October 1, 2023

The goal of scientific research should be to pursue the truth, not confirm a personal or institutional bias.  But many analyses of the global warming hypothesis begin with the assumption that man has caused global warming and then proceed to try to prove the thesis, employing pseudoscience in the effort.

‘); googletag.cmd.push(function () { googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-1609268089992-0’); }); document.write(”); googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.pubads().addEventListener(‘slotRenderEnded’, function(event) { if (event.slot.getSlotElementId() == “div-hre-Americanthinker—New-3028”) { googletag.display(“div-hre-Americanthinker—New-3028”); } }); }); }

Peer-reviewed, published scientific research reports are structured in a specific way for a specific purpose. They usually contain the following sections: Title, Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, Conclusions, Discussion, and References.  Many will also contain Figures, Tables, Equations, and an Appendix.  The purpose of this level of detail is to permit other scientific investigators to replicate the experiment to test the methods and results and verify the conclusions.  Although it may seem contradictory, the cornerstone of the scientific method is the ability to falsify, not prove, a hypothesis.  If there is no means to disprove a hypothesis, there is no means to verify its validity.  As Einstein famously stated, “no amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”

The principal means to measure the average temperature of the Earth’s land mass is administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).  At present, NOAA employs a system of about 21,000 metropolitan surface area temperature stations (MSATS) worldwide to collect temperature data.  The MSATS monitoring stations are located 2 meters above the ground, and volunteers collect the temperature data twice daily in an effort to obtain the maximum and minimum temperature readings for the day.  Then the readings are “adjusted” for time-of-day observations, homogeneity, and changes in equipment technology or station location.  Finally, the maximum and minimum temperature readings are averaged to obtain the daily, monthly, and yearly averages.

The temperature data are gathered by volunteers, who may visit the MSATS at different times of the day over a period of time.  Since the temperature at a given MSATS location may change widely during the day, climate scientists will adjust the readings obtained by the observer by adding or subtracting a value to compensate for the variance from the preferred observation time in what is known as a “time of day” adjustment.  In addition, if a maximum or minimum temperature reading at a given MSATS location on a given day varies by a certain amount from the maximum or minimum reading at an adjacent station(s), climate scientists will adjust the particular reading at that station by adding or subtracting a value to compensate for the variance from the adjacent MSATS location in what is known as a “homogeneity” adjustment.  Finally, if the sampling equipment at a given MSATS location is changed or if the equipment is relocated, then a climate scientist may adjust the readings obtained by the new equipment or at the new location to account for the differing sampling technology or different environmental conditions at the new location.

‘); googletag.cmd.push(function () { googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-1609270365559-0’); }); document.write(”); googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.pubads().addEventListener(‘slotRenderEnded’, function(event) { if (event.slot.getSlotElementId() == “div-hre-Americanthinker—New-3035”) { googletag.display(“div-hre-Americanthinker—New-3035”); } }); }); }

There is a fundamental problem with the process that NOAA uses in its efforts to obtain temperature data for the Earth’s land mass.  In legitimate scientific research, the data obtained by experimentation or observation are never adjusted; adjustments corrupt the data and invalidate the results.  If the methodology used in an experiment or observation is faulty, one adjusts the methodology, not the data obtained from the investigation.

In my book, I analyzed the combined effects of adjustments to the MSATS data.  The results are presented in the bar graph below.

It should be noted that the sum of the homogeneity and time of day adjustments during the period 1980 to 2010 increased in value in each succeeding decade.  These adjustments have contributed to an increase in average MSATS temperature readings of 0.56°C per decade for the period, well in excess of the U.N. IPCC predictions of 0.3°C global warming.  In effect, adjustments to temperature readings have artificially “created” global warming.

Notwithstanding the fact that the MSATS land temperature data have been corrupted by adjustments, and the Earth has no average temperature to measure or calculate, NOAA reported that the “average” temperature of the Earth’s land mass for the period 1880–2020 increased by only 0.14°F/decade (0.08°C/decade).  This amounts to an annual increase of 0.014°F or 0.008°C for the period.  It should be obvious to even the most uninformed observer that such an increase is within the margin of error over such a long period when temperatures were recorded by thermometers graduated by 1°F increments or more.  Contrast that de minimis increase with the decadal adjustments to the MSATS data.

In my book, I cite published, peer-reviewed scientific research, employing the first principles of the relevant scientific fields of thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, atmospheric physics, and spectroscopy to prove that CO2 does not cause global warming.  I use publicly available data from the world’s temperature databases to prove that there has been no statistically significant global warming of the Earth’s atmosphere, oceans, or land mass as the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere increased, thereby falsifying the global warming hypothesis.  I use publicly available information to demonstrate that the motivation of the U.N. IPCC, certain world politicians, and global investment firms is to gain financially by promoting the fraudulent hypothesis.  It is all about the money and political power.  Science has been sacrificed on the altar of political opportunism for economic and political gain.

The question is not whether global warming has occurred; the data and scientific analysis prove otherwise.  The question is, “why do the UN IPCC and certain US and world politicians continue to promote the man-made global warming hypothesis when the science and data prove it to be false?”  The legal definition of fraud is intent to deceive.