More News On USHCN Temperature Adjustments

More news from Paul Homewood. The man who can explain things so simply, that even a climate scientist can understand it.


By Paul Homewood

1) First I have had a comment accusing me of lying. Will the accuser, who cowardly goes under the name “anonymous”, note that further accusations of lying will be earn him a ban.


ScreenHunter_739 Jun. 29 15.03


The top line highlighted is USHCN Station Code 415429, which, as can be confirmed here, is Luling, Texas.

Such moronic comments, not to mention inclusion of the mandatory “cherry picking” and “denier”, rather sum up just weak some alarmist arguments have become.

2) Kansas

Returning to yesterday’s topic of adjustments in Kansas, I have plotted the annual adjustments for TOBS (Time of Observation Bias) at one of the stations there, Ashland.

They are downloaded from USHCN’s website here.


Currently, 0.3F is being added to actual temperatures, whilst back in 1934, for instance, 1.1F was deducted. This makes a net adjustment of 1.4F.

This figure is way above NOAA’s previously published figure…

View original post 452 more words

About stevengoddard

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

18 Responses to More News On USHCN Temperature Adjustments

  1. tom0mason says:

    Certainly Paul has done a good job rebuffing the coward that tried to call him out. And a good find with Kansas record doctoring. That got me wondering if records were changed at a slow enough rate, say 3-4 stations a week, and then only change every other month per station record each time; would anyone notice till the job of changing nearly all station data has been completed? Not a difficult task to automate.

    P.S. Steve,
    I notice that you and toto are the stars in a Josh cartoon. 🙂

  2. Anything is possible says:

    “NOAA has been accused by others of “fabricating” data, and while that is a strong word that I don’t like to use, it looks to be more and more accurate.”

    • omanuel says:

      All of us had difficulty believing that our own federal research agencies would purposely deceive the public.

      But the record is clear:

      The common truths that existed in science, religions and democratic constitutional governments before August 1945, were replaced by

      Common untruths in the lock-step totalitarian governments, sciences and anti-religious dogma of Stalin et al. after August 1945.

      It is no mere coincidence that George Orwell left London and moved to the Scottish Isle of Jura in 1946 to start writing his warning, “Nineteen Eighty-Four”

      Dogmatic scientists and dogmatic religionists are today identical twins, hiding under different cloaks of social respectability !

      • Gail Combs says:

        Speak for yourself.

        I figured out they were lying through their teeth when USDA/FDA claimed that the USA food safety system had not been upgraded for decades right after implementing HACCP and having the food borne disease rates double.

        “Under the HACCP rule, industry is responsible for assessing potential food safety hazards and systematically preventing and controlling those hazards. FSIS is responsible for verifying that establishments’ HACCP systems are working..” (wwwDOT)

        I KNEW they were lying after the charts showing that rate doubling was covered up by the CDC who claimed the doubling of rates was because they went from snail mail reporting to e-mail reporting, especially after the USDA was caught sweeping the problem under the rug. Shielding the Giant USDA don’t look Don’t tell Policy

        Heck even the Head of the inspectors Union, Stanley Painter, testifed against how the USDA was run:

        Stanley Painter, Chairman
        National Joint Council of Food Inspection Local Unions,
        American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO
        Domestic Policy Subcommittee
        House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
        Thursday, April 17, 2008

        …As I mentioned earlier in my testimony, we have had a problem with the way HACCP was implemented at FSIS in the late 1990’s and continues to be enforced….

        While I agree that companies must be responsible for the products they put into commerce, it frustrates me and many of my members when we are told by our supervisors to “let the system work” when we see violations of FSIS regulations and we are instructed not to write non-compliance reports in order to give companies the chance to fix the problems on their own. Sometimes even if we write non-compliance reports, some of the larger companies use their political muscle to get those overturned at the agency level or by going to their congressional delegation to get the inspection staff to back off. So, the agency’s databases may not contain accurate information about the compliance history of meat and poultry plants because of pressure being applied not to write them up for violations….

        Some of my members have been intimidated by agency management in the past when they came forward and tried to enforce agency regulations and policies. I will give you a personal example….

