Odds Of Gavin And Tom’s Data Tampering Being Correct Are Close To Zero

In my previous post, I showed the spectacular data tampering at GISS during the 1990’s. But it is much worse than it seems. GISS publishes a data set called Fig C which keeps the monthly temperature anomalies over a certain time window.

The animation below shows all of the overlapping months reported in the 2001 and 2015 data sets. As you can see, every single month except one has been adjusted upwards. The odds of that happening randomly are very close to zero.


2001 version : FigC.txt
Current version : Fig.C.txt

I am reminded every day by alarmists that Anthony Watts and Judith Curry have criticized my work exposing this tampering, and I would appreciate these highly respected skeptics clearly setting the record straight about what they believe is incorrect about this analysis.


About stevengoddard

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

46 Responses to Odds Of Gavin And Tom’s Data Tampering Being Correct Are Close To Zero

  1. Edmonton Al says:

    You are absolutely correct Tony. Demand the they can prove you wrong.
    I, for one, am anxious to hear what AW and/or JC have to say.

  2. gator69 says:

    Watts just wants to win more Webby Awards, and Judith is a girl. 😉

    • Gail Combs says:

      Judith is a died in the Wool Warmist who wants to be ready to jump to a soft landing if/when the fraud is exposed. (I dug that out about a year ago.) Here is an example JC at the National Press Club (Just before the Climate talks in NYC)

      From that is a link to a November 2010 article Uncertainty gets a seat at the “big table:” Part IV

      This makes it very clear the lady is as much a politician as she is a scientist and she has no intention that ‘Climate Scientists’ lose their limelight.

      It is useful to put the events of that time up front to understand WHY she might have decided to ‘adjust’ her thinking:
      1. In November of 2009 the Climategate e-mails were released.

      2. On February 2, 2010 on the BBC nightly news of all places it is announced: “The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has presided over a series of damaging blunders, but how and why has so much gone wrong?” news(DOT)bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/8494793.stm

      3. On March of 2010 Donna Laframboise called for crowd-sourcing help in going over the 2007 IPCC report. In mid April the report card is delivered: “21 of 44 chapters in the United Nations’ Nobel-winning climate bible earned an F “ for using gray literature.

      In other words the IPCC and its related ClimAstrologists went from Nobel Prize Winning to a laughing stock. So in November Judith is called on to testify “TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES”

      At that point she has made the decision to hop up onto the fence and she does so.

      As president of Climate Forecast Applications Network LLC, [$1 mil. – $5 mil. in Revenue] I have been working with decision makers on climate impact assessments, assessing and developing climate adaptation strategies, and developing subseasonal climate forecasting strategies to support adaptive management and tactical adaptation. Over the past year, I have been actively engaging with the public (particularly in the blogosphere) on the issue of integrity of climate science, and also the topic of uncertainty.

      She also decides that muddying the waters with the truth which is an excellent idea.

      ….the complexity of both the climate and energy problems and their nexus precludes the gigaton “silver bullet” solution to these challenges. Attempting to use carbon dioxide as a control knob to regulate climate in the face of large natural climate variability and the inevitable weather hazards is most likely futile. In any event, according to climate model projections reported in the IPCC AR4, reducing atmospheric CO2 will not influence the trajectory of CO2 induced warming until after 2050. The attempt to frame a “silver bullet” solution by the UNFCCC seems unlikely to succeed, given the size and the wickedness of the problem. The wicked gigaton climate problem will arguably require thousands of megaton solutions and millions of kiloton solutions.

      Moving forward

      Climate scientists have made a forceful argument for a looming future threat from anthropogenic climate change. Based upon the background knowledge that we have, the threat does not seem to be an existential one on the time scale of the 21st century, even in its most alarming incarnation. It is now up to the political process (international, national, and local) to decide how to contend with the climate problem. It seems more important that robust responses be formulated than to respond urgently with a policy that may fail to address the problem and whose unintended consequences have not been adequately explored….

      So she is NOT saying there is no problem she is just saying it is a complex problem and ‘Climate Scientists’ are needed more now than ever.

      Engagement of climate researchers with regional planners, economists, military/intelligence organizations, development banks, energy companies, and governments in the developing world to develop a mutual understanding about what kind of information is needed can promote more fruitful decision outcomes, and define new scientific challenges to be addressed by research. The need for climate researchers to engage with social scientists and engineers has never been more important. Further, there is an increasing need for social scientists and philosophers of science to scrutinize and analyze our field to prevent dysfunction at the science-policy interface.

      And finally, climate scientists and the institutions that support them need to acknowledge and engage with ever-growing groups of citizen scientists, auditors, and extended peer communities that have become increasingly well organized by the blogosphere….

      She also recognizes the threat of the blogosphere and the need to neutralize them.

      Remember she was part of the BEST team and was well aware of all the underhanded goings on. She also hosted Zeke Hausefeather hatchet job on Steve in July of 2014. — Understanding Adjustments to Temperature Data.

      There has been much discussion of temperature adjustment of late in both climate blogs and in the media, but not much background on what specific adjustments are being made, why they are being made, and what effects they have. Adjustments have a big effect on temperature trends in the U.S., and a modest effect on global land trends. The large contribution of adjustments to century-scale U.S. temperature trends lends itself to an unfortunate narrative that “government bureaucrats are cooking the books”….

      We all know who specializes in US temperature trends.

      • gator69 says:

        And she’s a girl! 😉

        • Gail Combs says:

          So am I!

