Global Warming Data Is Mostly Made Up

One researcher estimates that at least 92% of global warming data on surface temperature is based on estimates, not measurements.

We have posted about problems with the global warming data before, but there seem to always be new levels of the problem to be discovered. One of the latest parts of the scam is described by John Goetz at the Watts Up With That blog: “Approximately 92% (or 99%) of USHCN surface temperature data consists of estimated values.”

As he summarizes his findings:

An analysis of the U.S. Historical Climatological Network (USHCN) shows that only about 8%-1% (depending on the stage of processing) of the data survives in the climate record as unaltered/estimated data.

He then goes through the data and demonstrates his case using a variety of charts, concluding:

The US accounts for 6.62% of the land area on Earth, but accounts for 39% of the data in the GHCN network. Overall, from 1880 to the present, approximately 99% of the temperature data in the USHCN homogenized output has been estimated (differs from the original raw data). Approximately 92% of the temperature data in the USHCN TOB output has been estimated. The GHCN adjustment models estimate approximately 92% of the US temperatures, but those estimates do not match either the USHCN TOB or homogenized estimates.

I guess if “the science is settled” we really don’t need to use any data at all.

But I have to ask: When exactly was the science settled? I remember when Al Gore’s book came out he was insisting that the science was settled. Who settled it?

All the evidence we have suggests that activists and advocates are vocally insisting that the man-made global warming scenario must be true and then rewarding scientists who interpret the data accordingly. The scientists act as if they are constrained by hard facts, but this article shows that is not the case. Facts are estimated and guesstimated on the basis of a theory.

Global warming is not a scientific fact. The people who push it act more like religious fanatics than scientists.