MIT Researchers Slam Global Warming Data In New Report: In No Way A “Valid Representation of Reality”


by Joshua Caplan, The Gateway Pundit:
A new report which analyzed key global warming metrics such as Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST), the NOAA and HADLEY, confirms President Trump was correct in pulling out of the Paris Climate Agreement.

SHFTPLan reports:

According to the report, which has been peer reviewed by administrators, scientists and researchers from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (M.I.T.), and several of America’s leading universities, the data is completely bunk:

In this research report, the most important surface data adjustment issues are identified and past changes in the previously reported historical data are quantified. 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.

As a result, this research sought to validate the current estimates of GAST using the best available relevant data. This included the best documented and understood data sets from the U.S. and elsewhere as well as global data from satellites that provide far more extensive global coverage and are not contaminated by bad siting and urbanization impacts. Satellite data integrity also benefits from having cross checks with Balloon data.

The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever –despite current claims of record setting warming.

Finally, since GAST data set validity is a necessary condition for EPA’s GHG/CO2 Endangerment Finding, it too is invalidated by these research findings. (Full Abstract Report)

Fulfilling a key campaign promise, President Trump shocked the world by pulling out of the Paris agreement. Axios’ Johnathan Swan was the first to report the President would pull out of the agreement.

On May 31st, Axios reported:

President Trump has made his decision to withdraw from the Paris climate accord, according to two sources with direct knowledge of the decision. Details on how the withdrawal will be executed are being worked out by a small team including EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt. They’re deciding on whether to initiate a full, formal withdrawal — which could take 3 years — or exit the underlying United Nations climate change treaty, which would be faster but more extreme.

Why this matters: Pulling out of Paris is the biggest thing Trump could do to unravel Obama’s climate legacy. It sends a combative signal to the rest of the world that America doesn’t prioritize climate change and threatens to unravel the ambition of the entire deal.

The other outliers: The only other two countries that aren’t supporting the deal are Nicaragua and Syria.

How it happened: A letter from 22 Republican Senators (including Mitch McConnell) that called for a clean exit had reinforced Trump’s instincts to withdraw, and the president had been telling confidants over the past week that he was going to pull out.

It’s no surprise that members of the liberal establishment shifted into meltdown mode following the decision, with Hollywood director Michael Moore and former President Obama being the most vocal.

As per The Hill:

Liberal filmmaker Michael Moore blasted President Trump’s decision Thursday to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris climate agreement, calling it “a crime against humanity.”

“This admitted predator has now expanded his predatory acts to the entire planet,” Moore tweeted.

“USA to Earth: F— YOU,” the filmmaker added in other tweets. “America First! Earth Last! My name is Michael Moore. I am an American. And I live in a Rogue State.”

Obama’s statement was as follows:

A year and a half ago, the world came together in Paris around the first-ever global agreement to set the world on a low-carbon course and protect the world we leave to our children.

It was steady, principled American leadership on the world stage that made that achievement possible. It was bold American ambition that encouraged dozens of other nations to set their sights higher as well. And what made that leadership and ambition possible was America’s private innovation and public investment in growing industries like wind and solar – industries that created some of the fastest new streams of good-paying jobs in recent years, and contributed to the longest streak of job creation in our history.

Simply put, the private sector already chose a low-carbon future. And for the nations that committed themselves to that future, the Paris Agreement opened the floodgates for businesses, scientists, and engineers to unleash high-tech, low-carbon investment and innovation on an unprecedented scale.

The nations that remain in the Paris Agreement will be the nations that reap the benefits in jobs and industries created. I believe the United States of America should be at the front of the pack. But even in the absence of American leadership; even as this Administration joins a small handful of nations that reject the future; I’m confident that our states, cities, and businesses will step up and do even more to lead the way, and help protect for future generations the one planet we’ve got.

But of course, like all Champagne Socialists, their credo is “do as I say, not as I do,” with Obama jacking up his carbon footprint when abroad. Who could forget Obama’s massive convoy during a recent speaking gig in Milan?

Read More @


  1. None of this is surprising. What IS surprising is that so many have been fooled for so long by such non-scientific ineptness and incompetence. This all started decades ago back in the 1970s when “global cooling” came along as the 1st of several answers in search of questions. After a time, cooling was replaced by warming. When that failed to stir the imaginations of the many, the few then resorted to “global temperature change”, as if that was something to fear. The fact is, that the Earth’s geology, hydrology, and climate are dynamic and not static… they are always changing and are three potent forces that generate nature’s continuous search for more and better species via the successful mutation process that is encouraged by rigorous environmental conditions. While few mutations are successful, the few that are can be of great importance.
    This is not to say that humanity has no influence upon the environment because we do. But wasting scarce resources on non-problems like anthropogenic global warming IS a crime against both the Earth AND humanity. We DO need to build things that are easily recyclable, that are made of less toxic components, and that are more efficient. We don’t need to be scared into doing the right thing via lies about the dire results that will occur if we do not. “Truth will out”, as they say, and this article is a generous serving of the truth about the myth of AGW.

    It is more than time for an adult conversation about this. Humanity, in general, seems ready to take that step and it’s about time that we did. But let us do it based upon reason and our own long-term best interest and not because we have been terrified into doing it by those who are primarily interested in enriching themselves, such as via the sale of carbon tax credits, and in controlling others on a grand scale.

    There are a great many environmental aspects that are important and deserving of our immediate attention. We don’t need to invent any that suck up precious resources yet yield minuscule improvements, if any. If we are going to spend trillions of dollars on the environment, let it be because it is vitally needed and not because we have been conned into it.

    A great place to start is with making sure that humanity and wildlife both have sufficient clean drinking water, that our bays, rivers, lakes, streams, and estuaries are not polluted by human, animal, or industrial wastes, and that if they are, an immediate and thorough clean-up occurs.

    Minimizing air pollution is also of great value, particularly in areas that are heavily industrialized. China is discovering that this can be a severe problem, yet in the Paris Accord, they are not required to solve this problem for decades to come.

    It is both possible and desirable to strike a well-reasoned balance between the needs of people and animals in this endeavor. Environmental remediation should always consider the cost of the remediation as part of the overall discussion because cleaning up the environment is a costly business and we must make sure that the necessary funds, equipment, and people are dedicated to the problems of greatest need and benefit. We simply cannot afford to spend unlimited amounts of resources on solving problems that are of dubious, if any, benefit. The law of diminishing returns applies to such efforts, so let’s not allow the final few ppb or ppm of a remediation mean that we then cannot address other needed remediations at all because the necessary funds for them have already been wasted.

Comments are closed.