Research Team Slams Global Warming Data In New Report: "Not Reality... Totally Inconsistent With Credible Temperature Data"

Tyler Durden's picture

Authored by Mac Slavo via,

As world leaders, namely in the European Union, attack President Trump for pulling out of the Paris Climate Agreement which would have saddled Americans with billions upon billions of dollars in debt and economic losses, a new bombshell report that analyzed Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) data produced by NASA, the NOAA and HADLEY proves the President was right on target with his refusal to be a part of the new initiative.

According to the report, which has been peer reviewed by administrators, scientists and researchers from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (M.I.T.), and several of America’s leading universities, the data is completely bunk:

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.


The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality. 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.


Finally, since GAST data set validity is a necessary condition for EPA’s GHG/CO2 Endangerment Finding, it too is invalidated by these research findings. (Full Abstract Report)

Of course, this won’t stop global climate normalcy deniers from saying it’s all one big conspiracy to destroy the earth. They’ll naturally argue that data adjustments to the temperatures need to be made for a variety of reasons, which is something the report doesn’t dispute. What it does show, however, is that these “adjustments” always prove to be to the upside. Always warmer, never cooler:

While the notion that some “adjustments” to historical data might need to be made is not challenged, logically it would be expected that such historical temperature data adjustments would sometimes raise these temperatures, and sometimes lower them. This situation would mean that the impact of such adjustments on the temperature trend line slope is uncertain. However, each new version of GAST has nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history.

In short: The evidence has been falsified.

Karl Denninger sums it up succinctly:

It is therefore quite-clear that the data has been intentionally tampered with.


Since this has formed the basis for plans to steal literal trillions of dollars and has already resulted in the forced extraction of hundreds of billions in aggregate for motorists and industry this quite-clearly constitutes the largest economic fraud ever perpetrated in the world.


I call for the indictment and prosecution of every person and organization involved, asset-stripping all of them to their literal underwear.

The real data looks something like this:



And the establishment, along with their fanatical global warming myrmidons, continue to push the need for massive, costly initiatives to reduce green house gases and global temperatures to “normal” levels.

The problem, of course, is that there is no global warming according to the above referenced report.

Moreover, none of those supporting the Paris Climate Agreement and other initiatives have any idea what these behemoth regulations will actually do to curb climate change, as evidenced by the following video of Miami Beach Mayor Philip Levine, who despite his best efforts, can’t seem to figure out exactly how these agreements actually lower temperatures and help Americans:

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Teja's picture

Wow. Not sure if I should down- or upvote you. The idea to get rid of cars in cities by changing Western (and Eastern, I would assume) cities is something I do support 100%. Supporting that monster post with its hodgepodge of partly debunked and partly irrelevant theories might not be the thing, though.

To say "a theory is wrong because there are lots of other theories with contradicting predictions" does not really help. I would rather say that if there is a certain probability (say 10%) that Human-caused Global Heating is real, in the order of magnitude proposed (>2°), how much money and work should we put into an insurance policy to protect us from the worst effects?

People do insure against catastrophes. Why should societies act otherwise, in this special case?

Regarding the psychology of your post, I decided on upvoting.

. . . _ _ _ . . .'s picture

Actually, they've agreed since 2001.

"“In climate research and modelling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Assessment Report (2001), Section, page 774"

Teja's picture

This is correct. By the way, it is also not possible to predict if you will survive crossing a motorway with your eyes closed. Does that mean you should do that?

Svendblaaskaeg's picture

"...the climate is a complex, chaotic, non-linear system with multiple feedback and thus completely unpredictable..."

That rings a bell:

From the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2001 Assessment Report:


"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."


I Write Code's picture

Great post.  But still does not mention that the physics of CO2 and the tiny amount in the atmosphere cannot support anything like the warmist models.

Ace006's picture

And the tiny amount of that tiny amount contributed by man.

According to the warmists that trace amount of CO2 contributed by man is some unbelievably powerful stuff.

CRM114's picture

Neat summary.

I have always taught a different approach to debunking the AGW models.

1. The models do not explain the prior long or even medium term climate record. This is a basic check required with all predictive models before use. They must agree with what we know to have happened.

2. The error corrections applied should average to zero. In fact, as this paper points out and anyone with half a brain has been saying for 20 years, the corrections are almost exclusively warmist.

3. The predictions don't match reality. Furthermore, the predictions are consistently lower each time they are recalculated. This is another clear indication that crucial factors are being ignored, or that the model is wrong.

