Satellite temperature records that offer the most comprehensive and accurate measurements show no statistical warming for nearly 19 years and counting.
Yet, based upon tweaking of near-surface ocean temperatures earlier this year, the Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) surmised that this “pause” of pending human-caused climate calamity doesn’t exist.
As in the past, this tinkering of spotty and unreliable surface data by NOAA and other government agencies always seems to conclude that past temperatures were cooler than actually documented, making recent trends appear warmer.
The latest data revision involves upward adjustments of superior readings taken from ocean buoys to match random and haphazard measurements obtained by ship crews.
Distinguished Georgia Tech climate scientist Judith Curry confirms that the recent NOAA study headed by Thomas Karl didn’t use the best available ocean data.
She told FoxNews.com: “The new NOAA dataset disagrees with a U.K. dataset, which is generally regarded as the gold standard for global sea surface temperature datasets . . . The new dataset also disagrees with Argo buoys and satellite analyses.”
Dr. Curry added that “While I’m sure this latest analysis from NOAA will be regarded as politically useful for the Obama administration, I don’t regard it as a particularly useful contribution to our scientific understanding of what is going on.”
Incidentally, surface climate data reports represented by NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies are no more reliable than NOAA’s, and likely far less.
It was revealed earlier this year that nearly half of their recently alleged global warming claims resulted from highly suspicious statistical changes . . . not from actual temperature readings.
This shouldn’t be particularly surprising in light of the fact that NASA-GISS was previously headed by mainstream media’s celebrated climate doom and anti-fossil energy activist James Hansen.
Time and again we are warned that a latest month or year is the “warmest on record,” claims typically based upon temperature differences many times smaller than either NASA’s or NOAA’s cited margins of error.
In August, both agencies announced that July 2015 was the hottest month since instrumental records began in 1880. NOAA asserted that this record beat out July 1998 by eight one-hundredths of a degree Celsius, yet with an uncertainty of .014 of a degree. NASA-GISS records indicated that July 2015 edged out July 2011 by .002 of a degree.
Similarly, President Obama proclaimed that 2014 held a feverish record (with only a 38 percent probability and by infinitesimally small margins) over 2010, 2005, and 1998.
NOAA has steadfastly refused to turn over much of the basis for its research deliberations along with related internal communications even to Congress. Last July Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, who chairs the House Science and Technology Committee subpoenaed NOAA for the latest research records.
Explaining why, he said: “It was inconvenient for this administration that climate data has clearly showed no warming for the past two decades. The American people have every right to be suspicious when NOAA alters data to get politically correct results they want, and then refuses to reveal how those decisions were made.”
While NOAA has provided Rep. Smith’s Committee with limited publicly available data and has briefed staff on some aspects of their research, the agency insists that it has no intention of handing over documents that reveal its internal deliberations.
Arguing that “Because the confidentiality of these communications among scientists is essential to frank discourse among scientists, those documents were not provided to the House Science and Technology Committee," they insist that “It is a long-standing practice of the scientific community to protect the confidentiality of deliberative scientific discussions.”
We might readily understand why many NOAA scientists would fervently wish to protect confidential discussions.
A painful lesson can be drawn from the release of scandalous ClimateGate emails revealing previous deliberative data-rigging discussions.
One email string discussed “Mike’s [journal] Nature trick” about how to hide the temperature decline.
This exchange referred to Michael Mann’s infamous “hockey stick” graph which showed recent temperatures catapulting off its cobbled-together chart.
That now-debunked knuckle-biting sensation has since even been dropped from alarmist U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports which had originally featured it as a cause for drastic and immediate actions.
Nevertheless, mythological “settled science” climate doom continues to dominate international energy policies.
Given the many billions of dollars that the junk science-premised global warming industry is costing U.S. taxpayers and energy consumers, a cooling dose of congressional scrutiny is warranted and vital.
But don’t expect any such investigation to end politically-purposeful government agency manipulations which have revised temperature data between 1880 and 2010 sixteen times during the past three years alone.
Yes, man-made climate changes pose real threats. We can count on them to continue so long as U.N. wealth redistribution and crony capitalist “alternative energy” subsidy agendas reward super-heated science representations.
Larry Bell is an endowed professor of space architecture at the University of Houston where he founded the Sasakawa International Center for Space Architecture (SICSA) and the graduate program in space architecture. He is the author of “Scared Witless: Prophets and Profits of Climate Doom”(2015) and “Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind the Global Warming Hoax” (2012). Read more of his reports — Click Here Now.
© 2024 Newsmax. All rights reserved.