NOAA/NASA Dramatically Altered US Temperatures After The Year 2000

Prior to the year 2000, NASA showed US temperatures cooling since the 1930’s, and 1934 much warmer than 1998.

ScreenHunter_627 Jun. 22 21.18

NASA GISS: Science Briefs: Whither U.S. Climate?

NASA’s top climatologist said that the US had been cooling

Whither U.S. Climate?
By James Hansen, Reto Ruedy, Jay Glascoe and Makiko Sato — August 1999

Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat and drought.

in the U.S. there has been little temperature change in the past 50 years, the time of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases — in fact, there was a slight cooling throughout much of the country

NASA GISS: Science Briefs: Whither U.S. Climate?

NOAA and CRU also reported no warming in the US during the century prior to 1989.

February 04, 1989

Last week, scientists from the United States Commerce Department’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said that a study of temperature readings for the contiguous 48 states over the last century showed there had been no significant change in average temperature over that period. Dr. (Phil) Jones said in a telephone interview today that his own results for the 48 states agreed with those findings.

New York Times

Right after the year 2000, NASA and NOAA dramatically altered US climate history, making the past much colder and the present much warmer. The animation below shows how NASA cooled 1934 and warmed 1998, to make 1998 the hottest year in US history instead of 1934. This alteration turned a long term cooling trend since 1930 into a warming trend.

Fig.D.gif (525×438)

But NASA and NOAA have a little problem. The EPA still shows that heatwaves during the 1930s were by far the worst in US temperature record.

ScreenHunter_556 Jun. 20 05.14high-low-temps-figure1-2014

Heat waves in the 1930s remain the most severe heat waves in the U.S. historical record (see Figure 1).

High and Low Temperatures | Climate Change | US EPA

George Orwell explained how this worked.

“He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.”

― George Orwell, 1984

About stevengoddard

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

246 Responses to NOAA/NASA Dramatically Altered US Temperatures After The Year 2000

  1. jlc says:

    Source link for NASA graph B of US temps?

      • Leonard Cohen says:

        This post about NASA omits the reason that the data was changed.
        To find out why, see:- http://www.geotimes.org/aug07/article.html?id=WebExtra081607_2.html

        • Claiming a reason to alter data is light years away from demonstrating that what they are doing is legitimate.

        • daveugber says:

          – From the Article:
          “NASA scientists contend that the error has little effect on overall U.S. temperature trends and no effect on global mean temperatures”
          — HUH? or is it HAHAHA!

        • Dogbert says:

          So was the code used to “process” the raw data ever released? Also if Hanson is responsible for the code, I smell a rat. He has to much personal credibility involved to be unbiased.

        • Steven Mosher says:

          “So was the code used to “process” the raw data ever released? Also if Hanson is responsible for the code, I smell a rat. He has to much personal credibility involved to be unbiased.”

          Yes, the code was released per requests from me and steve mcintyre.
          And yes, ALL THE CHANGES to the raw data have been independently validated
          using various methods.

          This is old news recycled.

        • So you are fine with NOAA/NASA turning an 80 year US cooling trend into a strong warming trend by altering the data, and releasing graphs to Congress without mentioning that they have actually fabricated the warming trend?

        • kirkmyers says:

          The reason for altering the data is simple: It’s called job preservation. It would look a little ridiculous for the NASA hiearchy to be out pushing a global warming theory that is undermined by actual temperature data. Tens of billions of dollars in research funding were at stake. Something had to be done to “disappear” the inconvenient data.

          Not all scientists are ethical or honest. Many are driven by the same vices and base instincts that afflict the rest of mankind. What passes today for climatology belongs in the same category as phrenology and Lysenkoism. It’s not science; it’s fantasy.

        • They left out the real reason… promote Climate Change and insert FEAR into people so Government can assert more Control…

          The data isn’t adding up… so Lie and pretend its science.

        • John Abbott says:

          Well now I TRULY have a problem with the data.
          The temperatures needed to be “adjusted”? No they don’t. If all of the numbers are used, and we average them all out, we don’t need to adjust anything. They will show a true average.

          On the other hand, if we allow the data to be adjusted, than what we’re getting is a “what I feel it should be” number. Not the real average of the data points that we know to be true.

          Of course, none of this would matter, if we weren’t THEN suggesting that by measuring ice cores as a proxy method of getting a world wide temperature is somehow representative of what the world’s average temperature would be… by measuring one spot based on the oxygen isotopes from when it snowed. Which makes it nothing more then a guess of what the temp was that year(s) where the ice core was, and not the truly global temperature average.

        • Nuee Ardente says:

          Altering data for use is in science is only acceptable if you preserve the original data set and explain both how and why you created the modified data set your using.

        • John M says:

          The data was changed because “It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip”.

          From: Tom Wigley
          To: Phil Jones
          Subject: 1940s
          Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
          Cc: Ben Santer

          It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”.

        • Another source that totally validates the adjustment is the Grace twin satellites showing earth ice melting over ten years – and the rate of melting increasing (to 2013). That’s the trump card.
          Check: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/massive-ice-sheets-melting-at-rate-of-300bn-tonnes-a-year-climate-satellite-shows-8708117.html
          Strangely, the Steven Goddard website “Real science” has no reference to the Grace Satellites.
          Sad if we let the Earth melt under our feet while we fight over what is ‘difficult’ (highly variable) data.

        • I’ve discussed GRACE many times here. You have no idea what you are talking about.

        • Morgan says:

          John Abbot, you have no idea what you’re talking about when you say, about ice core proxies:

          “… by measuring one spot based on the oxygen isotopes from when it snowed. Which makes it nothing more then a guess of what the temp was that year(s) where the ice core was, and not the truly global temperature average.”

          Ice core proxies measure the temperatures at the evaporation site, where the moisture came from, which in the case of Greenland Summit means the entire northern hemisphere, especially the tropics. You obviously do not understand how they work, about the boiling point of heavy oxygen water being higher, and therefore more 17O and 18O get into the atmosphere relative to 16O, and so more snows on Greenland, during periods of global warming. You obviously don’t understand this at all, yet you shamelessly show the whole world what a fool you are by arguing about it on an advanced science blog. The only place in the northern hemisphere where the oxygen isotopes tell us NOTHING about temperatures is Greenland Summit, because none of the moisture came from there. It came from everywhere BUT there. You can read all about it on my blog hyzercreek.com/hoax.htm

          Moron alert activated and reset for the next one.

        • Morgan says:

          Sorry I just realized you were being sarcastic. My bad.

        • I fear that we all argue “around” the issue. The GW crew constantly emphasizes man made global warming as if there were something we could do to stop or reverse cyclic climate changes. The Non-GW crew comes off, courtesy of the opposition mostly, sounding like “there ain’t never no such thing”. Let’s all accept that there are climate changes . We insignificant human beings cannot do anything about them anymore than we can about earthquakes, sunspots or volcanoes and live with it. I looking back from my 67 years I see most of this controversy the result of the new religion, Environmentalism. With the rejection of traditional values and mores, people seem to need to hang their hat somewhere. A wise old college prof of mine once said, “They will, they will go back to the Earth Mother”. I fully accept and always have advocated for the wise stewardship of the planet as I think we all do and I recognize from my years in government that there is more than a strong financial incentive to be of the MMGW side. After all, when you leave government, there are big, really big job opportunities out there. No different rally than a Pentagon General going to work for Boeing or General Dynamics. Just don’t fall into “their” trap.

        • wvernon1981 says:

          Environmentalism is not a religion. It may be a movement, a philosophy, a value, or something else, but a religion it’s not.

          >

      • malloryrex says:

        What kind of credible source is this? A file you simply uploaded from your computer? Give me a bibliographical source and then I will consider it as evidence.

        • Too lazy to look around the site?

        • Latitude says:

          try opening the links in the header post..
          …and the link in the second post

        • Luke A. says:

          Latitude, are you referring to the links that both clearly say that there IS warming going on globally, even if 1 out of the world’s 200+ countries is different? Those links?

        • ALEX says:

          experience has taught that whoever writes: “show me this or that and i will change my mind” never does so when he is shown what he asked for. Only ignores the sources and says “oh well you have priovided deniers’ material”.

      • Realist says:

        Steve – you rudely dismiss the GRACE issue raised by one of the posters as “having been dealt with here already”. I read that blog and you got seriously schooled. Perhaps that’s why you didn’t elaborate here.

        You charlatan is showing!

    • Bill Wireman says:

      The data was “processed” to support a need to pick your pocket. The temperature readings are what they are. There is no need to “process” anything except to lie for monetary gain and power. I am profoundly saddened that science has been hijacked by the elitists around the world. That the word scientist now invokes the same negative feelings as used care salesman and Democrat. Science does not have an agenda and science does not care who is right or who is wrong. But there are many around the world who have taken science hostage to support a trumped up agenda. The “Global Warming religion” as perpetuated by the Left here in the US is showing signs of collapsing under the weight of its own lies. I for one can’t wait.

      • DMW says:

        Despite the data, we can all see and feel for ourselves that the weather is warming. How could the poles be melting if it wasn’t? Why are we experiencing more droughts? Why are countries in the Pacific flooding? You can’t dig up carbon from deep down and burn CO2 into the atmosphere for a century and not have any effects. Data is great but it can be manipulated as we see. Still doesn’t shake the fact that the earth is getting warmer. If it wasn’t then the poles would not be melting.

        • Carl says:

          CO2 absorbs only an insignificant amount of infrared and no visible light. Water and water vapor absorb visible light and IR. Overall, CO2 is not to blame for any warming or cooling, except that it drives photosynthesis to produce green plants and a GREEN EARTH. We need more, not less of CO2. It is also healthy for mammals (there was a lot more when they emerged). With less CO2, humans have aching muscles, painful joints, premature aging of the skin, heart, brain, and other organs, heart attack, diabetes, etc. as many medical studies show. GET REAL and learn some science DMW. It is NOT warming any discernible amount, but whatever there is is DEFINITELY NOT FROM CO2.

        • Tspoon says:

          Antarctic ice is at record levels, basically larger than ever before recorded by roughly the size of 1.25 Colorado in square miles. And the western shelf that is frequently whined about by climate frauds is melting because it sits on a volcano. But that melt is being outstripped by all the other gains in Antarctica.

          The arctic ice shelf is much in flux, with last summer being well outside the trend with no clear north passage to a point where luxury yachts on the way to the west coast never left the east coast.

          That said your primary argument is not valid. The poles are not melting, maybe one is but the Vikings called greenland, greenland for a reason and it wasn’t to be ironic. Droughts and floods and storms all happened long before we had devices to measure them or record them, and long before the car was invented. As you are reading this know one thing as you exhale you are releasing CO2.

  2. Kudos to you! Top of Drudge and an article in The Telegraph. What is the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize “winner” going to do? Sue the Telegraph?

  3. Eric Simpson says:

    Yes, top of Drudge has the headline:

    Scandal of fiddled global warming data…
    USA has actually been COOLING since 1930s, the hottest decade on record…

    Drudge should be linking to this site. But, yes, the linked article is based fully on stuff “uncovered by Steven Goddard’s US blog Real Science.” Wow! Though there doesn’t seem to be a direct link to this site in the Telegraph article. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/10916086/The-scandal-of-fiddled-global-warming-data.html

  4. Rational Db8 says:

    Thanks so much for the great information and blink chart Steve! What always gets me with this sort of information is the idea that if data is being fudged in the USA, just how much is it also being fudged in other nations? We’ve already seen accusations of similar problems with Australia and Russia, although I don’t recall if those held up or were debunked over time… I can’t help but be very suspicious, however, that this sort of “adjustment” to the temperature data is occurring in any number of places. Then of course there is also the homogenization occurring in the polar regions…. and the entire issue of the urban heat island effect being badly underestimated…

    It’s certainly not a pretty picture for “climate science.”

  5. Ken Richards says:

    Of course, you could just look here: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/ushcn.html to see why the adjustments were made. You may disagree with the reasons given, but they are hardly sinister.

    • The fact that have documented some issues which can influence temperature readings, is light years away from demonstrating that what they are doing with their software is legitimate.

      You do understand that they are turning a measured cooling trend into a warming trend?

      • Ken Richards says:

        I see scientists doing science. The reasons for the changes have all been published (see the references in the above link.) So where is the science wrong?

        • bj2000 says:

          The problem Ken is that temperature recordations are the true temperature at that location at that time. To adjust them for what one scientist thinks is important and then call that the ‘actual temperature data’ is simply wrong. Just because one scientist thinks the urban heat island effect should be eliminated from the actual temperature measured, doesn’t mean others do, nor that they agree how much, just as one example… JMO. The temperature data is what is measured, not what someone elects to remove from it and then call it the real temperature.

        • Hank Freeman says:

          The work of science is to substitute facts for appearances and demonstrations for impressions.

          This work by NASA/NOAA has done the exact opposite – it has substituted impressions (theories) for facts (actual temperature readings).

          The fundamental problem is that the facts/data refute the conclusions rather than support it. It is only after these facts are manipulated that they support the conclusion.

        • An Inquirer says:

          If the adjustements, are reliable, then we should be able to see confirmation in natural phenomenon. For example, if the raw temperatures are more reliable, then we would expect to see very high levels of ice on the Great Lakes; if the adjusted temperatures are reliable, then the ice on the Great Lakes this last year would be typical. Another example, if the raw temperatures are more reliable, then we would expect to see about 1% of stations reporting record highs every year; if the adjusted temperatures are reliable, then we would see constant smashing of state record highs every year. If the raw temperatures are more reliable, then lakes would be behaving like they are; if the adjusted temperatures are more reliable, then we would be seeing the disappearance of lakes to match or exceed the disappearance of lakes in the heat warves of the 1930s.
          Nevertheless, there is one statistical calculation which supports the adjustments — do you know what that calculation is?

        • talldave2 says:

          And at the VA, you see doctors treating patients.

          And at the IRS, you see accountants doing auditing.

          And at the ATF, you see agents fighting crime.

          See no evil…

      • jhmclane says:

        Steven – you are incorrect. There is no “measured cooling trend” in the raw data.

        The appearance of a downward-sloping line on the chart is an artifact due to the beginning and end points being measured with different yardsticks. : readings taken at different times of day, from an evolving set of station locations, using a different mix of thermometer types, etc etc. So comparing the two (i.e. to look for a trend) without making adjustments is truly apples-and-oranges.

        The adjustment methodology was fully disclosed and transparent, and is based on peer-reviewed work. In science, this is exactly how legitimacy is demonstrated, by giving others the tools to replicate or invalidate the results.

        Of course if you’re more interested in scoring rhetorical points to political ends, then by all means go ahead float conspiratorial insinuations and quote Orwell.

        • Yes there is a cooling trend in the raw data. You are intentionally conflating raw data with altered data.

          Once people start altering data, they introduce confirmation bias. In particular, the UHI adjustment is much too low, and the TOBS and FILNET adjustments are much too high.

          Best to leave the data alone.

          Even worse is that these graphs are released without mention that the trend has been reversed.

          I don’t appreciate rhetorical games like you are attempting here.

        • wvernon1981 says:

          No. They don’t necessarily introduce confirmation bias. There is the potential of introducing confirmation bias. If you find your measuring system was flawed and can correct the data then you fix it. Otherwise your original data is crap.

          >

        • Eric Simpson says:

          The adjustment methodology… is based on peer-reviewed work

          Jhmclane, you add: “In science, this is exactly how legitimacy is demonstrated, by giving others the tools to replicate or invalidate the results.” It is kind of a bit of gall to think that we are so stupid as to need to be lectured about what peer review is supposed to achieve. But we know, because of Climategate, frankly, that in the particular case of climate science peer review has been *fully* compromised. You know the story.
          So you can expect the small politically motivated circle in the Hockey Stick Team to work to achieve a “peer reviewed” methodology for making temperatures adjustments… that helps their “cause.” It doesn’t take an Einstein to see this. Indeed, the fact that these guys are apparently collaborating colluding in developing the temperature adjustment methodologies makes the whole enterprise completely suspect criminal.
          “It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.” -Paul Watson, Greenpeace
          “Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.” -Sir John Houghton, first chairman of IPCC
          “We have to offer up scary scenarios… each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective and being honest.” -Stephen Schneider, lead ipcc author, 1989
          And you know what, that whole manipulated upward sloping warming trend of the 20th century is part of that conjured up “scary scenario” (runaway warming) where the data manipulators have chosen being effective over being honest.

        • kirkmyers says:

          These novel adjustments were introduced for one reason only: to confirm a pre-ordained conclusion: Human CO2 is warming the planet. The entire CO2-is-warming-the-earth fairy tale is driven by money, greed and an insatiable appetite for power. Certain groups (commodities brokers, bankers, alternative energy suppliers, and, yes, fossil fuel companies themselves) stand to become fanstastically rich in the war against nature’s atmospheric plant nutrient. (Notice, they never mention the big Kahuna of greenhouse gases: water vapor. Why? They can’t scare anyone with it and haven’t found a way to tax it.)

          What is truly sad, and scary, is the fact that so many otherwise intelligent people have been taken in by the climate change buncombe. They have taken leave of their senses, and joined the CO2 carnival barkers who claim the planet will sizzle if the CO2 devil isn’t restrained. They will end up destroying the modern industrialized economy on which their very livelihoods depend.

      • cRR Kampen says:

        And do we all understand that they are melting vast quantities of land- and sea-ice to clinch the complot? And everyone who dares to take a look just disappears? Tsss.

    • Eric Simpson says:

      Additionally I think the point that the adjustment are always … as far as I know … always working to the benefit of the warmists. Cooling the past, warming recent times. Always. Turning cooling into warming. It doesn’t pass the smell test. It’s flat out hogwash is what it is.

      • Jafo says:

        That’s exactly what they did………….maybe you should have read the link, but do to differences in equipment and location of equipment an artificial warming trend was created in the 1980’s. Once they figured out what had happened they fixed it to not show any warming trend.

        ‘Applying the Time of Observation adjustment (black line) resulted in approximately a 0.3F warming from the late 1960’s to the 1990’s. The shift from Cotton Region Shelters to the Maximum/Minimum Thermometer System in the mid-1980’s is clearly evident in the difference between the TOBS and the MMTS time series (red line). This adjustment created a small warming in the US annual time series during the mid to late 1980’s. Application of the Station History Adjustment Procedure (yellow line) resulted in an average increase in US temperatures, especially from 1950 to 1980. During this time, many sites were relocated from city locations to airports and from roof tops to grassy areas. This often resulted in cooler readings than were observed at the previous sites. When adjustments were applied to correct for these artificial changes, average US temperature anomalies were cooler in the first half of the 20th century and effectively warmed throughout the later half. Filling in missing data (blue line) produced cooler temperatures prior to 1915. Adjustments to account for warming due to the effects of urbanization (purple line) cooled the time series an average of 0.1F throughout the period of record.’

        • There are several things which can affect temperature readings, including UHI affects which cause recent readings to be too warm. Once they start altering data based on subjective judgements, they data is corrupted by confirmation bias, or worse.

        • kirkmyers says:

          And, of course, NASA waited to apply to TOBS adjustment until it became a convenient support mechanism for theory that the earth’s temperature was rising. It’s a amazing how creative scientists can get with adjustments when job security, budgets and grant money are at stake. As can be expected, any adjustments that might reduce the temperature trend are ignored or minimized. The Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect is a good example of NASA selectively ignoring adjustments that contradict the AGW story. For all we know, the entire rise in global temperature since the 1980s is the result of improperly sited thermometers. It makes more sense than blaming the rise on a trace gas that constitutes 0.04 percent of the atmosphere. The logarithmic radiative impact of CO2 on temperatures has been expended and, in any event, is so minuscule it can’t be measured. We might as well be trying to measure a fart in a hurricane.

        • Bill Vernon says:

          You accuse the scientists of playing wild and free with the data while you yourself rampantly speculate about the scientists’ motivations asserting speculation as fact.

        • f it walks like a duck ..

        • Bill Vernon says:

          No. It’s not if it walks like a duck. There are a number of possibilities to explain this change including the one that was actually published. You don’t get to pick your favorite explanation and assert it as fact.

        • Morgan says:

          Any alteration of the data is cheating. You can interpret data any way you want, but changing the data itself is always corrupt. It’s the definition of science fraud.

        • An Inquirer says:

          Jafo, If the adjustements, are reliable, then we should be able to see confirmation in natural phenomenon. For example, if the raw temperatures are more reliable, then we would expect to see very high levels of ice on the Great Lakes; if the adjusted temperatures are reliable, then the ice on the Great Lakes this last year would be typical. Another example, if the raw temperatures are more reliable, then we would expect to see about 1% of stations reporting record highs every year; if the adjusted temperatures are reliable, then we would see constant smashing of state record highs every year. If the raw temperatures are more reliable, then lakes would be behaving like they are; if the adjusted temperatures are more reliable, then we would be seeing the disappearance of lakes to match or exceed the disappearance of lakes in the heat warves of the 1930s.

    • Mark Moser says:

      Maybe not sinister! They had to know replacing measured data with computer generated projections, much higher than what actually occurred, would skew the data and support their theory. Their motives have nothing to do with the fictitious results of the studies. it is a clear case of garbage in, so garbage out! Settled science my arse there’s no science here. It’s all art, the art of deception.

    • You certainly get a scientific explanation here. Anyone who has dealt with highly variable data sets will understand it (I do). It makes good sense. What totally validates it is the Grace twin satellites showing earth ice melting over ten years – and the rate of melting increasing (to 2013). That’s the trump card.
      Check: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/massive-ice-sheets-melting-at-rate-of-300bn-tonnes-a-year-climate-satellite-shows-8708117.html

      • The GRACE interpretations you are citing were due to climate hacks who didn’t know what they are doing

        Those are scary numbers, but a new study published in the September issue of Nature Geoscience suggests that the true melt rate might be much slower than that. (Access a PDF of the study here.) A joint team of American and Dutch scientists took another look at the GRACE data and found that Greenland and West Antarctica may be melting  just half as fast the earlier studies estimated. As researcher Bert Vermeersen, a professor at Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands, told the AFP, the earlier estimates failed to account for glacial isostatic adjustment—the rebounding of the Earth’s crust after the end of the last Ice Age:

        http://science.time.com/2010/09/09/climate-change-a-slowdown-on-polar-melt/

      • danl60 says:

        “Anyone who has dealt with highly variable data sets will understand it ”

        I have, and I do. Substituting massaged data to reduce noise is one possibility, but not here. Goddard has it right, Forbes is floundering for an explanation of why 1 should equal 2.

        It doesn’t and never will. Move on.

    • carpingaround says:

      Just as I expected, another amateur trying to collect his 10 grand from Exxon. Look deep enough into the assertions and they dissolve into vapor. By the way, the ushcn version 2 page shows why they had to correct the data and then refine their corrections. The original data were a mess. Didn’t run the algorithm myself but the results look like they cleaned up the mess in the way they intended, so they didn’t get 5 degree temperature change (downward) in the course of a year that lasted for 30 years (and were obviously nonsense), and then blew upward again “overnight” to last that way for decades.

  6. Robert Austin says:

    Has Mosher or Zeke ever tried to explain this? They claim that BEST is consistent with GISS (meaning consistent with the revisionist GISS). So, prior to the turn of the century, was NASA so incompetent at measuring and crunching the temperature data that radical adjustments were discovered to be needed for the new millennium?

  7. repoman101 says:

    Wonder how much those record temps came into play with the “dust bowl” of the 30’s?

  8. Eric Simpson says:

    Google “Scandal of fiddled global warming data” and you get 7,930 results. This is going to make a difference. This is going to hurt (them). Drudge is headlining the scandal, so is Climate Depot, WND, and others, and from among thousands:

    http://www.mixedmartialarts.com/thread/2336095/More-Faked-Global-Warming-Data/?pc=4

    http://www.ign.com/boards/threads/the-us-has-actually-been-cooling-since-the-thirties.454066315/

    “Mixedmartialarts” does a complete reblog of this very post (NOAA/NASA Dramatically Altered US Temperatures After The Year 2000), and commented: In order to make it look like the earth is heating, they been faking the numbers from the past…”making” the past cooler, makes today look warmer.

  9. Polo says:

    A quick check on this page(http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/) shows that the author of the article above did “Dramatically alter” the figure published by NASA to support his misleading assertion: he replaced the words “Global Temperature” in figure D by “U.S. temperature.
    DEBUNKED!

    • The graphs are both US temperature, you moron.

      • zev says:

        Is that why you can obviously see the graphs were altered to both say US? where do you get that they are both US charts? the website clearly shows the different titles.

        • You are a complete moron. Both graphs say US on the NASA web site.

        • Robert Murphy says:

          No, graph (A) says US temperature, graph (B) says Global temperature. Why did you photoshop the title of the second graph out and put in “US Temperature”? You can see clearly that the there is a a little bit of the old label still visible on the top; you didn’t even do a good photoshop job. It’s a different font type too.
          This is the NASA GISS page: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/
          You even put a link to it in your piece above. Anybody can clearly see that the second graph says “Global” Temperature.

        • You are a complete moron. I repeat. And paranoid.

        • _Jim says:

          re: Robert Murphy June 24, 2014 at 4:48 pm
          No, graph (A …

          Possible compromised browser and/or operating system. Complete HD wipe and OS re-install recommended. Also verify DNS being used (probably pointing to sites in CN, RU or UA.)

          .

          /humor

          .

        • Latitude says:

          @Robert Murphy..”No, graph (A) says US temperature, graph (B) says Global temperature. ”

          Robert, follow the link in the second post……notice that it is “B”…..notice the address says data.giss.NASA.gov

        • Morgan says:

          I count 3 morons in a row. They think Steven is comparing Hansen’s 1999 US graph to Hansen’s 1999 global graph. Triple moron alert.

        • Latitude says:

          Robert, follow the link in the second post……notice that it is “B”…..notice the address says data.giss.NASA.gov……………….and notice it says U.S.

        • Aaron says:

          stevengoddard got owned.
          Go to the link.
          See charts for yourself.
          US Temp vs Global Temp.

          http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/

        • Yet another demonstration that alarmists are the stupidest people on Earth, and incapable from learning from their mistakes.

      • Realist says:

        The original Hansen US graph1a was being compared to the Hansen global graph 1b. Go look you moron.

        The “newer” US graph contains data unavailable when the original Hansen graphs were presented …… (it contains 1999 -2012 data and the original http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/ was presented in 1999.)

    • Dmh says:

      The 2nd graph of Hansen’s 1999 article is *obviously different* from the 2nd graph of the animation created by Steve.
      E.g., the 1930’s in US temps of the 2nd picture of the animation are above the 1940 average, and below 1940 in the world temps of Hansen’s article.
      No tricks, just facts.

  10. Stacey says:

    Well done Steven.
    Blogs like yours are offering a great public service which in the past investigative journalists would have carried out.
    It does appear that many climate scientists and the so called environmentalists have the morals of a floating turd.
    As to the oxymoronic named site Skeptical Science they have no morals at all.

  11. Shanna M says:

    One thing that I always find interesting/weird, is that temperature graphs NEVER show the margin of error. Different types of equipment have different margins of error, plus you have to account for human error is reading the thermometer (being perfectly at eye level, knowing how to read alcohol/mercuy thermometers that curve/bulge). On top of that, once you start adjusting temperature up or down to account for changing station location, equipment replacement, etc you have to include the margin of error for that adjustment. But these numbers are presented as if they are perfect, down to the tenth and hundredth of a degree.

    I imagine that they are excluding the margin of error because it is much greater than the warming trend.

    • Jason Calley says:

      “But these numbers are presented as if they are perfect, down to the tenth and hundredth of a degree.”

      If we look at how much they change the measured temperatures we can say that even the so-called “climate scientists” see a plus or minus half degree errors in the numbers.

    • Joe S says:

      Excellent point. The notion that it’s even possible to accurately measure the temperature of the entire Earth’s surface (whatever that means), to within a fraction of a degree, is just absurd on the face of it. An article I read somewhere the other day was talking about temperature increases of 0.01 degree over the past decade. Seriously.

  12. Todd says:

    This really is nothing new. Someone, somewhere (WATTS?) once compared temperature graphs in published in National Geographic, from decades ago and today, which show the averages of the 1930’s have been dramatically altered down, to make today seem higher.

    What makes this fraud stand out even more, is that the all time records still stand, unaltered. 118 in Iowa, 115 in Minnesota, 114 in Wisconsin ect ect ect. Nothing anywhere close, since then.

  13. John says:

    Confirmation bias is an incredibly difficult thing to avoid – we are humans, after all. When we start “adjusting” data using models, we must first validate those models. The validation itself is subject to confirmation bias. The classic example: “Does my model work? Well, it’s giving me the data I expected, so it’s working”. Can they mathematically prove their models? I would be surprised, but if so, let’s see it. Any other type of model should aways have a huge asterisk, that say’s “this is an estimate based on a model that may be incorrect”.

    • _Jim says:

      One would think, with the amounts of money that is spent on climate research that an “A” team (point) and a “B” team (counter point) could be funded to cross-check each other. Alas, the “B” counter-point team was never even considered. In the legal system, one finds this kind of adversarial system where a ‘case’ consisting of two adversarial parties may be tried before an impartial judge and sometimes a jury. The same cannot be said of climate science where the purported ‘facts’ are tried in the face of an adverse party. This is almost tantamount to one-party rule, and yes, is subject to strong confirmation bias, literally, as one is paid to find that which one is seeking and never challenged on the veracity of the ‘evidence’ supporting the purported claims.

      .

    • Realist says:

      “Does my model work? Well, it’s giving me the data I expected, so it’s working”.

      That may be how you validate your models but it’s not how mathematical modelers do it. Try again.

  14. bernie1815 says:

    How does the unadjusted record tie in with satellite measurements?

  15. Dominic Marcello says:

    You’ve done little to demonstrate that the data was altered to achieve a particular effect or that the data adjustments aren’t justified. You’ve merely claimed that because the alteration would appear to be in favor of AGW – it must have been deliberately falsified. That’s quite a logical leap considering the methods used to create both graphs are available to the public.

    • These people have a huge conflict of interest in global warming research funding. They have no business altering data.

      • Chris says:

        Oh, please. Then we’d best not trust any cancer research, because those folks make a living from the research grants they receive – huge conflict of interest! Google the words data adjustment cancer study. You’ll find a long list of papers on various cancers where the researchers adjust the data based on factors including age differences, dietary differences, family history. Since you’re saying that no adjustments are allowed, how do you suggest researchers deal with factors such as changes in the time of day when readings were made, physical changes in the loggers or the boxes in which they are housed, or physical movement of loggers due to development?

        • Great corollary Chris, if you open your eyes a bit wider you might even be proven right!

        • Max says:

          And Yes, even in cancer research, these conflicts do arise, and bring out the worst of human vanity and greed:

          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/13/anil-potti-duke-cancer-fraud-university-research_n_1273264.html

          Regards

        • Rob says:

          Chris,

          You are absolutely correct, actually. I had this discussion with a friend of mine a couple of years ago. He made the comment that pharmaceuticals have no desire to find cures because it would effectively kill the profits. I responded in kind by saying that he was probably correct and to take it a step further, most non-profits of the same sort (and possibly in general), have the same conflict. All of those cushy jobs and grants would go poof as soon as a cure was found. I for one am not surprised that we never see cures pop up anymore.

        • talldave2 says:

          And we should totally believe the VA when thousands of veterans are dying on waiting lists, and the IRS when hard drives fall into tree shredders whenever subpoenas are issued…

        • wvernon1981 says:

          That’s honestly grasping. That in no way relates to the validity of peer reviewed research. Is your argument someone was dishonest somewhere therefore you should think there’s a good possibility researchers are in collusion to publish false results?

          >

        • Jacques Cuse says:

          Indeed, you’d better never ever base your cancer treatment on the results of any (Big Pharma funded) cancer research. The profits are humongous and so are the incentives to cheat and make those profits even more important. The results are disastrous. More than huge conflict of interest, worse than huge lies and no real interest in truly healing people and thereby losing clients.
          True science has been done by people like Raymond Royal Rife and true healing has been performed by MD’s like Frederick Klenner and Robert Cathcart and more recently Dr Tullio Simoncini. Big (money) Pharma doesn’t want to know about the incredible results of these obnoxious guys who’ve been healing countless patients with dirtcheap medication like vitamin C and sodium bicarbonate.

          As Steven mentioned, many scientists have a huge conflict of interest in research funding. They definitely have no business altering data.

  16. Luke A. says:

    The quoted NASA article also contains this paragraph: How can the absence of clear climate change in the United States be reconciled with continued reports of record global temperature? Part of the “answer” is that U.S. climate has been following a different course than global climate, at least so far. Figure 1 compares the temperature history in the U.S. and the world for the past 120 years. The U.S. has warmed during the past century, but the warming hardly exceeds year-to-year variability. Indeed, in the U.S. the warmest decade was the 1930s and the warmest year was 1934. Global temperature, in contrast, had passed 1930s values by 1980 and the world has warmed at a remarkable rate over the last 25 years

    • Mark b says:

      So why only the last 25 years? There appears to be an approximate 60 year cycle. Your 25 years is like starting in January and declaring in July that by December, at current rates, it will be 150°F.

      Granted it is much better to have consistent data generation and up until the satellite era there was no ‘world wide’ data. But you have to realize that any conclusions without a full cycle or two are pure rubbish.

      • Luke A. says:

        What? You can’t make an analogy based on a unit of measure with the exact same unit of measure. In what world is a sample size of 6 months functionally equivalent to a sample size of 300 months? “Your 150M Americans who like football is like taking 1 American who likes football and declaring that a lot of them do.” I think the crazy thing is taking sample size of 3.79M sq. miles (the US) and accepting it as being more meaningful than a sample size of 315M sq miles (the World) as other replies would have me do.

    • Flame Cct says:

      Global temperature has not passed the 1930s values. Even the Russians noticed manipulation with the data they provided. If I remember correctly, one of the issues is that the Russian data from far north stations were used prior to 2000 as part of the average whereas after 2000 the data from those stations has been removed from the average.

      • Luke A. says:

        Well, the article that Mr. Goddard linked to says that global temperature HAS passed the 1930s’ values. He picked a horrible argument to prove his point and you guys ate it all up. It makes REPEATED references to global warming and accepts it as measurable, scientific fact. You can claim the article is specious if you’d like, but there sure were a lot of people here more than happy to believe the part of it that showed that 1 of the world’s 200 countries hadn’t been warming.

    • Andy DC says:

      So we are supposed to believe that the US has been missed by global warming, while remote areas in the Southern Hemisphere oceans and northern Siberia are somehow getting all the warming that is missing the US? Does not appear to pass any logical smell test.

    • Latitude says:

      Luke doesn’t realize he just described weather…not climate

  17. I’ve been very suspicious of this stuff since the East Anglia email drop, and people still defended the scientists who’d altered data in that scandal, saying that it didn’t change anything. I would think, “if it didn’t change anything, what was the point of lying?”

    I see some of the responses here, and the folks pushing the scare seem more like jihadists then anything else; if someone questions the accuracy of the global warming story, or the intentions of those who push it the hardest, they’re “deniers” to be scorned. How ’bout they’re just looking for the truth? When it’s been proven that global warming crowd has lied to push their story, why is asking questions so sacrilege?

  18. Sgt Stryker says:

    Follow the money….It’s always about the money.
    Used to be you did science for the challenge; then it bacame about the noteriety, then , of course, once the taxpayer started funding the theft, it became about the money.
    Trust your senses.
    It surely was a cold winter…I just confirm my senses with my heating and cooling energy usage.
    I have 30 years of quality data.
    There has been no warming.
    III/0317

    • Johnson says:

      If it’s was so easy to pay these scientists off…why don’t the big oil and coal companies get a few more on their side? Seems like they have plenty of money.

      • Morgan says:

        Big oil has nowhere near as much money as Big Brother.

        Big oil has no dog in this fight anyway. If big oil loses, natural gas wins, and natural gas is owned by big oil.

      • Rob says:

        Johnson,

        Limiting drilling for “global warming” makes it more profitable for Big Oil due to inelastic demand curve. If you ever start trying to outright BAN the use of oil, they will certainly start to produce studies disproving global warming. Until then, they will ride the benefit.

        -R

  19. Alan Wasner says:

    Just wanted to say, part of my job with the US Gov was collecting data, organizing that data, and reviewing the data gathered by others. People make mistakes, in my job we didn’t keep a lot of the people that consistently could not collect data accurately, although it’s not a difficult thing to do. But then there were those that were lackadaisical or lazy or liars. And in many cases you’d see data input incorrectly, consistently incorrect. And you’d also see much deeper problems than that, dishonesty. For example a ten point transect where upon close inspection you realized the person had only really sampled one or two points, and had “made up” the rest. In the case of temperature data there is a wide range of the quality of data stations and the data gathering equipment. In some cases the weather station actually was moved and instead of being given a new name and numerical designation, the newly moved station still had the old number and name, so you’d see this sudden change in the data before and after the move. Without realizing the station had moved one would be led to believe the climate had changed, when indeed there had been no change. There is one “somewhat famous” climate station in the LA area where this exact scenario occurred and the LA Times ran with a story saying look at the huge changes after this date! Looking into it I found that on that date the station had been moved. Why the name and number of the station had not been changed, no one could answer that question. The LA Times never printed a correction.

    Another example is data input error. On Santa Cruz island the data between the harbor station and the inland station have consistently had their data mixed together for years with one person in particular putting the data from the harbor into the data-set for the inland station, and vice versa. It was very obvious when the harbor was 55 degrees F. and foggy and inland it was 90 degrees F. on Monday and then on Tuesday it was reversed, and I was there on that day observing the temperatures myself and had recorded it myself. When this was pointed out to them at first they denied, then they admitted the errors, but it was never fixed because how can you fix it? Without knowing exactly which data was crossed, you can never fix it, and the original data record was not kept they said. So therefore all the data from that same data center is possibly crossed, I mean if they were doing it with those two stations how many other stations were crossed? Finding that one error means that all of the data is suspect. None of the data was worth anything at all to me at that point. In speaking to high officials I was told nothing could be done because there was no political will to admit such errors were being made, and people were really worried about their jobs.

    Multiply all this by the thousands of stations and you realize that an awful lot of climate data is highly suspect. Comparing data from year to year over long periods and suddenly in one year the data is way outside the norm for several months should tell you something. I mean one summer the average daily high is 95 degrees F. whereas in all preceding and all future years the data has an average daily high of 65 degrees F., that data is obviously suspect. And time and time again you can find examples like this but apparently quality control at NOAA is lacking. And in speaking to the scientists involved you come away with the realization that the integrity of the data is far, far away from the number one things on their minds. This is common in all the sciences that I have seen personally, everyone is more interested in saving their jobs than biting the bullet, doing the tough thing and fixing the data when it’s wrong.

    Also we’d have employees who were supposed to be collecting data that would just make the data up and think no one would notice, those people didn’t usually last very long in the job.

    I have a lot of experience reviewing data generated by the NOAA, NPS, BLM, USFS, NRCS, USGS and FWS, and the old Minerals Management Service. So you find an actual, true error on a USGS map, do you think they’ll listen or care? I mean an area called Limestone Ridge that the entire thing is obviously limestone with areas of fossils and is highly effervescent, and the geology map says it’s igneous volcanic. NRCS I’ve reviewed about a dozen soil surveys and some are extremely good and some are very bad, and unlike most other agencies they will listen and they will fix them eventually, but they’re not happy about it. NOAA won’t even talk to you. I had to go through higher ups and then they would only obfuscate, deny and ignore until forced to admit the errors. Then they’d just do nothing. NPS consistently bases decisions for their parks on bad science and publications by NPS employees can be just plain laughable, they are by far the worst. NPS has finally been getting away from having law enforcement types be Park Superintendents and that’s helped slightly because it’s a little harder to pull the wool over the eyes of a scientist/administrator who’s running a park than a LE officer. BLM range scientists vary greatly by district, some are good, some are very bad, and they have appear to have no quality control whatsoever in their field data gathering or in their publications. USFS is the same as BLM and is also very, very bad at basic science. Some of the most embarrassing papers I’ve ever read were printed in technical journals by USFS employees. Are some of them good? Yes, but the lack of quality control and very lackadaisical editors that also vary greatly in quality is an national embarrassment, or should be. Lastly, my original work from the 70’s and 80’s when I go back and review what I did I’m thankful to see that better and smarter scientists have come along behind me and fixed up what I first did, I’m certainly not perfect either. So the point is basing any conclusions on current climate data sets is a very shaky proposition to say the least.

    • _Jim says:

      Very interesting account. Thank you for taking the time to type it up and post it.

    • kirkmyers says:

      Thanks for the tale of woe. Once again, we see the government in action — or, more accurately, inaction. We should never trust the government to manage or run anything. There’s no incentive (e.g. profit, consumer satisfaction, ROE, market share) to produce a quality product or service. Why should we trust “government funded” scientists? Where’s the incentive to produce any research that contradicts the “consensus” or the political bosses doling out the grant money.

      • Alan Wasner says:

        Most Government funded scientists that I know are very dedicated to their work and strongly believe in doing the best job they can for both scientific principles and their obligation to the taxpayer. But you’re right, they do not have a product to sell and they know usually they won’t get fired unless they really do something bad, so there is a natural human tendency to slip into a lazy routine. I’m not saying that I was above that, I fell into that trap to some degree myself. Occasionally management would help us by snapping us out of that bad dream we’d slipped into, or rein us in if we had too much mission creep. But what it all came down to in the end was the quality control. Some agencies have a lot of quality control, like NRCS is big on that, but some other agencies had no quality control that I could see at all. Basic Science 1, that first class we took back in college, is where we need to start. The basic concepts of scientific ethics and integrity. I’ve been in groups of scientists and asked them, “Do you have a code of ethics?” Usually one in the group knows what I mean but the others have often said, HUH WHAT? Again, I’m not perfect in any stretch of the imagination but I tried to adhere to this code:
        1. Uphold the highest standards of scientific investigation and professional
        comportment, and an uncompromising commitment to the advancement of
        knowledge.
        2. Honor the rights and accomplishments of others and properly credit the
        work and ideas of others.
        3. Strive to avoid conflicts of interest.
        4. Demonstrate social responsibility in scientific and professional practice, by
        considering whom their scientific and professional activities benefit, and
        whom they neglect.
        5. Provide honest and impartial advice on subjects about which they are
        informed and qualified.
        6. As mentors of the next generation of scientific and professional leaders,
        strive to instill these ethical standards in students at all educational levels.

  20. serf says:

    All I want to know is where do I worship Mr. Tree, and grovel at the feet of these “scientists” for saving mankind from this awful disaster? Maybe these “scientists” should take the temp readings of their arses; seems this would be more appropriate use of taxpayer funding of folly.

  21. Congratulations Steven on all your hard work… now being recognized in the Telegraph and again on Drudge… this is important stuff..

    I’ve been postulation on how to inform people, change people’s minds or at least get them to consider the Skeptic argument…

    This Blog and others create a great base of work… but all this work and valid science is far too easy for the folks in charge to brush aside or ignore… folks on the Skeptic side need to get together and in a rational, methodical way start putting our case out there in front of the Media, in front of the World… This could include adopting some Progressive style tactics .. hold conferences, attend Climate Change speeches on Campus, confront them with simple, relevant data and facts… create groups on College Campus or High School whose purpose is to question Global Warming and educate folks regarding the reasons why… this would all lead to a more public forum for Skeptics… its a lot of work … eventually the Media would have to pay attention if there were enough people supporting it publicly… and folks would be confronted on the falsehood of Global Warming, the “Science”, their past statements, data manipulation, big money funding… these folks need to be confronted and embarrassed.

    What say you?

    • I’m going to be discussing this on Dick Morris’ radio show in 30 minutes,.

      • Eric Simpson says:

        Right, I’m listening to it now. It says Steven is coming up soon… …

        It would great if all this agw data manipulation stuff is covered on Fox. Maybe it has been covered, as I haven’t been watching.

      • Eric Simpson says:

        Steven sounds great! Awesome!

      • Eric Simpson says:

        Ok, Steven’s radio interview with Dick Morris is over. That was a huge point made about how the US record is a lot better than the spotty world record, so we should tend to put more weight on the US record, which has us … cooling … since the 1930s. (That’s a far cry from hockey stick style out of control warming.) And the other outstanding point was that with the spotty world record, depending on what stations they select and what manipulations they do, they can easily create any trend they want. AGW is bs.

        • How did it sound?

        • _Jim says:

          Sounded okay; a couple times there was a moment of dead air when the host collided with the guest, but the recovery was smooth.

        • _Jim says:

          The ‘circuit’ must have been a ‘pots’ line with a good handset (or maybe a digital PBX call through a T1 or ISDN PRI connection); didn’t sound like the usual ‘codec’ connection like in a digital cellular call.

          Maybe you are set up with Skype – I don’t recall how Skype connections sound …

        • I was sitting in my car with my cheap Virgin Mobile phone.

        • _Jim says:

          … really … sounded good. Sometimes one can almost detect which ‘codec’ is being used things sound so digitized and mechanical or compressed … my favorites are those callers whose calls have a regular tick every so often indicating T1 synchronization issues (still in this day and age!) … are you sure you hadn’t rolled over to a WiFi connection?

        • No WiFi. How about the content? Did I get my points across clearly?

        • Eric Simpson says:

          One thing I liked about your interview is that you didn’t come off as aggressively pushing an agenda. Like, you were not phased by admitting that the global temperature record (GISS?) diverges (in the warmists’ favor) compared to the US temps. But you still made the point that the US record is more reliable and the global record is all but worthless. You seemed to have easy command of the facts (and some forget the facts when in interviews!), and your vocal quality was good, albeit not booming. But we don’t need booming. There were at first a couple of “you knows” that are not good, but a majority of interviewees use “you know.” It’s very hard to eliminate “you knows,” and if it is serving a purpose as a needed crutch at times then it would be better to use “you know” then mess up in some other way. A solid B+. Excellent. So now get cracking with that book on the fiddled global warming data so you can go on tour (or at least get more radio interviews)! :-)

        • Eric Simpson says:

          And I think you concentrate on one thing in the book, the fiddled data. You could mention other things, but it looks like that topic would allow you to get the publicity angle you need, and get… a bestseller. And help the cause. It doesn’t even have to have a lot of pages. In the book, show you work and process, and how the discoveries and enlightenments came about. And deal in a seemingly objective way with the warmist objections to your thesis. A blockbuster!

        • Thanks. It was on very short notice and I really didn’t know what we were going to be discussing ahead of time.

  22. Bill says:

    How do you justify making the argument that the modern temperature record is wrong because of heat waves? You’re comparing the mean temperatures of the entire nation to transient regional events.

  23. Morgan says:

    I heard the last 30 seconds of it

  24. baconman says:

    I know Anthony Watts has been talking about this for a few years, how the temperature data has been adjusted. What is NOAA/NASA’s scientific rebuttal for doing this? Is there a legitimate defense to doing these adjustments in such a broad scope? I can’t see one myself, but I also can’t understand how the rest of the scientific community would all just collectively nod their heads in obeisance that these changes are ok. Am I missing something?

  25. Charles Misterek says:

    congratulations Steven: You became internationally recognized today and also published in WND.com and other honest websites on the net.

    Charles Misterek

  26. Gingerbaker says:

    NOAA and NASA – it’s a great big old conspiracy right? Those commie b*****ds making up data!

    Meanwhile, last month – May – was the 351st consecutive month where the global temperature was hotter than the 20th century average. Nothing to see but MORE conspiracy right?

    How do you keep your self supplied with enough tin foil – do they deliver it by flatbed truck?

    • Satellite temperatures are much more accurate (according to NASA) and showed May 2014 as being close to the long-term median.

      Your hysterics and anger makes you look like a zealot, not a rational person.

    • Mike says:

      So Ginger did you happen to read the article before commenting on it? You seem to think that adjusting historical temperatures down and then insisting it proves temperatures are rising has some scientific merit. It doesn’t.

      • Gingerbaker says:

        Only if you believe adjustments = evidence of a conspiracy. Which, it seems, you all do.

      • Chris says:

        Mike, if we had a perfect historical record where the temperature data was all taken exactly the same way – how the instruments were housed, how close they were to development, what time of day the measurements were taken, etc – then I’d agree with your point. But we don’t. How exactly do you suggest we adjust for those differences?

        • You don’t adjust. You assume a Monte Carlo distribution of error,, as any legitimate scientist would do for a large data set. Adjustments introduce confirmation bias – or worse.

    • badcop666 says:

      You haven’t actually looked any further than the first place you saw this current silliness, did you? Admit it. “351st consecutive month” is just rubbish. You are uncritical, and emotionally invested.

    • Morgan says:

      Good one Gingerbaker. Does this mean you guys aren’t saying flat earth anymore, or burying heads in sand? It’s tin foil hat now? How about Dunning-Kruger, are we done with that yet? I still miss the clever bit about tobacco smoke, but you make up for it easily with your clever twist about bringing the tin foil on a flatbed truck. You should write for Last Comic Standing, this is real Larry the Cable Guy material. That was funny right there.

    • Next they’ll be claiming that the IRS was engaged in some sort of leftie conspiracy to attack conservative groups… ;-)

      Groups can’t have agendas or be motivated by self interest. You’d have to wear a tin foil hat to believe that, apparently.

    • kirkmyers says:

      I stopped paying attention to the global warming cultists long ago. For many of its adherents, the AGW theory has become a deeply held religious belief. Anyone who deviates from its gospel is branded an apostate and publicly burned at the stake. It’s impossible to counter the AGW arguments with facts; the “climate change” faithful aren’t interested in real-word data that questions or undermines the AGW dogma. They’ve become ardent disciples of faith-based science, impervious to reason, logic or facts. Their anti-CO2 solutions will end up destroying the modern industrialized economy. It is left to Steven Goddard and other “climate realists” to expose the anti-fossil-fuel cranks and lunatics before they collapse our market economy and impoverish humanity.

      • Ammonite says:

        … I agree, but include all the ‘the richer nations …’ (in the uk it is just as much a political extension of an idealistic impossible dictact.)

        • wvernon1981 says:

          Where most “AGW is a conspiracy” cranks go wrong is that they far over-estimate their own competence in the science and then further buy into the unjustified position that the scientists are all frauds.

          >

        • Hazel Macmillan says:

          We ‘cranks’ are the people that are paying the taxes, suffering the idiocy and still doubtful of skewed modern science now being used as vehicle for superficial idealistic means and political control. Without the people where are you?

      • Gingerbaker says:

        “Their anti-CO2 solutions will end up destroying the modern industrialized economy”

        That’s rich. How would converting to renewable systems that do not require us to keep paying through the nose for carbon fuels – systems that will deliver energy at a fraction of the cost of fossil fuels – wind up “destroying the modern industrialized economy” ?

        The U.S. spent more than $1.2 trillion just for fossil fuels last year! For fuel that was burned once with a flame. Fuel that will only go up in price year after year after year. You really enjoying that calculus?

        Sunlight, wind, tides – they are free. You build infrastructure to harvest it. You pay that off. The rest is gravy. PV panels look like they may have an 80 year lifespan. Do the math.

        • _Jim says:

          Sunlight, wind, tides – they are free.

          The cost of extraction is exorbitant. The cost of the equipment is rarely considered (witness your post.) Places to ‘put them’ is never considered.

          .

        • _Jim says:

          re: Gingerbaker June 24, 2014 at 3:26 pm
          PV panels look like they may have an 80 year lifespan. Do the math.

          Shingles (roofing shingles, not the medical kind) don’t have a lifetime approaching 30 years even; sun, hail, the freeze/thaw cycle, ice storms (and LIGHTNING! Oh do some places in the USA see lightning!) all take their toll and eat away at the ‘lifespan’ of PV panels, and not to mention the diminished output from the PV panels as they age. Now, about the support electronics (e.g. an inverter for feeding 120V AC household electronics and batt charge regulators if one goes that route); how long did that new flat-panel TV set or PC monitor last – and that was used INSIDE the house in a climate-controlled environment …

        • An Inquirer says:

          Gingerbarker, i have done the math. I installed solar panels on my home when govenment subsidies pay for them. (BTW, the gov’t subsidies for solar & wind have been mind-boggling high.) But after a few years, I ripped out the solar panels — the maintenance cost exceeded the value I was getting from them. Alsom, my brother leased much of his farm land for the installation of wind mills which were essentially paid for via gov’t subsidies. Now a few of them are broken and remain so until the company is confident that the government subsidy itself will continue to be higher than the cost of coal-fired electricity.

      • ZaphodEpicurus says:

        “…the AGW theory has become a deeply held religious belief. Anyone who deviates from its gospel is branded an apostate and publicly burned at the stake.” I would just go ahead and call it Marxism since the end goal of this created fear-mongering is basic control of mankind’s economic life.

  27. I’ll be a ‘Denier’ until someone can explain to me how CO2 ‘doesn’t’ turn into Oxygen.

  28. Scott Goodwin says:

    Steven, Just wanted to take a minute to say thank you. Your efforts to reveal the systemic fraud that has been foisted upon us by “climate scientists” and by prominent agencies of the US government are extraordinarily important and valuable to us all. Thank you for voluntarily subjecting yourself to the hostile fire of AGW fanatics for the benefit of others. And thank you for not sitting back and allowing the AGW cartel to literally rewrite the historical record of our planet to suit their own leftist agendas. The louder they scream and protest, the more it’s clear you’re pushing the right buttons and making a difference. There are, no doubt, many like me who are not actively involved in the debate but sincerely appreciate your efforts.

  29. Madoc Pope says:

    Mr. Goddard,

    Thanks for all the work it took in ferreting that alteration out. I think this will do immense good for science in general and for the fight against the scam that is “man made global warming.”

    What I think will be very handy is your posting rebuttals to what NASA / NOAA are now spouting off about their datasets and of how you are, of course, all wrong and make all the wrong inferences and so on and so on.

    The True Believers™ in CAGW are already clinging desperately to whatever is coming from Hansen, et. al. as proof that this is but a tempest in a tea cup.

    Having clear rebuttals at hand will greatly help in keeping this info spreading.

    • Realist says:

      “The True Believers™ in CAGW are already clinging desperately to whatever is coming from Hansen, et. al. as proof that this is but a tempest in a tea cup.”

      Hansen says that his US data up through 1998 does NOT show signs of warming

  30. Ammonite says:

    As the fraud is endemic, Thank you Steve for providing the means to examine and appraise what has been distorted. Write the book.

  31. Susan bacon says:

    Look…the US is not the whole Earth. I have studied global climate change for more than 20 years. For what reason I don’t know but you are in denial. We are changing our atmosphere. What part of that do you deny?? Thickening the atmosphere even slightly is asking for trouble. There is a record of the atmosphere in ice cores and beneath the oceans excetra. Pollution is the problem. And apparently you want to be part of the problem

    • CO2 has increased by 0.0001 mole fraction of the atmosphere. Calling that “thickening” is absurd.

    • ” Pollution is the problem. ”

      CO2 isn’t pollution. Without it, plants and as a consequence, most of the life on Earth would die.

