May 04, 2015

“Global Warming” Computer Models Are Wrong – Again

The issue of “global warming”/”climate change” is a highly charged political debate with President Obama squarely weighing in on the side of the alarmists.  He believes “climate change” is the greatest threat to U.S. national security. But, is his concern based on facts, or ideology? One new study suggests it is based on radical, left-wing ideology rather than science.
The Daily Caller reports:
University of Alabama climatologists have released the newest version of their satellite temperature datasets. Interestingly enough, the updated satellite data came with a surprise: it lowered the Earth’s warming trend.
Version 6 of the satellite data shows faster warming in the early part of the satellite record, which stretches from Dec. 1978 to March. 2015, but shows reduced, or even eliminated, warming in the latter part of the record,wrote climatologists Roy Spencer, John Christy and William Braswell. UAH Version 6 satellite data now shows a decreased warming trend of 0.114 degrees Celsius per decade, compared to Version 5.6’s 0.140 degree trend.
This includes a decrease in the warming trend for the U.S. since the late 1970s. Spencer, Christy and Brasell noted that the U.S. “trend decreased from +0.23 to +0.17 C/decade” and the “Arctic region changed from +0.43 to +0.23 C/decade.”
“Near-zero trends exist in the region around Antarctica,” according to the UAH scientists.

So, the “sky isn’t falling” after all.

Of course not all those firmly committed to “climate change” agree with this latest revelation as the Daily Caller reveals:
The updated UAH satellite temperature data comes as scientists are looking into allegations of data tampering by government climate agencies, like NASA and NOAA. Scientists skeptical of man-made global warming argue that data adjustments made by climate agencies may not be scientifically justified.
“Many people have found the extent of adjustments to the data surprising,” Terence Kealey, former vice-chancellor of the University of Buckingham, said in a statement released by The Global Warming Policy Foundation.
Skeptics argue that NOAA, for example, makes adjustments that artificially cool past temperature data while warming more recent records. This creates a significantly bigger warming trend than is borne out in the raw temperature data, argue skeptics.
“While we believe that the 20th century warming is real, we are concerned by claims that the actual trend is different from – or less certain than – has been suggested,” said Kealey, who has been appointed chairman of the foundation’s investigative task force. “We hope to perform a valuable public service by getting everything out into the open.”
NOAA justifies these adjustments by saying they are necessary to correct for “biases” in the raw data. Corrections made by NOAA help make the data more accurate, they argue. NOAA’s temperature readings are based on surface thermometers from weather stations, buoys and such.


  1. On what basis does NASA and NOAA claim the raw data is "biased?" It's the raw data, after all.

    And we should not fall for the canard espoused by National Geographic that we should all trust science because, well, it IS science.

    Let me preface this by saying I come from a science background myself, but all too often science gets hijacked and distorted for political or economic gain, or simply makes goofs which are perpetuated by arrogance!

    Why should we not just blindly trust science?

    Alchemy, for one.

    Phlogiston Chemistry, for another.

    Prior to the 14th Century Astronomers thought the Earth was the center of the universe, because, well, that's what the church wanted, and spent hundreds of years of scientific research on the theory of Epicycles; which holds the record for longest running scientific goof!

    17th Century doctors thought rubbing chicken dung into your scalp would cure baldness! They also thought leeches sucked disease out of patients.

    18th Century Geologists thinking the Earth was 6000 years old, because, well, that's what the church wanted!

    Prior to the 1950s, scientists thought proteins carried our heredity.

    Until the 19th Century, doctors though infection was caused by bad air.

    Scientists claimed cigarettes were good for you up until the 1950s. They even had a machine to pump tobacco smoke into your anus... the origin of the phrase "blowing smoke up your a**!"

    Until 2005, doctors thought ulcers were caused by stress.

    National Geographic should not be questioning why people do not trust science after its own 1999 "Piltdown Chicken" scandal!

    Science is not perfect. Science does make mistakes. The beauty of science is supposed to be that they admit it, not use the label of "science" like a modern religious icon to push agendas onto people! Anyone who says the "Science is settled" is not being scientific, they are being propagandistic!

  2. Hehe
    ohh, my god, are they admitting something, execpt that Climate changes, yea, even I can agree upon that.
    And what have happend, have they been waterboarded and raped by their own Data, have the Data missbehaved, kicked the morons in the Never A Staight Answer aka NASA, in the nutts, and now they clame to be Vctims of "crule" data.
    Buuhuuu, the datas are terrorists.
    Kill them all.
    I start to wounder, just by the sheer amount of moronic babbeling and unbelivable drivell, coming from the NASA, if the moonlandings, hehehe must be fake, this pack of idiots cant read simple data, anymore.
    Comon Core, aka rotten core, akakaka maccaroni.