Reason, Liberty, & Culture

Solar cycles.

Virtual World Science Should Be Questioned

by Lewis Loflin

(Above) One of the many facets of nature including climate changes runs in cycles.

Summary: NASA and other political entities have resorted to computer model generated data instead of actual real world data. This calls into question the results. In addition the methodology has also changed.

Reliable large-scale data prior to the 1960s worldwide was limited. They filled in the gaps with guesses. Or their opinion. But what if government money and politics shape those opinions?

What if grants and funding are dependant on "correct" results desired by politicians?

Note that temperatures have gone up they claim by about 1.4 to 1.8 deg. F since the 1880s. Others claim it is 1.56 deg. F since the 1880s. The reality is they don't know for sure.

Why is this "research" limited only to human causes versus natural causes? Or a combination of both? What is exactly is the problem in the real world? Alarmists for decades have claimed mass starvation, today record harvests.

Sea level rise over 11,700 years.

Hysteria over Arctic sea ice melting when three prior openings of the Northwest passage since 11,700 years wasn't a problem. This isn't a danger because melting sea ice doesn't raise ocean levels to any degree. Sea level has been rising for 11,700 years.

The other question becomes, so what? There have been far greater temperature swings since the end of the last ice age. 130,000 years ago the climate was so warm southern Alaska had the same climate as South Carolina. Animals and plants flourished.

Communist Party USA People and Planet before Profits

It is about economic and social policy, not polar bears. For some it is religion, for others hatred of humans and capitalism. The far left has totally hijacked this issue.

Computer models versus real world data.

Radical NASA Scientist James Hansen claims Nature has rights and climate "deniers" should go to prison. He admits trying to establishing GAST* is "elusive." He stated that:

"This can only be done with the help of computer models, the same models that are used to create the daily weather forecasts. We may start out the model with the few observed data that are available and fill in the rest with guesses (also called extrapolations) and then let the model run long enough so that the initial guesses no longer matter, but not too long in order to avoid that the inaccuracies of the model become relevant..."

What? Source: data.giss.nasa.gov

What they say is trust us or else.

In other words it is virtual temperature readings not real-world temperature readings. A study by Dr. James P. Wallace III, Dr. Joseph S. D'Aleo, and Dr. Craig D. Idso in June 2017 say not so fast. Their study questions "The Validity of EPA's CO2 Endangerment Finding" based on adjusted and computer model generated data. They conclude,

"...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."

Nature does run in cycles. It is not linear, it oscillates.

Troubling is the three differing studies claim to be independent, but are nearly identical. To quote,

Thus the fact that today, all three of these entities' Global Average Surface Temperature (adjusted) data portray the same basic pattern over the last 100 plus years cannot be taken as further evidence as to their individual credibility...

Critics quickly went on the attack. They didn't dispute the data or methodology, but their study was irrelevant as a "minority" opinion and thus they are out voted.

Read the GAST study yourself at gast.pdf

*GAST stands for "Global Average Surface Temperature".