          Doesn’t mean I dont have teeth and the brains to use them. {:>D

        • gator69 says:

          My original comment was left just for you, and I knew you would depreciate it. 😉

          Judith has made some helpful comments, but is a fence sitter, checking the grass on either side. And that is better than a steaming pile of MannSchmidt.

    • Gail Combs says:

      And just in case you wonder about CLIMATE FORECAST APPLICATIONS NETWORK, LLC

      It makes it VERY VERY CLEAR Judith is our enemy in SPADES!!!!

      Number of Employees: 9
      Woman-Owned?: Yes (Judith???)
      Award Totals:
      Program/Phase Award Amount ($) # of Awards
      SBIR Phase I…….. $100,000.00………….. 1
      (SBIR = Small Business Innovation Research)
      STTR Phase I…….. $150,000.00…………… 1
      STTR Phase II …… $980,932.00 …………… 1
      ( STTR = Small Business Technology Transfer)

      2010 / SBIR / Phase I
      DOD / OSD
      Principal Investigator: Hai-Ru Chang, Senior Scientist / Mgr Forecast Ops
      The proposed research takes the first steps in addressing the challenge of providing early warnings for extreme events associated with climate variability and change to support identification of potential security threats and crises. The proposed methodologies will also support adaptive management of water, energy and agricultural practices and other adaptation strategies. We propose to lay the foundation for a web-based regional risk information and early warning system based on a probabilistic multi-model ensemble forecasting scheme……
      2012 / STTR / Phase I
      Principal Investigator: Judith Curry, Dr.

      Goals of 80% clean energy production for the United States by 2035 and 20% of the countrys power being supplied by wind energy by 2030 imply nearly a tenfold increase in wind power production. This means that the need for forecast information will extend to longer projection windows with increasing penetration of wind power into the grid and also with diminishing reserve margins to meet peak loads during significant weather events. In addition to more complex issues regarding maintenance planning, energy trading of oil and gas will be influenced increasingly by anticipation of wind generation on timescales of weeks to months, and on longer time scales, future scenarios on decadal time scales are needed to support assessment of wind farm siting, government planning, and the regulatory environment. CFAN will expand upon its hybrid statistical/dynamical forecasting scheme that delivers probabilistic wind forecasts on time scales from one day to seven months to deliver ensemble-based forecasts and extended range outlooks that corrects not only for model bias error, but improves the shape of the distribution to capture low wind and high wind events that are critical forecast targets for wind farms. Collectively, the Phase I evaluation and testing of forecasts on different time scales utilizing our techniques will provide an assessment of the ability to overcome the existing challenges with wind power forecasts on time scales of days to months, as well as provide a framework to improve placement of future wind farm locations. The resulting efforts of a full Phase II project will deliver a wind energy decision support tool solution that would address three key market needs: the ability to forecast reliably at ranges beyond two weeks and at high spatial resolution; better capacity planning forecasts related to extreme or ramp events on scales of days to weeks; effective planning forecasts at decadal time scales that translate accurately for localized sites. The short-term market potential of a resulting Phase II solution is estimated to be in excess of $5M.

      2013 / STTR / Phase II
      Principal Investigator: Judith Curry, Dr.

      This proposal addresses the challenge of providing weather and climate information to support the operation, management and planning for wind-energy systems. There is a growing need for extended range forecast information as wind power increases its penetration into the grid. Future scenarios on decadal time scales are needed to support assessment of wind farm siting, long-term purchase agreements and the regulatory environment. To address this challenge, CFAN has developed a hybrid statistical/dynamical forecasting scheme for delivering probabilistic forecasts on time scales from one day to seven months using what is arguably the best forecasting system in the world (European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasting, ECMWF). The project also provides a framework to assess future wind power through developing scenarios of inter-annual to decadal climate variability and change. The Phase I project conducted a pilot study for the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) region. The project included: assembly and evaluation of relevant data sets; development and evaluation of an ensemble prediction framework for forecasting regional wind power generation and demand on time scales from days to months; development of strategies to assess long term (decadal) changes to the regional wind power environment; and formulation of an online tool that provides decision makers with actionable information related to wind power forecasts and projections. The proposed Phase II project will further develop the capabilities begun during Phase II and extend the project to include the continental U.S. and offshore regions. The objective is to develop a commercially viable capability for the growing array of diversified users in the wind energy forecast market. Commercial Applications and Other Benefits: Customers and end-users of these products include wind farm operators, regional power providers, grid system operators, and energy sales and trading. The other target application is assessment of wind energy project feasibility, to select favorable sites where wind is strongest and year-to-year variability is minimized. Customers for such assessments are project owners, government planners, regulatory agencies, and investors.

      • I disagree. I have seen her being quite brave taking on Trenberth

        • Gail Combs says:

          And she isn’t being a Janus faced person? Look at the DATES!

          2012 / STTR / Phase I
          Principal Investigator: Judith Curry, Dr.

          Goals of 80% clean energy production for the United States by 2035 and 20% of the countrys power being supplied by wind energy by 2030 imply nearly a tenfold increase in wind power production. This means that the need for forecast information will extend to longer projection windows with increasing penetration of wind power into the grid and also with diminishing reserve margins to meet peak loads during significant weather events…..

          2013 / STTR / Phase II
          Principal Investigator: Judith Curry, Dr.

          This proposal addresses the challenge of providing weather and climate information to support the operation, management and planning for wind-energy systems. There is a growing need for extended range forecast information as wind power increases its penetration into the grid. Future scenarios on decadal time scales are needed to support assessment of wind farm siting, long-term purchase agreements and the regulatory environment. ….

