A German scientist is raising serious questions as to whether government data-keepers have been tampering with scientific data to conjure up warming trends where none exist.

“It is important to understand whether CO2 truly causes climate change,” said Professor Dr. Friedrich-Karl Ewert, “We rely entirely on simulation models. Reality looks very different from simulations.”

Dr. Ewert is professor emeritus of geophysics at the University of Paderborn. He spoke at a scientific conference put on by EIKE, the European Institute for Climate and Energy in Essen, Germany that was co-sponsored by CFACT and the Heartland Institute.

Ewert conducted exhaustive research comparing climate computer models to real world temperature. His findings confirm what others have concluded, that the models run far hotter than measured observations. He points out that the UN IPCC likes to carefully select the dates and data it presents, but that, “if we look at temperature changes over a larger period, any temperature trend disappears.”

In the course of his research, Ewert found something shocking.

“In 2012, we realized that the data offered by NASA was not the same as that offered in 2010. The data had been altered. If in 2010 someone had, for instance, looked up the data for Palma de Mallorca, they would have seen a cooling of .0076 degrees. But in 2012 it suddenly showed a temperature increase of .0074 degrees. This is not a one-off.”

“Until then measurements were sacrosanct. Can you call it fraud or falsification? I’m not a lawyer, but I can say it has been changed retroactively. If I show you the data a negative judgment is justified. In 2012 there was twice as much warming in the sample we examined compared with just two years prior.”

Warming campaigners have been confounded by a lack of any global warming since last century. This contradicts large numbers of computer model projections that warming should have occurred. They’ve attempted to gloss over this inconvenient fact by trumping up records. They routinely claim some period of time as the “hottest ever,” in the expectation that the casual observer will never realize that their records are set by meaningless hundredths of a degree. These tiny measurements run far below the margin of error. Even the word “hottest” is unjustified. Global temperature has been running around one half degree above baseline with just a few years above. Nothing hot about that.

It is fundamental to the scientific method that scientists must adapt their conclusions to fit their data. They must never alter their data to serve a favored conclusion.

In just a few hours we expect negotiators at COP 21, the UN climate conference in Paris to announce a final climate agreement that will shift global power, harm economies, redistribute fortunes and cost trillions of dollars. It is ever increasingly apparent that that deal rests on false promises and false premises.

Dr. Ewert presents a powerful case. If we cannot trust the keepers of the scientific data taxpayers paid for, what is there about global warming we can trust?