The “Mainstream Media” is starting to recognize how the government agencies responsible for monitoring, analyzing, and reporting on the temperatures from around the world have been “cooking the books” to show warming where none existed.
The Sunday paper from London’s UK Telegraph has this headline:
The article by Christopher Booker continues:
When future generations look back on the global-warming scare of the past 30 years, nothing will shock them more than the extent to which the official temperature records – on which the entire panic ultimately rested – were systematically “adjusted” to show the Earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified.
…Two weeks ago, under the headline “How we are being tricked by flawed data on global warming”, I wrote about Paul Homewood, who, on his Notalotofpeopleknowthat blog, had checked the published temperature graphs for three weather stations in Paraguay against the temperatures that had originally been recorded. In each instance, the actual trend of 60 years of data had been dramatically reversed, so that a cooling trend was changed to one that showed a marked warming.
…Following my last article, Homewood checked a swathe of other South American weather stations around the original three. In each case he found the same suspicious one-way “adjustments”
… Yet these are the very records on which scientists and politicians rely for their belief in “global warming”.
James Delingpole at Breitbart, recently wrote two similar articles
Delingpole discussed how Dave Burton – a US computer programmer, sea level specialist and IPCC expert reviewer on AR5 challenges NOAA’s claims that their temperature adjustments are minor, “a modest 3%”..
Burton’s assessment is that NOAA has actually increased temepratures by 35% which is “quite massively distorting”.
Delingpole’s earlier article laments:
How can we believe in ‘global warming’ when the temperature records providing the ‘evidence’ for that warming cannot be trusted?
Suppose say, that for the last 100 years my family have been maintaining a weather station at the bottom of our garden, diligently recording the temperatures day by day, and that what these records show is this: that in the 1930s it was jolly hot – even hotter than in the 1980s; that since the 1940s it has been cooling.
What conclusions would you draw from this hard evidence?
Well the obvious one, I imagine, is that the dramatic Twentieth Century warming that people like Al Gore have been banging on about is a crock. At least according to this particular weather station it is.
Now how would you feel if you went and took these temperature records along to one of the world’s leading global warming experts – say Gavin Schmidt at NASA or Phil Jones at CRU or Michael Mann at Penn State – and they studied your records for a moment and said: “This isn’t right.” What if they then crossed out all your temperature measurements, did a few calculations on the back of an envelope, and scribbled in their amendments? And you studied those adjustments and you realised, to your astonishment, that the new, pretend temperature measurements told an entirely different story from the original, real temperature measurements: that where before your records showed a cooling since the 1940s they now showed a warming trend.
You’d be gobsmacked, would you not?