          The other target application is assessment of wind energy project feasibility, to select favorable sites where wind is strongest and year-to-year variability is minimized. Customers for such assessments are project owners, government planners, regulatory agencies, and investors.

          Tony she is not an employee she is PRESIDENT/OWNER of a LLC that is dependent on keeping this scam going.

          As I said she is a politician who is fence sitting but she is NOT OUR FRIEND. All she has proved is that she has the brains to see which way the wind is blowing and make sure she is positioned correctly.

          Do not expect her to get behind you and agree that you are correct. That would be shooting her very lucrative corporation in the head.

  3. emsnews says:

    They are rather naive. They also told everyone to talk nice to the warmists even as the warmists scream about murdering anyone who crosses them.

    And yes, the system is corrupt. The CO2 tax was celebrated openly by the Bilderberg guys as a great way to tax the poor.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Judith Curry is not ‘naive’ she is playing the sceptics for all she is worth while she rakes in the $$$. (See my comment above about her vested interest in trashing the US energy system and implementing 20% Wind Power by 2030.)

      Anthony is probably niave but his site is infested with trojan horses like Zeke and the Mosh Pup who protect the temperature data. L.S. who protects the ‘Sun is Constant’ meme. Englebeen who protects the CO2 data and trashes Ernest Beck, Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski and Dr Glasman. Dr. R. Gates who defends the Arctic is melting meme….

      Anthony is also from the Left Coast and from the Hollywood crowd.

      • David A says:

        Gail, you go a bridge to far. Anthony is from Chico, very far from Hollywood. California is much like the rest of the nation, regressive in the cities, conservative in the rural areas, thus several propositions to split California are proposed.

        Anthony has an open and popular blog, and Zeke and Mosh, in my view argue so openly biased that they help skeptics, with Mosher’s words taking a pounding, but he never sticks around.to defend them as he is one strange dude.
        L.S. is fiery, knowledgeable, and arrogant, in my view prone to confirmation bias.
        Englebeen is definitely not an alarmist, but the subject of historical CO2 is not one I have put the time into to form a solid opinion, as IMV, all the evidence indicates the more CO2 the better. (If you have a good post or article that both makes and refutes his position, I would take the time to read it.)

        It is good to have different views, and I think the forum of WUWT does a good job of presenting disparate perspectives. While AW has made some mistakes, I think he is generally an honorable man who, also due to his sense of fairness, got suckered into the BEST game. His reaction to some of S.G. posts was not his finest moment, but he and his co-authors have done the world a service with their well articulated skepticism of CAGW.

        • Gail Combs says:

          I will agree that AW is honorable and got suckered. I spent years at WUWT and read just about every article and comment. I do not make these comments lightly but only after observation and thought.

          The questions you need to ask are:
          #1. What are the assumptions/positions that need to be defended at all costs for CAGW to be a viable scam.

          #2. Are there people at WUWT defending those positions?

          #3. Has A.W. given these people priority?


          The answer to the first question is.
          #1. The temperature is ever increasing.
          #2. The sun is constant and therefore can not affect the climate/weather. Only the Milankovich cycles cause a difference in the sun’s energy.
          #3. CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere and CO2 is increasing do to man’s burning of fossil fuel.


          Are there people at WUWT defending those positions?
          Yes there are:
          #1. The temperature is ever increasing.
          Mueller/Zeke/Mosher/Curry put together a ‘new improved’ BEST analysis of the temperature data after the Climategate e-mails tarnished Mikey Mann’s Hockey Stick. They even tried to rope A.W. in on the deal.

          Here is Muller doing a save for the meme that the temperature is increasing:

          Note that Muller was always a Warmist but like Judith Curry, he realized a save was necessary to lull the sheeple back into believing in the experts. BEST was that save. Now there is an ‘independent’ data set by a ‘skeptic’ that agrees with the official data sets so everything is A-ok go back to sleep. Zeke and Mosher are at WUWT to protect the adjustments made to the data that create the ever warming temperature.

          #2. The sun is constant and therefore can not affect the climate/weather. Only the Milancovich cycles cause a difference in the sun’s energy.

          L.S. is on WUWT to protect the meme that the sun can not cause changes in the climate.
          Jo Nova’s site has an excellent example of L.S. in a more neutral setting.

          Leif Svalgaard said it was “almost fraudulent” that we claimed there was a fall in TSI since 2003 since there wasn’t a fall in his dataset. He says: “There is no such drop.” I say, look at the graph below, it’s even in your own data…..

          In his rush to call it “totally wrong” and to declare “the model is already falsified” he didn’t notice we were talking about a trend in 11 year smoothed TSI, and the fall is evident in whole cycles (but takes some wisdom to find in daily or monthly data). I guess that’s a mistake that could happen to anyone — but some of us might ask politely before we started calling “fraud”, and saying things like “Mr Evans assertion is false [and I maintain seems to be agenda driven…” Likewise, Willis Eschenbach unskeptically follows: “as Leif points out, he’s using a bogus set of TSI data.” If skeptics toss out careless accusations, it rather cheapens the real ones….

          L.S. is busy, along with his buds, rewriting the solar data to get rid of the pesky lumps and bumps that might make people think the sun had something to do with the earth’s climate. Also notice that those who do not support the ‘sun is constant’ meme at WUWT have a tendency to get censored or even banned at WUWT.

          #3. CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere and CO2 is increasing do to man’s burning of fossil fuel.

