This article originally appeared on heartland.org.
Regular readers of¬†Climate Change Weekly(CCW) are aware of the temperature shenanigans of major climate research institutions in Australia and the United States. For instance, the lead article in the September 29, 2014,¬†CCW¬†detailed the Australian Bureau of Meteorology‚??s (BOM) number-fudging. BOM routinely alters temperature records in a process called homogenization. Almost all its alterations resulted in higher temperatures being reported for the present and lower numbers for the past ‚?? making a warming trend more prominent.
Homogenization isn‚??t just for developed countries anymore.
In a discovery prominent skeptical journalist James Delingpole says is worse than Climategate, evidence suggests temperature measurements in rural Paraguay, among other locations, also have been massaged to give the illusion of a prominent warming trend.
Advocates for homogenization have argued many temperature station readings must be adjusted for confounding factors like the urban heat island effect or the closure or movement of a measuring station. Such issues rarely arise in rural locations, yet measurements from these locations are also homogenized.
Upon close examination, it seems measurements from both rural and urban measuring stations across South America ‚?? from Brazil to Paraguay ‚?? have been corrupted by the homogenization process.
For example, raw data from three rural measuring stations in Paraguay show a significant cooling trend since the 1950s, but after they‚??ve been ‚??homogenized,‚?Ě data from each station show relatively rapid temperature increases.
A similar homogenization of urban temperature records has produced comparable results; measured cooling or flat temperature trends are transformed into evidence that supports alarmists‚?? warming fears.
Despite years of data-tampering caused by homogenization, we keep reading headlines like ‚??Records show 2014 warmest year on record.‚?Ě News headlines supporting the theory of manmade climate change are supposedly trustworthy because actual data are being cited, but the reality is the data used are not reliable. We should stop pretending otherwise.
Delingpole provides a useful analogy in his¬†Breitbart¬†article:
Suppose say, that for the last 100 years my family have been maintaining a weather station at the bottom of our garden, diligently recording the temperatures day by day, and that what these records show is this: that in the 1930s it was jolly hot ‚?? even hotter than in the 1980s; that since the 1940s it has been cooling.
What conclusions would you draw from this hard evidence?
Well the obvious one, I imagine, is that the dramatic Twentieth Century warming that people like Al Gore have been banging on about is a crock. At least according to this particular weather station it is.
Now how would you feel if you went and took these temperature records along to one of the world‚??s leading global warming experts ‚?? say Gavin Schmidt at NASA or Phil Jones at CRU or Michael Mann at Penn State ‚?? and they studied your records for a moment and said: ‚??This isn‚??t right.‚?Ě What if they then crossed out all your temperature measurements, did a few calculations on the back of an envelope, and scribbled in their amendments? And you studied those adjustments and you realised, to your astonishment, that the new, pretend temperature measurements told an entirely different story from the original, real temperature measurements: that where before your records showed a cooling since the 1940s they now showed a warming trend.
You‚??d be gobsmacked, would you not?
I know I am, or at least I would be if I hadn‚??t been actively examining this gross spectacle for more than 20 years.