It Gets More Bizarre By The Hour

Anthony Watts has been a busy boy recently. Today he is quoted along with Zeke, Gavin and Mark Serreze in a hit piece against me and Fox News blaming NASA’s data tampering on my “faulty analysis”

Anthony Watts, a popular skeptic of most climate change data, posted his objection to Goddard’s claim.

“I took Goddard to task over this as well in a private email, saying he was very wrong and needed to do better,” Watts wrote.

Fox’s Doocy: NASA fudged data to make the case for global warming | PunditFact

Here is the E-mail Anthony is referring to :

Sun, Jun 1, 2014 at 4:42 PM

This claim: “More than 40% of USHCN final station data is now generated from stations which have no thermometer data.”

Is utterly bogus.

This kind of unsubstantiated claim is why some skeptics get called conspiracy theorists. If you can’t back it up to show that 40% of the USHCN has stopped reporting, then don’t publish it.

I’d take it down right now if I were you before somebody sees it and calls you out on it.



He was responding to this E-mail from me.

Sun, Jun 1, 2014 at 4:16 PM

Here is something interesting. Almost half of USHCN data is now completely fake.


The graph is quite accurate. For example in 2013 there were 14,613 final USHCN monthly temperature readings, which were derived from 10,868 raw monthly temperature readings – which means there were 34% more final readings than actual underlying data. This year about 40% of the monthly final data is being reported for stations with no corresponding raw data – i.e. fabricated.

I was astonished by Anthony’s original response and his failure to acknowledge that he was wrong. But now he is taking his BS out on the road with his newfound alarmist buddies. Unbelievable. It isn’t worth selling your soul to get through peer review.

And BTW – the temperature adjustments are complete garbage.

About stevengoddard

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

123 Responses to It Gets More Bizarre By The Hour

  1. joe says:

    You links to noaa dont work…

  2. geran says:

    It isn’t about your science, it’s about your growing popularity. Anthony is not about science, he is about “control”. Unfortunately, I expect him to become even more rabid.

  3. _Jim says:

    One wonders how he (and others) square this statement:

    in 2013 there were 95,004 final USHCN monthly temperature readings, which were derived from 70,970 raw monthly temperature readings –

    – – which means there were 34% more final readings than actual underlying data.

    – – This year about 40% of the monthly final data is being reported for stations with no corresponding raw data

    – – – – – –

    This should be demonstrably false or true, no in-between.

    If these indeed are the facts, they are either true or false.


    • Chip Bennett says:

      But let’s be fair: 60% is far greater – by an order of magnitude – than the percentage of white-paper conclusions required to derive a consensus of 97%.

  4. Kent Clizbe says:


    They owe you a rebuttal.

    You need to come out of the shadows, brother.

    Go public.

    Get in touch with the producers/writers of this piece, and ask for your equal time for rebuttal.

    Then give them a clear, concise, version of your findings.

    That will be the beginning of the end.

  5. Dave N says:

    So why didn’t *he* call you out on it, by demonstrating how your claim is false (i.e. actually produce an analysis)? The data is available for him to do so; his behaviour in this instance is very alarmist-like: all hot air and no substance.

    • Dave N says:

      ..and by “analysis” I mean a like-for-like comparison of the percentage of “fabricated” data; not some stupid “anomalies make this disappear” crap.

  6. Latitude says:

    Anthony is saying they are reported later…and back corrected
    Well here’s the problem with that……if 40% of them are filled in later
    Then at any given moment…..40% of them will be wrong

    If that’s true…then Steve is 100% correct amundo

    • Is he expecting that 34% of the 2013 data will be reported sometime later this year? ROFL

      • Dave N says:

        ..and apparently some of the data from the last 20 years is still arriving. That might be an interesting comparison: i.e. how much of the “fabricated” data is actually replaced with observations, and how long after.

