Global Warming Data: They Cooked the Books

According to a new report described at

As world leaders, namely in the European Union, attack President Trump for pulling out of the Paris Climate Agreement which would have saddled Americans with billions upon billions of dollars in debt and economic losses, a new bombshell report that analyzed Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) data produced by NASA, the NOAA and HADLEY proves the President was right on target with his refusal to be a part of the new initiative.

According to the report, which has been peer reviewed by administrators, scientists and researchers from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (M.I.T.), and several of America’s leading universities, the data is completely bunk:
A lot of sciency stuff followed, and my head hurt.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Global Warming Data: They Cooked the Books

  1. onwyrdsdream says:

    “…We may start out the model with the few
    observed data that are available and fill in the rest with guesses (also
    called extrapolations) and then let the model run long enough so that
    the initial guesses no longer matter, but not too long in order to avoid
    that the inaccuracies of the model become relevant.”

    All that power and yet he apparently never heard of Lorenz? In my teens I read several books on chaos theory. One of the first places that insight into that subject happened involved weather. The initial guesses will either always matter, or the model is crap. Either way, assuming garbage out seems pretty safe.

    I seem to remember a rainfall simulation and when the initial conditions were recreated from a printout the pattern changed. The reason ended up being that the significant figures between the cpu and the printout were different. The difference was a hundredth of a percent, but the difference was enormous after a fair number of cycles passed. Commonly called the butterfly effect.

    In other words, if your prediction isn’t highly dependent on initial conditions (or you can say after some cycles that initial conditions don’t matter) probably you’re doing it wrong. I somewhat suspect the reason “not too long…” means that after 10000 years, even if co2 didn’t change the surface temperature would boil water.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s