4. For any multi-factor model to work, the unknowns need to be error-bounded - one needs to know the maximum influence of the quantities that are difficult to measure or unknown. This has not been done with the climate models - they've just assumed anything they can't measure is not a significant influence.


p.s. Interesting stuff on the current Solar Cycle

SwiffFiffteh's picture

These are all great comments. I also have a slightly different approach to this entire subject:

Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that everything the AGW activists claim is true: output from human activities have totally overwhelmed the normal, natural forces of climate change such that all changes are now completely attributable to mankind, and we are headed for a massive climate disaster and are already in the beginning stages of a mass extinction event. 

Let's further suppose that somehow we unite the world and enact all of the policies and countermeasures AGW activists think are necessary, and even further suppose that these actions actually work as advertised and thus we "stop" all manmade climate change.

Given the miniscule energy levels the human race would be self-limited to, we can assume a drastic population reduction down to Georgia Guidestones levels, around 500 million people total worldwide, reduced to living in the trees like our ancient ancestors, essentially. 

Having stopped the AGW menace, the normal, natural climate change forces reassert themselves. Based on (literal) mountains of paleontological and geological evidence, we know that natural climate change eventually becomes horribly catastrophic at fairly regular intervals, and that the catastrophic episodes usually mark the switch between glacial and interglacial periods, and that for the last 2 million years or so the switch has occurred roughly every 6 thousand years. This puts us about 4 thousand years overdue for a switch from our current balmy interglacial period into a glacial period. 

In other words, we'll be back where we fucking started, i.e. sitting around waiting for a climate catastrophe, except that we have no idea how to mitigate this one because we aren't causing it, and even if we did, the loss of 7 billion of our fellow humans and the inability to use advanced energy and technology makes us incapable of doing anything about it. Game Over. 


To me this makes it obvious that it doesn't fucking matter who's right or wrong on the subject of climate change. Either way, the climate will become catastrophic at some point and we need to be prepared for it, and the answer is not to dampen all human activity and roll back to stone age living conditions. We need to do the opposite: advance as quickly as possible, use energy liberally and boldly, unleash the ingenuity of humanity and get at least some of our eggs out of this fucking basket. 

AchtungAffen's picture

Didn't know we had a climatologist here in the neck of the woods. C'mon mate, tell us where and what did you publish...

goober's picture

excellent comment sofa !

. . . _ _ _ . . .'s picture

He had a good debate with Elizabeth May. She lost.

There's a YT vid somewhere.

Felix da Kat's picture

The global warming hoax is a silly Marxist scheme to trick Americans into sharply reducing energy and productivity to further undercut: jobs, GDP, standards of living, American affluence and its worldwide political dominance (its political footprint). It was very telling that per the Paris climate accord (now voided), China and India were exempted from any  resposibility to lessen their country's carbon footprint. Thank God we have president Trump who rightly sees that changes in world temperatures are naturally occuring and not man-caused. 

techpriest's picture

If you read it carefully, there are no accountability mechanisms whatsoever, and its really just a means of justifying more taxes and more redistribution to "countries who are at risk," aka Haitian relief all over again.

TheAnswerIs42's picture

Ok, when anyone screams about global warming or climate change and the end of the world, just ask them for any empirical measurement of human caused warming.

Don't hold your breath, cause there isn't any measured amount available, it's so small they cannot even measure the change caused by humans.

A 30 year old propaganda system is coming apart at the seams.

Flush it, now!




order66's picture

Big oil is fighting a losing battle with shit like this. Alternative energy cannot be stopped. Regardless of what your opinion of global warming is or isn't. Mindless argument.

Horse Pizzle's picture

Nobody ever made money on a windmill or a solar panel.

shovelhead's picture

Solar powered jumbo jets are the future.

techpriest's picture

When batteries behave like gasoline I will believe it. Otherwise, wind will be an absurdly expensive toy, and solar will work in remote applications or where electricity is unusually expensive, like Hawaii. I'm saying this as someone who really likes solar and keeps tabs on the tech.

If they can get supercapacitors to store as much power as batteries (10x improvement), with the same charge rates as current, at the same price as batteries (another 10X improvement) then I'll put my money on companies putting these systems in. It may happen.

Anteater's picture

"The flux capacitors won't take no more! I'm giving her all I can! We need more dilithium crystals!!"

God, can you imagine your entire acting career, saying just those lines?

God, can you imagine an entire academic career, grifting for green?

