Top scientists to review data adjustments of temperature data


Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

The uncertainty of science? A panel of five scientists has been formed to review the adjustments to the global temperature data at NOAA and the Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) that have consistently cooled the past but warmed the present, thus creating the illusion of more warming than the raw data suggests.

Careful analysts have come up with hundreds of examples of how the original data recorded by 3,000-odd weather stations has been “adjusted”, to exaggerate the degree to which the Earth has actually been warming. Figures from earlier decades have repeatedly been adjusted downwards and more recent data adjusted upwards, to show the Earth having warmed much more dramatically than the original data justified.

So strong is the evidence that all this calls for proper investigation that my articles have now brought a heavyweight response. The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) has enlisted an international team of five distinguished scientists to carry out a full inquiry into just how far these manipulations of the data may have distorted our picture of what is really happening to global temperatures.

The global warming scientists at NOAA and GISS are finally going to challenged to explain their adjustments, something they have so far refused to do. For my part, I will be very surprised if they can come up with a scientifically justified explanation.

Share

7 comments

  • PeterF

    How much you want to bet the “Mainstream” media will give this story a “good leaving alone”?

  • mivenho

    One wonders whether these five will perceive pressure to understate the errors in these data.

  • D.K. Williams

    Could be a set-up.

  • Max

    “scientifically justified explanation”. Why, they’re saving the planet of course. what better explanation is needed? They’re doing it for the children, and for our future, as well as for all plants and animals everywhere. (not to mention billions and billions worth of grants and studies for their own future)

    Data and facts will stand on their own, they don’t need a consensus of five political scientist to interpret and spin the data. They need to graph and publish the real data without comment. We will give them a call if we need to know how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

  • Phineas Worthington

    Its certainly a good start. Hopefully the trend of fact checking/verifying the data will continue.

  • Jake V

    It’s not the scientific nature of the evidence that is important, it’s the seriousness of the charge…. [End sarcasm]

  • Not with Pielke as one of the five scientists. Not if the investigation is being run by the Global Warming Policy Foundation. Pielke is a strong skeptic, and GWPF was founded by skeptics to question the global warming agenda.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *