Citing ‘adjusted’ data NOAA claims there is no global warming hiatus
Back at the beginning of 2014 NASA was forced to admit that there has been a pause in global warming for the last 15 years and the agency was determined to do something about it. Since that time NASA has been adjusting the historical temperatures in order to “hide the decline” in global temperatures and even some foreign nations joined in the act.
Now, armed with the newly adjusted historical temperatures, NOAA has predictably released a report which claims there has been no global warming hiatus over the last 15 years after all. Here is more:
Much study has been devoted to the possible causes of an apparent decrease in the upward trend of global surface temperatures since 1998, a phenomenon that has been dubbed the global warming “hiatus.” Here we present an updated global surface temperature analysis that reveals that global trends are higher than reported by the IPCC, especially in recent decades, and that the central estimate for the rate of warming during the first 15 years of the 21st century is at least as great as the last half of the 20th century. These results do not support the notion of a “slowdown” in the increase of global surface temperature.
When the numbers did not add up to the global warming alarmists’ liking they simple changed the numbers and now they are claiming that global warming is continuing. And we are supposed to believe this is all on the level? How stupid do they think we are!? In my opinion this calls into question the validity of their argument and shows us they will do anything to promote a radical agenda which is really about controlling the masses and has nothing to do with science or the environment. Follow the money…
Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
America's Watchtower 
Reblogged this on Brittius.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you.
LikeLike
You’re welcome.
LikeLiked by 1 person
But the LIAR in chief told us it’s more of a threat than he is or ISIS – I–CiA.
Similar number fraud like the Unemployment #’s.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I guess that shows us where his priorities lie…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Or, that he believes the ‘lying priorities!’
LikeLiked by 1 person
What annoys me is that they are doing this and not really giving a reasonable explanation. If the data is biased, they need to explain how it is biased. What I find interesting is how for all of those years those “biased” bouys kept a somewhat constant temperature well within the margin of error.
Peer review is supposed to greatly reduce the chance of bias. Unfortunately, there isn’t a mechanism to address the issue where most scientist might share the same bias.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree but at this time it doesn’t seem as if there really is a legitimate peer review because they all seem to hold the same belief and are only looking to prove it.
LikeLike