(Natural News) Yet another peer-reviewed study has proven that so-called “global warming” is nothing but a fabricated hoax, and yet American institutions of primary and secondary education continue to push the lie that modern human activity is destroying Earth.
As reported by The Daily Caller, the new study, which was published by a pair of scientists and a veteran statistician, found that there were adjustments made to global surface temperature readings by other scientists in the past few years which “are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.”
As such, “it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST [global average surface temperature] data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever — despite current claims of record-setting warming,” the study, published last month, noted.
The study was authored by Dr. James P. Wallace III, Dr. Joseph S. D’Aleo, and Dr. Craig D. Idso. Their results were supported by seven additional scientists and researchers.
“The objective of this research was to test the hypothesis that Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) data, produced by NOAA, NASA, and HADLEY, are sufficiently credible estimates of global average temperatures such that they can be relied upon for climate modeling and policy analysis purposes,” says the study’s abstract.
“In this research report, the most important surface data adjustment issues are identified and past changes in the previously reported historical data are quantified,” the abstract continues. “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.”
The trio concluded: “The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality.”
The Daily Caller noted that climatologists very often apply adjustments to surface temperature thermometers in order to account for “biases” in data. And while the study does not question those adjustments, per se, it does note that the adjustments are nearly always upward, as in, warmer.
“Nearly all of the warming they are now showing are in the adjustments,” D’Aleo, a meteorologist, told The Daily Caller. “Each dataset pushed down the 1940s warming and pushed up the current warming,” obviously to make it appear that the current ‘warming’ is much more dire.
“You would think that when you make adjustments you’d sometimes get warming and sometimes get cooling. That’s almost never happened,” said D’Aleo, who conducted the study with Wallace, a statistician, and Idso, a climate scientist at the Cato Institute.
The study will be added to petitions by several conservative organizations to the Environmental Protection Agency in a bid to get it to reconsider the 2009 endangerment finding which gave the agency authority to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses. (RELATED: One Lava Field Eruption Just Emitted More Climate Change Aerosols Than All 28 European Countries COMBINED)
That may happen. President Donald J. Trump has ordered EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt to conduct a review of the Obama-era Clean Power Act; since then, some have speculated the agency would then reopen the endangerment finding to renewed scrutiny. The document utilized three lines of evidence to allege that vehicle emissions “endanger both the public health and the public welfare of current and future generations.”
Natural News founder and editor Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, recently wrote how absurd it was for the government to be on a mission to stamp out carbon dioxide, since it is absolutely necessary to sustain life on the planet:
While climate change alarmists absurdly claim CO2 is a pollutant, they neglect to tell you that without CO2, we would all die of starvation because every ecosystem on the planet would almost instantly collapse. If CO2 were dropped to zero, Earth would become a barren global desert of death entirely incapable of supporting human life at all.
At some point, even the most ardent believers in this climate change/global warming narrative must ask themselves this logical question: If it were all true, why do scientists continually change or alter the data in order to “prove” their assertions?
J.D. Heyes is a senior writer for NaturalNews.com and NewsTarget.com, as well as editor of The National Sentinel.