Defrauding The Public Through Baseline Shifts

GISS uses an insidious trick to hide their data tampering. They cool pre-1963 years, and warm post-1963 years. This makes their data tampering look much less severe than it actually is. A better visualization is to normalize the graphs to the most recent common data, and show the total magnitude of the tampering. The animation below shows that.


2003 version


2014 version

Fig.A (3)


Fig.A.gif (656×446)


About stevengoddard

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

24 Responses to Defrauding The Public Through Baseline Shifts

  1. emsnews says:

    My thermometer just reached 0ºF! It was below zero all night. Global warming! 🙂

  2. Steve Case says:

    I’ve been obsessed with Global Warming for years, and I save old data. So I have GISS global data from 2009 and I compared it to the latest 2015 edition. Interesting results.

    For example, 1901/1 was -0.2 and now 191/1 is -0.33 for a change of -0.13

    Plotted out blue for downjusting and red for upjusting it looks like this:

  3. P Geyer says:

    Perhaps it would make sense to examine the reasons for adjustments, rather than to assume that people are using an “insidious trick” and “data tampering”.

    • The reasons are quite clear. They are pushing an agenda which isn’t supported by science

    • Gail Combs says:

      You obviously have NOT read this blog. We have “examine the reasons for adjustments” and found the reasons are out right LIES!

      Now go do your homework like I did.

      You can start with the LIE that a change from Liquid in Glass thermometers (Lig) to thermistors needed the older Lig data high temperature data adjusted DOWN.

      On error:

    • nigelf says:

      There’s only one reason to lower past temperatures…since nature has refused to warm the earth for eighteen years, lowering past temps. will make it appear as if it is warming.
      Fraud on a massive scale.

    • Dave N says:

      Can you go find the official reasons and methods? (including program sources)

    • bjchip says:

      Good luck with that here, but I am afraid you are wasting your time. The actual data, which is NOT subject of a massive conspiracy everywhere, doesn’t support the ideological fixations here. Assuredly they will cite the flawed RSS outlier (why IS it different from UAH? … and from every other measurement set?) .

      They will ignore BEST, or any other corroborating work, ignore the significant work done to improve our information, and they will ignore the oceans. I am convinced that Goddard himself misunderstands the statistical effects of corrections to data given posts on correlation that I have seen here. <> Doesn’t matter really.

      Doesn’t matter what data, logic or science you bring… a conspiracy theorist can always counter it. They need no REAL reason why the scientists would do this, but they can make up theories that challenge reality by the dozen. Best to put the site, and its denizens, on permanent ignore and just leave.

      …and no, I’m not hanging around to see how this goes. 😉


      • Gail Combs says:

        Typical drive by troll with no real information to add.

        “…and no, I’m not hanging around to see how this goes.”

      • Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

      • policycritic says:

        The actual data . . . doesn’t support the ideological fixations here.

        Then talk to Trausti Jónsson, a senior climatologist at the Icelandic Met Office, who wrote Paul Homewood in 2012, ““The GHCN “corrections” are grossly in error in the case of Reykjavik”. GISS made Reykjavik’s warm 1940 period disappear by reducing the real temperatures by up to nearly 2 degrees. Jónsson wrote that he was unaware that NOAA made corrections to Iceland’s historical data, did not agree with them, and refused to modify Iceland’s own historical temperature records.

        So whether you think GISS had a “REAL reason” why they would do it or not, they did. The Icelandic Met Office is only one example.

      • darrylb says:

        Steve Case– thank you for the effort, so lazy people like me can steal your work
        (but I will give you credit)

  4. Some how I missed this headline yesterday.
    Odds are 2014 was not the warmest on record according to NOAA and NASA

  5. Gail Combs says:

    Speaking of Defrauding the Public, Jo Nova had an interesting update on Loony Lewandowsky who claimed ‘deniers’ believed al sorts of crazy things. (Hence Obummer calling us Flat Earthers.)

    The used toilet paper on Loony Lew’s face should be spread to UWA, The Uni of Bristol, PLOS, and the Royal Society if we had any honest media.

    Lewandowsky peer reviewed study includes someone 32,757 years old Bookmark this one folks for the next time someone pulls out loony Lew or his buddy the Crook (SkS)

    ….Researcher Jose Duarte is flummoxed, he simply can’t explain why a paper so weak was written, but moreso why it was ever published, and why everyone associated with it is not running for cover.

    ….Lewandowsky, Gignac and Oberauer put out a paper in 2013 which was used to generate headlines like “Climate sceptics more likely to be conspiracy theorists”. The data sample is not large, but despite that, it includes the potential Neanderthal, as well as a precocious five year old and some underage teenagers too…

    That one data point – the paleo-participant – is almost single-handedly responsible for knocking out all the correlations between age and so many other variables. If you just remove the paleo-participant, leaving the minors in the data, age lights up as a correlate across the board. Further removing the kids will strengthen the correlations….

    I don’t understand how anyone could let a paper just sit there if they know the data is bad and specific claims in the paper are false. No credible social psychologist would simply do nothing upon discovering that there were minors in their data, or a five-digit age. I’d be running to my computer to confirm any report that claims I’d made in a peer-reviewed journal article rested on bad data, fake participants, etc. I wouldn’t be able to sleep if I knew I had something like that out there, and would have to retract the paper or submit a corrected version. You can’t just leave it there, knowing that it’s false.

    In any case, something is very wrong here. The authors should explain how the 32,757-year-old got into their data. They should explain how minors got into their data. They should explain why they did nothing for more than a year….

    These eight purported participants allowed them to claim that age wasn’t a factor. It allowed them to focus on the glitzy political stuff, allowed them to focus on finding something negative to pin on conservatives.

    They don’t tell you until late in the paper that conservatism is negatively correlated with belief in conspiracies – the exact opposite of what they claimed in the earlier scam paper that APS helped promote. Also note that we already know from much higher quality research that Democrats are more likely than Republicans to believe in the moon hoax.….

    Oh, and just to make even funnier Jose Duarte says this about Gavin Schmidt:

    …. I think I know a little bit about science and scientists, and what good scientists look like. When I read some of the “mainstream” climate scientists, I often sense… real intelligence and competence. For example, when I read Gavin Schmidt, I’m pretty sure I’m dealing with a very intelligent scientist who uses valid methods, and who thoroughly understands those methods. I can only go on a hunch, because I’m not a climate scientist and can’t validate their methods or models……

  6. Ron C. says:

    The situation for warmists is dire. Since they fundamentally believe rising CO2 causes rising temperatures, and CO2 continues to rise, temperatures cannot be seen to decrease. They can talk around a plateau, calling it a “pause”, but they absolutely must prevent a decline. First they got rid of the high temperatures in the 1930s, then 1998 went, now 2014 is the new record. Yet future years must surpass this last one, in order to hide a decline. Future cooling is not an option.

  7. AlaskaHound says:

    It’s great to see that CNN, HuffPost, ABC, NBC, CBS and the rest are reporting these baseline shifts and continuing to keep the public so well informed 😉

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 )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s