Today’s Humor

I started the day with Anthony Watts sending an E-Mail to an alarmist saying that I am worse than Michael Mann, because I use only raw, untampered  data.

Then Zeke stopped by and said that my objection to using anomalies was for a “different kind of anomaly.” All he wants me to do is to double count (I will explain this in a later post) lost rural station data via infilling and gridding, and lose any possibility of detecting the huge baseline shifts that have occurred.

Then Suarez bared his teeth.

You can’t make this stuff up.

About stevengoddard

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

72 Responses to Today’s Humor

  1. Latitude says:

    fun times…….

  2. kuhnkat says:

    I think Suarez is a personal warning from Watts…

  3. Theyouk says:

    A few dumb questions here: Didn’t you put together (multiple times, as I recall) raw data ONLY from continuously operated stations? Isn’t there maybe a way to then kill some of those so you don’t get a falsely dense set of temps from urban areas, leaving you with a smaller but still raw set of data? Why the h_ll is anyone adjusting anything? I may be a naive dullard, but to me it seems adjusted = corrupted.

  4. Meanwhile Antarctic sea ice anomaly is 2nd highest on record.

  5. Send Al to the Pole says:

    If Anthony et al have a case, they should show the math. I don’t go over there so much any more, but I haven’t seen any rebuttal when I’ve been there.

  6. geran says:

    Just ask Anthony if he plans to use those mirrors to heat his home this winter.

  7. cg says:

    Hang in there, Steven.

  8. markstoval says:


    I don’t understand. Why on earth would Anthony want to ignore the massive and blatant manipulation of the temperature record? You have shown that the “warming” is due to government drones fiddling with the record. Why would we not want that information out there? Beats all.

    • Dave N says:

      “Why on earth would Anthony want to ignore the massive and blatant manipulation of the temperature record?”

      He apparently believes that the adjustments are valid and/or are “small details”. Remember this is the guy that is gung ho over station siting (and rightly so).. you know, those things that make *actual* observations.

      Mind boggling.

    • Truthseeker says:

      Well, Anthony (with help from a lot of volunteers) did a huge amount of work about poor location of weather stations and the way that they had gone, over time, from open areas to urban areas or placed on tarmac’s or next to air conditioning vents. He even published a peer reviewed paper on the results.

      Now Steven has exposed that all of Anthony’s excellent work is trivial compared to the wholesale fabrication and falsification of US land based temperature data. Anthony is has “skin in this game” and is becoming territorial and protective. He is becoming more and more “selective” about his sceptisism and a gatekeepper about what is “valid” discussion in the climate field.

      He is very much a “luke warmer” and is heading towards dogma just as the alarmists are already wallowing in it.

      • Eric Barnes says:

        So true.
        “Such is professional jealousy; a scientist will never show any kindness for a theory which he did not start himself.”
        Mark Twain

        • gofer says:

          Thousands died because the medical community could not accept the proven fact that pellegra was caused by diet, not germs.

        • _Jim says:

          Known by another name in the ‘practical’ world; the NIH (Not Invented Here) Syndrome.

          Wiki sums it up: NIH – the philosophy of social, corporate, or institutional cultures that avoid using or buying already existing products, research, standards, or knowledge because of their external origins and costs. The reasons for not wanting to use the work of others are varied, but can include fear through lack of understanding, an unwillingness to value the work of others, or forming part of a wider “turf war”.

          As a social phenomenon, this philosophy manifests as an unwillingness to adopt an idea or product because it originates from another culture, a form of tribalism. The term is normally used in a pejorative sense. The opposite predisposition is sometimes called “proudly found elsewhere” (PFE) or invented here.

          – – – – – –

          One sees this in the ‘engineering world’ quite often. Story has it J. Fred Bucy (TI CEO way back when) went ballistic upon seeing an HP calculator in a meeting in the board room one time … another of his insistences was the use of the TI TMS9900 microprocessors in the TI 99/4 “Home Computer”. TI at the time manufactured no other architecture uCs. The 9900 series had some through-put issues not mention an odd requirement for a multi-phase clock and _no_ hardware registers (excepting the Program counter and a pointer to a “register set” residing in anywhere in addressable memory! This made for ‘slowed down’ program execution right off the bat.)


        • Gail Combs says:

          …in the ‘practical’ world; the NIH (Not Invented Here) Syndrome.

