The Ghost In The Machine: Climate Data Has Significant Data Flaws
As the summer months roll in, the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has forecasted a season that might just turn up the heat more than usual. The agency's prediction of hotter-than-usual temperatures for July, August, and September has sparked a heated conversation and a disturbing revelation.
For those climate change zealots who see warmer temperatures as a red flag, this forecast is more than just a heads-up to stock up on nonallergenic sunscreen; it's a call to alarm concerning a sign of our end times.
NOAA’s US Historical Climatology Network
The core of this conversation revolves around the temperature data obtained from the United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN). These readings hold significant importance in climate policy decisions and comparisons over time. They are considered more than just numbers; instead, they are historical markers that guide scientists and policymakers in comprehending the changes in our climate.
However, a twist in the climate change saga emerges with the revelation that many USHCN stations, the very sources of this crucial data, no longer exist physically. Despite the stations' non-existence, they continue to "report" data, earning them the eerie title of “ghost stations.” This revelation is more than just a curious anomaly; it raises fundamental questions about the legitimacy of the data that shapes our understanding of the climate, its cycles, and whether or not humans have affected the climate adversely – or otherwise – at all.
It's been reported that NOAA, the guardian of this data, fabricates temperature readings for over 30 percent of these defunct stations. This disturbing disclosure has seriously shaded NOAA's monthly and yearly climate reports, with experts and laypeople questioning this data's accuracy and representativeness. After all, how can we trust a narrative built on data partly from stations that have vanished into thin air?
“They are physically gone – but still report data – like magic,” said Lt. Col. John Shewchuk, a certified consulting meteorologist. “NOAA fabricates temperature data for more than 30 percent of the 1,218 USHCN reporting stations that no longer exist.”
“[NOAA’s] monthly and yearly reports are not representative of reality,” said Anthony Watts, a meteorologist and senior fellow for environment and climate at the Heartland Institute. “If this kind of process were used in a court of law, then the evidence would be thrown out as being polluted.”
Ghosting Datasets
Despite the controversy, the USHCN dataset continues to be considered an indispensable tool for studying temperature trends dating back to the 1800s by those who support the man-made climate change theory. They claim its historical breadth and depth make it a goldmine for climate researchers who seek to understand the long-term patterns and shifts in our climate.
This makes the allegations of reliance on "ghost" data all the more troubling. Critics argue – and rightfully so – that this practice compromises the integrity of climate monitoring and analysis, casting a long and legitimate shadow of doubt over the conclusions drawn from this dataset.
In defense of NOAA, the agency maintains that estimating missing temperature values for the USHCN dataset is an acceptable and “sound” scientific practice. They argue that it's necessary to deal with the imperfect nature of real-world data collection, ensuring that the dataset remains comprehensive and valuable, even as they use estimated data to declare exact and specific future events and trends.
Skeptics, however, are not easily convinced. They question the validity of filling in gaps with estimated data, especially when a significant portion of the dataset comes from these ghost stations. This skepticism is not just a technical disagreement but a fundamental challenge to collecting and interpreting climate data. Thus, it shifts all predictions and declarations about climate change into the realm of speculation and hypothesis, not “settled science.”
Credibility Is The Issue
The issue of ghost stations is symptomatic of a broader challenge within climate data collection. Various governmental and non-governmental entities rely on similar datasets, each with inherent flaws and limitations. This raises important questions about the quality and truthfulness of the data that informs global climate policy, green energy policies, and public perception. Are we building our understanding of climate and how it changes (or naturally cycles) on shaky ground? And if so, what does this mean for our decisions today that will shape national economies and our planet's future? The potential impact on climate change policies is significant, underscoring the need for immediate attention to this issue.
Amidst this swirl of data and debate, skeptics of human-induced climate change seize upon these revelations to challenge the prevailing narrative. They emphasize natural temperature variations, arguing that the climate has been in flux long before human activities became a significant factor.
Moreover, they point to the benefits of increased carbon dioxide levels, particularly for plant growth and food production. Contrary to the alarmist views that dominate much of the public discourse, these skeptics argue that warmer temperatures and higher CO2 levels could positively affect the environment.
This perspective introduces another dimension to the conversation about climate change. It forces us to consider the complexity of the Earth's climate system and the myriad factors that influence it. The debate over ghost stations and the integrity of climate data is more than just an academic dispute; it's a pivotal issue that touches on how we understand our world, our place in it, and our influence on it as a species.
The Science Is Not Settled…No True Science Is
As we navigate these heated discussions, one thing becomes clear: the path to understanding our changing climate is fraught with technical and philosophical challenges. The controversy over ghost stations and fabricated data underscores scientific research's need for transparency, rigor, and skepticism. It reminds us that in our quest to understand and address climate change, we must be guided by a commitment to truth, no matter how inconvenient or unsettling.
In this context, the role of agencies like NOAA is not just to collect and report data but to do so with the highest standards of accuracy and integrity. The trust placed in these institutions is immense, and with it comes the responsibility to ensure that the data they provide is beyond reproach.
Moving forward, it is crucial to tackle the problems associated with ghost stations and data fabrication. Until these issues are resolved, no extensive climate policy should be imposed on the American people, whether by the Environmental Protection Agency, Congress, Executive Orders that exploit the situation, or non-elected global organizations like the United Nations and the World Economic Forum.
It is high time that science regains its legitimacy and is no longer influenced by special interests and globalist political agendas.
Take Back Your Mind
Think For Yourself