The 2 biggest magic tricks used in so called Climate Science.

1.) Using a small window of time.

2.) The use of Computer Model manufactured data instead of actual measurements.

The first issue plays into the creating of hysteria. You repeatedly hear or read The hottest ever. and see graphs showing a spike in temperatures. The people, groups, and agencies like to start in the1960’s or 70’s when temps we at a low point in the sense of the last 100 years. These agencies have even altered there own information to push their agenda. Which quite literally turns them into a propaganda agency and no longer legitimate science resource in my opinion. Take these charts below for an example. Thye BOTH are from the IPCC.

Notice how they hid the warming of the Medieval Period and the cooling of the Little Ice Age. This seems to have been for 2 reasons.

One was to hide how the current warming is no warmer than it has been before, and the other to create this panic. Again they just want you to look at the last 40 years or so.

This chart below was created to “Prove” that Co2 is the cause, however, they also proved that today’s climate changes are very typical and not any great exception, once you look at the big picture.

2.) The use of Computer Model manufactured data instead of actual measurements.

The above chart segues into the second trick. The rise in faulty data. What our government agencies like to do is replace data with predicted data based on computer models. Now, this is admitted by them and while they don’t like to call it fraud. They prefer the term adjustments. Now the excuse they use is that the regular equipment used to collect temperatures in an area was offline or unavailable for some reason. So instead of not entering and data for that location. The used what a computer program predicted would be the Temp. or whatever data they are measuring. Rainfall, wind, sea level, etc… So what you will notice if you look closely and read the fine print as it were. Over the years the percentage of data collection stations that were “Offline” has increased. Meaning the percentage of computer modeled information used, has increased. Yet EVEN with “Adjusting” the data their predictions still are not accurate.

I want you to think about that. These agencies and groups have used computer models for a couple of decades now to make Global Warming predictions, and they in time have been proven inaccurate. However when real physical data collecting equipment is believed to not be available. They will enter this computer modeled prediction even though it has been proven inaccurate time and time again. I do not see how that can be considered accurate science? I do see it as a way to alter results, however. One can also see this strategy as a way to make inaccurate predictions fall back into line. Keep in mind that despite all the hype, horror stories, we are only speaking terms of tenths of a degree in warming.

The graph below shows the percent of data stations who needed their information to be replaced.

Does anyone else see a pattern here?

Read the full article this was taken from.

Also watch this video for even more details

The other thing that is being done is using measurements from different places. Historically the US used temperature gages on land. I don’t know enough about all this to provide many details, but the latest preference is to use atmospheric temperatures. If you were a Global Alarmist with an agenda I could certainly see that. problem is much like the Hockey Stick graph was created using 2 different measurement tools. This switch in measurement tools from land stations to air, or ocean, or even satellite data collection, can’t be compared fairly either. If you want to use and chart with any one of these methods that are fine. So long as you start the chart at the point in which you started using that tool. Then if you want to use all 4 for comparison in a checks and balances sort of way, fine. Great even. But to take air temps at the high elevations that you know are going to be warmer and then alter historic land data based on the recent ocean or air results is WRONG!!!!

Sadly however that seems to be exactly what is happening.

Leave a Reply

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