      • Latitude says:

        He’s trying to paint it that way………LOL
        I was trying to point out that Anthony doesn’t realize what he’s saying. he’s all over the place making excuses

  7. _Jim says:

    Just wondering … are there ‘forms’ (paper forms) that still have not been received through the NWS/NOAA observer program or system that have not been key-punched’ (in the old days) into the computer system yet?

    Might this explain some absences of data for 2014? Is it possible that the backlog could be anywhere from a week to two or three months for some stations who are slow in getting data forms sent in?


  8. _Jim says:

    Somehow applicable –

    JACOB BRONOWSKI – “The Tragedy of Mankind


  9. Brodirt says:

    You’ve been divided. Now you’re both marginalized. Next you both will be conquered. The two of you need to realize that you have shared goals and that your opponents understand the concept that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

    • You sent this to the wrong person. Talk to watts.

    • squid2112 says:

      The two of you need to realize that you have shared goals …

      NO, this is false. By no means does Watts share these goals. Watts is all about Watts … period. He is a glory seeker and a profiteer. He is not interested in Steven’s goals, or anyone elses goals, just his own. Watts is a charlatan, pure and simple.

      • _Jim says:

        Since when is being interested in one’s own goals or since when is self-interest a bad thing? I’m sure you’re no Mother Theresa, or maybe I’m mistaken; are you posting from a monastery, or have you sworn off earthly pleasures to seek some higher plane of existence? Either way, self interest played some part in even making that decision (e.g., betterment of one’s own soul) …

        • squid2112 says:

          Did I say anything about interest in ones goals being a bad thing? I was merely pointing out that (A) Watts does not share the same goals as Steven, and (B) That Watts only shares the goals of Watts. I inferred nothing more.

          So, go away _Jim, you’re an asshole and I’m no longer amused.

  10. Psalmon says:

    Shameful of Watts. What an idiot. I did not know he was working for the other side.

    • Gail Combs says:

      “Controlled Opposition”

      Lenin — ‘The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.’

    • Gail Combs says:

      Interesting that Watts hosted the attack dogs that shredded Tallbloke less than a year ago.

      Also Tallbloke noted that Jo Nova has some very interesting stuff up at her site that Watts had not mentioned. (He may have by now)

    • squid2112 says:

      Shameful of Watts. What an idiot. I did not know he was working for the other side.

      Watts isn’t working for “the other side”, Watts is working on “his” side. Watts works for Watts and flips to contradictory positions all the time. He hasn’t the first clue when it comes to physics or thermodynamics, and has shown his ass demonstrably and embarrassingly in these areas. He “took on the Slayer’s” back some time ago and got his ass handed to him on a silver platter repeatedly, but like a true idiot, he just continued to double down, blocking commenters that would dare challenge him and all sort of stupid pet tricks. In the end he lost, badly, but continues to spout stupid shit.

      Watts will go down, it is just a matter of time. He is becoming increasingly irrelevant by the day. The more irrelevant Watts becomes, the more you will see him aligning himself with the alarmists, as they will accept him with open arms.

      It’s all about Watts and nothing more.

  11. Bob Koss says:


    I’m on your side about not using estimated temperatures, but I don’t understand how you can get 70,970 monthly raw temperature readings for 2013 with only 1218 stations. That is what I read you to be saying in your post. I would think the maximum you could get for any one year would be 14.616 if every station reported a temperature for each month. I don’t know what you are counting, but it doesn’t appear to be monthly data-points. Would you please explain?

    • Good catch. I was accidentally doing cumulative for the year. The correct numbers for 2013 are 14616 and 10863 Percentage doesn’t change.

      • Bob Koss says:

        Well, glad I said something then.
        I’ve been working with GHCN data. Their raw version of the USHCN files seems be the equivalent to the Raw USHCN. Haven’t done a coded comparison though. Just by eyeball. Don’t intend to code it up. On the other-hand GHCN appears to also use FLs.52i, (many adjustments match) but seems to have stripped out all the extra years found in FLs.52i and set all the estimated values to -9999 along with applying their own special sauce to some of the other values. Needless to say I was quite surprised when I recently downloaded USHCN and found most of the adjusted files are larger than the raw ones. Didn’t make sense.

        Think I’ll stick with the GHCN version. At least their adjusted file doesn’t add measurements that don’t exist in the raw file, although it does remove and adjust quite a few.

        Counting only actual measurements and not -9999 values, for 2013 I found 10,863 actual measurements from 964 contributing stations in their raw data. 968 measurements from 828 contributing stations. I don’t consider a station to have contributed unless they produced at least one valid data-point. Although this year is not yet over it appears the GHCN adjusted data will all come from only 736 stations. Had a long back and forth discussion today with Zeke over at Lucia’s defending your idea of using actual station measurements instead of gridding and smearing with anomalies. Explicitly for the USHCN network only. Put an analysis of the USHCN in my first comment that you might be interested in. Here is a link to it..

  12. gymnosperm says:

    Anthony has a bit of a rush Limbaugh streak in him that surfaces from time to time. He’ll settle down. Bob Tisdale has been complaining about data interpolation for years…

  13. Zeke has made a number of remarkable admissions – at least for those who are not familiar with the background to all this — for example, that around 0.3C of the trend is an artifact of an unphysical adjustment methodology. Or that other significant increases in US land based temperatures are due to changes in data source, which apparently, have been left uncorrected.

    This interesting information seems to be getting lost in a lot of unimportant distractions, unfortunately.

  14. Send Al to the Pole says:

    A very important question is why the percentage of strangely “missing” data is growing. Gee, what could cause that?

    • The explanation is that it’s largely a volunteer network and people are retiring, dying or not reporting for other reasons. Particularly in rural areas where it’s harder to find new volunteers. This would in principle artificially inflate the warming trend as rural areas tend to be cooler due to lack of heat island effects.

      • Gail Combs says:

        After I moved to NC they put in a county airport near me. They also put in a state of the art weather station activated in 1999. I look at the data from that station several times a day. Only very rarely is that station down, usually for maintenance.

        So tell me why for example it is missing 16 days of data in June of 2003? (I was looking it up for another reason)

      • Gail Combs says:

        Chip Bennett says: “It froze while trying to report 6 inches of snowfall as rain?”

        IN JUNE in North Carolina?

        If that is the case we are in really big trouble! {:>D

  15. B says:


    Of course payment won’t be made. There will just be a refusal to acknowledge an argument that shows there is no warming.

  16. Andy says:

    When you contacted the people producing this data what did they say in relation to your claim? There might have been a simple explanation. Same has happened in the past when you talked to Walt Miers at NSIDC, he explained some things, and also corrected other items that were not right.

    Also, you need to get some other scientific backing to your points, as it is starting to look, rightly or wrongly, as it is everyone v you. Now that does not mean you are wrong and they are right, but it’s not a good start, at least in the eyes of the neutrals etc.


    • So i take it you didn’t actually read the post.

    • B says:

      They admit the data is being adjusted. They are left with defending the undefendable. At least undefendable to anyone with any decent scientific education. You don’t adjust, correct, or alter the data. That immediately makes all work that springs from it fraudulent.

      Warmists have to fall back on authority. ‘The are experts and everyone else is not’ That’s what we are left with. They are experts. trust them. So let’s look at their claims of why they alter data and what the result is. How interesting that their reasons would produce random error but their “corrections” are for systematic error. Oddly it seems that people are becoming less able to read a thermometer over time as the modern error is greater than the error in the past.

      It doesn’t take much education to know what they are doing is wrong. Altering the data is something we learn is wrong in early grade school. Random and systematic error is a junior high or at worst high school level concept to learn.

      These are people with PhD’s in scientific disciplines. Thus they know what they are doing. There are two choices and neither is good. Choice one is intentional fraud. Choice two is that they are so arrogant that they believe their theories must be correct so the data has to be wrong and require “correction”. Neither is science.

      • Gail Combs says:

        You take care of the problem of uncertainty with ERROR BARS. You might, if you found a systematic error, document it and then present the raw vs adjusted data but that is not what is happening here.

