Commentary: Can the NOAA, NASA, EPA, Met Office, and British academia all be wrong about climate change?

❝❝The bottom line of all this is that the data input to climate models has to have been adjusted, standardized, to meet the assumptions of the model.

Adjustments to the raw data have been being made for as long as there have been climate models, four decades or so as of this writing. The integrity of the process depends on the integrity of the adjustments. This article argues that the adjustment process has been tinkered with over time in such a fashion that it exaggerates the historical global warming shown by the models.

It is as if a doctor used a handful of thermometers, none of them absolutely accurate, to measure the progress of a child with a fever. Depending on the order in which he used the thermometers, he could judge that the child was getting sicker or more healthy. There is a strong vested interest in the earth getting sicker. The charge here is that the doctors were playing games with the thermometers. Why would they do that?

Climate change is at least a $1 trillion industry. Elon Musk, Al Gore and the solar panel industry have all gotten rich off of the global warming scare. If global warming is not real, a lot of experts around the world would be out of work. The people who report on global warming are not unbiased altruists.

Humanity seems to be always in search for some new peril that will kill us all. In the 1960s it was pesticides, villainized in Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring." In the 1970s it was "The Population Bomb." Global cooling, ironically enough, was considered a major threat in the 1970s. Philosopher Patrick Bruckner writes about mankind's need for something to fret about in his book "Save the Earth – Punish Human Beings." The fearmongers always find a ready audience.❞❞
     — Graham H. Seibert

Tags: clipping ∙ Graham H. Seibert ∙ adjusted ∙ model ∙ climate change