"I'm seeing a sharp-hockey stick followed by a flaming Venus!!!"

"Whatever you say, pal. Now take your pills."

techpriest's picture

In academia it is simply taken for granted, and the standard line is to express shock at disagreement, and then data dump about 10 or 15 official studies.

Anyway, in my field no one was trying to prove it. Instead, chemical engineering was running out of problems in the conventional space, so renewables were a set of new and interesting problems that would feed academics for another 20-30 years. I have to admit the chemistry was cool, and there were some actual products that were coming out of the lab, but the underlying justification (We can replace oil with corn! Keep those ag subsidies going!) seemed a little ridiculous to me.

I Write Code's picture

I think your wish is granted, supercapacitors do store roughly the same power as batteries at roughly the same price, but charge a whole lot faster.  Some guys sell them to store power from regenerative braking on trucks, cuz otherwise regenerated power is 99% lost since batteries can't charge fast enough to hold it.

The problem with supercapacitors is that their failure modes include the spectacular, heck almost as bad as gasoline and much worse than diesel fuel.  And their charge and discharge losses are slightly larger than for batteries, numbers that are often forgotten in casual discussion.  The theoretical limits are still a little higher, but it seems science fiction to go much beyond that unless maybe nanotechnology finds some magic trick.

techpriest's picture

The last time I was really working with supercaps was about two years ago, so maybe some breakthroughs have already happened. It is a big area of research after all. I do remember the spectacular failure though - you *must* put in protection to prevent overcharging.

On the nanotech, my colleagues did a lot of nanotech, and really I don't see why people treat it as so freaking magical. The nanomachine idea is largely bogus, but for chemistry/energy storage, nanotech is interesting because as your clusters of material approach atomic scale, the amount of exposed atoms/surface area explodes. IMO, that's the truly interesting part, and at the time I left grad school (2014), people were still trying to figure out what types of nanostructures can be built. We were working on nanotubes and a "stacked cups" nanotube variant. There's still a lot of work in terms of figuring out what all we can do, let alone perfecting applications.

Anteater's picture

Elon Musk's 'renewable' cars all burn fossil fuels (the grid). His green tax credits, extorted from every American's savings, are fraud and grand larceny, bunko and racketeering. There are no solar- or wind-powered cars, nor will there ever be, and the dream of tele-commuting ( which burns the energy of 19 fossil fuel plants) has already begun to taper. You can't tele-commute to your half-time server job at Starbucks. Uber doesn't pencil, public transportation won't get you from A to B, so you're gonna have to ride the black horse with the rest of us.

afronaut's picture

Big oil is all in. They found ways to profit off it. 

The only alternative to maintain our current lifestyle is with nukes

Ace006's picture

Can it be started? That is la pregunta.

c2nnib2l's picture

I dont need a report I've got a blinking thermometer and I know  one thing that summers in UK for the last couple of years ale colder than ever. Winters are also harsh.. as never before

don't need nasa data

historian40's picture

The next thing you know, they'll go back to the 80s, early 90s when they told us we were going to freeze to death in another ice age because of the activities of man.  Changed to global warming, now just climate change in general.

roddy6667's picture

On the first Earth Day in 1970, I was a student at UCONN. There was a big rally down by Mirror Lake. I wish I had taken pictures of the big banner that warned about Global Cooling and the Coming Ice Age, the rallying points of the day.

Fear mongers don't need facts.

afronaut's picture

70s they taught us that in grade school. Scared the kids, just like now, it's just more bullshit from the bullshit brigade trying to justify their existance

silverer's picture

If they change the reports, will that change the weather? (Again?)

rejected's picture

Can anyone believe the dirt level idiots that somehow get elected! No wonder Miami and Miami Beach are shitholes today.

Horse Pizzle's picture

Fake birth certificate, fake social security numbers, fake news, fake climate data, fake employment data, fake money.

rudyspeaks's picture

This "report" is NEVER identified! What sort of brain-candy article IS this? I followed the links and it NEVER identified, except for the names of researchers, WHO issued the "report" or who conducted it. Again, AGW was NOT a "Chinese" came from a book published in England nearly 200 years ago. Again, ALL of the effects are coming due, actually FASTER than predicted. Polar ice caps ARE melting. Tropical diseases, fish, and insects ARE moving north. Florida IS allocating money for raising (increasingly flooded, even w/o storms) Miami's streets. Pine forests are withering in their southern ranges...WTF does it take for you to admit you righties are NEVER correct about your science-denying. Cigs DO cause cancer, lead DOES affect kid's IQ, "Reaganomics" is a fraud, No WMDs in Iraq...don't you EVER get tired of being conned???