        Above all else a real scientist CAREFULLY preserves the raw data and DOCUMENTS FOR ALL TO SEE whatever type of manipulations were preformed on that data.

        The rules that applied to accounting ledgers are the same ones that applied to lab notebooks for the same reasons.

        The Dog Ate the Data and the Goat Ate the Data are excuses for grade school work not world class science.

        What I see is pressure put on weak people, (Professor Phil Jones, the scientist at the centre of the “Climategate” leaked email scandal, has told how he considered suicide over the affair.) Who came up with “nonstandard” methods of trying to wring accuracy of of data that was not accurate and who were told by the IPCC policy makers to show global warming.

      • emsnews says:

        Correct, Gail.

        Yes, they are hiding how they are actually manipulating the data. They simply state, they are doing this for our own good. I grew up raised by astronomers and my grandparents were astronomers and I cannot imagine why climatologists (sic) are so secretive!

        They operate on a different planet, that is certain and they wrecked NASA which ticks me off, my dad is one of the founders of NASA.

  17. Eric Simpson says:

    Even if Steven were wrong my advise would be to let the alarmists figure or argue that out. I wouldn’t go out my way to give the alarmists a helping hand.

    • That assumes there are two sides: Alarmist and Contrarian. Skeptics aren’t on any “side”. Put 10 different skeptics in a room and you’ll have 10 different positions on any one issue. That’s why we’re skeptics.

      • Eric Simpson says:

        No. We don’t believe their bullshit. We aren’t some kind of angels that just want the “objective truth” even though the truth has been buried so deep in cr@p by the shameless fear mongers that all we got to do is try to stick up for each other and shovel the bs off of us. If you want to be a luke warmer type then maybe that fits your definition. At least that’s my opinion.

      • Eric Simpson says:

        I got to say, though, I see a Media Matters article titled “Fox News Cites Birther To Claim NASA ‘Faked’ Global Warming,” and it brings back the points I have tried to make here on many occasions about the dangers in terms of credibility of going off on political tangents. Here it is, when we got our big opening, and those things from the past, no matter how justified or seemingly correct, come back with a big bite. I say stick to your specialty, and keep a low profile so you don’t make a bigger target. There’s endless political blogs, but this blog cannot be replicated by anyone.

        • Chip Bennett says:

          Your first mistake is assuming that there is any “credibility” to be had from the George Soros-funded Media Matters.

          Getting smeared by MM is a badge of honor.

        • Gail Combs says:

          First clue that that is Bovine Feces.

          Steve is not a “Birther” he just shows data that is out there in the public domain where Barrak Obama was claimed to be from Kenya for YEARS but B. O. never corrected the media until he ran for president. Add in the millions spent blocking his college records that would show if, as a duel citizen, he declared as a non-USA citizen at age 18 (when he had to choose) so he could get foreign student aid.

          BIG Question Marks that the Supreme Court slammed the door on when it could easily have settled the matter once and for all.

          The guy before me in my last job was tossed out when a Pinkerton investigation of his college records showed he never finished his senior year. The Employment law course I took (and WE ARE B.O.’s employers) said 20% or more lie on their resumes.

          There are questions and they have never been satisfactorily answered. Given B.O’s performance to date, he can not even do his first duty as president and submit a budget, why in heck would anyone in their right mind defend the character. As I showed in another comment Nixon got impeached for doing the same things B.O. is doing so why the free pass? Because he is Black? Because he is a Democrat? Because he like the rest of the PC crowd hates the USA?

      • Eric Simpson says:

        By the way, Will, it’s good to see you commenting more on this blog again. And I don’t mean to totally go against what you were saying about skeptics. I just don’t draw such an idealized picture of skeptics, and I use the term “skeptic” here to mean global warming skeptic, perhaps a different term could be used so it’s not confused with the actual dictionary word ‘skeptic.’ Like, we could be called “climate realists,” or even “deniers,” if that’s what it takes to free us from the ambiguities surrounding the word ‘skeptic.’

  18. Robertv says:

    Is there still data I can trust coming out of a police state ?

  19. markstoval says:

    I posted the following at but it is now held in moderation. I guess it might be because I used ‘Steve Goddard’ in the post. Either that or I got put on a list again. Still can’t post over there using my WordPress account like I do everywhere else. Oh well.

    Mark Stoval (@MarkStoval) says:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    June 26, 2014 at 2:27 am

    “… Maybe problems remain but I see no reason why 1903 temperatures continue to get adjusted down every month – at least 3 of the 12 months in 1903 are adjusted down every single month. …” — Bill Illis

    I think that Steve Goddard has made that point over and over. There is no honest reason to change data in the past. There is especially no reason to change data in the past when it always cools the past and warms the present. This is obviously dishonest handling of the data. I bet they are even destroying the original records so that the data set could never be restored to original. (anyone know about that?)

    I would also point out that Steve Goddard made plain that he was using a nom de plume to protect his work conditions a long time ago. Why are attack dogs now claiming that this is somehow dishonest? You people know that “Mark Twain” was not his real name don’t ya? Was Samuel Langhorne Clemens a fraud?

    As a final note; it is very obvious that the keepers of the data sets are warmists who use every trick to warm the present and cool the past. Do any of you people really trust these alarmists to honestly adjust the temperature records? (especially the ones in the distant past!) Come on now; do you really want us to just trust them?

  20. jmrSudbury says:

    This is your strongest argument. It is here that you should seek common ground. Stations that stopped taking data years ago should no longer get a final temperature in 2014.

    I found one example. In Aug 2005, USH00021514 stopped publishing data save two months (June 2006 and April 2007) that have measurements. Save those two same months, the final tavg file has estimates from Aug 2005 until May 2014. Have you already compiled a list of stations that stopped taking data sorted by number of years since last measurement?

    Keep on this argument. Don’t get side tracked by a fire station that infills weekends. Your message is too complex. Keep it simple.

    John M Reynolds

  21. Steve

    On some of the datasets, the temp is followed by “a”.

    Any idea what that means?


    • A = alternative method of adjustment used.

      Not sure what a small a means.

      • I am looking at the first station on the Final list – 415429 – Luling Texas.

        The USHCN finals for 2013 bear no resemblance to the monthly records there. USHCN have added 1.3C to the station data, and furthermore deducted 1C from 1934.

        As I understood it, they leave current data alone, and only adjust the past, but this says different. (Am I right on this?)

        I’m going to run a post on this later.

        • Bob Koss says:

          The small ‘a’ indicates 1 day of daily data missing from the calculation. They use lower case a-i as a way to count missing days up to 9. More than that I presume they trash the month.

  22. James Anderson says:

    Michael Mann, climate hoaxer of the discredited “hockey stick” graph, took a critic to court. And then he refused to share his “scientific” data to defend himself in his own lawsuit! What kind of “scientist” won’t share his “data”. A quack.

  23. Louis Hooffstetter says:

    When you’re right, stick to your guns!! Don’t back down!!
    But please be very careful with your analyses (and try not to get cocksure). I have confidence in your work, but we all know that if / when you make a mistake, the Borg will be on you like cougar on a wounded rabbit. Your heresy of telling the truth (i.e. exposing the fraudulent manipulation of temperature data) cannot be tolerated. I thank you for doing that. I also love what Anthony does as well. I sincerely hope the two of you can get past this. Best wishes.

  24. Robertv says:

    Anthony Watts doesn’t want to be called a conspiracy theorist. So he has to believe the Government’s data.

  25. markstoval says:

    I can not see why Anthony Watts or anyone else would defend changing data in the distant past. Whatever the recorded temperatures were in the 1940, that is what we recorded. It is scientific fraud to go back in time and change those values. It is arrogant, blatant fraud to change those values and not explain every single change to the public.

