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

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:


froze25 (not verified) D Nyle Sat, 07/15/2017 - 21:21 Permalink

It's a total scam they have been busted numerous times faking the data. You know if the MSM's are pushing something like Global warming or now "climate change" it's a screw job to take more money and freedom from you.

In reply to by D Nyle

Yukon Cornholius Looney Sat, 07/15/2017 - 21:35 Permalink

Have they ever thought about using airplanes to spray chemicals into the atmosphere to either absorb or reflect heat/light? There's gotta be a way to do that. I'm not crazy, am I?

Or maybe like a big disc that can block the sun when it gets too hot. Let's ask the Rothschilds what they think. They've got the money after all.

In reply to by Looney

NoDebt Yukon Cornholius Sat, 07/15/2017 - 22:08 Permalink

We live in the greatest era of the triumph of bullshit over simple fact that has ever existed in the history of man.  You young'uns don't have the perspective of somebody my age who was told all through primary school (1970s) that we were going into another ice age.  Flash forward 15 years from there and we're all going to die from global warming.  Flash forward another 15 years and we're STILL going to die from global warming and we can fix it by trading carbon credits through Goldman Sachs and, of course, higher taxes.  It's impossible for me to express to you how living through that narrative while things look pretty much the same outside, year after year, has both steeled me against such hysteria and angered me.  Like everything else, the pursuit of real science has been corrupted by politics and the blind pursuit of power over individual liberty.The upside is that when I hear narratives about how "the Russians stole the election" I know, with absolute certainty, it is 100% bullshit.  That's a small lie- easy to see and dismiss.  They say that the bigger the lie, the more effective.  Doesn't work with me.  Hoperfully it doesn't work with you.  I've seen, WITHIN MY OWN LIFETIME, muti-decade lies like "global warming" told over and over with malice aforethought.  DO NOT THINK the lies you are being told are all just momentary lies of immediate convenience.  Politicians tell lies of immediate convenience to get out of momentary trouble.  The people who really run things (and do not stand for election every 4 years) tell much larger, longer-lasting lies.  Those people own the media and they own higher education.If they did not have the capacity to tell you the same lie over and over for DECADES, nobody would believe them because the stories they tell are fantastic, full of magic and heroes and villains that a child might believe, but not a rational free-thinking adult.  But they DO own those organs of propoganda, so people DO believe them.  

In reply to by Yukon Cornholius

Amicus Curiae NoDebt Sun, 07/16/2017 - 07:14 Permalink

same  here, i was lied and spun this shit under cooling in the 70sdont have kids  there wont be oil food metals etc etcyou name it they lied about itsame pack of assholes saying the exact same thing to this day but now warming the bogeymanim also hugely angry and would cheerfully see them all hung for the harm theyve caused to so many lives for 40+yearsand ongoing. and youre right about owning the ed systempsyops begins in kindy

In reply to by NoDebt

quadraspleen NoDebt Sun, 07/16/2017 - 10:39 Permalink

Well said. I was just into high school by the late 70s, and yes, we got told that, by the time I was 40, an age that I never thought I'd reach, yet which has come and gone with a memory of distant summer, we'd be into the "New Ice Age"

That went well, then...

The rest of it is up to how we teach our kids now. How they teach theirs. Fuck schools. They are mincing machines designed to indoctrinate and dumb down. Most of what they teach is useless in today's world. Both my kids are switched on and quite a few of their friends are. Times will change. Temporary glitch. Humanity will prevail.

In reply to by NoDebt

GUS100CORRINA Looney Sat, 07/15/2017 - 23:11 Permalink

Research Team Slams Global Warming Data In New Report: "Not Reality... Totally Inconsistent With Credible Temperature Data"My response: I AGREE COMPLETELY. ZH ... Well done. Thanks for publishing and sharing this information. Every time someone purports to have data concerning Global Warming, one phrase always comes to mind.FIGURES LIE and LIARS can FIGURE. The Global Warming narrative is always shaped to benefit some nefarious group and steal money from people. The real BAD NEWS is that this GLOBAL WARMING CONDITIONED thinking has permeated US universities and high schools across America.As a side note, educational institutions get much of their funding because they support the GLOBAL WARMING NARRATIVE. So, it becomes a question of TRUTH versus FUNDING. This my friends is very wrong because it is a form of coercion using public funds! We may even be able to claim that racketeering laws have been broken.

