The Law Of Unintended Consequences

A few years ago, prominent skeptics signed up for a temperature data project called “Berkeley Earth” – which was headed up by a Berkeley professor (Richard Muller) who told them he was a skeptic and wanted to prove the NASA temperature record was bogus. They didn’t bother to check his past writing, and didn’t listen to the advice of other skeptics on the matter.

Muller was never a skeptic, and his intent was the exact opposite of what he claimed.

By Richard Muller on December 17, 2003

Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate. I would love to believe that the results of Mann et al. are correct, and that the last few years have been the warmest in a millennium.

Medieval Global Warming – Page 2 | MIT Technology Review


“It is ironic if some people treat me as a traitor, since I was never a skeptic

Richard Muller, Climate Researcher, Navigates The Volatile Line Between Science And Skepticism

Not surprisingly, the project was a disaster for skeptics, and became a big coup for alarmists.

Now we have a new project to test the validity of global temperature adjustments. My expectation is the project will focus on a few stations sitting near an air conditioner and a few stations which have been manipulated to show warming – then Gavin will pull out  few that show the opposite, and the project will backfire and prove nothing.

I have accumulated massive amounts of evidence that the data set taken as a whole is bogus, based on many different lines of analysis. I have established lines of thinking showing that the NASA global and US temperature graphs can’t possibly be correct. I have established lines of argument which Gavin and Tom won’t be able to counter. Focusing on individual stations is a recipe for disaster.

Skeptics need to decide if they want to get serious about ending this data fraud, or if they just want to play in the alarmist sandbox again, pretend they are doing something useful for a few weeks, keep their alarmist buddies happy, and then have a great opportunity go up in smoke again.

In order to end this scam, skeptics need to be clever – for a change.


About stevengoddard

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

112 Responses to The Law Of Unintended Consequences

  1. Lawrence 13 says:

    Steve I just read Booker’s piece in the Sunday Telegraph
    and I guess your post is directly related to this

    I see they are inviting evidence so can I assume you’ve been in touch as well as Paul Homewood.

    I believe that genuine scientist who have no agenda in this matter will be far too naïve to realise that they are dealing with a political agenda and not science. It seems to me that the most powerful country in the world the USA now has a party, president and state machine that has now placed its shoulder to pushing the AGW agenda. So between politeness , political naivety and state pressure surely its going to be a tough call that this group will be ruthless and truly sceptical enough to hit home hard. If this second investigation fails to prove that the temperature data has been spun to the point of actually lying then it will buy further time for this AGW lei bandwagon movement to trundle on.

    I get from your post that you seem quite concerned that it will be a white-washing job yet again telling us all to trust the AGW scientist. Of course reality will be the final judge but not immediately as at the moment NASA are clearly manufacturing reality but surely can only do so for a limited period before major questions get asked,

    • Not expecting a white washing. My point is that it needs to be done right, or it will backfire. It needs to be focused on large data sets, not a few individual stations.

      • Ben Vorlich says:

        if you mean the study by the GWPF then it might be worth keeping an open mind. They are held in high contempt by the BBC in general and and Harrabin in particular and for The Guardian they are beyond the pale. In fact Nigel Lawson one of the founders isn’t (wasn’t) allowed to talk about “Climate Change” with a “Climate Scientist” to counter his views. Anything they do usually creates a storm of protest in the UK media and blogs at least.

        • It is not a question of intent. In order to win this, it has to be done right.

        • omanuel says:

          Steven is right. This has to be done right because a lot more is at stake than the AGW fable: Seventy years (1945-2015) of purposeful government deception.

          The biggest lie may be geochemical and gravitational separation of iron from silicates and iron+silicates from light elements (H,He,C,N) in formation of layers of elements in

          1. The Earth
          2. The Solar System

          Distinct differences in isotopic compositions of key elements show that major chemical differences were inherited directly from solar debris that condensed into the present solar system.

        • RossP says:

          No one would argue with your assertion that it has to be done right. That is why I would join the others and ask you to get in contact with these guys early and give as much input as your time allows.
          You have done too much good work to allow this opportunity to pass by.
          When I read who was doing this, my initial thoughts were they are just another bunch of academics and there was no one there like yourself or Paul Homeward. But then I realised they were putting these guys on the panel because then the alarmists could not argue over qualifications and credentials. ( Unfortunately if you were on the panel –I think ideally you should be– they would just fire back that they just had blogger doing it )

        • Yea, Steven is right…

          They will come up with a few minor issues … but overall assert that the Models and Temperature Record is very accurate. Thus subduing the Skeptic Argument, while moving forward with Climate Change Theory pedal to the Floor…

        • Menicholas says:

          I think it may be a good idea to just get the word out about these shenanigans with the data.
          Make it common knowledge that the so called data is nothing of the sort…it is now a modelled representation of what the warmists wanted to prove at the get go.
          I think most people in this country are totally unaware of the data manipulation at all.
          Start with changing that.

  2. gator69 says:

    This latest inquiry looks legitimate.

    I would suggest circling the wagons, building a bullet proof case, and being prepared for any and all rebuttals. The Muller nonsense was a scam from day one, while this appears to be a project of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. As long as this project is not allowed to be hijacked or successfully discredited, it should advance the cause of science, and not be another Charlie Brown moment.

    • omanuel says:

      Yes, it “looks legitimate” – but the entire structure of post-1945 science is at stake and those who received Nobel and/or Crafoord Prizes for deceiving the public cannot be trusted.

      For example, measurements show that massive iron meteorites, as big as the White House, came directly from near the pulsar core of the Sun: Molybdenum isotopes made by different nuclear reactions have never been homogenized since the iron was created near the Sun’s pulsar core five billion (5 Ga) ago.

      In a very real sense, the iron meteorite worshipped as the black stone of Mecca thus came to Earth from the creator and sustainer of every atom, life and planet in the solar system.

    • omanuel says:

      A paper that was scheduled to be published in Physical Review Letters on 24 April 2015 suggested that cosmic rays induce lightening bolts:

      Thunder bolts are thus messages from creator and sustainer of atoms, lives and planets if the Sun’s pulsar core is the source of cosmic rays.

    • Ron Clutz says:

      Here’s an overview of my submission to the Temperature Data Review Project.

      I did a study of 2013 records from the CRN top rated US surface stations. It was published Aug. 20, 2014 at No Tricks Zone. Most remarkable about these records is the extensive local climate diversity that appears when station sites are relatively free of urban heat sources. 35% (8 of 23) of the stations reported cooling over the century. Indeed, if we remove the 8 warmest records, the rate flips from +0.16°C to -0.14°C. In order to respect the intrinsic quality of temperatures, I calculated monthly slopes for each station, and averaged them for station trends.

      Recently I updated that study with 2014 data and compared adjusted to unadjusted records. The analysis shows the effect of GHCN adjustments on each of the 23 stations in the sample. The average station was warmed by +0.58 C/Century, from +.18 to +.76, comparing adjusted to unadjusted records. 19 station records were warmed, 6 of them by more than +1 C/century. 4 stations were cooled, most of the total cooling coming at one station, Tallahassee. So for this set of stations, the chance of adjustments producing warming is 19/23 or 83%.

  3. An Inquirer says:

    I know that the BEST project was disappointing for skeptic, and even a believer like Judith Curry did not want to be associated with it. But what was wrong with the project? In my reading of the documentation, Muller used data adjusted by TOBS, but it seems like there could be a clear, concise, and definitive description of what was wrong with the methodology of BEST.

    • By selecting the right set of stations, you can get any result you want. The global temperature record is complete, utter crap

      • omanuel says:

        You are unfortunately right, Steven.

        Two tyrants were competing to control the world in WWII. Hitler was defeated and died. Stalin survived to unite the

        1. Nations (UN), and the
        2. National Academies of Science (NAS)

        in 1945 into a giant, worldwide Ministry of Scientific Information that George Orwell described in a book he started writing in 1946Nineteen Eighty-Four.

        The Swedish National Academy of Sciences rewarded Yukawa a Nobel Prizes in 1949 for a misleading model of nuclear forces and has continued to give Nobel and Crafoord Prizes to those who best deceive the public about the origin of CHEMICAL and ISOTOPIC GRADIENTS in the solar system and in planet Earth today from the VIOLENT BIRTH of the WORLD five billion years (5 Ga) ago when THE SUN EXPLODED as a SUPERNOVA !

        Present world tyrants will not admit the Sun’s pulsar core made and sustains every atom, life and world in the Solar System today, . . . guided by the conscious and intelligent Mind that Max Planck recognized holding electrons and protons together to create a delusional Matrix of Matter.

    • gator69 says:

      According to the best-sited stations, the diurnal temperature range in the lower 48 states has no century-scale trend.

      Click to access r-367.pdf

  4. A C Osborn says:

    Steve, perhaps you can at least try to give them some advice directly, rather than from here.
    They are reacting to the work of Paul Homewood in the UK and Chris Booker (Daily Telegraph), David Rose (Daily Mail) and James Delingpole (Breitbart).

    • My message is clear,

      • omanuel says:

        That is why they don’t like it.

        AGW is crap, . . . as is:
        SSM – standard solar model
        SNM – standard nuclear model
        OSN – oscillating solar neutrinos
        SHE – superheavy elements
        HEE – homogeneous early earth
        ISD – interstellar diamonds
        NAG – neon alphabet game

        Our government spent public funds to mislead the public with crap disguised as 97% consensus science!

  5. emsnews says:

    Whatever this study says will be ignored because the gang running the EU and US are absolutely determined to protect their CO2 taxes/derivative cap and trade system because it makes them filthy rich.

    • omanuel says:

      No. Big Brother is going down.

    • John Smith says:

      this issue is completely factional around politics
      each side has it’s own loyal sources
      they should create flags
      I am a neophyte on this subject and feel like I’m following the ball at a tennis match
      pause… yes…no
      paleo reconstructions…good..bad
      arctic…melting…normal (BTW the old news articles put up here are hysterical and persuasive… SSDD)
      However, I did follow the Mosher/Zeke defenses at CE came away with the impression that the historical record has problems
      how can that much fiddling not make an objective person suspicious?
      the majority of ‘climate scientist’ IMHO are activists first and scientists second
      In my world, simply educating myself about this subject has branded me ‘a science denier’ among my affluent, highly educated. liberal friends
      few of them have any idea what ‘IPCC’ stands for, nor do they care
      sad state of affairs
      all we can do is wait for a real existential crisis to take over the zeitgeist
      my bet is on the Middle East

  6. Don B says:

    If my quick count is correct, 36 of the 50 US state maximum temperatures were set prior to 1940.

    The US is not the world, but this is interesting.

    • gator69 says:

      The world is also not the world, without the US.

      • annieoakley says:

        Big Brother (George Soros et. al.) has to box up the US to rule the world.

      • beowulftoo says:

        Off topic. Could you give me the links, etc to the slavery/indentured in the early Americas? I think you posted some weeks ago. thanks!

        • gator69 says:

          Is this it?

          According to colonial records, the first slave owner in the United States was a black man.

          Prior to 1655 there were no legal slaves in the colonies, only indentured servants. All masters were required to free their servants after their time was up. Seven years was the limit that an indentured servant could be held. Upon their release they were granted 50 acres of land. This included any Negro purchased from slave traders. Negros were also granted 50 acres upon their release.

          Anthony Johnson was a Negro from modern-day Angola. He was brought to the US to work on a tobacco farm in 1619. In 1622 he was almost killed when Powhatan Indians attacked the farm. 52 out of 57 people on the farm perished in the attack. He married a female black servant while working on the farm.

          When Anthony was released he was legally recognized as a “free Negro” and ran a successful farm. In 1651 he held 250 acres and five black indentured servants. In 1654, it was time for Anthony to release John Casor, a black indentured servant. Instead Anthony told Casor he was extending his time. Casor left and became employed by the free white man Robert Parker.

          Anthony Johnson sued Robert Parker in the Northampton Court in 1654. In 1655, the court ruled that Anthony Johnson could hold John Casor indefinitely. The court gave judicial sanction for blacks to own slave of their own race. Thus Casor became the first permanent slave and Johnson the first slave owner.

          Whites still could not legally hold a black servant as an indefinite slave until 1670. In that year, the colonial assembly passed legislation permitting free whites, blacks, and Indians the right to own blacks as slaves.

          By 1699, the number of free blacks prompted fears of a “Negro insurrection.” Virginia Colonial ordered the repatriation of freed blacks back to Africa.

          Many blacks sold themselves to white masters so they would not have to go to Africa. This was the first effort to gently repatriate free blacks back to Africa. The modern nations of Sierra Leone and Liberia both originated as colonies of repatriated former black slaves.
          However, black slave owners continued to thrive in the United States.

          By 1830 there were 3,775 black families living in the South who owned black slaves. By 1860 there were about 3,000 slaves owned by black households in the city of New Orleans alone.

        • beowulftoo says:

          Yes Gator! Thanks (more words to make reply longer, there seems to be lower limit to what is permissable.)

  7. John Peter says:

    I think that stevengoddard should provide information to this GWPF investigation. GWPF are a group of sceptics and they are doing this for the same reason as what Tony Heller is doing. In Australia they have a new enquiry into their temperature record and Senator Inhofe has stated that his committee will do the same on the US and possible World temperature record. If the Australians, the GWPF group and The Senate enquiry all come up with the same result – tampering then things may change. We already have sceptic government in Australia, Japan and Canada. The Senate can block further funding in USA and Obama has only got 1 year and 9 months left. Could be a republican next with a Congress controlled by republicans. This could be a turning point.

  8. gator69 says:

    Apparently this is one of the Americans killed on Mt. Everest…

    • annieoakley says:

      I saw he was a high-mucky-muck with google so it figures he thought he could control everything.

      • rah says:

        When your in the mountains they always have the ultimate say. Doesn’t matter who your are or how experienced you are, or how big of a group your in, the mountain can kill you in a heart beat. This time it was an avalanche due to an earthquake. Next time it could be mountain sickness, or a storm, or any one of a number of other ways they have to get you. No matter, when your above the tree line, your control of your own fate is greatly reduced.

        • gator69 says:

          I set my DVR to record “Valley Uprising”…

          Alex Honnold, 29, is an accomplished, professional rock climber who is known for his epic, free solo ascents. He’s also one of the subjects of Valley Uprising, a documentary about the evolution of rock climbing in Yosemite Valley that recently made the festival rounds. It’s now premiering on Discovery Channel as part of the network’s inaugural Elevation Weekend.

          I used to do a little rock climbing years ago, and have backpacked around Yosemite, so I thought I would check this out. I got about 5 minutes in, and realized what a bunch of selfish skulls of mush these self described “monkeys” really are.

          I don’t get it, and never will.

        • Gail Combs says:

          gator, thanks for the review. I will give it a pass.

          I used to do a bit of rock climbing before the Troglodytes kidnapped me and dragged me underground.

          My college outing club lost a couple climbers on Mt McKinley and I lost my fiancee in a climbing accident in the Rockies. As RAH said the Mountains OWN you when you go climbing and if you are lucky maybe they will let you live.

          I was in a cave in Indiana back in 1970? when we had an earthquake. There is nothing as awesome as watching one bedding plane slide over another. Those suckers didn’t move millimeters they moved inches!

    • phodges says:


      Now if it would only catch up with the rest of them. Unfortunately, theft and dishonesty are the way to the top in this world.

      • rah says:

        I can hear it now when they do catch up with a few of the worst. Momma and the whole family, maybe even the long estranged father IF she knows who he is, saying: “He’s a good boy and would never do anything like that! Some white guy must have done something to him to make him act that way. He was going to college and he’s just a kid.” etc, etc, etc….. ad nauseum.

  9. Eliza says:

    I totally agree with SG here it has to be done right. Can’t you (SG) just make your submission to them through their web site? (with ALL the data to show the adjustments). from ALL over the world. I think PH should do the same (probably is doing it at this moment).Mahorasy and the other Australians should as well. Together we may well have a 100% case for fraud.

  10. Billyjack says:

    The study might be legit since Nuttercelli made a comment disparaging Booker in the comment section of the Telegraph, not in the Guardian. I’m sure he will have another mindless prattle article next week in the Guardian.

    • rah says:

      Billyjack says:………”I’m sure he will have another mindless prattle article next week in the Guardian.”

      And you can be equally sure that the Guardian will not allow any questioning of it in the comments section.

    • It is not a question of legitimacy. It is a question of doing it right and getting results.

      • annieoakley says:

        I wonder if someone like Mark Steyn would have some ideas? The data needs ‘marketing’ to get acceptance these days.

