During March of 2015, I predicted that Carl Mears at Remote Sensing Systems RSS, under extreme pressure from the climate mafia, would alter his data to match the fraudulent surface temperature data sets.
Look for the satellite data to be adjusted to bring it into compliance with the fully fraudulent surface temperatures. The Guardian is now working to discredit UAH, so it seems likely that RSS will soon be making big changes – to match the needs of the climate mafia. Bookmark this post.That is exactly what happened. The RSS web page used to have this graph, showing how badly climate models have failed. “The simulations as a whole are predicting too much warming” They have since altered their graph and changed the text to say : “there is a small discrepancy between the model predictions and the satelllite observations.” One would expect that Dr. Carl Mears would know how to spell satellite, and that he would also notice that even after he changed the data there is still a very large discrepancy between the models and observations, with observations falling at the very lower end of the model range. But let’s look how he changed the data. He simply got rid of his error range (light blue) and moved the temperature (black line) up to the very top of his error range.
Even after doing this data tampering, RSS still shows the current temperature outside the model 95% confidence range (yellow.)
Prior to the data tampering, RSS agreed quite closely with the other satellite data set from the University of Alabama at Huntsville, but they now show an extra 0.15 degrees of warming.
The only two people who were qualified to review this data tampering by RSS, Dr. Roy Spencer and Dr. John Christy, were not consulted and the changes were not submitted for peer review to them.
Here are Dr. Spencer’s predictions from January, 2017.
“I expect there will soon be a revised TLT product from RSS which shows enhanced warming, too.The climate mafia has many carrot/stick tactics to force compliance, but nearly everyone in the academic community sooner or later falls in line with their demands.
Here’s what I’m predicting:
1) neither John Christy nor I will be asked to review the paper
2) it will quickly sail through peer review (our UAH V6 paper is still not in print nearly 1 year after submission)
3) it will have many authors, including climate model people and the usual model pundits (e.g. Santer), which will supposedly lend legitimacy to the new data adjustments.
Let’s see how many of my 3 predictions come true.
Roy Spencer’s Prediction | The Deplorable Climate Science Blog