It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
A new study found adjustments made to global surface temperature readings by scientists in recent years “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,” according to a study published June 27 by two scientists and a veteran statistician.
The peer-reviewed study tried to validate current surface temperature datasets managed by NASA, NOAA and the UK’s Met Office, all of which make adjustments to raw thermometer readings. Skeptics of man-made global warming have criticized the adjustments.
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.”
“The conclusive findings of this research are that the three [global average surface temperature] data sets are not a valid representation of reality,” the study found. “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 seems that beyond any doubt, the U.S. data reflected in the Global Average Surface Temperature data calculation should contain the cyclical patterns shown above. In fact, as shown below in Figure V-15, as of 1999, in NOAA data, it did!
*chart V-15, the red line in the overlay below*
The solution: the U.S.historical data was adjusted as shown in Figure V-17.
*chart V-17, the purple line in the overlay below*
originally posted by: abe froman
a reply to: seasonal
Why would he lie to get rich?
Isn't he already rich from when he created the internet?
originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Greven
Maybe he is on the board of Apple because he was vice pres of the US?
Imagine the favors that were done for Apple while he was in office......
originally posted by: jrod
The study was done by the Cato Institue, which is funded by the Koch's. To but it simply, the 'liberterian free market' think tank that Cato is, is funded heavily by fossil fuel interests.
Amazing how quick you guys are to dismiss the findings of NASA, NOAA and thousands and thousands of actual universites, yet jump on a pro-Oil, right wing think tank bandwagon.
More on the Cato Institute here: