A peer-reviewed study published by three climatologists claims that biased, fixed temperature adjustments are responsible for “nearly all” of the global warming shown by three separate climate data sets.
The study, “On the Validity of NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU Global Average Surface Temperature Data & The Validity of EPA’s CO2 Endangerment Finding” (doesn’t that just roll off the tongue?) was published on June 27.
In it, Drs. James P. Wallace III, Joseph S. D’Aleo and Craig D. Idso examined the three major data sets that make up the Global Average Surface Temperature index — one from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, another from NASA, and another the United Kingdom’s Met Office.
“The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality,” the study reads.
“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.”
Because of anomalies in recording surface temperature, scientists usually apply adjustments to remove “biases” from data sets, The Daily Caller reports. However, the study notes that the adjustments tend to confirm a warming trend by minimizing warming in earlier data and maximizing it in later data sets. In addition, cyclical patterns of temperature changes “in the earlier reported data has very nearly been ‘adjusted’ out.”
Needless to say, this raised significant concerns for the study’s authors…
[CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE]