New Climate Data Rigging Scandal Rocks U.S. Government

[TSA]

Breaking: New Climate Data Rigging Scandal Rocks US Government

Written by John O'Sullivan


A newly-uncovered and monumental calculating error in official US government climate data shows beyond doubt that climate scientists unjustifiably added on a whopping one degree of phantom warming to the official "raw" temperature record. Skeptics believe the discovery may trigger the biggest of all “climate con” scandals in Congress and sound the death knell on American climate policy.

Independent data analyst, Steven Goddard, today (January 19, 2014) released his telling study of the officially adjusted and “ genized” US temperature records relied upon by NASA, NOAA, USHCN and scientists around the world to “prove” our climate has been warming dangerously.

Goddard reports, “I spent the evening comparing graphs…and hit the NOAA motherlode.” His diligent research exposed the real reason why there is a startling disparity between the “raw” thermometer readings, as reported by measuring stations, and the “adjusted” temperatures, those that appear in official charts and government reports. In effect, the adjustments to the “raw” thermometer measurements made by the climate scientists “turns a 90 year cooling trend into a warming trend,” says the astonished Goddard.

Goddard’s plain-as-day evidence not only proves the officially-claimed one-degree increase in temperatures is entirely fic ious, it also discredits the reliability of any assertion by such agencies to possess a reliable and robust temperature record.

Goddard continues: "I discovered a huge error in their adjustments between V1 and V2. This is their current US graph. Note that there is a discontinuity at 1998, which doesn’t look right. Globally, temperatures plummeted in 1999, but they didn’t in the US graph."

More here: http://www.principia-scientific.org/...overnment.html

[Th'Pusher]

Breaking: New Climate Data Rigging Scandal Rocks US Government

Written by John O'Sullivan


A newly-uncovered and monumental calculating error in official US government climate data shows beyond doubt that climate scientists unjustifiably added on a whopping one degree of phantom warming to the official "raw" temperature record. Skeptics believe the discovery may trigger the biggest of all “climate con” scandals in Congress and sound the death knell on American climate policy.

Independent data analyst, Steven Goddard, today (January 19, 2014) released his telling study of the officially adjusted and “ genized” US temperature records relied upon by NASA, NOAA, USHCN and scientists around the world to “prove” our climate has been warming dangerously.

Goddard reports, “I spent the evening comparing graphs…and hit the NOAA motherlode.” His diligent research exposed the real reason why there is a startling disparity between the “raw” thermometer readings, as reported by measuring stations, and the “adjusted” temperatures, those that appear in official charts and government reports. In effect, the adjustments to the “raw” thermometer measurements made by the climate scientists “turns a 90 year cooling trend into a warming trend,” says the astonished Goddard.

Goddard’s plain-as-day evidence not only proves the officially-claimed one-degree increase in temperatures is entirely fic ious, it also discredits the reliability of any assertion by such agencies to possess a reliable and robust temperature record.

Goddard continues: "I discovered a huge error in their adjustments between V1 and V2. This is their current US graph. Note that there is a discontinuity at 1998, which doesn’t look right. Globally, temperatures plummeted in 1999, but they didn’t in the US graph."

More here: http://www.principia-scientific.org/...overnment.html

Breaking news from 3 weeks ago? Stick to guns and stop embarrassing yourself...

[Phenomanul]

As if removal of SEVERAL high-lat ude and high al ude stations from global temperature calculations wasn't enough evidence that the data is being purposely skewed (conveniently enough, these points were retained to calculate the baseline averages in order to augment the magnitude of the manipulated temperature shift itself). This is both deliberate and dishonest. "But, but, but.... IPCC/NOAA/NASA would never lie..."

I agree that we need to continue to develop green energies - but people don't need to be lied to in order to promote the virtues of those endeavors. I rather the goverment would focus on more pressing environmental issues like hazardous waste management, water conservation and recycling than to continually beat the marching drums of "climate change". All for what? So that policy makers can stuff their pockets with more fees and taxes....

Anyways... I don't want to get caught up in another ad nauseam discussion...

[Nbadan]

Steven Goddard....you guys really should Google before you copy and paste it here....

[boutons_deux]

yep, AGW is huge lie

And the Bible is a scientific and historical do ent

[Nbadan]

Goddard is your typical know nothing AGW denier blogger. He used to be a regular guest author on WattsUpWithThat, except that he became a regular embarrassment, and he and Watts parted ways. In one of the worst examples (although there are so many to choose from), Watts had to apologize for the utter stupidity of one of Goddard's articles:

"My apologies to readers. I'll leave it up (note altered le) as an example of what not to do when graphing trends"
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/02/ar...

John Cook rebutted another of Goddard's idiotic WUWT posts here as well:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Watts-Up...

Goddard now runs his own blog. Considering that he was too ignorant even for the exceptionally low standards at WUWT, not surprisingly, very few people actually read it. Apparently it's not his real name and Steven Goddard is a pseudonym, which is funny, because Anthony Watts claims that everybody who writes on his site goes by their real names.

[MannyIsGod]

Goddard reports, “I spent the evening comparing graphs…and hit the NOAA motherlode.”

LMAO. Thats some Wild Cobra level right there.

[MannyIsGod]

As if removal of SEVERAL high-lat ude and high al ude stations from global temperature calculations wasn't enough evidence that the data is being purposely skewed (conveniently enough, these points were retained to calculate the baseline averages in order to augment the magnitude of the manipulated temperature shift itself). This is both deliberate and dishonest. "But, but, but.... IPCC/NOAA/NASA would never lie..."