In reply to by Looney

nmewn Moe Hamhead Sat, 07/15/2017 - 21:14 Permalink

And its still funny as shit.Take the chunk that broke off from the Larsen Ice Shelf last week, to the left this was proof of manmade global warming and the hysterics an icy waterfall of doom (lol) with apocalyptic prognostications of seashore flooding!Well, no, the chunk of ice was already floating in the ocean.

In reply to by Moe Hamhead

DeadFred nmewn Sat, 07/15/2017 - 21:24 Permalink

If that ice flow doesn't refreeze to the shelf it may drift to sea and reflect the sun from ocean that currently obsorb the sun's energy. The end result would likely be a slight cooling for the world overall. Of course if it landed next to your city the local effects could be more dramatic.

In reply to by nmewn

Anteater nmewn Sat, 07/15/2017 - 23:47 Permalink

The Green's point is that the melting ice will dilute the sea water so it freezes more easily which will vastly increase the area of white sea ice which will reflect more sunlight back off into space and result in,...uhhh...the predicted Tipping Point (R)!!!!!!

In reply to by nmewn

truthalwayswinsout Sat, 07/15/2017 - 21:25 Permalink

It is clear we need to clean up the enviroment world wide and also make sure there is animal and plant diversity. We don't need to lie about anything to realize it is in everyone's best interests.Someone who wants to solve the problem would begin by allocating land to wildlife where little or no human reaction is present.Someone who wants to solve the problem would begin a massive move towards a space economy where the resources are unlimited and there is no impact on earth and a positive outcome where goods, and resources are manufactured and found off planet.A race to space would cost an investment of $1 Trillion and never hurt anyone's economy; not like the current Al Gore (I make a ton of money if you stupid fucks believe me) schemes.A gradual clean up of the earth is in order but that can be done by not making more pollution and cleaning up what is there. Technology would solve most of the problems and yes, there would be pain for everyone but nothing that everyone cannot handle or live with.  Like our trade deals, our politicians sold us out on everything climate and they were hoping to make fortunes while the rest of us take sponge baths.

neilhorn truthalwayswinsout Sat, 07/15/2017 - 22:40 Permalink

You said: It is clear we need to clean up the enviroment world wide"We" need the government to clean up the environment, because I am incapable of keeping my own shit in the dumpster? We are the government that already owns and restricts access to about one third of the U.S. About 70% of the western states are owned by "we the people", but about 60% of that land is restricted to use by the oligarchs, their friends and family.I can tell you, because I know, the people in charge of our public lands treat the nations resources as if the land belongs to them personally, and they don't give a shit about you, unless you have the power to change their lives. 

