Cooking Up Temperatures: Climate Scientists Resort to Data Manipulation

A close analysis of temperature datasets from Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) has revealed that there has been a deliberate attempt to manipulate data in order to show a warming trend.

There are three major sources of data that help us measure the global surface temperatures:

(1) the combined Climatic Research Unit-Hadley Center record (HADCRU); (2) the NASA-GISS (GISTEMP) record; and (3) NOAA record. All rely on the same underlying land data archive, the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN).

In addition to these, there exist the highly reliable satellite temperature data measurements from University of Alabama (UAH) and the measurements from Remote Sensing Systems (RSS). They capture the changes in atmospheric temperature, including the near surface lower troposphere temperatures.

Trending: Normalizing Sin Has Consequences

The UAH and RSS are more reliable than the land datasets because they are free from biases arising from artificial temperature influences (known as Urban Heat Island effect) and errors arising from selective choice of weather stations.

The HADCRU, GISTEMP, and NOAA records seem to have been adjusted to portray a warming trend. During my time as a climate researcher at the University of British Columbia, I had the opportunity to work with the HADCRU and GISTEMP datasets. I also was lucky enough to be at the Climatic Research Unit, the home of HADCRU data and the heart of the Climategate scandal.

Unlike the three surface temperature datasets, both the UAH and RSS data have largely remained free from any data manipulation and UHI biases. In recent years, this became more evident when GISTEMP data were found to be totally different from temperature measurements from satellites (UAH) and remote sensing systems (RSS).

In order to erase these discrepancies between GISTEMP and RSS, RSS datasets now appear to be manually adjusted to portray a steep warming trend. A comparison of RSS datasets from 2016 and 2019 reveals that scientists have adjusted the RSS data set to make it more coherent with GISS.

As a result, the same RSS temperature datasets that were earlier in sync with UAH are now more in sync with GISTEMP temperature datasets, eventually portraying a very rate of warming.

In fact, the graphs reveal that the RSS temperature curve is almost the same as GISTEMP, when just two years earlier they were almost the same as UAH.

This leaves UAH as the only untampered temperature dataset. In all likelihood, the UAH dataset will soon be shunned by those climate scientists who are desperate to portray a warming trend. Either the UAH data will be manipulated, or they will be cast out for not cohering with the other datasets.

The mainstream media are silent on these matters of data manipulation. Besides ignoring such blatant attempts to portray warming, the media and climate alarmists also blacklist those who point out these errors.

Be it the intentional elimination of relatively cooler temperature measurements from rural weather stations or the justification of extreme green policies based on false computer climate model outputs, the public has always been kept unware.

Climate change—or at least policymakers’ perceptions of it—and the economic policies associated with it are huge influences on our lives today. Given the magnitude of impact they have on our society, it is high time climate data adjustments were made public and defended by those who do them.

Far too much time and money have been wasted on proposed actions to reduce “dangerous” warming, despite the two-decade absence in significant warming, the deadliest winter of 2018, and the surprisingly healthy state of our polar regions.

We need more open-ended discussions on the matters of temperature data measurements, the means of measuring them, their sources, the on-going adjustments of datasets, the role of paleoclimatology, the 18- to 20-year hiatus in warming, and the scientifically proven faultiness of computer climate models that are currently being used to justify most of our climate policies.

Climate science, like any other branch of science, will only thrive on healthy skepticism and the empirical method of verifying, or falsifying, warming claims by observational data. Unfortunately, the data manipulators have struck at the very heart of scientific methodology, in their desperation to portray outcomes supporting extreme warming.

Vijay Jayaraj (M.Sc., Environmental Science, University of East Anglia, England), Contributor for the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, lives in India.

 

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Barb Wire.

Avatar
Vijay Jayaraj (M.Sc., Environmental Science, University of East Anglia, England) is Research Associate for Developing Countries for the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation ( https://cornwallalliance.org ). He lives in Chennai, India.
You Might Like

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.