I agree that we need to continue to develop green energies - but people don't need to be lied to in order to promote the virtues of those endeavors. I rather the goverment would focus on more pressing environmental issues like hazardous waste management, water conservation and recycling than to continually beat the marching drums of "climate change". All for what? So that policy makers can stuff their pockets with more fees and taxes....

Anyways... I don't want to get caught up in another ad nauseam discussion...

http://www.berkeleyearth.org/

Its best to avoid any discussions on subjects you obviously don't know much about. If any of the independent temperature datasets wanted to show more warming, the last stations they would want to remove are those which show the most warming. AKA, high la ude and high elevation stations. But sure, its all one big lie. I'll go with that.

[TSA]

http://www.journal14.com/wp-content/...na-Sendler.jpg

[boutons_deux]

Did somebody say graphs?


12 Graphics That Contain Everything You Need to Know about Climate Change

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2014/01/31/12-graphics-that-contain-everything-you-need-to-know-about-climate-change/

[Phenomanul]

http://www.berkeleyearth.org/

Its best to avoid any discussions on subjects you obviously don't know much about.

It was a key part of the scandal several years ago... you know, the leaked IPCC emails about fudged data...? But hey don't let that stop you from throwing ad hominem attacks in my direction. I don't have time for them, nor I the need for internet badgering.

If any of the independent temperature datasets wanted to show more warming, the last stations they would want to remove are those which show the most warming. AKA, high la ude and high elevation stations.

Hence, why the 'remote' stations conveniently disappeared from the calculations whenever they failed to receive proper maintenance.

But sure, its all one big lie. I'll go with that.

Nah man... just let the honest-Abe, doesn't-ever-lie-government tell you what you want to hear... it's your perogative, after all... I don't care anymore.

[Phenomanul]

Just for the record (in case you haven't noticed)... I've been avoiding these controversial subjects for the most part.

I came to the realization that no one cares what anybody else thinks... No one has anything to prove to anyone else, and ultimately there's no desire to incur the wrath of others needlessly... To each their own.

Just embrace what brings us to this board in the first place... Our love for the San Antonio Spurs. Dissent for other topics isn't worth the effort.

[Nbadan]

Goddard is an idiot and the IPCC email scandal was fake too...

[Wild Cobra]

LMAO. Thats some Wild Cobra level right there.

What if it's real?

[Wild Cobra]

We all know that there are corrections added to the raw readings. I have suspected for a very long time that the corrections end up being based on the belief we are warming. When I read some time back how they " genize" the rural and urban readings, and even what classes as rural...

there people changing the data are a joke. Pure and simple.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Goddard being quoted by a blog who claims to be about the scientific method as a whole but only talks about climate change. You are a fool.

To give you a notion, it would be like Manny citing Al Gore. You guys are awesome.

[Winehole23]

Manny!

[Winehole23]

Phenomenul!

[Winehole23]

is this 2014?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

We all know that there are corrections added to the raw readings. I have suspected for a very long time that the corrections end up being based on the belief we are warming. When I read some time back how they " genize" the rural and urban readings, and even what classes as rural...

there people changing the data are a joke. Pure and simple.

Given the resources that the anti-AGW lobby has at hand you and I both know that if specific refutations were possible then the normalization -thats what its called, not genization, dimwit-- would be criticized on said grounds. The data that is being normalized is published as is the normalization that is done.

BEST has stood up for years at this point and the best that they can come up with is some controlled sites that 'might' be erroneous. There is no quantification nor qualification. Just wishful thinking which you certainly can relate to.

[Nbadan]

The funny part about this is that Goddard's claims were reported everywhere in the wing-nut blogosphere...even storm-front ran with it....and nobody ever questioned Goddard's credentials..

[Jacob1983]

If some rich climate change scientist will pay me a decent amount of money to go on a lecture circuit about this , sign me up. If not, I don't give a .

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If some rich climate change scientist will pay me a decent amount of money to go on a lecture circuit about this , sign me up. If not, I don't give a .

The one thing that is good about war is that it makes the rubber meet the road. You cannot stand behind willful ignorance if you want to win. There is a reason why the pentagon still buys into science.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/...-pentagon-plan

They know it wins wars and is by far the best manner in which to predict future events.

[ElNono]

Just for the record (in case you haven't noticed)... I've been avoiding these controversial subjects for the most part.

I came to the realization that no one cares what anybody else thinks... No one has anything to prove to anyone else, and ultimately there's no desire to incur the wrath of others needlessly... To each their own.

Just embrace what brings us to this board in the first place... Our love for the San Antonio Spurs. Dissent for other topics isn't worth the effort.

Don't let that stop you from posting what you think. We're not changing anybody's mind in here (mostly), but actual individual thoughts are welcome (compare and contrast to the oft-ignored continual copy/paste jobs)...

[Jacob1983]

I would care about climate change if I was able to make a profit from it. Sadly, that's not the case. I will likely be dead before the possible dangerous side effects of it anyways so why should I give a ? And please don't use "what about future generations" argument. Do you honestly think people's ancestors thought "should we be doing what we are doing right now at this moment or should we stop because of what our future descendants might have to experience as a result of our actions"? They didn't give a about us so why should we give a about out future descendants?