Tenshin Headache's picture

Report is gettable if you backtrack. I don't recommend it, however.

Anteater's picture

Looked-for correlation is not causation. The West Coast just had its longest and coldest winter in 112 years. It's now July 17th here, the height of summer, but the wildflowers have all blown and there is dew in the morning after 55 degree nights. This doesn't fit your 'flaming Venus' scenario, so you just ignore it! 'We're all gonna die! ' We are past the tipping point, you claimed, but then research funds dried up, so now we are ALMOST at the tipping point, lol. Fuck you.

There is no proof, in fact, it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove that starving Americans of fossil fuel energy will return US to the Garden of Eden. That's pure wack evangelical fundamentalist hoo-haw. Then to TITHE every American for their 'tailpipe', and create a $TRILLION hyperinflationary crooked stock 'scheme', based solely on rabbinicalism and 'belief', is more dangerous than the Spanish Inquisition, more deadly than the Black Plague, and puts our world more at risk than Fukushima.

Fossil fuels blew gold dust over America and were our only true salvation. Oil. Everything we have...everything...comes from  fossil fuels. You will not starve US with your theories. We will fight the Luddites to our last breath, and with our last bullet.

Teja's picture

The fun fact here is that countries flooded with fossil fuels are ruined by them, in most of the cases, through corruption, through internal conflict over the riches, also through pollution. Venezuela. Nigeria. Angola. Mexico. Many Arab countries. Russia. Brazil. All corrupt and most with a low quality of life index.

One could argue that even for the UK the money coming in from the North Sea Oil lead to their de-industrialisation and the overbearing influence of the City. The only exception I know of is Norway. They stack most of their oil money away, by the way.

These days, long term riches come from knowledge and efficient production, not from raw materials.

So, enjoy your f****ing oil and gas. And don't thank God for it, it was a Greek Gift.

SwiffFiffteh's picture

Another fun fact: none of that is because of fossil fuels. It's because of people.

A slightly less fun fact: It is painful to even have to point this out. Can you try not to be so fucking stupid? 

Enceladus's picture

Tired of being NeoConned tired of lib/left hystreronics. Tired of fake everything. I'm so tired of the bs I'm looking seriously into Creationism and on-boarding The Lord as my fact checker. 

Horse Pizzle's picture

Climate scientists may need to find a new gig.

Anteater's picture

Mirmidons - (noun)  Demonic Trumpbots who fight battles of darkness and evil to convince the American People their Nation is Exceptional and in the grace of MAGA, when in fact, Trump is running a -$2.6T annualized deficit, and the Nation will blow past -$30 TRILLION irredeemable default and bankrupcy just as Trump-Kushner yield the reigns of power in 2020.

shovelhead's picture

Awesome ain't it?

Lefty Hilbots are going to die by the millions.

Happy days are here again!

Enceladus's picture

Now you know why we hired him. AS AN AGENT OF DESTRUCTION 

Pickleton's picture

I find it geniunely exceptional that the imbeciles on the left only manage to figure out maffs long enough to whine about republican deficits and debt, but completely ignore that their own version of runnnig the govt is far more unsustainable.


On the one hand you imbeciles will parrot that the economy does better under the left (where they aren't paying back debt, because it's been hsitorically republicans that pay back our debt) but at same time you'll endlessly bitch that republicans are starving children and killing the old folks because they wont spend as much as you profligate imbeciles that never met a checkbook balance you wouldn't completely BLOW THRU.



VWAndy's picture

 Looks like that dogma just barfed all over itself.

jack flack's picture

aww, is that mug of ol Fucker Carlson a doosey?

G-R-U-N-T's picture

So the politicians, oligarchs and bought and paid for climatologist's for funding, lie to the masses, using 'FAKE' data models, for looting purposes, by taxing and feeing the air we exhale for their heavenly desire of an endless revenue stream. Here's what's criminal, they know they're perpetrating this fraud and continue to lie about it.

They need to be tried for these crimes, stripped of all their wealth and forced to breath in cow flatulence!

I must say though that these lying sacks of shit damn near pulled off the greatest parasitic, leach infested CON ever inflicted on humanity. 

Ace006's picture

Top honor go to the federal government ably assisted by the Supreme Court.