    • markstoval says:

      I forgot to mention that all my comments at WUWT are now lost in moderation. Seems pointing out the fraud in changing the records recorded in the past is not welcome over there. Note that I was experiencing automatic and instantaneous posting up until this thread. Odd, no?

      • _Jim says:

        Using the word “fraud” will do it every time, as will the acronym HAARP and a few others I have forgotten (maybe another is “chemtrail”; ‘spraying in the sky’ would come through though) …

        If you can, break up those word to something like fra ud or f r a u d and the point will come across …

        Ppl are invoking censorship and conspiracies waaaay too early (and too often) on this when simpler answers exist. Remember, whatever you think of yourself, or how important the subject, the ‘world’ ain’t about you …

      • Latitude says:

        Mark, it’s just the words you’re using….or too many links
        fake, fraud, etc… have to space it f r a u d

      • Ben Vorlich says:

        Try the phrase
        economical with the actualité
        well known in UK political circles. See here for reference

  26. _Jim says:

    A review – The Ascent of Man; the long struggle to rational thought.

  27. Mac says:

    I don’t get it. Have the Warmist goons come to this guy Watts’s house, and threatened to hit him over the head with a board? Did they promise him a guest spot on “The View”? What gives?

    • _Jim says:

      Since you won’t watch the above video, let me break it down for you.

      Watts, Zeke, Mosher are members of the establishment.

      Goddard represents Galileo

      Galileo one day invents the telescope, and by looking at the raw min max temp data sees inconsistencies with the ever-increasing temp record produced by a branch of the establishment

      Galileo sends correspondence off to some part of the establishment with a new revelation; it looks highly likely that forgeries or fabrication of whole sets of ‘number’s exist in the Holy Data Book.

      On that day, the establishment, feeling their oats, comes down hard on Galileo for reaching conclusions ‘not in harmony’ with the ‘bulk’ of the beliefs and dogma of the establishment.

      Galileo, sticking by his Copernicus guns, in trial repeats his ‘heresy’, thereby earning him the title of heretic from the establishment.

      It’s a repeat of history. See the video above for details.


      • Mac says:

        Um, yeah, I was basically being sarcastic and humorous. Thanks for the unnecessary lesson on the history of Galileo, though.

        Who says I didn’t watch the video? You really should calm down a bit. We’re all on the same side here.

        • _Jim says:

          Sry for the abruptness. Some of us have a little trouble seeing those sarcasm tags when they’re small, too.

      • Deda Eda says:

        A little correction. Galileo did not invent a telescope. He just pointed it where he should not have and his intelekt then did him in. Progress is made by those who have courage to poke their noses where they are told not to.

        • _Jim says:

          Deda, I didn’t expect to be 100% accurate in a brief post meant to highlight a different, more important point. In any case he was preceded by Copernicus and his achievements include improvements to the telescope and consequent astronomical observations that lent critical support for Copernicanism, and most importantly, support that cost him personally.

  28. It’s interesting. For the first time I can recall Gavin & Co have actually had to admit in public that they have adjusted temperatures significantly.

    They are now having to explain their actions. This seems to me to be a massive step forward.

    • _Jim says:

      A fraction of an inch at a time; slowly cracks form in the edifice …

      ed·i·fice ˈedəfis – noun, formal
      1. a building, especially a large, imposing one.
      . . synonyms: building, structure, construction, erection, pile, complex

      2. a complex system of beliefs.
      . . “the concepts on which the edifice of climatology was built”

  29. Mike Mellor says:

    I posted this on the WUWT Facebook page. The most interesting part of the climate debate is that the warmists never dare to argue with each other, or they’d be branded as skeptics 😉 The only honest side of the debate is the contrarian side.

  30. JP says:

    I think Anthony misses the larger point, and the point is that NOAA and NASA are using data that did not come from thermometers- call it estimated data, in-filled data, or fabricated data, it is all the same. Mixing data derived from thermometers with “estimated data” has always been a problem with me.

