Bombshell Global Warming Study Invalidates the Greenhouse Gas Rules


There is a new bombshell study for the media to ignore which claims to show that the global warming temperatures are not reliable and they are “not based in reality”. In addition, this is the basis for the stringent EPA rules established during the Obama administration.

Snopes has declared this report false.

In the report, titled “On the Validity of NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU Global Average Surface Temperature Data and the Validity of EPA’s CO2 Endangerment Finding,” authors James P. Wallace III, Joseph S. D’Aleo and Craig Idso examine the accuracy of global average surface temperature data.

The study shows that the global warming datasets do not come from actual temperature readings, they come only from the adjustments to the temperatures.

A new study by two scientists and a statistician shows that “nearly all” of the global warming in datasets from NASA and the U.K. Met Office are the result of adjustments made to datasets after temperatures were recorded and not from the recorded temperatures themselves.

Also, the measurements almost always removed cyclical temperature patterns, basically invalidating their conclusions.

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.”

Adjustments have to be made to real temperature readings but they didn’t include temperature patterns at all. One might suggest that these readings were deliberately manipulated and exaggerated.

It’s not the adjustments themselves that are the problem, it’s the fact that the cyclical temperature pattern has very nearly been ‘adjusted’ out” of temperature readings taken from weather stations, buoys, ships and other sources.

While it is understood that temperatures must be adjusted for factors such as Urban Heat, the adjustments made are so exaggerated as to be invalid. Many critics have believed the data is overblown in order to “prove” man is responsible.

All the three major agencies rely on data from one source and are NOT independent.

Furthermore, none of the three critical agencies – NOAA, NASA and HADLEY – produce independent GAST (Global Average Surface Temperature data). All three get their data from NOAA in Asheville, North Carolina, and do not act independently.

They are all in agreement because 90% to 95% of their raw data is the same in their data sets. All three “suffer from unresolved uncertainties and biases.

Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. who was involved in the study notes: “The differences between the three global surface temperatures that occur are a result of the analysis methodology as used by each of the three groups. They are not “completely independent.” Each of the three surface temperature analysis suffer from unresolved uncertainties and biases as we documented…”

Even the instrument siting was poor.

In addition, while the report cites the need for adjustments to raw surface temperature data to overcome numerous challenges, including contamination by urbanization (Urban Heat Island impacts), there are “surprisingly poor instrument siting that subjects the surface temperature measurement instruments to heat sources that can significantly bias the results.”

As they strove to become more accurate, they got worse, left out 90% of the data in some regions.

Moreover, as they worked to become more accurate, “the geographic distribution and ‘reliability’ of the data inexplicability worsened.” The remaining stations are disproportionally urban.

There are also missing data and spikes in stations in Africa and South America (90%) as well as the U.S. There were large discrepancies in temperature data of ocean surfaces as well.

The data, in other words, is completely unreliable. They are not an accurate representation of reality.

“The overall conclusion of this report is that there are serious quality problems in the surface temperature data sets that call into question whether the global temperature history, especially over land, can be considered both continuous and precise. Users should be aware of these limitations, especially in policy-sensitive applications.”

“The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality. 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. Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever –despite current claims of record setting warming. “

“Finally, since GAST data set validity is a necessary condition for EPA’s GHG/CO2 Endangerment Finding, it too is invalidated by these research findings.

Based on this, the underpinning of the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases “is invalidated”

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.”

The new study will be included in petitions by conservative groups to the EPA to reconsider the 2009 endangerment finding, which gave the agency its legal authority to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

If the researchers’ findings are accurate, it would mean that the global temperature data most often used to show increasing temperatures are potentially not accurate and that the true global temperature is likely lower than is currently reported, further undermining climate-change alarmists’ claims.