The History Of Temperature Data Tampering

Originally, the purpose of NASA/NOAA data tampering was to exaggerate warming, in order to frighten the public into action for their own good. Later it became obvious that Hansen’s theories were busted, but funding was on the line – so the tampering continued.

A few idiots actually still believe that the adjustments are legitimate.

About stevengoddard

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

21 Responses to The History Of Temperature Data Tampering

  1. _Jim says:

    Data torturing: “Tell us what we want to know!”

  2. kbray in california says:

    Is that Hansen behind the curtain ?

  3. stpaulchuck says:

    and you’ll find many of these idiots trolling around the Yahoo news (sic) blogs

  4. Eliza says:

    The language is harsh BUT IT IS EXACTLY WHAT IS NEEDED! Idiotas they are. LOL

  5. John Greenfraud says:

    A few idiots actually still believe that the adjustments are legitimate….. and they want you to believe it too.

  6. corev says:

    Steve/Tony, I believe your story, but it is time to start doing the hard work. Which adjustments does what to each station? Is TOBS run every time, then why? What is its impact at station…, If infilling is bad, at station … it impacts it this way. Gridding at station … causes this.

    You have the luxury to pick the worst/best examples and knock this story out of the park.

  7. gator69 says:

    If only it were just a few idiots. Skeeter won a second term because idiots are now the majority.

    • _Jim says:

      … and more are being ‘trucked in’ from across Mexico. Next year about half of those coming across now will be voting, maybe a third will vote this fall … it’s all part of a plan that does not involve us … (unless you consider being assigned the short end of the stick ‘part of the plan’ which is also likely a part of the ‘plan’.)

    • Jason Calley says:

      The idiots for Skeeter may very well be in the majority — but the Republican candidates could have gotten a lot more votes if they had a history of actually BEING conservative instead of simply talking like a conservative. A lot of voters today see the choice between Dems and Repubs as “shall we drive a blue car over the cliff, or drive a red car over?”

      Obamacare vs Romneycare is not a choice. Neither is acceptable.

      (By the way, I am NOT saying that the Dems are as good as the Repubs; I am only saying that the Repubs are not much better than the Dems.)

      • gator69 says:

        It’s not a blue car red car being driven off a cliff choice. It is the difference between being driven off a cliff in a Lamborghini, or on a horse. There is a difference.

        Romney was the Governor of a leftist dominated state, and worked with a congress that is 80% democrat. He was not the dictator of Massachussettes, and acted accordingly.

        When you start using the talking points of the left, you have joined the dark side.

        Swiftboaters told the truth, and Romney acted the way any responsible and representative Governor should. To this day, ‘Romneycare’ is still very popular in Massachussettes.

      • Brian H says:

        Skeeter got votes from about 120% of the eligible adult population in some ridings in the NE.

        Stalin: “Voters don’t decide elections; those who count the votes decide elections.”

  8. timspence10 says:

    There have been several studies to recalculate tropical cyclone wind speeds based on the available barometric readings from the 1920’s 30’s. Could be entirely innocent research but much of it was done by NOAA, I wonder if they adjusted any wind speeds.

  9. Why, you may ask, is NASA involved with climatology? Yeah, they put the weather satellites in orbit. But they could just send the data the data to NOAA. NOAA is in the Oceanic and Atmospheric business. GISS is the Goddard institute of Space Studies. Space isn’t undergoing climate change because there isn’t any atmosphere. The answer: job security. Lots of liberals clamor to end the space programs. Money could be better spent on welfare programs. To avoid job cuts, NASA got into stuff outside space. Look, there’s a hole in the ozone layer! Everybody’s going to die from melanoma in the next 20 years. You need NASA to keep an eye on it. Actually, the hole was first discovered in the International Geophysical Year,r 1953, but nobody worried about it until NASA needed to justify its existence. Now GISS needs to convince the liberals that the planet is going to burn to a crisp unless they stay on the job, so they’re not only protecting ozone, but the rest of the atmosphere and oceans as well. It would save money for food stamps if the two agencies were merged, but duplicate jobs might be lost and that cannot happen. So the scam continues. But it’s not just them. It’s Big Corporations like GE that make billions fixing something that isn’t broken; and lobbying groups like Big Ethanol. A lot of money and political power is in play, and we may never win by exposing the fraud. Maybe we’ll get some traction with liberals when they realize that millions of poor people in the Third World starve to death every year because the US government make us burn food in our cars and trucks. But the cynic in me won’t bet on it.

