Zeke And Mosher Say This Is All Good

Geniuses Zeke and Mosher say this is first rate science, with very small adjustments that actually decrease warming.



About stevengoddard

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

32 Responses to Zeke And Mosher Say This Is All Good

  1. stpaulchuck says:

    well yes it does, but mostly around 1940

  2. myrightpenguin says:

    Not a surprise though with them being on the hook with “BEST” and what it was supposed to achieve. For that reason they cannot be considered “sceptics” now because they have to defend their work.

  3. NielsZoo says:

    From guys that think when Mann used the Tijander series, right side up and up side down didn’t really matter. (That’s a joke, I have no idea what they thought before Mosher starts picking nits.)

  4. The tiny adjustments decrease warming, in the same way that the IPCC is very conservative about their predictions of climageddon.

  5. gregole says:

    One explanation is that they have simply made their minds up – there’s a minute increase in CO2 so it’s getting hotter. Period. Now back up the case with rhetoric, stretch the facts, torture the data. Just another day of dirty science.

  6. AndyG55 says:

    Mosher is a frontman, a salesman.

    Think of anything he says as though he was trying to sell you an old used car. !

  7. Dave N says:

    I expect that the root of the problem is that Zeke and Mosh aren’t looking at differences between 2002 and 2014. They’re most likely part of the “don’t use historical data, it’s out of date!” crowd.

  8. omanuel says:

    Thanks, Steven, for the clarity of your presentation.

    On the other hand, Mosher, does a lot of hand waving and no clarification on Climate Etc. He seems to want to convince the audience that BEST adjustments to data cannot be biased since they were were automatically made by algorithm – not by human decision.


    • Jason Calley says:

      It is really hard to believe that any honest person would try to argue that adjustments made automatically by algorithm must be unbiased. I mean, seriously… They really are not so stupid. Their argument is the equivalent to saying, “You Honor, I can’t be guilty of premeditated murder! Yes, I saw and recognized the victim. Yes, I pointed the gun at him. Yes, I got him in my sights and yes, I pulled the trigger and fired. But I can’t be guilty of murder! Once the round left the muzzle, it was completely on it’s on and out of my control. Only the bullet’s fidelity to the laws of physics made it strike the victim. I had nothing to do with it!”

      • Gail Combs says:


        1. A human programmed the computer.

        2. If the adjustments are made automatically by algorithm then there is ZERO credibility because there is no data showing a thermometer was replaced, a thermometer fell out of calibration, a new barn was built and the station was moved 100 feet up the hill or any other changes.

        3. There has been no side by side comparison with the old and the new to show exactly what the bias is.

        When the side by side tests were done by German veteran meteorologist Klaus Hager, the adjustments were shown to be grossly in the WRONG DIRECTION!

        … 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!…

        Oh for an honest court system!

  9. I see the 2014 version from this page http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/
    Where can one find the 2002 image?

  10. Alf says:

    Mosher claims that if raw data is used the temp. Would have been warmer. “Then again use raw data the world is warmer”. (At Curry’s blog)

    • David A says:

      It was warmer in the past.

      If Mosher illustrates this I would like to see it. In the meantime he is incapable of explaining just one change in Iceland. Failing that, it is sheer arm waving to pretend to explain the entire dataset.

      • NielsZoo says:

        I’m still trying to figure out why they homogenize buoys and land stations together. I’ve never seen a rational explanation of those either. (Mostly US Pacific Coast.)

    • Dave N says:

      ..and yet he still hasn’t explained this anywhere:

  11. B says:

    99 people out of 100 or close to it will never look beyond the statement made by an authority, and thus they can say whatever they want. When one of the tiny minority or people who know it’s a lie say so the vast majority of people will simply shout him down repeating authority’s (false) declaration.

  12. gator69 says:

    If you like your adjusted data, you can keep your adjusted data.

  13. Glacierman says:

    How long was Mosher’s canned response: “BEST does not do adjustments”? He must have responded to posts thousands of times with that.

    Now they are publishing posts about their adjustments……….http://judithcurry.com/2015/02/09/berkeley-earth-raw-versus-adjusted-temperature-data/

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 )

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