Why Climate Science Peer Review Is Worthless
Climate science has no system of checks and balances. The people who write climate models are the same ones who evaluate themselves, and then journalists parrot what the modelers say, and refuse to print any other opinions.
Modelers like James Hansen and Gavin Schmidt are also are the people who alter the temperature data when it doesn’t match their models.
Twenty years ago, NASA’s James Hansen was upset that the US was cooling – even as CO2 increased. It didn’t match his expectations.
How can the absence of clear climate change in the United States be reconciled with continued reports of record global temperature?
in the U.S. there has been little temperature change in the past 50 years, the time of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases — in fact, there was a slight cooling throughout much of the country
So he fixed this by removing the removed the heat of the 1930s, rather than fixing the climate models.
These massive adjustments were made to produce the desired results.
The graph below shows the magnitude of the adjustments.
When plotted against atmospheric CO2 below, you can see that NOAA altered the data to precisely match the theory.
Hansen called it a “sociological matter.”
The National Climate Assessment data shows that the US was much hotter during the 1930s than it is now, yet NOAA’s alterations fly through peer review without being questioned.
The EPA also shows that US summers used to be much hotter.
Then the press reports the exact opposite and refuses to talk to anyone who questions the assertions of the climate modelers.
The New York Times failed to interview the thousands of people who died in past heatwaves.
New York Times writers also don’t bother to read their paper’s own history.
The 1911 heatwave killed thousands of people in New England and across the country.
Forty-five years ago, climate scientists knew that earth was cooling, and blamed every imaginable form of bad weather on it.
Reality destroyed global warming theory, so the world’s leading climate scientists plotted to alter reality.
They erased the post-1940’s cooling.
Thirty years ago, Tom Karl (longtime head of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center) said most global warming occurred before 1919, and that Earth cooled from 1921 to 1979.
NASA now shows about 0.4C warming from 1921 to 1979.
NASA is continuously cooling the past and warming the present by tampering with data.
They claim that they are adjusting temperatures to reduce warming, but this is just another trick.
Land temperatures are being adjusted to increase warming.
Much of the land data is too sparse to be of any use, and this has been known for decades.
Outside of the US, western Europe, Japan and parts of Australia, the global temperature record lacks enough quality data to construct a meaningful temperature graph.
The ocean data is also fake.
NOAA makes up record heat in places where they have no data.
They don’t actually have any thermometer readings in South Sudan and the Central African Republic. “Gray areas represent missing data.” And never mind their actual thermometer readings in Eurasia showed a significant percentage of below normal temperatures.
The trick they use to claim they are adjusting the cooling trend down, is to make up an inflated fake trend, and then claim to discount it. The same psychological trick which people who sell jewelry use.
NASA not only adjusts the trend upwards, but they also hide warm temperatures from before 1880.
The 1974 NCAR graph made sense.
But in the current NASA graph, Ice melts at low temperatures, and forms at high temperatures. This makes no sense and shows us that the graph is bogus.
Tom Karl and Phil Jones had previously reported that the global trend was heavily impacted by UHI effects. This is now ignored.
Going back 1,000 years, long term cooling trends have also been erased.
The Extinction Rebellion is based on misinformation and superstition. Life has thrived at much higher CO2 levels.
The expansion of life on earth peaked when CO2 was at its maximum 540 million years ago.
I made my reputation in microprocessor design as a verification engineer. My job was to find all the faults in the design, and I was rewarded for doing so.. Climate science has no such system of checks and balances. Everyone benefits financially from fraudulent work by other scientists, so there is no motivation to expose error or fraud.
Climate scientists refuse to debate me, and make the most absurd excuses for doing so.
But the real agenda is clear for everyone to see, and it has nothing to do with climate.