Consider this:

-In 2013, the UK had the coldest spring since 1963.

-In March 2013, Northern Japan received record snowfall–up to 16 ft thick just south of Aomori.

-In October 2013, the worst frost in more than 80 years hit Chile and damaged 50 million boxes of fruit for export—damages were over $1 billion.

-And my personal favourite—an expedition vessel full of Climate Change scientists became trapped in Antarctic sea ice 10 feet thick on Christmas Day 2013.

These true-life stories are examples of global cooling—from all over the globe.

In Parts I and II of this series, I outlined the long term cycle of temperature changes on Earth, and how sunspots have had an eerily accurate correlation to earth’s temperatures for centuries. Data strongly suggests that solar cycles have a definite impact on the world’s climate.

And right now, the best data on sunspots also suggest the world is about to enter a time of global cooling. This doesn’t deny that mankind is influencing the world’s climate; sunspots’ very regular 11 year cycles can temporarily overwhelm a larger context of man-made (the scientific term is anthropogenic) influences.

But even that becomes somewhat suspect. Evidence either uncovered or chronicled by a Boston-based research firm, Unit Economics, suggests that government and their scientists, together and independently, have been manipulating data (and caught red handed!).

The February 28, 2014 research paper by Unit Economics on global cooling goes into pages of detail on how some of the most important—and allegedly impartial—raw climate data has been regularly altered by private and public sector members of the scientific community.

And that’s really too bad, because people working on questions around global temperature have very few datasets to choose from.

One is the temperature anomaly dataset developed by NOAA (the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). The other is from the Met Office Hadley Centre in collaboration with the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in England, which is known as the HadCRUT3 dataset.

NOAA started developing its temperature database in the early 1990s. It was revised once in 1997, and then three times between mid-2011 and the end of 2012.

NOAA says the revisions dealt with new observations methods, corrected coding errors, and removed unnatural influences from things like changes in how instruments were stationed.

In short: lots of revisions, little specific explanation. Not surprisingly, people started accusing NOAA of data tampering (google NOAA data tampering)…and when Unit Economics compared the 2008 NOAA dataset with the most recent version, the changes looked like this:

View photos

Overall, the man-made adjustments created an additional 2.48°F temperature change over the past 100 years – more than the 1.85°F of total warming the NOAA says has taken place since 1913!

Sadly for the general reliability of science, the HadCRUT3 dataset is no better.

CLIMATEGATE

This HadCRUT3 dataset is the basis of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC ‘s job is to create a “clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge on climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts”. That’s a mouthful.

The IPCC data did show increasing temperatures. Then, in October 2009, someone broke into a British office of the CRU, downloaded 160 MB of data and emails, and posted them online. The stolen CRU emails show prominent scientists discussing ‘adjusting’ data to reduce Medieval Warming Period and hiding very recent cooling trends, and making sure they all agree and aren’t stepping on each others’ toes. Many of these discussions ended with instructions to delete all records of the conversation.

Eventually a U.S. Senate inquiry was set up under chairmanship of Edward Wegman, professor of mathematics and statistics, and their report ruled that Penn State Professor and IPCC lead author Michael Mann’s work was ‘statistically invalid’.

Story continues