Cheating, Just As They Planned To Do

They wanted to lower 1940’s by 0.15 degrees, and they did exactly that.

PaintImage40

PaintImage41

About stevengoddard

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

11 Responses to Cheating, Just As They Planned To Do

  1. omanuel says:

    Steven,

    Secret agreements in 1945 to hide neutron repulsion, the abundant source of energy that powers our beautiful, bountiful, benevolent world from the cores of:

    Heavy atoms like Uranium
    Some planets like Jupiter
    Ordinary stars like the Sun
    Galaxies like the Milky Way

    Were exposed when Climategate emails revealed manipulation of data to fit a political agenda in Nov 2009, . . .

    http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2014/02/04/a-historical-perspective-on-hysterical-rhetoric/

    . . . Yet most critics (except Donna Lafamboise) could not then, and will not now, believe that NASA and other federal research agencies were already manipulating observations and data to fit the UN’s agenda when President Eisenhower warned of this threat to our form of government in Jan 1961:

    With deep regrets,
    – Oliver K. Manuel
    Former NASA Principal
    Investigator for Apollo

  2. geran says:

    Oliver, can you please not be so insensitive?
    I had a puppy die in the 1950s.

  3. JIm says:

    this document needs to be forwarded to Sen Joe Manchin in West Virginia and the coal companies, this is exactly the type of document that needs to be SHOWN to the American public. The MSM wont do it but if enough people start to see this stuff combined with the current weather – the public will force the issue

  4. darrylb says:

    Steve, In the years 2,000 to 2013, do you know how many times changes were made to the temps indicated above?
    Thanks again for the copy of the email Wigley to Jones, I had missed that one.

    Also, a note, It was Ben Santer who received a copy of the email above, that gave the statement that if we have a period of no warmining for 17 years then the models must be wrong.
    Well Ben, I am sure we all would like you to stand by your words and pronounce the models wrong!!

  5. Is this conspiracy, not in the ‘theory’ but in the ‘evidence of’ sense. ?

    • omanuel says:

      If you want see for yourself how they respond to precise experimental data that falsify their consensus models, just ask any member of the UN’s IPCC, the UK’s Royal Society, the US or any other National Academy of Sciences, or the Swedish or Norwegian Nobel Prize Committee to publicly address three figures of precise experimental data (Figures 1-3, pages 19-27, my autobiography).

      https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Chapter_2.pdf

      They cannot address the data nor successfully attack it’s reliability. So they will likely ignore your request.

  6. Brian H says:

    Keep hammerin’, Steve.

  7. edonthewayup says:

    Reblogged this on Edonurwayup's Blog and commented:
    Pass this around.

  8. wayne says:

    That nearly linear adjustment you see on the GISS adjustments plot since 1940 is so subtle, just 1/1200 of three-quarters of a degree per century, or 0.000625 K/mo is all it takes. Looks nearly programmatic in nature doesn’t it, with a little noise, maybe some tiny bug colored to blend in, as a ceil() without a floor() for negative anomalies if in C, which does not have a round function and you have to roll your own, buried in some far removed function no one would ever suspect or detect. I’ve programmed for over forty years and myself or Harry the Programmer could probably do so easily if instructed to do so, a homogenized bug would be even better.

    When I read there exists some code for part of the purification process (from peer-reviewed papers of course) that the data for all of the major temperature datasets must pass through and that this code is non-public and proprietary… all kind of red flags appeared. If that is true no wonder all major dataset look nearly identical which means they also must have approximately the same nearly linear adjustments applied to each but never matches individual analyses when hourly data is used. But wait, I’m honest and probably Harry too so pick some greenie to code it.

    I can’t help but wonder, how, with only a few knowing, or maybe it is in the adjustment process itself laid out in the peer reviewed papers behind paywalls that were all written in the 1980’s or just before.

    Keep on this line of thought Goddard, you are digging in the right neighborhood.

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s