Why Anthony’s Paper Is Important

It would be difficult to prove that government temperature data tampering is fraud, because they have covered their tracks with pseudo-science papers and algorithms – which provide the perpetrators a little plausible deniability.

What Anthony has done is to show empirically that their algorithms don’t work. They will have to address his concerns or suffer a loss of  cover.

About these ads

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to Why Anthony’s Paper Is Important

  1. Me says:


  2. Eric Webb says:

    Anthony’s paper finally provides hard, undeniable evidence of the fraud and data Mann-ipulation going on at NOAA, NASA, and their related agencies.

  3. Vlad Pomajzl says:

    It was important. No doubt about it. It attacked the core of the alarmists’ arguments – the data. I usually like Mottle’s reasoning but not much on this one:


    It was not just an opinion or “back of the envelope” try. This took years to complete and it is solid in terms of actual (reliable) data. Although it was done for only a small percentage of earth how can anyone reasonably expect that similar issues have not happened elsewhere?

    I respect Anthony for that work.

  4. Eric, we have long had hard, undeniable evidence of fraud and data manipulation by government research agencies since World War II ended and the United Nations was established in 1945.

    They started lying about the source of energy stored in the cores of atoms and stars in 1946, . . . for reasons explained here: http://omanuel.wordpress.com/

    They literally undercut the scientific revolution that Copernicus started in 1543, Galileo defended at trial by inquisition in 1633, Albert Einstein explained with E = mc^2 in 1905, and religious and spiritual leaders around the globe acknowledged as the giver of life in daily meditation at dawn.

    I suspect that Fred Hoyle contacted another British writer of science fiction to warn him about the corruption of Western science in ~1947. George Orwell had already written Animal Farm describing the rise of totalitarian communism under Stalin prior to the Second World War.

    In 1948 George Orwell wrote a futuristic novel that he entitled “1984″ to describe the government that would and does control us today:


    Today addiction, anxiety, confusion, depression and mental illness are increasing. Violence and social chaos will erupt if world leaders and leaders of the scientific community continue to ignore “hard, undeniable evidence of fraud and data manipulation by government research agencies”.

    Skeptics and believers, communists and capitalists, bankers and paupers – we will all go down together like rats on a sinking ship – if world leaders and leaders of the scientific community refuse to address the reality described here: http://omanuel.wordpress.com/

    That was verified by data from the 1995 Galileo probe of Jupiter that NASA Administrator Dr. Daniel Goldin released at a video-taped CSPAN news conference in 1998:

    Oliver K. Manuel
    Former NASA Principal
    Investigator for Apollo

    • omanuel says:

      If we can get past the irrefutable evidence of fraud in Climategate emails and documents, without retribution (an eye for an eye) for wrongs, . . .

      AGW proponents and skeptics may join forces to return our troubled corner to its proper place in God’s bountiful universe: http://dingo.care2.com/cards/flash/5409/galaxy.swf

      And work together for our common goals:

      1. We all want world peace.
      2. An end to racism and nationalistic warfare.
      3. An end to the threat of mutual nuclear annihilation.
      4. Cooperative efforts to protect Earth’s environment and bounty.
      5. Governments controlled by the people being governed, including.
      6. Transparency and veracity (truth) of information given to the public.

      Oliver K. Manuel

  5. Brian G Valentine says:

    I hate to say this, but the referees are going to say, “show us the errors in the interpolation algorithms if you don’t actually know them” (and I am sorry to relate that he could not because it is not transparent).

    On the other hand, Anthony does point out deficiencies that were evident all along. I think he has done a real service.

  6. cosmoscon says:

    My takeaways were two-fold. 1) The temperature record uses a population of stations that has 80% of them classified as poorly sited. 2) NOAA put in fudge factors that showed higher temperature trends than even the most poorly sited stations! The last one is not only bad science but almost criminal. Adjusting for UHI means adding a fudge factor DOWN, not UP!

    • squid2112 says:

      “almost criminal” ??? … that IS criminal! … how many billions of $$ taken (stolen) from you and I based on these “fudge factors”? … that my friend is most certainly criminal…

  7. Rob says:

    I agree for the most part. However, when looking at Christy’s satellite data for the lower 48 I see about 0.3 degrees warming for the same time period of Anthony’s study which is pretty much in line with NOAA/NASA numbers. I know the satellite data is not fudged. So why are the satellite numbers as high as the tampered NOAA/NASA numbers?

  8. Rob says:

    Sorry, I meant to say 0.3 degrees PER DECADE for both the satellite data and the tainted govt. data.

    • Brian G Valentine says:

      Keep in mind that the earlier satellite data tended to need corrections for azimuthal drift, which were corrected with ground based measurements. If the baseline of the ground based measurements was lowered for earlier periods, so were the satellite measurements.

      I wrote to NASA Goddard last year, explaining that satellite data ought to be corrected for aerosols – an excuse they pull out of a hat whenever they don’t see fifteen minutes of warming. Doing so and we have no warming for three decades!

      Never heard back from them

  9. Vlad Pomajzl says:

    Rob, in this post in which Spencer discussed his population density adjusted dataset for the US lower 48, he reported 1973-2012 linear warming trend of +0.14 deg. C/decade:


  10. Rob says:

    Hi Vlad,

    Thanks for the link but I think Spencer is using population-adjusted land data, not satellite measurements. I just find it odd that the UAH/RSS satellite data for the lower 48 states agrees so well with NOAA/NASA/BEST land data but would seem to be at odds with Watts’ findingss. Can anyone explain this discrepancy? It sure seems counter-intuitive.

    • That isn’t true. RSS shows 0.16 C per decade for the lower 48 from 1979-2011 UAH shows 0.20 If you start in 1980, those numbers get a lot smaller.

      • Rob says:

        Okay thanks but didn’t Watts’ data only include the 1979-2008 time period? I recalculated and got 0.255C (not 0.30 as first posted – sorry) per decade warming for the lower 48 for that time frame from Christy’s UAH database:


        Is the RSS data that much cooler? What am I missing.

        BTW, this blog is freakin’ awesome – best skeptic site on the net IMO. Thanks for hosting it!

  11. Vlad Pomajzl says:

    Rob, Steve here is the trend for the UAH AMSU, period 1979 -2011 as calculated by Motl in his January post:: +1.37 °C/century or 0.137 per decade.


  12. Vlad Pomajzl says:

    Sorry guys, I keep referring to irrelevant data. The topiuc is the lower 48, not the global trend, which is what Motl’s post was about.

  13. Rob says:

    Hi Vlad,

    No problem. I did get the RSS data for the lower 48 from Motl’s link and it shows warming of 0.23 C/decade for 1979-2008, pretty close to the UAH numbers. I still can’t figure out why it is so much higher than Watt’s 0.155 C corrected number, though.

  14. Rob says:

    I guess I should have read Watts’ paper closer (line 739). This is his explanation for the satellite disparity:

    “By way of comparison, the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH) Lower Troposphere CONUS trend over this period is 0.25°C/decade and Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) has 0.23°C/decade, the average being 0.24°C/decade. This provides an upper bound for the surface temperature since the upper air is supposed to have larger trends than the surface (e.g. see Klotzbach et al (2011). Therefore, the surface temperatures should display some fraction of that 0.24°C/decade trend. Depending on the amplification factor used, which for some models ranges from 1.1 to 1.4, the surface trend would calculate to be in the range of 0.17 to 0.22, which is close to the 0.155°C/decade trend seen in the compliant Class 1&2 stations.”

    What is the “amplification factor”? I looked at the Klotzbach abstract but I can’t tell much from it. Is it related to UHI?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s