        In December 2004, I began to receive reports that the new SRM regulations were not being uniformly enforced. I wrote a letter to the Assistant FSIS Administrator for Field Operations at the time conveying to him what I had heard. On December 23, 2004, I was paid a visit at my home in Alabama by an FSIS official who was dispatched from the Atlanta regional office to convince me to drop the issue. I told him that I would not. Then, the agency summoned me to come here to Washington, DC where agency officials subjected me to several hours of interrogation including wanting me to identify which of my members were blowing the whistle on the SRM removal violations. I refused to do so. I was then placed on disciplinary investigation status. The agency even contacted the USDA Office of Inspector General to explore criminal charges being filed against me. Those charges were never filed. Because all of this was occurring during the time that USDA was trying to re- open beef trade with Japan, I found out that the disciplinary investigation and the possible criminal investigation into my allegations were the subject of a posting on the website of the U.S. Embassy in Japan. Both my union AFGE and the consumer group Public Citizen filed separate Freedom of Information Act requests in December 2004 for any non-compliance records in the FSIS data base that would support my allegations. It was not until August 2005 that over 1000 non-compliance reports – weighing some 16 pounds — were turned over to both AFGE and Public Citizen that proved that what my members were telling me was correct – that some beef slaughter facilities were not complying with the SRM removal regulations. 1 Coincidentally, on the same day that those records were released, I received written notification from the agency that they were dropping their disciplinary investigation into my actions – some eight months after their “investigation” …..

        If the government bureaucracy will put the safety of our food “At Risk” because of pressure from the UN, WTO and the international corporations, I have zero faith that the US government is willing to act in my best interest instead of the best interest of the rich and powerful on any other issue.

  3. markstoval says:

    While Watts will never properly apologize, todays post is a total vindication of Steven Goddard. You have done damn fine work over time my man. Damn fine work.

    • omanuel says:

      Agreed! In the lunate debate, Steven aka Tony best exemplified unselfish service to God, country and society.

    • TRM says:

      I think he has. After publicly ridiculing the original he comes out and says “Steve was right and I was wrong”. That takes an honesty and intestinal fortitude most don’t have. I don’t think Steve would want more of an apology than a public admission that he was correct.

      Great discussion on all the sites about the NOAA adjustments now. Best thing since climategate. Well done Steve.

  4. Owen says:

    I’ve got nothing against Paul Homewood but I don’t need him to tell me the temperatures have been doctored, tampered with or manipulated. (choose whatever term makes you feel the best )Steve Goddard has been informing us about it for years and the people who visit this site have known about it all that time. It’s too bad it took the rest of the world so long to clue in. (Anthony Watts et al)

    For you slow learners out there – Global Warming/Climate Change is a FRAUD/fake/hoax/scam/con.

    It’s not even bad science. It’s CRIMINAL !

    • Yes, but Paul knows how to boil it down to very simple terms, which even government employees can understand.

      • omanuel says:

        As Shakespeare said, “All the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely players. They each have their roles to play . . .”

        Michael Mann, Steven Goddard, Paul Homeward, Anthony Watts etc. are all unwilling actors on the stage of life, marching with you and me from birth to death.

      • Ben Vorlich says:

        that is a comment from a true scientists, no NIH or protecting your turf but crediting others for a valuable contribution to your original research.

    • Lawrence13 says:

      Steve/Tony says its simple but if so simple why has no one else shone a permanent spotlight on this like he has. Now Paul is further vindicating Steve ?Tony(sod you Steve revealing yourself as Tony) that the past is being seriously undervalued as well. Now if IRC isn’t or wasn’t the US record the largest collection over a sustained period of time in the world? So using that as a guide and then seriously tampering with it really is a revision of the pasts climate.

      Surely this is very serious stuff and if all this pans out to be the case then government employees have been incompetent or they have blatantly lied like in the Lerner disgrace

      Anyhow where next with this what will be the strategy to make this even more publicly known. I would say Booker’s piece last week was a massive boost for Steve’s hard work but this needs to totally name and shame those involved.

  5. Lawrence13 says:

    Steve/Tony what would you like to be called now?

  6. RealOldOne2 says:

    Interesting that the first plot option in your ( ) link is: “1. Plot the number of months with data vs. year. (… Your plot will show the number of months each year which there are PRECIP, TMAXTOBS, TMINTOBS, TMAXRAW, TMINRAW values.”

    The plot shows 11 months for 2011, and 12 months for every other year in question on this issue about the raw data. What they don’t tell you is that many of these “raw” values have been adjusted/estimated, and are not real measured raw data. This is flat out wrong. It implies that when you plot the raw values for this station you are plotting real measured raw data values. You are not, as they might be estimated, not measured, values. They should make no adjustments to the raw data. All adjustments should be in confined to their various adjusted/data quality(haha)/final data.

    Keep up the good work Steven/Tony.

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