It turns out that almost every temperature station operated by the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is corruptly placed to make the country appear “warmer” than it actually is, effectively amplifying the “global warming” hoax.
An astounding 96 percent of NOAA’s temperature stations fail to the meet the agency’s own “uncorrupted placement” standards, according to research compiled by the Heartland Institute. Most of them are located near objects that trap or produce heat, corrupting their readouts.
Others are located in areas that, since the time of their placement, have become far more urbanized. This, too, is increasing the heat readouts and making it seem all across the board that “climate change” is real. (Related: The biggest heater of the planet is the sun, not cow flatulence or gas-powered vehicles.)
“With a 96 percent warm-bias in U.S. temperature measurements, it is impossible to use any statistical methods to derive an accurate climate trend for the U.S.,” says Heartland Institute Senior Fellow Anthony Watts, the study’s director.
“Data from the stations that have not been corrupted by faulty placement show a rate of warming in the United States reduced by almost half compared to all stations.”
A press release from the Heartland Institute further explains the standards that NOAA is supposed to use to decide whether or not a temperature station is placed correctly for optimal accuracy – standards that the agency is not currently following.
“NOAA’s ‘Requirements and Standards for [National Weather Service] Climate Observations’ instructs that temperature data instruments must be ‘over level terrain (earth or sod) typical of the area around the station and at least 100 feet from any extensive concrete or paved surface,’” the release states.
“And that ‘all attempts will be made to avoid areas where rough terrain or air drainage are proven to result in non-representative temperature data.’”
If NOAA were following its own guidelines, average temperatures across the United States would be far lower than what is being reported. It would also be revealed based on accurate data that the country is not, in fact, warming.
2009 study similarly found that vast majority of NOAA temperature stations are producing inaccurate temperature readouts
The Heartland paper follows an earlier one published back in 2009 that similarly points out the flawed data coming from NOAA temperature stations.
Entitled “Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable?” that study looked at more than 1,000 surveyed stations and found that 89 percent of them have heat-bias issues.
For at least 13 years, in other words, it has been known that NOAA temperature data is inaccurate and unreliable, and yet the climate change narrative has continued on in the name of “science.”
The Heartland Institute’s press release addresses this earlier study, pointing out that the situation with NOAA’s temperature stations has only gotten worse over the years. And there does not appear to be any plans in place to fix the problem.
“The original 2009 surface stations project demonstrated conclusively that the federal government’s surface temperature monitoring system was broken, with the vast majority of stations not meeting NOAA’s own standards for trustworthiness and quality,” the announcement states.
H. Sterling Burnett, director of the Heartland Institute’s Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy, commented that after personally surveying NOAA surface stations back in the spring, he can confirm the 2009 report findings.
“This new study is evidence of two things,” Burnett is quoted as saying.
“First, the government is either inept or stubbornly refuses to learn from its mistakes for political reasons. Second, the government’s official temperature record can’t be trusted. It reflects a clear urban heat bias effect, not national temperature trends.”
by: Ethan Huff
Join: 👉 https://t.me/acnewspatriots
The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of AC.NEWS
Disclaimer: This article may contain statements that reflect the opinion of the author. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). AC.News will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article www.ac.news websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner. Reprinting this article: Non-commercial use OK. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.