        • I have plenty of ideas and know exactly what needs to be done. It is a question of whether the skeptic orthodoxy will get out of the way and let this be done properly.

        • phodges says:

          Give the Koch brothers a call, LOL.

          Where’s all that Big Denier money go, anyways??

        • gator69 says:

          I’m using mine to whip up white riots in the boonies, and convince everyone the Earth is flat.

        • rah says:

          Do your really expect those that have and manipulate the data to go easily into the night? I foresee a good chance for every stalling tactic and dodge they can come up with being used. If I remember correctly not long ago you requested some data and were told it would take months to compile and cost many $1,000s of dollars to pay for the cost of compiling what you had asked for. Seems to me this panel will be asking for one hell of a lot more than you did.

          I fully understand that the data and all of “the work” of those that compile and “normalize” it should be available to any tax payer because we paid for it and technically it belongs to us. But those people don’t give a hoot about that!

      • mikegeo says:

        The review team is asking for submissions if you check their website.
        Do you intend to make a submission to outline your work and this advice and offering assistance?
        I for one would like to hear you’ll domthis, and what their answer will be.

    • rah says:

      Just got done giving the dog a bath. Almost as frustrating as arguing with the supporters of the Borg.

      • gator69 says:

        That must be one mean and stupid dog! How many fingers did you lose? 😉

        • rah says:

          Just our cockers first one at home. She squirmed and complained but she has never bitten any person for any reason so far. Not even the vet assistant when the vet was taking a stool sample from her very sore rectum. I gave Sherry a hand because I knew the pup would be a handful. She’s small even for an American Cocker but she is very well built and seems quicker and more agile than the average for her breed.

        • gator69 says:

          Have you ever tried bathing a cat that has all of its claws? I do not recommend it, or owning a cat for that matter. It was the pet of an old girlfiend, and it was all we could do not to kill the cat, or end up with stitches. The cat nearly died.

        • Gail Combs says:

          RAH, try giving a Siamese cat a bath… And yes I still have my face and all my fingers intact.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Gator, my Siamese had all his claws. I also had him convinced I was bigger meaner and sneaker than he was. I always had dogs and he was my first cat. He came when called, walked on a leash and went backpacking with me. He even went sailing on a friendship sloop and flew in an airplane. He would also guard. Lord help the stranger that walked into the apartment if I did not introduce him first. He would go straight for the eyes.

          He was actually a blue point Balinese and looked like this:

        • gator69 says:

          I think my old girlfriend’s cat was half bobcat, it was lean and very strong. When it was a kitten, I taught it to fetch in one day, and my girlfriend was amazed, by the fetching too. 😉

          I have never been a fan of cats. When I lived in Germany, part of getting a hunting license involved taking classes. One of those lessons dealt with how destructive cats are to wildlife, and by law, if you saw a cat more than 50 meters from a building you were required to kill it.

        • rah says:

          I’ve given cats baths. Had two at one time once and bathed them a few times. Having been a welder I have heavy gloves with gauntlets that work well for the purpose. I do the holding and Sherry does the scrubbing. And we do have a cat. No one ever “owns” a cat. She’s a tiger tabby and a pretty good kitty really. Looking at here right now as she is stretched out and snoozing on top of my HP Officejet Pro 8600 printer/scanner/fax machine. It’s her favorite perch because the seed blocks for the birds are hung on a double shepherds hook just outside the window.

        • stewart pid says:

          RE bathing a cat … my first job was washing cats, I hated it because the hair would stick to my tongue 😉

        • rah says:

          You must not have done a very good job then because if you had I would most certainly think that your memory would have been of something else sticking to your tongue when you got to the posterior!

          Sorry man. I just couldn’t let that one go by.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Gator, I got that cat while my Ex was stationed in Germany. That is why he had to fly.

          Doesn’t he look like a cute cuddly kitten? I flew back home to my parents with him when he was four months old. The German airline security guy insisted on opening the cage and checking under the blanket. He came away bloody.

          When he got his shots the vet assistant squashed him on the table. A normal cat after getting shots temp taken ect. will normally jump of the table and hide. Not this kitten. He stalked over to the vet and took a swipe at him and then took a swipe at the vet assistant.

