DELINGPOLE: ‘Nearly All’ Recent Global Warming Is Fabricated, Study Finds http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...ent-global-warming-is-fabricated-study-finds/ Much of recent global warming has been fabricated by climate scientists to make it look more frightening, a study has found. The peer-reviewed study by two scientists and a veteran statistician looked at the global average temperature datasets (GAST) which are used by climate alarmists to argue that recent years have been “the hottest evah” and that the warming of the last 120 years has been dramatic and unprecedented. What they found is that these readings are “totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.” That is, the adjusted data used by alarmist organizations like NASA, NOAA, and the UK Met Office differs so markedly from the original raw data that it cannot be trusted. This chart gives you a good idea of the direction of the adjustments. The blue bars show where the raw temperature data has been adjusted downwards to make it cooler; the red bars show where the raw temperature data has been adjusted upwards to make it warmer. Note how most of the downward adjustments take place in the early twentieth century and most of the upward take place in the late twentieth century. According to meteorologist Joe D’Aleo, who co-authored the study with statistician James Wallace and Cato Institute climate scientist Craig Idso, this has the effect of exaggerating the warming trend: “Nearly all of the warming they are now showing are in the adjustments.” “Each dataset pushed down the 1940s warming and pushed up the current warming.” “You would think that when you make adjustments you’d sometimes get warming and sometimes get cooling. That’s almost never happened.” What this means, the report concludes, is that claims by NASA, NOAA, and the UK Met Office that the world is experiencing unprecedented and dramatic warming should be taken with a huge pinch of salt: they all use the same corrupted global average temperature (GAST) 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.
More fake news There is several credibility problems with this work. First, they mention after the title: Abridged Research Report but I cannot find any related full work from the authors on the matter. As a comparison, in this case, a short, simplified article was prepared as a companion for a full paper. The former is useful for news agencies and general public, and the latter for interested peers. Second, references are poor. Data sources are cited, from government or agencies FTP sites, which is probably legit (I did not verify the linked data in great detail). GAST dataset are publicly available, as the freedom to publish possible misinterpretation in a proper peer reviewed journal, which remain to be done for the authors actual work. Third, there is no real methodology. The abridged paper is presenting results and interpretations, but there is no real method. Fourth, p17 Clearly the historical GAST data adjustments that have been made have been dramatic and invariably have been favorable to Climate Alarmists’ views regarding Global Warming This type of statement is having no place in a scientific paper, as this is poorly opinionated based on nothing of substance (Clearly, dramatic, Climate Alarmist) and does not prove much, except that the contribution is not scientific. Fifth of less importance. the formatting is very poor, which is not helping with the credibility of authors - not that it is very hard to prepare nice and efficient looking reports these days. In a few words, poor communication (in this case, this paper) is not helpful to convince colleagues of alternative ideas (or any ideas). Sixth until this work reach the stage of being published by an independent peer reviewed medium, I don't see how this could even begin to be a 'threat' to current climate science. https://earthscience.stackexchange....study-totally-dismantle-global-warming-claims So it was peer reviewed in which journal? Citation needed
So in summary - try as they might to discredit the paper the climate alarmists can find no grounds to dispute the information. Glad we cleared this up.
There is nothing to discredit, this is a FAKE paper, it was never peer reviewed otherwise the 'pdf' wont be linked on a wordpress blog. Where is the link to the peer reviewed journal where this was peer reviewed? TOTAL FAKE NEWS.
how can you call that chart fake news. Without telling us the data is fake or the calculations are wrong, you comment is idiotic. Its not fake news just because you don't like it. The evidence is there on the chart. That is the news. Now... examine the chart and the data. What is fake is stating man made co2 causes warming without presenting any science in a peer reviewed paper to show it.
How can I dispute something when they don't even provide the methodology in the paper? Where is the unabridged paper which I can analyze and dispute? Link please.
This is not about the chart (which again was not peer reviewed) - this is about the so called peer reviewed paper when no one can even link to the peer reviewed journal where it was actually peer reviewed. Have you got a link? Didn't think so.
I really enjoy the fact you are harping on peer reviewed now. So you agree it is important you have peer reviewed science to back up scientific claims? if you can't do it yourself... right? but now to my point... we have the data on the net... you can do this for yourself. We don't really need a peer reviewed scientist to tell us whether the data is correct. you could do it yourself.