We have all heard what Obama, his administration, and the climate change believers say about those of us who they dub "climate change deniers." However, scientific data may indicate that scientists touting global warming may have "adjusted" temperature recordings from data stations in South America by as much as one degree Celsius to "project changes in overall global climate." In what Christopher Booker, writer for Britain's The Telegraph, terms as "one of the greatest scientific scandals of all time," scientists have been adjusting climate data from South American data stations since the 1950s "to give the impression that the earth's temperature is rising more than the original data showed."
According to Newsmax.com:
Booker cites Paul Homewood's Not a Lot of People Know That
blog where Homewood compares raw data with adjusted temperatures to show the graph trend was reversed from a cooling trend to a warming one.
Homewood checked the data on three weather stations in Paraguay and found that all three had their initial raw readings adjusted to show lower temperatures in the 1950s and higher temperatures today.
Following reporting by Booker two weeks ago, Homewood checked more stations in South America and found the same thing had occurred at them.
Scientists use these records to estimate temperatures in locations that don't have reporting stations, and the data is used to project changes in overall global climate.
Homewood is now looking at stations in the Arctic between Canada and Siberia, Booker reports.
"Again, in nearly every case, the same one-way adjustments have been made, to show warming up to 1 degree C or more higher than was actually recorded," Booker writes.
As has been reported before, the United Nation's IPCC admitted their "climate change" models were fraudulent and scientists involved in validating the supposed climate change have indicated not all the variables are known to be able to definitively state the Earth is experiencing climate change/global warming due to man-made activity. None of these "climate change" models or scenarios satisfy the Scientific Method, indicating the claims are, at best, inconclusive. In some instances, climate change due to man's activity has been scientifically debunked.
Around 1970, Iceland experienced a period of extreme cooling that almost wiped out its economy. Traust Jonsson, a longtime climate researcher in Iceland, was surprised to see Iceland's "sea ice years" disappear in the revised data.
While the supporters of "climate change/global warming" are slamming deniers, it seems they are less than honorable in their data. These advocates of "green energy" and haters of coal powered electrical plants are outright falsifying data in order to enact strict regulations that kill jobs, impose a cap and trade carbon tax, increase costs of electricity, and kill the economy through unreliable means of producing electricity. They seek to impose their false science on the average individual while they attend conferences in their private jets preaching about lowering "greenhouse gas" emissions.
One has to question if climate change/global warming was an established fact, why would falsifying temperatures from data stations be needed?
Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our military-industrial posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central, it has also become more formalized, complex and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the discretion of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
Is that not what we are seeing with this push of the "climate change" agenda? Individual scientists and researchers have voiced their disagreement with the "establishment" scientific community involving climate change only to find themselves to be the subject of malignment. The same can be said of those who disbelieve the theory of climate change at the hands of human activity.
Are we not seeing the implementation of public policy and regulations by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) based on climate change/global warming? Can we say that public policy has become the "captive of a scientific-technological elite?"
Let's suppose just for a moment the Earth is warming. Would it not make sense to have a reliable source of electricity in order to prevent deaths from extreme warming? The same rationale applies to the Earth cooling. Reliable sources of energy are critical to prevent deaths occurring from either hypo- or hyper-thermia. The gutting of the coal-powered electrical plants severely compromises our electrical grid and causes the US to rely on less than reliable "green" energy sources placing everyone at risk to extreme temperatures. Those in favor of cutting coal-powered, electricity-producing plants fall back on the "cleanliness" of nuclear energy never once considering the waste is anything but clean, has to be stored in facilities for hundreds of years and has the potential to inflict more harm should those storage facilities experience a problem. And, while accidents are not common, they do occur, along with natural disasters that expose individuals to dangerous radiation isotopes. But Fukushima, Three Mile Island, and Chernobyl are of no consequence when it comes to the danger of coal-powered electricity producing plants and greenhouse gas emissions from humans.
Climate scientists argue that melting sea ice in the Arctic is caused by rising global temperatures. As has been reported, those temperatures have been falsified by the scientific community to support their claims. Homewood contends the melting "is caused by cyclical shifts in Atlantic sea currents that bring warmer water to the area. He states that Arctic water temperatures last peaked 75 years ago when the sea ice melted further back than it has today.
The Earth experiences cycles of changing weather patterns, wind, and sea currents naturally. The sun's activity influences the climate and weather patterns of the Earth. But, none of this is taken into account in the "greenhouse gas" theory of climate change. "Greenies" would rather believe unreliable models instead of solar cycle models that are more reliable.
The Federal government and their bought and paid for scientific community pander this "climate change/global warming" fiasco in order to inflict more taxes upon the American public, subject citizens to an unreliable electrical grid, damage the economy further by killing jobs, spend extravagantly on "green energy" products and resources, and gain more control over the citizenry. All the while, these hypocrites fly around in their private jets, ride around in their big corporate cars and limousines, heat and cool their large homes, pay for gardening services using gasoline powered equipment, charge their numerous electronic devices, and power the computers they need to keep in touch with the world and conduct their "research."
As a friend of mine would say, "there's something wrong with this picture."Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.