          A friend in the army who was a Chinese linquist named him Zhǎng yá (Fang or long tooth)

          I think he may have been a reincarnated sabertooth tiger. I have had other cats and none have had his personality.

        • dmacleo says:

          balinese are pretty
          heres my 3

          the tortoiseshell (maggie) is a maine coon mix and and EXTREMELY attached to and protective of me.

        • Menicholas says:

          Well, I did not have to wash any dogs, but I did wake up with a nice little gift from my cat, Tallulah…a baby flying squirrel. Judging by the state of rigor it was in, it was there since last night.
          Ugh *shudder*

  11. Hope Forjohncleese says:

    Maybe Steve should outline the best peocess to keep Gavin and his ilk from slithering away this time.

    The Hope Forjohncleese Pledge…
    “I will vote for any candidate from any party who calls the global warming scare a hoax. I will donate money to any candidate who promises to defund NCDC, NOAA and GISS. I will volunteer my time to any candidate who promises to prosecute any government scientist fudging the data.”

  12. myrightpenguin says:

    Yep, agree. Part of the problem is too many egos wanting to get approval of their “science” as opposed to applying Occam’s razor to cut through the crap. Many of them are over at WUWT, sad to say.

  13. oz4caster says:

    I think it is time to abandon the GHCN for the modern period where we can use the much more voluminous and spatially comprehensive surface temperature data that are used to initialize the global weather forecast models four times a day. This data set goes back to 1979 and now has well over 30 years to establish a baseline. My preference is to use 1981-2010 as the baseline as has been done at WeatherBell and unlike the University of Maine Climate Reanalyzer which oddly uses 1979-2000 which is only a 22 year period and was probably chosen intentionally to exaggerate more recent temperature anomalies to the high side.

    Can you imagine using the GHCN surface temperature data as the only input for surface temperatures for initializing the weather forecast models? Hence my disdain for the modern GHCN. Ideally we need a GCRN analogous to the USCRN and including plenty of ocean buoys and polar sites, but this is not going to happen any time soon.

    We still have to deal with the GHCN for older periods, and what we need is development of an independent data set that has no adjustments. Stations that have poor records, evidence of poor data quality, or poor siting should be rejected rather than adjusted to fit the closest stations. Reasoning for these rejections should be documented for the public record as justification. Nothing is gained from a global temperature anomaly perspective by adjusting data to fit nearby stations as opposed to throwing out the data. Similarly, where large amounts of data are missing, the period should not be infilled using interpolated data, which again accomplishes nothing from a global temperature anomaly estimate perspective. As much as possible, only data from stations that have a long and fairly complete record as well as documentation to show proper siting and data quality assurance should be used.

    We need to realize that the accuracy of the historical surface temperature data is relatively poor and spatial coverage greatly inadequate, especially for the oldest data. The result is a large amount of uncertainty. Here is my best guess for a conservative estimate of the overall uncertainty for the historical period, using the HADCRUT4 data with the provided estimate of uncertainty multiplied by three (multiplying by five might be a better estimate):

    I made a graph comparing the CFSR data to the NCDC data for annual global temperature anomalies with a baseline of 1981-2020:

    Notice the increasing discrepancies in recent years, which could be the result of improper data adjustments and/or manipulation.

    • Gail Combs says:

      The problems with those graphs is the 1920 to 1940s are WAY too cool. There is enough data to show the 1940s and I thing ~ 1880 were warmer than it is now. Unfortunately the data has been so mucked up it is hard to tell.

      As far as the error at the turn of the century:

      Meteorology: A Text-book on the Weather, the Causes of Its Changes, and Weather Forecasting By Willis Isbister Milham 1918, mentions the Six thermometer and says the accuracy was not good so the US weather service used the two thermometers a murcury for high temperatures and an alcohol for low temperatures.

      He also states there are 180 to 200 ‘regular weather stations in the USA ordinarily in the larger cities, 3600 to 4000 coop stations and 300 to 500 special stations.

      …The observations of temperature taken at a regular station are the real air temperature at 8am and 8pm, the highest and lowest temperatures of the preceding 12 hours, and a continuous thermograph record…. (Richard Freres thermograph) ….these instruments are located in a thermometer shelter which is ordinarily placed 6 to 10 feet above the roof of some high building in the city. At a Cooperative station the highest and lowest temperatures during a day are determined, and also the reading of the maximum thermometer just after it has been set. The purpose of taking this observation is to make sure that the maximum thermometer has been set and also to give the real air temperature at the time of observation.