          Both L.S. and Engelbeen claim to be skeptics but the only time they show up at WUWT is to protect their specific meme and not to comment on other topics.

          As far as Engelbeen goes Dr Jeff Glassman has this to say:

          …Another observer of current climatology examined Vostok data in a similar coordinate system. He is Ferdinand Engelbeen, a gadfly and regular commenter to RealClimate.org, a major public outlet for IPCC climatologists.

          Notice that Englbeen is a regular at the website I mentioned above as being set-up by the team to counter the skeptic websites. It is a website that most of us get banned from after a comment or two.
          Also note that Dr Glassman says in another article

          Gavin Schmidt on the Acquittal of CO2


          Gavin A. Schmidt is a well-placed leader of the Anthropogenic Global Warming movement. He is a climate modeler at NASA. While London trained as a mathematician, he was an NOAA Postdoctoral Fellow in “Climate and Global Change Research”. He is an editor for the Journal of Climate. He is the principal of an authoritative blog called RealClimate.org.

          There is RealClimate.org. again.

          Dr Glassman then goes on to slice Gavin’s half-assed response to pieces.

          The CO2 tricks deserves a closer look because that is the least understood of the scam.
          I will add a few more good links in the next comment.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Dr Glassman posted another article:
          CO2: “WHY ME?”

          ON WHY CO2 IS KNOWN

          Lucy has a couple of layman friendly articles on the subject: (She also noticed the trojan horses at WUWT several years ago)



          This is an excellent sumation of the problems with the CO2 data:

  4. Steve Case says:

    I followed the links, and got exactly what you got.

  5. Tom Moran says:

    I agree with SG/TH.
    AW did write sort of an apology in his “confirmation bias” post but it effectively came across as ‘SG/TH has been wrong so many times that I just expected him to be wrong again’…not much of an apology but there was some subtlety that I dont recall being discussed.
    AW needs to unequivocally say ‘TH/SG is correct… The surface data temperature has been [fraudulently] adjusted. I may not agree with the way my esteemed colleague lambastes the scientific community but he is absolutely correct on the data tampering.’

  6. Ahmad says:

    All I can say if I look at this site everyday and it opens my eye. There are links to the data demonstrating your well made points. Frankly I am amazed at what an outstanding job you do with such a limited budget.

  7. Gail Combs says:

    In her own words, Judith Curry makes it clear her goal is to Rebuild Trust and she is smart enough to realize the sledge hammer tactics of the likes of Joe Rom and Cook and Loony Lew do not do that. This does not however mean she is not still on board the goal of the ‘Radical Transformtion of America’ and Western civilization.

    On the Credibility of Climate Research, Part II: Towards Rebuilding Trust [That is her actual goal Tony]

    Judith Curry, Georgia Institute of Technology
    I am trying something new, a blogospheric experiment, if you will. I have been a fairly active participant in the blogosphere since 2006….

    Losing the Public’s Trust
    Climategate has now become broadened in scope to extend beyond the CRU emails to include glaciergate and a host of other issues associated with the IPCC. In responding to climategate, the climate research establishment has appealed to its own authority and failed to understand that climategate is primarily a crisis of trust.

    Credibility is a combination of expertise and trust. While scientists persist in thinking that they should be trusted because of their expertise, climategate has made it clear that expertise itself is not a sufficient basis for public trust. The fallout from climategate is much broader than the allegations of misconduct by scientists at two universities. Of greatest importance is the reduced credibility of the IPCC assessment reports, which are providing the scientific basis for international policies on climate change. Recent disclosures about the IPCC have brought up a host of concerns about the IPCC that had been festering in the background: involvement of IPCC scientists in explicit climate policy advocacy; tribalism that excluded skeptics; hubris of scientists with regards to a noble (Nobel) cause; alarmism; and inadequate attention to the statistics of uncertainty and the complexity of alternative interpretations….

    In my informal investigations, I have been listening to the perspectives of a broad range of people that have been labeled as “skeptics” or even “deniers”. I have come to understand that global warming skepticism is very different now than it was five years ago. Here is my take on how global warming skepticism has evolved over the past several decades.

    In the 1980’s, James Hansen and Steven Schneider led the charge in informing the public of the risks of potential anthropogenic climate change. Sir John Houghton and Bert Bolin played similar roles in Europe. This charge was embraced by the environmental advocacy groups, and global warming alarmism was born….

    In the first few years of the 21st century, the stakes became higher and we saw the birth of what some have called a “monolithic climate denial machine”. Skeptical research published by academics provided fodder for the think tanks and advocacy groups, which were fed by money provided by the oil industry. This was all amplified by talk radio and cable news. [If she believes that crud my opinion of her just sank]

    ….The often misinformed policy advocacy by this group of climate scientists has played a role in the political polarization of this issue.. The interface between science and policy is a muddy issue, but it is very important that scientists have guidance in navigating the potential pitfalls. Improving this situation could help defuse the hostile environment that scientists involved in the public debate have to deal with, and would also help restore the public trust of climate scientists.

    The failure of the public and policy makers to understand the truth as presented by the IPCC is often blamed on difficulties of communicating such a complex topic to a relatively uneducated public… People have heard the alarm, but they remain unconvinced because of a perceived political agenda and lack of trust of the message and the messengers….

    My own experience in making public presentations about climate change has found that discussing the uncertainties increases the public trust in what scientists are trying to convey and doesn’t detract from the receptivity to understanding climate change risks (they distrust alarmism). Trust can also be rebuilt by discussing broad choices rather than focusing on specific policies.….