    In another field this could get you thrown in jail. What if an engineering company that was tasked with testing automotive brakes mixed test data (data derived from actual instruments) with estimated data? What if a drug company that was tasked with testing drugs included in their tests estimated data? Why should the Met or Climo fields be any different? I get the whole gridded data thing. I understand why they do it. But, please don’t call it surface temperature reporting data in your analysis. Very misleading. When I explain to other laymen just what they are looking at when they see a GISS or NOAA weather chart they are gobsmacked. They had know idea that there isn’t a single weather reporting station in many of NASA’s anomaly maps. Being a former weather forecaster I look at such maps and dismiss them. But the lay person makes assumptions about the integrity of NASA and NOAA.

  31. Larry Geiger says:

    Ok, here goes. I don’t think Anthony (or Willis, etal) are frauds. But. Also, I’m just a lowly (very low) computer guy. I read Anthony’s entire SG rebuttal. I don’t get anomalies but something about that bothers me. But, I’m not a scientist. I understand the thing about paper reports and late reporting. Ok, I get that.

    So after reading what Anthony wrote, here is what I heard: the temperatures from 1934 were altered because the reports are still coming in. Now again, I’m quite sure that I don’t understand all of this, but that’s what he seemed to be saying. It’s ALL about late reporting. In 1934? My take on this, there’s something fishy going on. I’m not totally convinced that Steve has completely figured it out, but I’m very sure that he’s on to something.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Larry read this:

      And this:

      … On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.

      The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory.

      Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports.

      Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.

      The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.

      The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations.

      On the whole, climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations.

      IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.

      The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.

      Steven is not the first to notice the fr@ud.

    • Latitude says:

      Larry, Anthony is trying to say that Steve took a snap shot of the present record…and not all of the reports are in
      What Steve looked at was 2013’s record…’s now 2014

      Anthony is accusing Steve of using a strawman argument…when it’s really Anthony that’s doing it

      • Glacierman says:

        Yes +1. Also back peddling like mad and completely missing the point.
        The good news is people are talking about this and looking deeper. Maybe they will see that the idea of a temp series is utter garbage… least when 80 year old data can be changed/adjusted/homogenized/wateverthefckyouwanttocallit at any time just so you can say this is the hottest month/year/whatever by 0.01 degrees.

        Insanity that anyone is even discussing statistical methods.

    • philjourdan says:

      I am close to you as far as being a computer nerd and not a ChemJockey. And I got the same thing. However, one thing I was told throughout science (and then into higher math) is – ALWAYS show your work. That first rule is being violated with the adjustments. They could be 100% correct, but because they hide it in a black box, there is no way to know, and therefore it is not science, but mysticism.

      • Shazaam says:


        Raw, unaltered data is paramount. Period. You never make adjustments without presenting the raw data in addition to your adjusted data and the detailed, rational explanation.

        And, that explanation had better be justifiable.

        I have to laugh at all the furor over TOBS. If you had the worlds most complete government idiot / el-presidente recording min-max temperatures and that same government idiot reset the min-max at quitting time (anywhere between 2:00PM and 3:30PM for a 5:00 PM end of day), worst case it that you will shift a high or low reading to the wrong day. Long term the effects of such “good enough for government work” TOBS “may” average-out.

        I am certain that TOBS adjustments being made are a red herring that has spent too much time in the sun. The vigorous hand waving about the TOBS effects and associated massive adjustments have a distinct, unpleasant aroma.


        • If you reset your thermometer at 5pm , and at no other time – you will record temperatures too high, and likewise get the opposite effect if you reset the morning.

          It is just hard for me to believe that anyone would be stupid enough to do it. It is not a subtle problem and will become obvious to any operator within a matter of days.

  32. Will Fox says:

    You’re a complete and utter joke, Steven. It’s clear what a liar and conspiracy theorist you are.

  33. philjourdan says:

    nice ad hominem attack. Are you intelligent enough to post something more adult?

  34. I downloaded the files.

    What kind of file is a “.raw.tavg” file? I use a Mac and it doesn’t recognize this extension.


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 )

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