Cult Of Climastrology: Satellite Data Only Good When It Tells Us What We Want
Warmists used to think that the best method for measuring the warming of the Earth was via satellites, which could measure global temperatures in places that had no monitoring stations, and would not show the often huge bias within places that suffer from the Urban Heat Island Effect. That is until the satellites started showing a huge divergence from the computer models and land data, especially since Warmists couldn’t adjust the satellite data. Hence, the satellites showed an almost 19 year pause. The satellites were supposed to confirm the land based measurements. Instead, they showed that the land based measurements were wrong. And then we have this
Remember that video produced a few weeks ago from the usual suspects that says satellite data is no good for climate data? Others in science don’t seem to think so.
Mapping the world for climate sensitivity
By using information gathered by satellites, a group of biologists have developed a new method for measuring ecosystem sensitivity to climate variability.
By developing this method, the international team of researchers has been able to map which areas are most sensitive to climate variability across the world.
“Based on the satellite data gathered, we can identify areas that, over the past 14 years, have shown high sensitivity to climate variability,” says researcher Alistair Seddon at the Department of Biology at the University of Bergen (UiB).
You can find other examples of this, such as last November the UN said that the satellites showed “visible shifts” in food production due to man-caused climate change.
It’s high time for Warmists to admit their movement is a cult, and not based on science. Conversely, if they believe so strongly that their preferred data is proof, they should make their own lives carbon neutral.