    And finally, the blogosphere can be a very powerful tool for increasing the credibility of climate research. “Dueling blogs” (e.g. climateprogress.org versus wattsupwiththat.com and realclimate.org versus climateaudit.org) can actually enhance public trust in the science as they see both sides of the arguments being discussed. Debating science with skeptics should be the spice of academic life, but many climate researchers lost this somehow by mistakenly thinking that skeptical arguments would diminish the public trust in the message coming from the climate research establishment. …

    And finally, I hope that this blogospheric experiment will demonstrate how the diversity of the different blogs can be used collectively to generate ideas and debate them, towards bringing some sanity to this whole situation surrounding the politicization of climate science and rebuilding trust with the public.

    • DD More says:

      Yes, but it is the Russian oil interests supporting the Warmers. http://freebeacon.com/issues/foreign-firm-funding-u-s-green-groups-tied-to-state-owned-russian-oil-company/

      The interest of Russian oil companies and American environmentalist financiers intersect at a Bermuda-based law firm called Wakefield Quin. The firm acts as a corporate registered agent, providing office space for clients, and, for some, “managing the day to day affairs,” according to its website.
      As many as 20 companies and investment funds with ties to the Russian government are Wakefield Quin clients. Many list the firm’s address on official documentation.
      Klein Ltd. also shares that address. Documents filed with Bermuda’s registrar of companies list just two individuals associated with the company: Hoskins, Wakefield Quin senior counsel and managing director, and Marlies Smith, a corporate administrator at the firm.

      The only publicly available documentation of any business conducted by Klein Ltd. were two Internal Revenue Service filings by the California-based Sea Change Foundation, which showed that Klein had contributed $23 million to the group in 2010 and 2011. Klein Ltd. was responsible for more than 40 percent of contributions to Sea Change during those years.
      The foundation passed those millions along to some of the nation’s most prominent and politically active environmentalist groups. The Sierra Club, the Natural Resource Defense Council, Food and Water Watch, the League of Conservation Voters, and the Center for American Progress were among the recipients of Sea Change’s $100 million in grants in 2010 and 2011.

      The Sierra Club, which received nearly $8.5 million from Sea Change in 2010 and 2011, launched its “Beyond Natural Gas” campaign the following year. The effort has become one of the largest and best-funded environmentalist campaigns combating fracking and the extraction of natural gas in general.
      Sea Change’s “skeletal staff quietly shovels tens of millions of dollars out the door annually to combat climate change. And that’s pretty much all it does,” noted Inside Philanthropy, which awarded the foundation its “sharpest laser focus in grantmaking” award last year.
      Nathaniel Simons and his wife run the foundation and are, except for Klein Ltd., its only donors. Simons, a hedge fund millionaire who commutes to work across San Francisco Bay aboard a 50-foot yacht, also runs a venture capital firm that invests in companies that benefit from environmental and energy policies that Sea Change grantees promote.
      Simons himself has ties to Klein Ltd. Several Wakefield Quin attorneys are listed as directors of hedge funds that his firm manages, and in which Sea Change has assets.

      With a lot of hypocrisy of commuting by yacht.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Isn’t it interesting what you find when you start digging into the $$$$.

        I am not surpized that tracing the $$$$ on the anti-fracking movement leads straight back to Russia. The last thing Putin wants is the USA shipping natural gas to the EU and taking away his one lever.

        Weel well well, first up on the hit list after your find:
        Green Groups Go Red, Team With Putin To Fight Fracking

        This story of Russia funding anti-fracking groups is not the fruit of a mad fever dream. Last year NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, a former prime minister of Denmark, said that Russia was secretly funding the anti-fracking movement.

        Even the New York Times carried a headline last year that read: “Russian Money Suspected Behind Fracking Protests.” Foreign Policy has, as well, written about “Russia’s Quiet War Against European Fracking.”

        Green groups keep losing credibility, and their image isn’t burnished a bit by teaming up with Putin.

        But, hey, what do they care? Though they’re not Baptists, they sure are true-believing zealots.

        Unfortunately that will not cary much weight with the true-believing zealots.

  8. Gail Combs says:

    If you want to know where Judith Curry actually sits she makes it very plain in this Washington Post article that she still links to via her Climate Change Policy page

    Cooler Heads and Climate Change

    In his Outlook essay “Chill Out,” Bjorn Lomborg rightly notes that skepticism about climate change is no longer focused on whether it the earth is getting warmer (it is) or whether humans are contributing to it (we are). The current debate is about whether warming matters, and whether we can afford to do anything about it.

    Well that is pretty clear! And so is this:

    …Lomborg also misrepresents some conclusions of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He is skeptical about the claim that polar bears “will be decimated by global warming as their icy habitat melts.” But the report shows that, even under the best-case scenario, about two-thirds of the current polar bear population will be lost by 2050.

    Lomborg’s attitude toward risk is also troubling. He focuses only on the middle range of the panel’s projections, dismissing the risk from the higher end of the range. But if the risk is great, then it may be worth acting against even if its probability is small….

    And this:

    … Lomborg seems to have missed it, but a sensible debate has begun on how to best respond to global warming — in national and local governments, universities and the private sector — in the U.S. and around the world. There is no easy solution to this problem; the challenge is how best to develop options that are feasible, efficient, viable and scalable. Lomborg is correct to be concerned about the possibility of bad policy choices. But I have yet to see any option that is worse than ignoring the risk of global warming and doing nothing.

    Judith Curry is chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.

