Global warming theory does not match up with science

As I sat in a movie theater last week waiting to see the movie Dunkirk, we watched previews of the upcoming attractions.  One of those previews was Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Sequel.

I have to say, the guy is quite the actor.  He makes an impassioned and well-orchestrated pitch for his never-ending scheme to sell us another set of predictions that will fail to come true.

But it is no wonder people fall for it; he seems so sincere, so knowledgeable.  After all, science is on his side, right?

Well, no, it’s not.

Reports by American Thinker, Daily Wire and others are following up on a report that debunks the latest Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) data that was produced by NASA and the NOAA.  The report indicated that it had been peer reviewed by “administrators, scientists and researchers from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and several of America’s leading universities.”

Now a paper evaluating the report has been published by several scientists, and has been endorsed by a number of other scientists, including one that is a retired EPA Senior Analyst.

The 30-page report entitled On the Validity of NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU Global Average Surface Temperature Data & The Validity of EPA’s CO2 Endangerment Finding – Abridged Research Report is available online.

The portion of the report that is capturing the most attention points to manipulation of data in order to make convincing evidence that the world is warming due to human activity.  It reads, “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 systemically 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 ad understood data sets from theUnited States 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.”

Much as Mann’s famous hockey stick curve was invalidated after discovery of “collation errors, unjustifiable truncation or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, geographical location errors, incorrect calculation of principal components and other quality control defects” (i.e., leaving out the Medieval Warming Period and Little Ice Age period in order to prove that earth’s temperature remained relatively unchanged until we began to burn fossil fuels), there is evidence that data continues to be manipulated in order to prove that global temperatures are rising.

Reasonable and honest people make reasonable and honest legislative and business decisions based upon what they believe is true.  But there are others that use ignorance and deceit to accomplish an agenda, usually for money.

For example, Governor Jerry Brown, who is fighting hard for extension of cap-and-trade legislation in the state of California.

As the Los Angeles Times explained, “Cap-and-trade works this way: a cap is imposed on an industry’s greenhouse gas emissions.  But companies can trade for – buy – extra permits to pollute, either from the state or private investors.”  It also reported that Brown wants cap and trade in order to fund his bullet train project.  It would receive 25 percent of the revenues it generated.  (No wonder California is depopulating at a rapid pace.)

The Kyoto Treaty worked in much the same way, except that it was designed to force American industries to buy carbon credits, a scheme that was designed to redistribute wealth from America to third world countries, where, through corruption, it would do nothing to help those countries.

We all want clean air and water, even us “climate deniers.”  But we also want is good, honest and objective science so we can make the best decisions we can make.