In reply to by truthalwayswinsout

CEOoftheSOFA Sat, 07/15/2017 - 21:28 Permalink

There is no physical evidence for the AGW Theory:  (Anthropogenic Global Warming), the theory that the Earth is warming due to human caused increases in greenhouse gasses, primarily, carbon dioxide, (CO2).  There are only climate models that purport to prove the theory.  The climate models have many inaccuracies which completely invalidate the models.  Among the inaccuracies are the following:1.       The climate models have no way of accurately estimating the temperature effect due to changes in cloud cover.  Changes in cloud cover have been shown to have much more effect on global temperature than changes in CO2 levels. 2.      It has been proven that past periods of increasing temperature preceded increases in CO2 by as much as 800 years.3.      Water vapor feedback: The AGW theory models assume that the Earth’s temperature goes up 1.1 degree C for each doubling of CO2 just based on the effect of the increases in water vapor which are caused by increases in CO2.  This has never been proven.  The models do not take into consideration the cooling effect of cloud cover which also results from increases in water vapor. 4.      Aerosols:  The AGW models use changes in atmospheric aerosol levels as a fudge factor to make the models agree with actual temperature changes, even though there is no data to support this claim.     5.      The climate models have no way of modeling vertical heat vents.  Vertical heat vents form when the ocean surface temperature is over 28 degrees C. Heat is transported to the upper atmosphere which cools the earth.   Heat vents transport so much heat that their effect on global average temperatures is more than the increases caused by CO2.  The Pacific Vertical Heat Vent in the western Pacific alone vents enough heat to completely cancel out the effects of CO2 increases. 6.      The climate models have no way of modeling changes in the Sun’s level of radiation.  It has been shown that changes in the Sun’s radiance accounts for at least 50% of the global temperature increase since 1850, the end of the Little Ice Age.  Proponents of the AGW Theory say that the Sun’s total irradiance only varies by 0.1%, so has little effect on global average temperatures.  This is true, however there are large variations in several components of the Suns total irradiance, which have been shown to have large effects on the Earth’s temperature.  The UV wave component of the Sun’s total irradiance can fluctuate by as much as 70% which can change the Earth’s global average temperature by several degrees C.  The Sun’s magnetic field also fluctuates.  The magnetic field shields the Earth from cosmic rays. Cosmic rays can fluctuate by 10%-20%. Increases in cosmic rays have been shown to cause increases in cloud cover.  This has been shown to have a greater effect on global temperatures than changes in CO2.    7.      The Hockey Stick:  The climate models do not take natural, global temperature cycles into effect.  In the late 1990’s the Hockey Stick Theory was developed by Michael Mann which disregarded, and drew a straight line through, all the past temperature cycles except the warming trend from 1970-2000.  A straight line was drawn through all past cycles to 1970 and then showed the increase in temperatures to 2000 to form the hockey stick.  This theory denies the existence of all the Earth’s cycles which are well documented to have a greater effect on global average temperatures than changing CO2. The proponents of the AGW theory have stated many times that the cycles like the Eddy Cycle are regional and not global.  In the past 15 years, the Eddy Cycle has been proven to be global by many people around the world.  Among the most important cycles are the following: a.      Milankovitch Cycle: Caused by changes in the eccentricity, axial tilt, and orientation of the Earth’s orbit.    The major components are on a 400,000 year cycle.  Most of the components are on a 110,000 year cycle, which cause the ice ages. On average, the Earth is in an ice age for 100,000 years with a warm, interglacial period of 10,000 years.  The Earth is currently nearing the end of the Holocene Interglacial period.  These cycles cause differences in solar radiation of up to 6.8%.   b.       Eddy cycle:  1000 year cycle:  Has been documented to have changed phases globally 25 times since the last ice age.  It is caused by changes in solar radiation and a combination of the 206 year solar cycle and the Pacific and Atlantic oceanic cycles.  This cycle is responsible for: the Modern Warm Period (1850 - present), Little Ice Age (1300-1850), Medieval Warm Period (900-1300), Dark Ages Cold Period (400 - 900), Roman Warm Period (250 BC-400 AD), etc.  The Medieval and Roman warm periods were warmer than the Modern Warm Period.  Logs from Icelandic fishing boats indicate that the Arctic Ice Edge was much further north during the Medieval Warm Period than today.  Diaries from vineyards in the UK indicate that grapes were grown for winemaking in Central England until the early 1300’s.  This was 500 km further north than where grapes can be grown today. The coldest point of the Little Ice Age was the year 1700.  The Earth has been warming at a rate of 1 degree C per century since then.  The warming rate was the same both before and after the Industrial Revolution.    c.      Suess / deVries Solar Cycle:  206 years.  Caused by variations in the number of sun spots which causes fluctuations in the sun’s total radiance.  The Sun has been in hibernation, or a sun spot minimum, since 2009.  The previous minimum was the Dalton Minimum (1790 – 1830).  Dalton minimum caused total crop failures for several years in New England and Upstate New York.   The current minimum should cause a cold period extending to the late 2030’s.  This causes a 1 degree C difference in global average temperatures.  The 20th century had a higher number of sun spots than any century for 10,000 years.   The Dalton minimum occurred during a cold phase of the Eddy Cycle.  The current solar minimum is occurring during a warm phase of the Eddy Cycle, so the temperature variances should not be as extreme as during the Dalton minimum.d.      Pacific Decadal Oscillation: 60 years.  Caused by the alignment of the Earth with Jupiter and Saturn, the two planets with the highest forces of gravity.  The alignment causes the Earth to be pulled closer to or further from the Sun by a distance of three Sun diameters. Also causes extreme changes in tides causing reversals in warm and cold water masses in the Pacific.   The PDO has been shown to change the Earth’s average temperature by several tenths of a degree C.  The PDO has been in a cold phase since 2000 and has deposited abnormally cold water off the coast of California, causing an extended drought.   The PDO has caused warm periods from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1970-2000.  This cycle was discovered in 1992.  In the early 1970’s when climatologists were predicting the coming of an ice age, they were merely extrapolating the cold phase of the PDO cycle (1940-1970).  Today they are forecasting extreme warming by making the same mistake:  They are extrapolating the warm phase of the PDO cycle.  The Atlantic also has a similar cycle.e.      Schwabe Solar cycle:  Solar activity increases and decreases on an 11 year cycle.  This was discovered in 1755 and has been well documented since.  We are currently in Cycle 24 which started in 2009.  The current cycle is breaking records for low solar activity.  Whenever an 11 year cycle is this low, it is always followed by 2 more abnormally low cycles, which is what happened during the Dalton Minimum. The conclusion is that the Earth was in a warming period from 1970 – 2000 primarily due to a maximum level of sun spots and the warming phase of the PDO, with a relatively minor contribution from increases in CO2.   Since 2009, the Sun has gone into hibernation for the first time since the Dalton Minimum (1790 – 1830).  We are also in a cold phase of the PDO, since 2000.  The 206 year solar cycle and the PDO will be the primary climate factors for the next 20 years which will be a significant cooling trend.  The AGW climate models did not predict this cooling trend because the models to not take any of the climate cycles into consideration.  The AGW proponents are using unsubstantiated aerosol levels as a fudge factor to explain the current cooling trend.  