    I would think Curry had changed over the intervening years but her 2012 and 2013 purposals for grants really reallly makes me doubt it. Also none of her Climate papers are more recent than this news article.

  9. Barbara says:

    Thank you, Gail! I’m glad to see JC so totally exposed. I am sickened. 80% clean energy! 20% wind by 2030. That is insane. To keep the U.S. economy growing, thriving we need all the reliable, affordable energy we can produce. Wind and solar are neither reliable nor affordable. For every MW of renewables, there is a fossil fuel unit, usually gas, operating at a low level (not at all good for the plant) providing the “spinning reserve” for when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow. This is a nightmare for grid operators who need to balance energy production with the demand/load. Too much, something has to be backed off (not always so easy) or too little, a unit has to be brought on line in a big hurry. Big stress all around 24/7/365! Maybe there will be a greater demand for mental health facilities and counsellors for dispatchers if the 80% renewables should happen. Now, if by clean we are thinking nuclear that would work well. Oh and by the way, I believe the world wide number for energy produced annually is about 25 MW from every 100 MW of wind machine.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Barbara, I am waiting for the power systems engineers to throw up their hands en masse at the madness and walk out leaving the politicians scrambling to get the grid up and running again.

      It is pretty much what a lot of doctors did thanks to Obummercare but it would be a heck of a lot more noticable! Talk about going Galt’s Gulch…

      A power systems engineer commented on WUWT:

      “Letting non-professionals get involved in the power grid is like giving the keys to the family car and a bottle of whiskey to a 14 year old boy and his pals. If the renewables were viable, we’d adopt them by the train-load and build them so fast your head would spin.”

      And yes I am on board with nuclear. I can see a nuclear plant out my window.

      • Barbara says:

        Many thanks again! I can use the power systems engineer’s quote. He nailed it! Also, our electric grid is old and getting older, but instead of spending money on upgrades or replacements, the wind farms are requiring new build transmission to connect their “off and on” generation. In addition, they want the rest of the grid users to pay for it.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Barbara one of the points I have seen no one bring up is the cost of ‘dirty electrical power’ by dirty I mean power with spikes (and dips) — think mini lightening bolts —- and what that does to your electronics and electrical motors.

          (Please note that sentence cost me an hour lecture on fourier transforms and power by my physicist husband.)

          This is what is behind what that power systems engineer was saying. When ever the subject comes up the Warmists and politicians do the hand wavy thingy saying the engineers have solved the problem. In the mean time the engineers are tearing their hair out.

          Yes we have the engineering to deal with ‘dirty power’ but it costs money and it has a maximum spike that it can handle. (Think arcing across air)

          Germany, the Renewable Energy Poster Child, ‘solved’ the power spike problem by shunting the excess to Poland and the Czech Republic. Poland and the Czech Republic were NOT PLEASED.

          …In the meantime, Germany’s neighbors, Poland and the Czech Republic, are taking action on Germany’s use of their power grid that Germany undertook without asking permission and without paying for its use. These countries are building a huge switch-off at their borders to block the import of green energy that is destabilizing their grids and causing potential blackouts in their countries.[v] This action by German’s neighbors fragments the European electrical grid, turning Germany into an electrical island….
          Germany’s Green Energy Destabilizing Electric Grids

          The above article has an excellent example of the problem I am trying to get at.

          To illustrate the problem that renewable energy instability can cause, here is an example. When the voltage from German’s electric grid weakened for just a millisecond at 3 am, the machines at Hydro Aluminum in Hamburg ground to a halt, production stopped, and the aluminum belts snagged, hitting machines and destroying a piece of the mill with damages amounting to $12,300 to the equipment. The voltage weakened two more times in the next three weeks, causing the company to purchase its own emergency system using batteries, costing $185,000.

          These short interruptions to the German electric grid increased by 29 percent and the number of service failures increased 31 percent over a 3-year period, with about half of those failures leading to production stoppages causing damages ranging from ten thousand to hundreds of thousands of Euros. These power grid fluctuations in Germany are causing major damage to a number of industrial companies, who have responded by getting their own power generators and regulators to help minimize the risks. However, companies warn that they might be forced to leave if the government does not deal with the issues quickly.[i]

          I highlighted regulators because that is what is needed to protect home equipment*** if spikes (or dips) become common. How many poor families can afford the equipment needed to provide them with ‘clean power’

          *** For us low information types those are the black boxes we plug our computers into to keep the dirty power from frying the gizzards.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Barbara, in thinking about it, I think Judith may have decided to show up the ‘boys’

      We know a group decision was made to fire-up the RealClimate.org website from a December 2003 Climategate e-mail SEE WUWT: The genesis of RealClimate.org appears in the Climategate emails, and surprise, the BBC’s Roger Harrabin seems connected

      Judith mentions she had been poking around the skeptic websites as early as 2006 and realized the ‘opposition’ was a heck of a lot brighter than the ‘boys’ had acknowledged. Then as I showed earlier all he11 broke loose and trust in the IPCC and Climate researchers nose dived. Judith had the brains to know this problem could not be solved by the censorship and the Ad Homs that the guys on the Team™ were using. so instead she used the more subtle approach of Trojan Horse.

      As Tony’s response shows, she is considered a ‘trusted skeptic’ She is inside the gate and therefore is in the critical position of being able to do damage control if someone like Tony comes up with anything that is really really damaging to ‘The Cause’

      If you want to know what the ‘Cause’ is she tells you:

      Both individual scientists and the institutions need to look in the mirror and really understand how this happened. Climategate isn’t going to go away until these issues are resolved. Science is ultimately a self-correcting process, but with a major international treaty and far-reaching domestic legislation on the table, the stakes couldn’t be higher.