    • darwin says:

      If that’s what you believe then do your part. Forgo any modern conveniences, stop using electricity, grow your own food, make your own clothes, walk everywhere you go and last but not least discard all your electronic devices.

    • _Jim says:

      Wow; a true, parroting acolyte.

      Almost verbatim “off the label”.

      .

    • Mac says:

      Explain the Ordovician glaciation 450 million years ago. Over 4000 ppm CO2, yet the earth was covered in an ice sheet from pole to pole. CO2 now at 400 ppm, one-tenth that level. Better yet, explain the numerous lies that Warmists have been caught in over the last several years.

      Global warming is religion stemming from Earth Day, hippie eco-activism, and anti-capitalist hostility. In other words, it’s a fabrication and complete fantasy.

      • Morgan says:

        In other words, smoking pot. The problem is not the CO2 in the atmosphere, but the THC in their lungs.

      • Realist says:

        How many humans on the planet 450 million years ago? Oh, right! NONE.

        Earth Day? Are you old enough to remember the sewers we allowed our rivers to become that helped generate the movement that became Earth Day? Perhaps you don’t need water.

    • The ’30s were the hottest decade on record. The ’70s were cold, which is why global warmongers like to start their charts then, to show an upward swing. I, however, can start a chart in 1998 to show cooling since then.

      Amazing how the planet didn’t warm while China and India industrialized.

      CO2 was much denser when dinosaurs roamed the Earth. The planet wasn’t “dying” then, either.

    • Realist says:

      THANK YOU!
      You know you’re dealing with nuts when they say things like “CO2 isn’t a pollutant because plants need it to grow.”

      This whole conspiracy thing is just a Faux News wannabe trying to whip people up into a frenzy with disinformation. Part of the anti-intellectual movement.

      • If you had ever taken a science class, you would know that CO2 is one of several essential ingredients of photosynthesis. You can’t possibly be as ignorant as you pretend to be.

        • Chris says:

          The adverse impacts of CO2 on plant growth primarily relate to temperature and rainfall, not CO2’s role in photosynthesis.

  32. Mac says:

    Of course, now the panic will set in for the shrill and enraged members of the Church of Global Warming, as they scramble feebly to defensively explain all of this. It’s horrifying to me, as a former science student, to realize that scientists are now just a bunch of politically motivated, money-hungry whores, and shills for the left wing. When I was in college, “science” meant testable and verifiable, not hysterical “consensus”. Global warming is an invention of the U.N., and it’s simply meant to dismantle our economy, and force Americans to live like people in the Third World.

  33. _Jim says:

    Why are we getting nothing but women coming in here and attempting debate?

    is this a manifestation of the “All American First Cavalry Amazon Battalion” dispatched into action?

    .

  34. Mike says:

    What is most frustrating about the climate change debate is that it is a distraction. I tend to believe the majority of the scientific community over a handful of vocal deniers, but even if climate change is not man-made, or non-existent, it is not a good reason to vote against anti-pollution or lowered emission regulations. There is very obvious support for the denial narrative comes, in large part, from major corporations and the fossil fuel industry. As long as this debate goes on, polluters can continue to argue against regulations citing “climate change is fake!!” as enough reason to not regulate pollution and emission more strictly. Pollution is pollution, and whether it is heating or cooling the planet, pollution damages our atmosphere, environment, and ecosystems worldwide. Using the climate change debate as cover for polluting (or refusal to pollute less) is an attempt to shift the focus away from the damage that is being done to our environment in the name of profits and shareholders at the expense of everyone (even those shareholders).

    • CO2 is not a pollutant. You have no idea what you are talking about

    • Latitude says:

      Mike…..you just went all over the place
      You didn’t fall for the carbon vs CO2 pollution thing, did you?

    • Truthseeker says:

      Mike,

      Your unspecific and unsupported ramblings are shown very clearly what is wrong about the climate change debate.
      You have used logical fallacies – “I tend to believe the majority …” = argument from authority which has no place in science (hint; the universe is not a democracy).
      You have perpetuated lies – “… against anti-pollution or lowered emission …” = implication that CO2 is a pollutant or an emission to be controlled. It is neither.
      You have stereotype and demonised – ” … for the denial narrative …” = classifying those with a different opinion as being Holocaust deniers (this is where the term “denier” was born).
      You have perpetuated more lies – ” … from major corporations and the fossil fuel industry.” = suggesting that people like Steven are being funded by “big Oil” which is absolutely untrue, unlike Greenpeace and other “environmental” NGOs that do get large amounts of money from Shell and other petroleum based corporations,
      You then go on and on about “pollution”. Well I am sure Steven the ex park ranger and the larger sceptic communnity (including myself) are also very much against pollution. However the difference is that we are against actual pollution, not the fake pollution that you seem to think CO2 is. We actually care about the environment. The alarmists only care about control.

    • Gamecock says:

      Mike, your stuff don’t stink? You exhale CO2 all day and all night.

      “it is not a good reason to vote against anti-pollution or lowered emission regulations.”

      Why do you support controls on others for doing EXACTLY what you do?

      • wvernon1981 says:

        Seriously? Human breathing is carbon neutral.

        >

        • The Outdoorsman says:

          wvernon1981, I don’t understand the reasoning that leads you to conclude that breathing is carbon neutral. Most of the carbon that humans exhale initially comes from plants which receive their carbon from the atmosphere. The carbon in the plants has already been removed from the atmosphere. By eating, we are adding CO2 to the atmosphere that would have, in the absence of our consumption, returned to the soil.

        • wvernon1981 says:

          I say it’s carbon neutral because you end up exhaling no more carbon dioxide than you consume in plant or animal matter. If it’s animal matter, that originated in plant matter. It’s carbon neutral.

          >

  35. Helio Spheric says:

    Science 101 insists that we include raw data, and an explanation of any “adjusted” data (standard transparency and accountability). If professional scientists are excluding raw data, then we have a cover up, and we need to know a motive, and who else knew.

  36. Latitude says:

    This is really embarrassing……are these people really this stupid?
    (I’m talking about the morons that can’t read, can’t follow links, and believe in global warming)

    • Chris says:

      Yes, Latitude, “people” are really this stupid. And not just those money grubbing scientists, or libtards. Not just those country governments that are licking their chops at new taxes. And not even just companies that could theoretically benefit from this scare by raising their insurance rates (Lloyds of London, Swiss Re) – though of course they’ll end up paying out far more if CAGW comes to pass. No, this conspiracy of stupidity EVEN includes companies whose belief in this runs against their self interest – such as BP and Shell. And on the other side of the discussion, we have a few climatologists, and an active community of skeptics, including yourself.

  37. Ex federal field science technician says:

    Neither unadjusted air temperature sensor data nor adjusted air temperature sensor data can be presented as the “absolute truth” average air temperature data at time T that may occur in a delineated region. It may be desired that an air temperature sensor is deemed representative of an entire region’s actual air temperature average, but being at a fixed point in space above the ground, in one fixed location, sometimes it may not represent an entire region. Errors may occur in the recorded readings because of diverse reasons such as inherent instrument variability, drift, non-linearity, response time, radiated energy, reflected energy, input voltage, radiation shield design, calibration adjustments, assumed factory settings accuracy, relocation of station, frost, surrounding vegetative cover, wildlife interferences, and microclimate variables. If a 0.1 degree C. accuracy claim by a manufacturer of an air temperature sensor may not seem like much, when you add in the other variables there is a larger error bar. Verification of air temperature accuracy in the field requires using a lab standard ASTM or NIST thermometer to check a field thermometer’s accuracy, previous to the site visit, for the range of temperatures experienced by the on-site air temperature sensor at the weather station. The field thermometer is used during site visits to check air temperature readings and then to compare the result to the on site sensor record as well as on site sensor live readings.
    I had the job of checking records for three air temperature stations for quality assurance purposes. The stations were within a delineated region of ground water wells. From the records, the air temperature records at the several stations did not match each other at different times of the day or the seasons even though they were relatively close together and the three sensors were checked for calibration. For one, it is hard to measure air temperature with a field thermometer and expect to exactly replicate what the on site air temperature sensor is experiencing under its little radiation shield. Secondly, if the temperature readings do not agree precisely, it is hard to isolate what the error is – there is a tendency to TRY TO FIND AGREEMENT with the on site air temperature sensor, because it is easier to blame human error for the readings of the field thermometer you are checking with. Perhaps you are holding it in the sun, too low, too high, etc.. But how do you find your station’s bias, compared to the regional average? Perhaps the station has a bias.
    Overall, my quality control work pointed to this: Three sets of air temperature records recording at 10 minute intervals from reliable (stable) air temperature sensors will each produce a daily record that a daily average temperature can be computed from. Each site’s average includes unmitigated error from all the variations mentioned above, and each site falls short of representing absolutely true daily averages of a region because of microclimate variability. But the one-figure annual average air temperature record should point to whether the region is in a warming or cooling trend because of CO2 concentration if the sensors retain their calibrations equally in respect to each other sites sensors, the data is collected long enough and the surrounding environment stays the same and only CO2 levels change. None of these stability factors happen in real world situations. The change in the whole earth’s average annual temperature record is changing solely from anthropogenic greenhouse gases. Not. Not when air temperature data is manipulated to conform to expectations of a hypothesis.

    • honesttalk says:

      You are pulling my leg, right?