          Other wise know as shear bullheaded stupidity, commonly found in men.
          (Twists, ducks and runs…)

  9. Dave N says:

    “..lose any possibility of detecting the huge baseline shifts that have occurred”

    This has me picturing Zeke putting a blanket over his head.

  10. markstoval says:

    OK. I just read the post at and see that Watts is still trying to look like the “reasonable” skeptic. Those poor misunderstood government minions have just made a few “bureaucratic bungling that produces what he thinks is a significant artificial warming signal in the lower 48 temperature records”. Hmmmmm. I think Watts just does not like anyone pointing out the real truth about the corrupted data record.

    Booted you off the WUWT site for holding a scientific opinion that he did not like? Wow.

  11. I’m starting to feel a bit like a broken record here. If you are using absolute temperatures and you station network is not consistent over time, you will get biased results. This is a replay of an issue that EM Smith brought up back in 2010; you can see the discussion here, and there is quite a bit about absolutes vs. anomalies in the comment thread:

    A simple example of why your method does not work is what happens when you apply it to global temperatures rather than only the U.S.:

  12. Andy Oz says:

    To top of it all off John Cook’s UQ issues a press release that it is tough to find evidence of climate change in the oceans, but that “sea level rise could damage marine systems by 2050.” WTF?
    That might be because “Climate” applies to the atmosphere. I have trouble finding evidence of global warming in volcanoes but can I have some money to study it too? God help us when the tide comes in today. 97% of us are doomed.

  13. Eliza says:

    Looks like Zeke’s et al., are getting desperate. No one is paying attention. Watts made a HUGE mistake in posting a reply the way he did on Lucia’s Climate Trivia site. Climate lukewarmism is FINITO they dont’ seem to get it LOL

  14. Eliza says:

    Should have added Climate Modeling is FINITO LOL

  15. Luke of the D says:

    I’m not sure what Mr. Watts claim is all about – as raw data is the only the data that matters, clearly – but I grow really tired of the damned double-speak that appears everywhere now. Even your site I grow tired of… don’t get me wrong Mr. Goddard, you and Mr. Watts site are the only climate debate websites that really the ones I frequent any more. But the politics and infighting and annoying amounts of sarcasm is starting to wear thin. Just stick to facts, science, historical articles, and figures and I will definitely keep visiting here. If not, well, have fun arguing with each other.

    • I’ve ignored Anthony’s backstabbing for years, but unfortunately he stepped too far over the line today.

      • geran says:

        Anthony has an extreme case of paranoia. In his mind, everyone is out to get him. If his mustache was on fire, and you told him, he would turn the fire hose on you!

        Sad, because most of us used to love WUWT. But, his censorship of “REAL science” annoys the “REAL scientist” in all of us.

        • Hugh K says:

          When I used to frequent Anthony’s site I seldom went to WUWT for Anthony’s opinion, which has become exceedingly difficult to follow, but for the comments from other posters. In the case of Real Science, I get to enjoy both.
          It is disturbing to say the least that Anthony thought it wise to get pissy with Steven only to get severely wounded from friendly fire.

  16. copernicus34 says:

    I think both Watts and Goddard should ask McIntyre to weigh in. Goddard is 100% correct in my book, and I want Watts to quickly recant because he is wrong. This is about the science, not ‘massaging’ the message to get alarmists to like. With Anthony’s latest posts on WUWT, one can tell he senses an opening perhaps not having been attained before, in the MSM reporting of skeptics data and science. I’m sure he doesn’t want a pretty blunt Goddard spoiling his gains. I understand this, but Anthony has to admit that Steve’s science is spot on. There really is no other answer to this data question other than intentional misuse by government.

  17. Eliza says:

    Well he never censored me, but I think they should call a truce. In any case Stevens site is more relevant to the climate issues as it shows clear data manipulation using the perpetrators own data. Unless WUWT realizes that the game is really over and that pushing posts using fraudulent data such as NOAA, GISS, BEST etc by Zeke and similares,will only dilute his audience to that of Lucia’s which usually posts benign, irrelevant postings about theoretical models of temperatures which are of limited interest (for me anyway) LOL

    • geran says:

      Eliza says:
      June 25, 2014 at 12:55 am
      Well he never censored me….

      Eliza, try explaining to Anthony why he cannot look in a mirror and warm his face. If you present the exact science, you will be censored.

      If not, let us know. (Accept no diversions or obfuscations.)

      • _Jim says:

        What’s the temperature of your mirror on the wall geran?

      • Brian G Valentine says:

        I kind of have faith in the idea that spectral reflectivity loss of energy at all wavelengths

        I have had faith in the 2nd law for a long time, that faith has never failed me yet

        • Brian G Valentine says:

          spectral reflectivity less than one implies loss of energy at all wavelengths

    • Sparks says:

      Dilute what? Criticism? Humor? there is always someone else’s opinion to control anyway! apparently! 🙂

  18. Eliza says:

    What watts says here

    “It is my view that while NOAA/NCDC is not purposely “fabricating” data, their lack of attention to detail in the process has contributed to a false warming signal in the USA, and they don’t much care about it because it is in line with their expectations of warming. The surface temperature record thus becomes a product of bureaucracy and not of hard science…Never ascribe malice to what can be explained by simple incompetence”.

    is not substantially very different to what Steven “feels” about data manipulation in any case I really don’t see much of a difference in viewpoint in any case. However I do believe NOAA/NCDC are in fact fabricating data and doing it on purpose.This is where I disagree with Watts.. ..

    • _Jim says:

      However I do believe NOAA/NCDC are in fact fabricating data

      Institutionalized processes at this point executed by ‘lifers’* in the organization, and it serves a purpose – winning funding. Good luck on weening them off that ‘formula’.


      * “Lifer” – Old Navy (and industry) acronym for Lazy, Inefficient Fraudster Expecting Retirement, used to describe someone who does as little as humanly possible and is just waiting to collect his or her pension.

    • Chip Bennett says:

      The problem with the statement is that it is statistically impossible (or, should I say: absurdly implausible) for the manipulation to be solely a function of incompetence. The manipulation is demonstrably systematic, and intentional.

      • _Jim says:

        Too much ‘brain power’ involved (PhDs et al in the organizations directly tied into this PLUS the other heavily degreed eyeballs in outside orgs performing active review of published papers) to be simple incompetence. This leaves open the more tenable explanation that direct, systemic, although incremental changes implemented over a period of years (almost gaining the same benefit as if performed under the cover of the ‘dark of night’) as the more likely scenario. The ‘slow boiling of a frog in water’ comes to mind regarding the rate at which the changes have been incorporated; no one has taken much interest since nothing really ‘stood out’ as a red flag. Close scrutiny and a top to bottom look at raw data comparing that to the homogenized/pasteurized product from the national agencies shows differences that are hard to reconcile or rationalize back to the physical reality of the original temperature measurements.


    • Gail Combs says:

      They are intentionally fabricating the data.
      The USA signed the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change on 12/06/92 and it was ratified 21/03/94
      The UN Framework’s official definition of “Climate change” :

      “Climate change” means a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.

      That’s from the official UN Framework Convention on Climate Change ( The term specifically excludes all natural climate change, and even excludes any caused by humans due to, for example, land clearance or city building, considering only atmospheric changes. Now it was up to the USA to SUPPORT that treaty.

      Steve has the rest of the time line here:

      CAGW has ALWAYS been about politics and never about science.

  19. Eliza says:

    BTW The USA goverment has deleted the page you used to show the original data

    • Andy Oz says:

      Thanks for the link Eliza.
      I don’t get it.
      The EPA shows that US rainfall has hardly changed in 100 years and yet alarmists are freaking out about drought. Can’t they read a chart?

      The heatwave index and the rainfall anomaly index show no trend, thus no correlation with CO2. Pretty straight-forward.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Connecting a few dots:

        The Dust Bowl started in 1931 +88 years = 2019

        March 19, 2007: NASA Finds Sun-Climate Connection in Old Nile Records

        ….The researchers found some clear links between the sun’s activity and climate variations. The Nile water levels and aurora records had two somewhat regularly occurring variations in common – one with a period of about 88 years and the second with a period of about 200 years.

        The researchers said the findings have climate implications that extend far beyond the Nile River basin….

        And that is not the only paper.
        The Holocene Asian Monsoon: Links to Solar Changes and North Atlantic Climate

        ….Cross-correlation of the decadal- to centennial-scale monsoon record with the atmospheric carbon-14 record shows that some, but not all, of the monsoon variability at these frequencies results from changes in solar output….

