Data Review Discredits Global Warming

The New York Analysis of Policy & Government examines the latest scientific studies on the data behind the theory of man-made global warming.

Some political beliefs are based more on blind faith than facts. When this occurs, it is difficult to dissuade their adherents that they have been misled.

There is increasing evidence that the theory of man-made climate warming is wrong, or at the least, deeply exaggerated. Further, it is now evident that the principal proponents of the concept have pushed the idea using incomplete, altered, and in some instances wholly false data, for purposes having little to do with environmental concerns.

The revelations that key studies from both government agencies and academic institution were falsified and/or misstated did virtually nothing to reduce support for extreme environmental measures based on those reports.  Common sense questions, such as why Earth’s temperature was warmer in the 10th Century AD, as well as in the era of the Roman Empire, have been ignored.  The thousands of scientists who have expressed significant doubt about global warming were completely ignored by those claiming the idea was “settled science.”  Students have been taught to unquestionably believe in global warming. Some Washington politicians expressed a desire to criminally prosecute those disagreeing with the theory, and a number of state attorneys general have harassed think tanks that question the concept.

In 2016, An unprecedented legal attack, in utter violation of the First Amendment, was launched against the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI)  for committing the “offense” of disagreeing with  extremists on the issue of climate change. The move was in line with the anti-free speech action of U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch who “referred to the FBI”  consideration of whether to prosecute those who dare to question the claims of environmental extremists.

A reckoning may be at hand, as serious scientists pursue the truth, and investigative journalists reveal the ulterior motives of the global warming hucksters.

A new report by Dr. James P. Wallace III, Dr. Joseph S. D’Aleo, and  Dr. Craig D. Idso questions the validity of key pro-global warming data, including that provided by NOAA, NASA and the Hadley CRU Global Average Surface Temperature Data, as well as The Validity of the EPA’s CO2 Endangerment Finding. The findings of those agencies essentially rely on the same flawed data.

The study concludes that “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. Finally, since GAST data set validity is a necessary condition for EPA’s GHG/CO2 Endangerment Finding, it too is invalidated by these research findings.”

A number of distinguished specialist have already reviewed the study and agree with it, including: Dr. Alan Carlin, Retired Senior Analyst and manager, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.; Dr. Harold H. Doiron Retired VP-Engineering Analysis and Test Division, InDyne, Inc. Ex-NASA JSC, Aerospace Consultant;  Dr. Theodore R. Eck Ph.D., Economics, Michigan State University; Dr. Richard A. Keen, Instructor Emeritus of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Colorado Ph.D., ; Dr. Anthony R. Lupo IPCC Expert Reviewer Professor, Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri Ph.D., ; and Dr. Thomas P. Sheahen Ph.D., Physics, M.I.T. B.S.; Dr. George T. Wolff Former Chair EPA’s Clean Air Advisory Committee.

The news should not come as a great surprise, considering how the idea of man-made global warming became widely accepted, as described by the Heartland Foundation:

“Then came the 1995 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC]. It brought dramatic change in the public’s acceptance of global warming. The report had two parts: one was the long text of the research by scientists; the other, the ‘Summary For Public Officials’—which is the only part most people ever read—was written by persons who received political appointments. They were not politicians but public servants who were taking orders from the governments that signed the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change.The Summary was supposed to be based on the research—but it was written before the research was done. And the research was then ‘adjusted’ to fit the summary, rather than the other way around. Here is a description of the process by climatologist Vincent Gray, Ph.D., who is the only person to have been involved in all the publications of the IPCC since its inception.

‘In the 1980s a group of rogue scientists…suggested that the public and governments would accept [global warming if it was described as] a ‘settled’ opinion of a sufficiently large group of scientists. They invented a new pseudo-scientific model of the climate which ignored the scientific understanding of the climate built up by generations of meteorologists. It claimed that climate is controlled by human–related emissions of carbon dioxide and other minor greenhouse gases.

‘They persuaded the World Meteorological Association and their own United Nations Environment Programme to set up the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to gather together scientific material to support this project in preparation for the Rio Earth Summit in 1991 which launched the deception….

‘The IPCC has now issued five major Reports. These have been amazingly successful in persuading governments all over the world that they can prevent what is alleged to control ‘global warming’ by reducing emissions of carbon dioxide and other minor greenhouse gases. The main mechanism for ensuring uniformity of thought is applied by the presence in all of the IPCC Reports of a “Summary for Policymakers” at the beginning. This is really a Summary BY Policymakers, because it is dictated, line by line by the government representatives who control the IPCC to a group of reliable ‘Drafting Authors.’

‘The Chapters of each Report are arranged in such a way as to promote the idea of climate change caused by greenhouse gas increases. Actual climate observations are either obscured, or ‘smoothed,’ ‘filtered’, ‘linearized’, ‘interpolated’, with ‘outliers’ eliminated, in order to try and find ‘trends’ which can be fitted into the mold decided for them.”

‘When the final version of the 1995 IPCC Report did not agree with the Summary, Ben Santer, whom the IPCC had appointed as the lead author of the report, was given the task of altering the full report to coincide with the Summary. After the printed report appeared in May 1996, the scientific reviewers were shocked to discover that major changes had been made after they had signed off on the science chapter’s contents.”

The Report concludes on Monday