      I have a chemistry and mathematics background. I never “manipulated data” to conform to my hypothesis.

      I frequently said: I’ll be darned, THE FINDINGS INDICATE WHAT I THOUGHT (i.e., hypothesized) JUST AIN’T TRUE!

      Of course, I was not working for a drug company trying to get a drug on the market or a Liberal trying to justify closing every industry that might drop an ounce of oil on the ground.

      I don’t know what kind of “scientists” you have encountered, but we didn’t send men to the moon and bring them back to earth by “bending facts to suit hypotheses.”

  38. Ken says:

    I know it’s just a coincidence but funny how the climate is showing record highs right after both the Great Depression of 1929 and Great “Recession” of 2008.

  39. Norman Allen says:

    Whoever believes that man made climate change is a hoax lacks eyes, ears, skin, cannot think and lives in isolation from everyone in a locked box with no brains…. I have noticed how progressively the area I live in is getting hotter and colder seasonally. CO2 and other greenhouse gasses trap heat. Coal, oil, gas is progressively heating the planet. Ninety seven percent of climate scientists are in agreement. A scientist in Texas is offering $10,000 to anyone who can prove the climate is not getting warmer. Any of deniers, including Sen. Inhofe can make easy $10,000. Go for it using SCIENTIFIC METHOD….

  40. Steve says:

    Steve,

    Perhaps I’m a bit slow, but how does someone like myself get access to the pre-modified data and post modified data to see the difference? Is it possible?
    I guess I’m just pre-empting questions from warmist members of my own family I’d love to show the modified data to….

    Thanks in advance.

  41. Steve says:

    Its OK…I finally worked out what I was looking for and found it.
    How do these people justify modifying raw data?
    SInce when does reading the numbers off a themometer require “correction” – did all those people have bad eyesight perhaps?

  42. chrismalta says:

    As a professional statistician I have a few remarks about this data.

    The all important premise is what is the methodology? The title of this graph is Continental US annual mean anomalies (C) vs 1950 vs 1980. One must ask the questions: 1) what kind of anomalies does the data allude to? 2) Why was 1950 to 1980 time series was chosen? This trend was on a decline when considering the overall series of 100 years.

    Data can be cut (I mean choosing deliberately a time frame to fit ones purposes), so that they would show the figures how they want it. If the base is a low of for example 1950 to 1980 trend, this would drastically change, if the trend of another 30 years would show a rise. Then the trick is not to deliberately inform the public, of what kind of an anomaly this really is. Make the data into logs, exponential, then the data graph can “look” very differently, and yet the underlying data is left intact.

    Why was the data after the year 2000 deliberately not shown?

    Is this a means to push forward these agendas:

    1) Carbon credits for industry?
    2) Push forward the agenda that the world is getting warmer (global warming) but in reality winters are getting colder and so now the catch phrase is climate change to cater for these facts?
    3) To find the excuse for chemtrails in order to “safe” the world, when in reality creating more harm than good, spraying barium and aluminium particles that kill forests, animal life, and marine ecology?
    4) To come up with some flimsy excuse to provide a global response, when the “scientists” behind it, do not explain certain details and are afraid of exposing information to the general public and the mass media keeps mum?

  43. A. Smith says:

    I agree to the point that data should not be adjusted, especially temperature data. The biggest flaw in science is experimental error. Why on earth would you increase the probability of experimental error by including experimenter’s alterations to a raw data set? We all know there are multiple factors in climate and the temperature on any given day can be attributed to a variety of all of them. However, that does not give any “scientist” the right to alter the true readings. The ONLY valid adjustment that could be made to a temperature reading would be due to thermometer calibration. Clearly this is not the case.

  44. robertk52 says:

    I have a simple question. As a layperson (I’m not a scientist), is it my understanding that the earth has experienced 7 ice ages in its history. If so, what caused those to end? Why did the earth’s temperature rise sufficiently to melt the ice well before industrialized man showed up? Seems that the discussion of how we measure earth’s temperature is secondary to whether man could even be the cause of global warming. Am I missing something?

  45. spacenergymass says:

    We definitely need to leave fossil fuel energies, for many reasons.
    But I became skeptical of the global warming/climate change hysteria, when the proponents of
    the hysteria, absolutely refuse to acknowledge, aerosol geoengineering aka chemtrails.
    I no longer trust anything from these government shills. They are SPRAYING US.

    • We certainly need to keep fossil fuels, for many different reasons

    • _Jim says:

      Spraying … from 32,000 feet … do you have any idea how dispersed any ‘agent’ would be after mixing in with the air from that altitude? Not to mention, this is after being ‘fed’ into an engine and ‘combusted’ (burned) as fuel.

      See, there are NO auxiliary tanks or capability to ‘haul’ an extra 100,000 pounds of some liquid or powder that WOULD NOT SHOW UP on the ‘total weight list’ the pilots use to calculate take-off parameters under the varied conditions experienced around the country at the various airports.

      One last thing, for God’s sake man, put a thinking cap on consider these known, factual items rationally for a change.

      .

  46. honesttalk says:

    Today (6-26-2014) NOAA post data indicating that the USA has been COOLING (again apparently) since 2005!

    This constitutes NOAA’s first official statement since its new, updated monitoring system.

    NOAA’s monitoring system needed to be “updated” because, I must assume, the CRAZY LIBERALS were not “happy” with the “old” monitoring system, which apparently also failed to support the “dreaded global warming.”

    The CRAZY LIBERALS need to have a talk with the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change as well. On 9-27-2014, the IPCC announced that the average global temperature had not changed in 15 years.

    The temperature is up, the temperature is down, the temperature is sideways, the temperature is …..THE REAL POINT IS that after 100+ years of the “polluting industrial revolution” mankind has been “unable” to consistently and permanently mover UPWARD the thermometer’s needle. THAT is why I say the LIBERAL CLIMATE CHANGE FANATICS are CRAZY, STUPID, NUTS, LIARS OR ALL FOUR. Just once, I would like to hear them incorporate solar activity into their global warming crap (and I mean “global warming,” not their euphemistic “climate change”).

    Note: I have no problem calling the Liberals crazy, stupid, nuts, liars, or all four BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO PROBLEM TREATING ME AS A DOPE.

    • honesttalk says:

      Date in comment is misstated: should read “9-27-2013″ NOT “9-27-2014″

    • wvernon1981 says:

      So with increased atmospheric greenhouse gas emissions, what happened to the expected extra retained heat?

      >

      • The Outdoorsman says:

        what?

        • wvernon1981 says:

          The reason I say that is that the greenhouse effect is based on the physics of absorbtion and emission spectrums. CO2 absorbs and re-emits photons in part in specific infrared wavelengths. This results in a system with greenhouse gasses retaining more heat than a system without greenhouse gasses. So, if you don’t consider anything else other than an increase in a greenhouse gas concentration, you would get more heat retained by the system. Therefore, the question is what are the exacerbating and mitigating factors that would cause a deviation from the temperature increase that would be expected if we were solely considering greenhouse gasses.

          >

  47. Ramon Cotta says:

    The theory of global warming was developed using the original data, not manipulated data. There should be no need to manipulate anything if the theory is valid. If subsequent measurements do not support the theory, then the manipulation of data is driven by political concerns. Obvious. A similar situation occurred with the discovery of Neanderthals, with one faction fabricating data to support Eugenics (later an element in the development of Nazism) and the other denying that Neanderthals were humanoid.
    History repeats itself.

  48. BTCarter says:

    For point of reference, it seems Politifact has weighed in on this claim and gave it a “Pants on Fire” rating.

    http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jun/25/steve-doocy/foxs-doocy-nasa-fudged-data-make-case-global-warmi/

  49. If you read Hansen’s 1999 article in the reference given above:
    NASA GISS: Science Briefs: Whither U.S. Climate?
    Hansen shows the graphs of US temperatures during the 20th Century and that for the whole world.
    The global temperature graph shows a significant rise in temperature. He then suggests that US anomalous lack of warming might be due to the North Atlantic oscillation, and ventures a forecast of possible rapid warming in the US with more extreme whether, such as higher precipitation and floods and droughts and wildfires. This is what we have been experiencing.

    Therefore, based on this 1999 report, there would have been no need to fudge the US 20th Century temperature graph. So what was the purpose of doing it?

  50. Sam Smith says:

    Lol, this website is a perfect illustration of the biggest problem with the internet! Some random nutter named Tony Heller from Baltimore, MD gets to reinforce his fantasy world by seeking validation of his quack theories from a bunch of equally ignorant idiots. It would be almost entertaining if it wasn’t so sad and pathetic.

    • Thank you demonstrating again that progressives are nothing but McCarthyite/Stalinst hacks – who know nothing about science and rely strictly on hatred and name calling.

      I’m happy to debate the science with you, but you obviously aren’t intelligent enough to engage in scientific debate.

      • wvernon1981 says:

        I didn’t realize name calling implied that progressives were Stalinist hacks. That’s quite the leap in reasoning.

        >

        • oli says:

          According to climate change deniers the thermal properties of CO2 are Stalinist fascist greenist liberal pseudo scientists. It would be funny if it wasn’t so scary. Wonder what their great grandchildren will think of them?

  51. oli says:

    If these graphs are correct (I doubt it as they’re published on a pseudoscience website) then they are just showing temps for the US. I know the US thinks it’s the center of everything, but cliamte change is global.

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