      Notice that all her grants for her LLC are during the Obama admin.

  10. Barbara says:

    Oops, in other words actual wind production is about 25% of face plate megawatts.

  11. Ali Bertarian says:

    Tony: Is it possible that the pro-AGW crowd would tell us that the adjustments need to be made to post-1995 temps (using electronic thermometers) so that the pre-1995 temp data (using glass thermometers) could be properly compared with a more accurate data set, since glass thermometers allegedly (see http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/03/only-satellites-show-pause-wuwt-now-includes-december-data/) give temp readings 0.9 deg. cooler than electronic thermometers?

    But then why would anyone confuse everyone else by adusting the “accurate” data to match the “poor” data, rather than vice-versa? I am just trying to figure out their strategy, not justify it.

    • Nah, they are just cheating.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Zeke Hausfeather, of the BEST data set, in his article at @ Judith Curry’s Understanding Adjustments to Temperature Data. says:

      ……Nearly every single station in the network has been moved at least once over the last century, with many having 3 or more distinct moves. Most of the stations have changed from using liquid in glass thermometers (LiG) in Stevenson screens to electronic Minimum Maximum Temperature Systems (MMTS) or Automated Surface Observing Systems (ASOS). Observation times have shifted from afternoon to morning at most stations since 1960, as part of an effort by the National Weather Service to improve precipitation measurements.

      All of these changes introduce (non-random) systemic biases into the network. For example, MMTS sensors tend to read maximum daily temperatures about 0.5 C colder than LiG thermometers at the same location. There is a very obvious cooling bias in the record associated with the conversion of most co-op stations from LiG to MMTS in the 1980s, and even folks deeply skeptical of the temperature network like Anthony Watts and his coauthors add an explicit correction for this in their paper…..

      Yeah, right but no one bothered to do the side by side analysis… OH WAIT, some one did!

      The last couple of days I posted on an 8.5 year side-by-side test conducted by German veteran meteorologist Klaus Hager, see here and here. The test compared traditional glass mercury thermometer measurement stations to the new electronic measurement system, whose implementation began at Germany’s approximately 2000 surface stations in 1985 and concluded around 2000.

      Hager’s test results showed that on average the new electronic measurement system produced warmer temperature readings: a whopping mean of 0.93°C warmer. The question is: Is this detectable in Germany’s temperature dataset? Do we see a temperature jump during the time the new “warmer” system was put into operation (1985 – 2000)? The answer is: absolutely!

      So that ‘adjustment’ just like the TOBS adjustment is also in the WRONG direction giving up to a 1.5°C warming bias!

      Again someone did the tests on TOBS way back in the 1800s. Instructions were written and given out to the observers in 1882. There were two thermometers, one max (mercury) and one min (alcohol.)

      For the maximum thermometer they state:
      “…When a maximum thermometer is not read for several hours after the highest temperature has occurred and the air in the meantime has cooled down 15° or 20°, the highest temperature indicated by the top of the detached thread of mercury may be too low by half a degree from the contraction of the thread….”

      That would indicate the max thermometer should be read just after the heat of the day and any adjustment for reading at the wrong time of day should RAISE the maximum temperature not lower it!

  12. Streetcred says:

    Tony, the fact that Paul Homewood’s research and conclusions support your assertions of cheating by the government funded ‘scientists’ should be satisfying to you. When last did Watts publish any meaningful research articles of his own at WUWT ? Mostly just blathering on … “much ado about nothing”. Call the cheating bustards out for what they are!

    • The thing you have to realize about me is that i have spent my life working on some of the most complex engineering problems in the world. I don’t have any doubts about my work and couldn’t care less what other people think. This stuff is child’s play compared to my professional life.

      Eventually they will come around when it becomes obvious that they can’t hide from reality any more. What NASA and NOAA are doing to the temperature data is complete crap, and unworthy of elementary school science and math.

      • Streetcred says:

        I’ve noticed that AW is becoming less tolerant of his little pal, Mosher … and that there are a few more comments and guest posts on flawed temperature data.

        As you rightly point out, one day they will come around … like moths to a candle.

        • Anything is possible says:

          Reading between the lines, I think AW is steering clear of controversy while his Surface Stations paper is going through peer-review.

          It will be interesting to see what transpires once that gets published, and even more interesting if, for some reason, it doesn’t.

        • Streetcred says:

          I think that you are quite right … don’t want to upset the apple cart too much!

        • Regardless of the quality of the raw data, it will be tampered with by NCDC

  13. Eliza says:

    My guess is since that WUWT/Zeke-Goddard episode, and AW’s really stupid comments at that useless site Lucias (which i think no longer exists for all practical purposes), WUWT hits have dived and SG’s have risen. THis and Homewood’s and Mahorasy’s are really the only ones tackling this problem of serious fraud, the way it HAS TO BE. In the end, it will be this site that ends up being the one that actually did most of the hard work and get the acciolades it deserves. LOL.

    • Gail Combs says:

      AW definately put his foot in it and more than once over the last few years. Tony is not the first colleague, AW and his trojan horse buddies have shot at with little good reason.

      AW does not want the reputation of a ‘crackpot site’ but as a ‘scientific site’ however he does not have a really deep background in a lot of different sciences and therefore takes advice from those he thinks of as his friends. That leaves him open to manipulation.

