11:21 PM 07/05/2017 A new study found adjustments made to global surface temperature readings by scientists in recent years “are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.” “Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published [global average surface temperature (GAST)] data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever – despite current claims of record setting warming,” according to a studypublished June 27 by two scientists and a veteran statistician. The peer-reviewed study tried to validate current surface temperature datasets managed by NASA, NOAA and the UK’s Met Office, all of which make adjustments to raw thermometer readings. Skeptics of man-made global warming have criticized the adjustments. Climate scientists often apply adjustments to surface temperature thermometers to account for “biases” in the data. The new study doesn’t question the adjustments themselves but notes nearly all of them increase the warming trend. Basically, “cyclical pattern in the earlier reported data has very nearly been ‘adjusted’ out” of temperature readings taken from weather stations, buoys, ships and other sources. In fact, almost all the surface temperature warming adjustments cool past temperatures and warm more current records, increasing the warming trend, according to the study’s authors. “Nearly all of the warming they are now showing are in the adjustments,” Meteorologist Joe D’Aleo, a study co-author, told The Daily Caller News Foundation in an interview. “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,” said D’Aleo, who co-authored the study with statistician James Wallace and Cato Institute climate scientist Craig Idso. Their study found measurements “nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history,” which was “nearly always accomplished by systematically removing the previously existing cyclical temperature pattern.” “The conclusive findings of this research are that the three [global average surface temperature] data sets are not a valid representation of reality,” the study found. “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.” Based on these results, the study’s authors claim the science underpinning the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) authority to regulate greenhouse gases “is invalidated.” more at link...
Here's the rebuttal While the Daily Mail article includes serious allegations of “data manipulation”, Dr. Bates (the “whistleblower”) contradicted the statements in the Daily Mail in a pair of new interviews on Tuesday. Bates told EENews, “The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data, but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was.” And in an interview with the Associated Press, Bates said there was “no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious.” https://climatefeedback.org/sensati...ted-data-in-the-mail-on-sunday-are-overblown/
here was the link... to the article... as opposed to the link to the pdf I included above. I don't think your link is relevant to this new peer reviewed paper. your article spoke of feb paper... while this paper is dated June 2017. http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/e...or-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-climate-data/
Look at all the lies the left have told in the last 6 months, then they expect us to believe their MMGW hoax.
that is a total lie. you are a scum. you did not show those charts showing 100 failed models to be lies. the models' projections were very wrong... and the chart showed it very fairly. I showed you it did not matter if you started in 1997 or went back further.