        Solar forcing of climate during the last millennium recorded in lake sediments from northern Sweden

        …Variations in the content of minerogenic material are found to follow reconstructed variations in the activity of the Sun between the 13th and 18th centuries. Periods of low solar activity are associated with minima in minerogenic material and vice versa. A comparison between the sunspot cycle and a long instrumental series of summer precipitation further reveals a link between the 11 yr solar cycle and summer precipitation variability since around 1960. Solar minima are in this period associated with minima in summer precipitation, whereas the amount of summer precipitation increases during periods with higher solar activity. Our results suggest that the climate responds to both the 11 yr solar cycle and to long-term changes in solar activity and in particular solar minima, causing dry conditions with resulting decreased runoff.

        Multidecadal to multicentury scale collapses of Northern Hemisphere monsoons over the past millennium


        Late Holocene climate in western North America was punctuated by periods of extended aridity called megadroughts. These droughts have been linked to cool eastern tropical Pacific sea surface temperatures (SSTs). Here, we show both short-term and long-term climate variability over the last 1,500 y from annual band thickness and stable isotope speleothem data. Several megadroughts are evident, including a multicentury one, AD 1350–1650, herein referred to as Super Drought, which corresponds to the coldest period of the Little Ice Age. Synchronicity between southwestern North American, Chinese, and West African monsoon precipitation suggests the megadroughts were hemispheric in scale. Northern Hemisphere monsoon strength over the last millennium is positively correlated with Northern Hemisphere temperature and North Atlantic SST. The megadroughts are associated with cooler than average SST and Northern Hemisphere temperatures. Furthermore, the megadroughts, including the Super Drought, coincide with solar insolation minima, suggesting that solar forcing of sea surface and atmospheric temperatures may generate variations in the strength of Northern Hemisphere monsoons. Our findings seem to suggest stronger (wetter) Northern Hemisphere monsoons with increased warming.

        You would have to be deaf, dumb and blind not to realize there has been a change in the sun and the weather patterns are shifting, especially after this winter. I doubt very much scientists actually believe the CAGW drivel they are spouting to continue the grant money flowing.

        I do however believe those with a vested interest will grab onto a drought with both hands and scream how mankind is causing it. I already ran into some idiot site whining about “Your Water Foot Print” In intelligence circles, it is called “a preparation of the battle space”

        The idiot site was National Geographic and there is a pointer from none other than Julian Huxley’s UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education

        So there is a candidate for the next Alarmist Crisis. (Destroying dams and reservoirs especially in California ain’t gonna help matters.)

  20. Eliza says:

    Apparently its back up now sorry or has it been changed?

  21. suyts says:

    Steve, screw them. You’re correct, and have shown you’re correct. The data is what it is, and there’s no amount of rationalization which changes the facts.

    My thoughts are here……

  22. Owen says:

    The global warming/climate change theory is a scam, a con, a fraud. Steven Goddard has the smoking gun – Data Tampering ! If Anthony Watts can’t see this and won’t admit the obvious, then he isn’t the man I thought he was.

    I don’t understand climate realists who play nice with people who are nothing but ruthless crooks. The alarmists belong in jail.

  23. Andy says:

    Steve, or Tony, or whoever, you said

    “I started the day with Anthony Watts sending an E-Mail to an alarmist saying that I am worse than Michael Mann, because I use only raw, untampered data.”

    He didn’t say that, you quoted yourself what he said

    “He’s hopelessly stubborn, worse than Mann at being able to admit mistakes IMHO”

    You have to admit you are stubborn, although reading your blog for years, and enjoying it, you do make some errors but never do admit to them.

    Even the blog name, like your own, seems not to be true. It’s not real science, it’s personal beliefs and bias.

    However having said that you come out with some interesting stuff on the Arctic.


    • geran says:

      Andy, perhaps you forgot to mention this blog does not censor science. THAT is the reason it is called “REAL science”. You are quick to point out mistakes by this site, but how many mistakes have been made over at WUWT?

      People that do not see their own bias do not make good scientists.

    • You don’t know the context behind his remark.

  24. GW says:

    Steve, can you try presenting this to Senator Inhoffe ? If we can get Congressional recognition of this fraud the public will gain a broader understanding of it as well as many congressional members oblivious to it as well. Then there may be more resolve in congress after the midterms to reign in the put of control EPA and maybe more after 2016.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Good Idea.

      • GW says:

        Thanks Gail. Too bad this thread is already stale, but I hope he tries. By the way, I’ve always loved your posts, more than anyone elses, and have read many of the links you often include – especially on the agricultural agri-business, among others. Keep it up !

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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