John_Coltrane CEOoftheSOFA Sat, 07/15/2017 - 22:03 Permalink

That's a absolutely terrific comment and explanation of the natural forces governing climatic change. As a professional research scientist, I am constantly impressed by the quality of understanding and writing on this subject by those who have spent time trying to debunk the dogma in the popular press.

I would only add that the transitions between ice ages and interglacials are not well understood and likely will never be but the hypothesis you mentioned are reasonable. However, unfortunately, not testable. So, we are left with doubt and uncertainly-the driving forces for progress in science.

The main thing we know for sure, the climate is a complex, chaotic, non-linear system with multiple feedback and thus completely unpredictable. Even the IPCC agreed with this in the technical section of its last report. Yet continued to use those "scary model predictions" in its political/policy section intended for cretins like Obama and Al Gore.

In reply to by CEOoftheSOFA

techpriest John_Coltrane Sat, 07/15/2017 - 22:33 Permalink

Indeed, that was a great post.

I am a former renewables researcher, and what stuck out to me was not the scientific data, but the solution. We are told that we *must* have 2%+ inflation because we need an economy that permanently grows exponentially, yet, we have to reduce energy usage because that's what is needed to reduce CO2 emissions.

Of course, if environmental issues were truly central, there are a number of simple, local policy changes (zoning) that could make Western cities very walkable, which would permit building of houses that would last for centuries, and which would permit many, maybe most families to become self-sufficient and off-grid. However, this would increase liberty, and over time, decrease reliance on centralized banks, centralized industry, and centralized governments. So, I found out that environmentalism isn't the goal, so much as perpetual payouts to chosen organizations, spearheaded by antihumanists.

In reply to by John_Coltrane