A new peer-reviewed bombshell study concludes that three key global temperature data sets used in recent climate change models have been "adjusted" in such a way as to not be "a valid representation of reality."
The study, titled "On the Validity of NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU Global Average Surface Temperature Data & The Validity of EPA's CO2 Endangerment Finding," was published in June and written by James P. Wallace III, Joseph S. D’Aleo and Craig Idso. It was reviewed and approved by Drs. Alan Carlin, Harold H. Doiron, Theodore R. Eck, Richard A. Keen, Anthony R. Lupo, Thomas P. Sheahan, and George T. Wolff.
The scientists determined that the EPA's conclusions based off of all three GAST data sets were "invalidated," one of the authors claiming that "[n]early all of the warming" shown in the data sets are accounted for by the "adjustments" made by scientists to past temperatures.
"The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality," the scientists state in the abstract. "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."
The researchers explain in the abstract that they set out to "test the hypothesis that Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) data, produced by NOAA, NASA, and HADLEY, are sufficiently credible estimates of global average temperatures such that they can be relied upon for climate modeling and policy analysis purposes."
The authors underscore that the validity all three GAST data sets are essential to the EPA's GHG/CO2 Endangerment Finding. If they are not a "valid representation of reality," then the EPA's conclusions are invalid.
In this research report, the most important surface data adjustment issues are identified and past changes in the previously reported historical data are quantified. It was found that each new version of GAST has nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history. And, it was nearly always accomplished by systematically removing the previously existing cyclical temperature pattern. This was true for all three entities providing GAST data measurement, NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU.
As a result, this research sought to validate the current estimates of GAST using the best available relevant data. This included the best documented and understood data sets from the U.S. and elsewhere as well as global data from satellites that provide far more extensive global coverage and are not contaminated by bad siting and urbanization impacts. Satellite data integrity also benefits from having cross checks with Balloon data.
After checking the GAST data against all of the relevant data sets, the researchers concluded that they were "not a valid representation of reality."
One of the authors, meteorologist Joe D'Aleo, pointed out to The Daily Caller that almost all of the adjustments made to past and present temperature data sets helped promote the global warming theory.
"Nearly all of the warming they are now showing are in the adjustments. Each dataset pushed down the 1940s warming and pushed up the current warming," he said. "You would think that when you make adjustments you’d sometimes get warming and sometimes get cooling. That’s almost never happened."
You would think.