If the "Science is Settled" and Man Caused Climate Change is Real, Why Are Scientists Fudging the Temperature Data?

Put another way: why do they have to lie about it if the case is irrefutable?

Have you noticed the global warmers have been ramping up the propaganda lately? This week Obama reiterated that climate change is a bigger threat to the world than terrorism (1,2) After all, that shootup in Paris last month (Obama likened it to a "random shooting") was the same as another holiday weekend in Chicago.

The latest push on global warming is an organized effort. It started with the news release from NASA that 2014 was the hottest year on record. Only later did we learn that these scientists were only 38% sure of their claim. Besides, even if they are correct the margin is only a few hundredths of a degree.

 But forget all that. The legions of loyal alarmists dutifully took to their pens and flooded news pages with more dire warnings about the earth's imminent peril. Never mind that their doom and gloom predictions from the past 30 years have turned out to be entirely false.

The following cartoon makes the point by presenting predictions by real "scientists" that turned out to be false:

Again, forget all that. This time they MEAN IT!

But over the past few years people, including other scientists, have become naturally skeptical of the doomsayers dire predictions and more inclined to take a second look at the underlying "science" being presented.

Earth's average surface temperature. Real or imagined?

Where's the Global Thermometer?

How do scientists come up with an idea of global temperature anyway. There is no giant thermometer. But every year scientists trot out charts with what they say is a global temperature and according to them it's always going up. Or is it?

Any sense of "global temperature" is based on a complex averaging of temperature observations taken under often vastly different conditions all over the world. It's like mixing apples and oranges together and coming up with apple-oj.

Many of the weather stations the government relies on are situated next to heat sources or, over the years, have had significant development around them that would skew the data they produce (1,2) And curiously, some weather stations that are perfectly situated and maintained but show cooling and not warming have been eliminated from the official tally. That process of calculating an average is fraught with possibility for error and corruption.

How Did Colder Temperature Records Suddenly Heat Up

For an example of just how error prone or corrupt this process of creating a temperature index has become consider the comparison between charts showing U.S. temperature index. One chart created in 1999 and another in 2014:

How is it possible that previously recorded high temps are suddenly cooler? Someone is fudging the numbers. And oddly enough, whenever there is a manipulation of these numbers the outcome always shows it getting warmer, not cooler. Suspicious?

The same is true for the global temperature index. There's a LOT of funny business going on.

In Australia, the raw observed temperature data gets altered to suggest warming, not cooling:

Ditto for New Zealand. And it's not just the folks down under who are fudging the numbers. Paul Homewood has been going weather station by weather station looking at the initial reported temperature readings and comparing them to the data from those stations currently contributing to the global temperature index. What he found will amaze you. In one station after another the temperature record has been altered to show warming when in fact many actually show cooling.

Satellite Data Shows No Change in Temperature For 18 Years

Let's face it. The so-called global temperature as currently determined by flawed weather stations and corrupt data manipulation is worthless. Any attempt to say that 2014 is the warmest year on record based on THAT record is laughable.

A better index of temperature is the satellite data. Starting in 1979 the satellite record does show a slight uptick in warming but one which plateaued nearly 20 years ago despite the fact that Carbon Dioxide (CO2) continued to climb.

Considering how the entire theory of manmade climate change rests on the assumption that an increase in CO2 will cause a corresponding increase in temperature, the satellite data would seem to disprove the theory. But apparently that won't stop those who choose to "believe" in the theory and obviously they are willing to do anything to support their beliefs. Even if they have to lie and fake it!