Saturday, June 3, 2017

Global warming. Climate change. Paris Climate Accord. And your lying eyes?

Some of my friends call me anti-science because I'm convinced the entire global warming/climate change/whatever movement is a massive hoax. Maybe I should call them anti-math? Nah, calling my friends names accomplishes nothing.

Take a look at the simple graphic:

#1 - In 1989, that era's same esteemed government scientists released their findings on temp change from 1895 to 1989. The article from the NY Times, which I screenshot from today, is pretty straightforward.

#2 - A chart of the temperature anomalies (warming or cooling) covering 1991-2001, that came straight from a highly distributed climate paper that IMHO served as something of a launching pad for the whole global warming hysteria. The data behind the chart was from the same NASA dataset that powers virtually everything we're shown and told. Note the irrefutably straight line showing no global warming in the 1990s. (That paper went on to predict massive warming in the next decade, that did not happen, eventually leading to the name change of "global warming" to "climate change.")

#3 - A chart of the same temperature anomaly data, again from 1991-2001, the very data behind the chart in #2, that I personally downloaded from NASA less than an hour ago.

How does a straight, no-change line suddenly become a climbing, global warming line? They "adjusted" the data.

As someone who works as an expert in digital forensics, I well understand the implications of "adjusting" data; doing so in a logical manner is often necessary. When I'm doing a forensic exam in Houston of a computer on which the time zone was set in California, a two-hour adjustment may be necessary in order to properly analyze the data. I do it in a logical and defensible way so my work holds up in court. I do it based on the known and simple fact that it's two hours later on a clock in Houston than on a clock in California.

On the climate data adjustments, however, the dead opposite of logical is being done. For example, let's say there's a weather station that's been sitting in the same place for a hundred years. Let's say that place is Houston. A hundred years ago the location was completely rural. Today it's dead in the middle of Houston's (butt-ugly) urban sprawl.

Common sense says that today's temps being recorded by that station are being affected by the masses of people, cars, factories, buildings, and such that are now nearby and generating heat. So to make today's readings comparable in a valid way to the readings from a hundred years ago, today's readings should have the urban effect removed; you'd lower it just a bit (determining how much by observation and experimentation) so you're sure you're measuring the temperature of the local climate, and not the temperature as affected (raised) by the 2000 18-wheelers passing by the station every day, right? That's not how the adjustments have been carried out, however.

They've been done in the opposite manner. The readings in urban areas have been adjusted up from their already artificially-influenced state. Even more mind boggling, the temps from many decades ago are being adjusted down, even though the station was sitting in a rural area and there's absolutely nothing to suggest it needed adjustment at all. Except for the fact that if you lower the temp that was actually recorded in 1939, wow, you'll find that it has gotten hotter since 1939. Oh man, global warming.

When they're caught tampering with the data like this, they of course respond with a big paper explaining how they suddenly realized that thousands of weather stations were all wrong for 75 years and had to be retroactively adjusted to account for this and that and BOOM, their newly adjusted data just happens to perfectly support their claims. Then the #mediahyenas dutifully regurgitate the claims and ridicule any contrarians into silence.

This is a bit oversimplified but a deadly accurate portrayal of what's been going on. And that's just one of several ways the data has been blatantly manipulated to match the agenda. There is no meaningful temperature change when real data is used. It's almost like this planet was made for people to live on.