywhere to bring about dystopian peace through central planning, it’s not difficult to figure out why the proactive/authoritarian model was much more to their liking.
This isn’t going to help their case:
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. “The objective of this research was to test the hypothesis that Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) data, produced by NOAA, NASA, and HADLEY, are sufficiently credible estimates of global average temperatures such that they can be relied upon for climate modeling and policy analysis purposes,” the authors wrote.
I’ll give you one guess what the research found. But it includes these twelve words:
“[T]he three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality.”
That’s good news for planet Earth, but bad news for the Warmers. Given that fact, don’t expect to see any of this in the media.