    • _Jim says:

      re: Stuart Van Tine July 4, 2014 at 4:48 pm
      Why, you may ask, is NASA involved with climatology? Yeah, they put the weather satellites in orbit …

      :Looks like they oversee how contract monies are spent; everybody else seems to do the actual work, e.g. Boeing, ITT Industries Inc., Lockheed Martin, Panametrics Inc, and Cape Canaveral Air Force Station for launches (not the nearby NASA facility).

  10. Ron C. says:

    Steven, sorry for the long comment, but I have wanted to say this for some time.

    I have always been uncomfortable with the adjusting, anomalizing and homogenizing of land surface temperature readings in order to get global mean temperatures and trends. Years ago I came upon Richard Wakefield’s work on Canadian stations in which he analyzed the trend longitudinally in each station, and then compared the trends. This approach respects the reality of distinct microclimates and reveals any more global patterns based upon similarities in the individual trends. It is actually the differences between microclimates that inform, so IMO averaging and homogenizing is the wrong way to go.

    In Richard’s study he found that in most locations over the last 100 years, extreme Tmaxs (>+30C) were less frequent and extreme Tmins <-20C) were less frequent. Monthly Tmax was in a mild lower trend, while Tmin was strongly trending higher , resulting in a warming monthly average in most locations. Also, Winters were milder, Springs earlier and Autumns later. His conclusion: What's not to like?

    Now I have found that in July 2011, Lubos Motl did a similar analysis of HADCRUT3. He worked with the raw data from 5000+ stations with an average history of 77 years. He calculated for each station the trend for each month of the year over the station lifetime. The results are revealing. The average station had a warming trend of +0.75C/century +/- 2.35C/century. That value is similar to other GMT calculations, but the variability shows how much homogenization there has been. In fact 30% of the 5000+ locations experienced cooling trends.


    "If the rate of the warming in the coming 77 years or so were analogous to the previous 77 years, a given place XY would still have a 30% probability that it will cool down – judging by the linear regression – in those future 77 years! However, it's also conceivable that the noise is so substantial and the sensitivity is so low that once the weather stations add 100 years to their record, 70% of them will actually show a cooling trend.

    Isn't it remarkable? There is nothing "global" about the warming we have seen in the recent century or so.The warming vs cooling depends on the place (as well as the month, as I mentioned) and the warming places only have a 2-to-1 majority while the cooling places are a sizable minority.

    Of course, if you calculate the change of the global mean temperature, you get a positive sign – you had to get one of the signs because the exact zero result is infinitely unlikely. But the actual change of the global mean temperature in the last 77 years (in average) is so tiny that the place-dependent noise still safely beats the "global warming trend", yielding an ambiguous sign of the temperature trend that depends on the place."

    • tom0mason says:

      I also wonder if all these adjustment are also smoothing-out the extremes of variablity of the past (say before 1980) and so making the current period look unusually variable.
      This adds credence to the ‘team’ meme of extremes getting more worse.

  11. catweazle666 says:

    A few idiots actually still believe that the adjustments are legitimate.

    Many know full well they are not, but will never admit it, it’s more than their funding is worth.

  12. joe from Australia says:

    Steve,you have a big heart!Battle on and all the best in the hard work you have done for all.

    Live long and prosper um Spock said so 😉

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