The Editorial Board of Investors Business Daily isn’t buying what the Warmists are selling
Global Warming: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration may have a boring name, but it has a very important job: It measures U.S. temperatures. Unfortunately, it seems to be a captive of the global warming religion. Its data are fraudulent.
What do we mean by fraudulent? How about this: NOAA has made repeated “adjustments” to its data, for the presumed scientific reason of making the data sets more accurate.
Nothing wrong with that. Except, all their changes point to one thing — lowering previously measured temperatures to show cooler weather in the past, and raising more recent temperatures to show warming in the recent present.
This creates a data illusion of ever-rising temperatures to match the increase in CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere since the mid-1800s, which global warming advocates say is a cause-and-effect relationship. The more CO2, the more warming.
It also goes to the notion of “why the heck are they consistently changing the measured data?” Sure, they’ll give you this, that, and the other excuses. But, if you measure something as 57.23 degrees, and say that it was 57.23 degrees, you don’t go back and change it. At that point, it’s not a scientific fact. It’s a fudgible number based on whim.
But the actual measured temperature record shows something different: There have been hot years and hot decades since the turn of the last century, and colder years and colder decades. But the overall measured temperature shows no clear trend over the last century, at least not one that suggests runaway warming.
That is, until the NOAA’s statisticians “adjust” the data. Using complex statistical models, they change the data to reflect not reality, but their underlying theories of global warming. That’s clear from a simple fact of statistics: Data generate random errors, which cancel out over time. So by averaging data, the errors mostly disappear.
That’s not what NOAA does.
According to the NOAA, the errors aren’t random. They’re systematic. As we noted, all of their temperature adjustments lean cooler in the distant past, and warmer in the more recent past. But they’re very fuzzy about why this should be.
Far from legitimately “adjusting” anything, it appears they are cooking the data to show a politically correct trend toward global warming. Not by coincidence, that has been part and parcel of the government’s underlying policies for the better part of two decades.
OK, I’m at the point where I should stop excerpting. Go read the rest. I will note, though, that if the theory hypothesis assertion of global warming/climate change mostly/solely caused by Mankind was real, they wouldn’t have to play with the data so much to match their beliefs. In Science, if the outcomes do not match the hypothesis, then the hypothesis must be changed. Warmists just adjust the data (or make it up) to match their Beliefs.