  14. Sophie says:

    Yes, I jumped ship to SG’s site after the shameful episode by AW. But I do agree that AW is becoming less tolerant of the fraudsters and I still really admire him. 🙂

  15. Sophie says:

    I was wary of Judith Curry from how she wrote her blog, it was like a person using someone else’s money, on an each-way bet, on a rider in a one horse race. Thanks to your detective work, all has now been revealed, good stuff. 🙂

    • Gail Combs says:

      If you do a bit of looking it gets even better. (The internet never forgets)
      A bit if background on why I am not so trusting.

      As I have said earlier, Judith Curry/ TPTB identified climategate and the sceptics as a major problem especially after the crash and burn of Nopenhagen.

      One of their top guns is Democratic Strategist, Stanley Greenberg. He is a globalist who has worked in over 60 countries to get politicians like Tony Blair, Bill Clinton, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, Bolivian president Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada, and South African president Nelson Mandela elected. For organizations, Greenberg has helped manage and frame a number of issues – including education, school financing, American identity, the economy, environmental regulation, international trade, and is strategic consultant to the Climate Center of the Natural Resources Defense Council on its multi-year campaign on global warming.

      Republican pollster Frank Luntz says “Stan Greenberg scares the hell out of me. He doesn’t just have a finger on the people’s pulse; he’s got an IV injected into it.” (Check out the company Greenberg, Carville, Shrum and their love of globalization.)

      It would not surprise me in the slightest to find out Stan Greenberg or one of his ilk had his finger prints all over the moves made by Muller, Curry and Romm. What is interesting is Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro (D), Greenberg’s wife has her fortune tied to his PRIVATE consulting firms. They went from poor as church mice to one of the wealthest of Congress critters ( $26 MILLION in 2013.) (Delauro pushed a food safety bill every year since 1996 which is why she showed on my radar) Now we find that both Muller and Judith Curry also have consulting firms — very useful for transferring payments for services rendered…

      Here are some other interesting bits and pieces though nothing definitive.

      To kick it off is Anthony’s post from 2/11/2011

      New independent surface temperature record in the works by Anthony Watts
      Good news travels fast. I’m a bit surprised to see this get some early coverage, as the project isn’t ready yet. However since it has been announced by press, I can tell you that this project is partly a reaction and result of what we’ve learned in the surfacesations project, but mostly, this project is a reaction to many of the things we have been saying time and again, only to have NOAA and NASA ignore our concerns, or create responses designed to protect their ideas, rather than consider if their ideas were valid in the first place. I have been corresponding with Dr. Muller, invited to participate with my data, and when I am able, I will say more about it. In the meantime, you can visit the newly minted web page here. I highly recommend reading the section on methodology here. Longtime students of the surface temperature record will recognize some of the issues being addressed. I urge readers not to bombard these guys with questions. Let’s “git ‘er done” first.

      So the top skeptic was invited to add his name to the BEST study. If you followed WUWT you know A.W. was NOT happy about how that turned out.

      For that matter neither was Judith. (She does lean more towards integrity than the average ClimAstrologist and she also respects the intelligence of the ‘deniers’)

      Then we find this little tidbit from Joe Romm a fellow of American Progress, a Progressive think tank.


      ….The goal of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study was to assemble some clever scientists and statisticians “to resolve current criticism of the [global] temperature analyses, and to prepare an open record that will allow rapid response to further criticism or suggestions.” For a study supposedly aimed at boosting credibility in the surface temperature data record, however, its flaws in conception and operation were beyond head-exploding:

      It was co-chaired by Richard Muller (author of widely debunked books, blog posts and Wall Street Journal op-eds). Muller himself has actually worked to undermine credibility in well-established science and doesn’t have a great grasp of basic climate science (see here) or energy (see “here).

      ….BEST claims its team includes “climate experts,” but the only climatologist listed is Judith Curry, one of the most debunked climate scientists (see Schmidt and Annan and Steig and Verheggen, and CP for starters). Curry mainly seems on the team to give Muller the thinnest veneer of climatology credibility, since she herself has written, “I participated loosely in this project, mostly as a resource person calling their attention to any new papers or blog posts that I thought were relevant and as a sounding board for ideas. As they have begun analyzing the data, I have completely refrained from commenting on the process or preliminary results, I have only made suggestions regarding where they might publish their analyses, etc.”….

      HMMMmmmm seems to me He Doth protest a wee bit too much. Also notice that Curry and Muller were specifically picked because they are NOT on the Climategate radar as ‘bad guys’ Also Judith was acting as a publicity type and not functioning as a climate scientist in the BEST study.

      I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she think’s she’s
      doing, but its not helping the cause”
      — Mann


      And I absolutely love this one from Zeke Hausfather about A.W., Romm and BEST. It is a comment on an article called The Romm & Watts Variety HourMarch 22, 2011 in Discover Magazine.
      “Frankly, most of the publicity BEST has received is a result of the blog scrum, rather than any outreach on their part” – ZEKE

      The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project puts PR before peer review


      Oh and there is a connection between Romm and Stan Greenberg though not a direct one.

      Brittany Brown
      Special Assistant to the Vice President, Chief of Staff

      Brittany Brown is a Special Assistant to the Vice President, Chief of Staff at American Progress. Prior to joining American Progress, she was the deputy operations director in Iowa with Organizing for America, President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign. She has also worked for Greenberg, Quinlan, Rosner, Research [That is Greenberg’s other consulting firm]

      If you search the website there are several other connections between Stan Greenberg’s Democracy Corps and American Progress such as this:

      and this:

      When you get towards the top they all seem to know each other.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s