The article resonated with me quite quickly as early in the content it started referring to us once again having been through the hottest year on record. I'd heard that trotted out quite in bit in the British media during the back end of 2014 and each time I heard it, it seemed strangely at odds with many of my memories of the year. I'm know I'm middle aged, but I didn't think I was that addled in the brain just yet.
It seems looking at Booker's work, he's picked up on the work of Paul Homewood, looking at the data for that hottest year ever narrative and its sources - the oft quoted climate record monitoring departments including NASA.
As ever, the devil is in the detail. I recommend readers go and have a look for themselves as it makes quite an interesting read. At the heart of all of this is that Homewood did his homework. In the plethora of global warming 'research' coming out, it's very easy to take the numbers at face value. Homewood, didn't and as Booker via North explains:
But when Homewood was then able to check Giss's figures against the original data from which they were derived, he found that they had been altered. Far from the new graph showing any rise, it showed temperatures in fact having declined over those 65 years by a full degree. When he did the same for the other two stations, he found the same. In each case, the original data showed not a rise but a decline
Once again it seems that someone in this word has been amending the numbers to tell a story opposite to what the data is really telling them. They're talking the temperature up when the numbers point to us going off in a different direction altogether.
I'm saying nothing you don't already know when I say something's afoot here. There's the obvious question of how can they call themselves scientists when they're not willing to be honest in their findings and are resorting to manipulating data to tell the story they want to tell. They want to tell the story of an ever warming planet. They're playing with the words by calling it Climate Change but they want it to mean warming. They're clearly not interested in climate change that means climate cooling.
I suspect many of us know what's going on here, but Joe Public seems not to. There are simply too many vested interests in what's become the accepted story about what global temperatures are doing. We have a core of 'scientists' amending the base numbers that in turn go into the key information sources. we have the removal of recording stations that present data that is counter to the accepted narrative and stations that are compromised by their urban location left in the equation so they enhance the narrative. That's the bastardised science that is running the show.
Then we have the sheep science that is simply addicted to the grant funding around this. These scientists and universities probably know something's afoot, but hey, that's where the cash is going Jack and you're either in the loop and in the money, or you're out of it, so it's easy for principles to go out of the window when the funding is like crack . What's a little doctored science or pre-ordained findings in times like these.
At the heart of it all, there's just too many damn people getting rich off public money to stop this. It has to continue despite it being highly questionable. We have politicians in all senses of the word who have stuck a big bore needle into the artery of public cash. They are designing all manner of ways to drain this money into their coffers. Businesses and political policy are all falling into line. The press have been brought to heel to trot out the mantra relentlessly that the climate is going to a hot hell. These people don't want it to stop. That's partly why it's weaved its way into the education agendas across the world. Presented as unquestionable truth allows the money to keep flowing without that annoying little problem of people questioning it.
From bottom to top, there's evidence of fraud going on. All of it starting with the numbers which they need us to accept it as truth. .
We have to get to the heart of what's really true, not what they want to be true because the flow of money says so. The signal however has to get out. The press won't do it, so we have to. We have to go on all fronts like they are doing. Every time someone mentions it, even the average Joe in the street, tell them the data's doctored. Tell them the story of the reducing number of stations. Finally when they ask why - simply ask them to think about whose getting rich off the back of this and look who's paying for it.
One day. One day the truth will come out -but only if people insist on it.
This is an issue in many areas - tomorrow i look at the fabrication over Mariupol. We've seen other examples. Cooking the books though is so premeditated that it is quite criminal.
ReplyDelete