      Continue reading page 77 on.

      If a good continuous thermograph record for at least twenty years is available, the normal hourly temperatures for the various days of the year can be computed….

      “the average temperature for a day is found by averaging the 24 values of hourly temperature observed during that day”

      If the normals are based on twenty years of observations, it will be found that there is not an even transition from day to day, but jumps of even two or three degrees occur….

      On page 68 he says a thermometer in a Stevenson screen is correct to within a half degree. It is most in error on still days, hot or cold. “In both cases the indications of the sheltered thermometers are two conservative.”

      on Page 70
      “The Ventilated thermometer which is the best instrument for determining the real air temperature, was invented by Assman at Berlin in 1887…will determine the real air temperature correctly to a tenth of a degree.”

      A paper in The American Meteorological Journal, Volume 8 from 1891 also mentions the Richard Freres thermograph

      An Account of the “Leste,” or hot wind of Madeira
      by H. Coupland Taylor, M. D. F. R. Met. Soc.

      Being an invalid, I must beg for the indulgence of the Society for the irregular times of obervation and the other defects the Fellows may discover in the following paper.

      I must first state that my insturments are placed in a regulation Stevenson screen…. The maximum and minimum thermometers are by Casella, and duly tested at Kew….I also have had in use for some months a self-registering hair hygrometer by MM. Richard Freres of Paris, and likewise a thermograph by the same makers but no very severe Leste has occurred since I had them.

      This “Leste” is a very dry and parching wind and sometimes very hot,….

      The ClimAstrologists do not acknowledge that these people at the turn of the 19th century were careful scientists and were aware of error and did the best they could to make percise, careful and accurate measurements. I would certainly believe their data over the much mangled artifacts that the ClimAstrologists are trying to plam-off on a gullible public.

  14. cheshirered says:

    Steve is right to be concerned because this job can only be done once. As it is it will come under concerted Green attack and will be hugely scrutinised for errors, omissions, uncertainty, doubt, you name it.
    Greens will be well aware of the threat this study could pose to their gravy train – it must be a brilliant job or it won’t just fail, it will by default strengthen the alarmist position.

  15. Smokey says:

    B.E.S.T. cherry picks the time frame in order to show fake global warming:

  16. Stephen Richards says:

    GWPF are a good platform on which to place your data and analysis. You will almost certainly need to express what you say here directly to them.
    I agree totally with your analysis of the dangers into which they are stepping and if they are doing so without a well thought through strategy then it will flop badly and damagingly.

    So best contact them with the bones of your work (your site?) and keep the fingers crossed.

    One of the major issues with the sceptics campaign has been a lack of coordination allowing the assholes like obama to out shout us.

  17. Stephen Richards says:

    Tony, I have sent GWPF an email on your behalf. I hope they will contact you.

  18. omanuel says:

    Dr. Benny Peiser is a social anthropologist, exactly the right speciality to uncover and confirm or deny Stalin’s emergence as the 1945 winner of WWII who merged nations (UN) and national academies of science (NAS) into a Ministry of Scientific Truth on 24 Oct 1945:

    • omanuel says:

      Only a social anthropologist could figure out why: Astronomers, astro-physicists, climatologists, cosmologists, geologists, nuclear, particle, planetary, solar and theoretical physicists have repeatedly failed to address precise data and observations that falsify all these 97%-consensus models:

      SSM – standard solar model of ordinary stars
      RES – remote element synthesis in distant stars
      AGW – anthropological global warming
      BBC – Big Bang cosmology, now almost as discredited as
      BBC a formerly respected source of information
      HEE – homogeneous early earth before iron (Fe)
      GGS – geochemically and gravitationally sank to Earth’s core
      SNM – standard nuclear model of neutrons bound together
      OSN – oscillating solar neutrinos that confirm SSM dogma
      LLE – loss of light elements (H,He,C,N) from inner planets
      CIH – collapse of interstellar hydrogen to form stars
      QGG – quarks, gluons and god particles

      This is no longer a physical science problem.

  19. Tel says:

    The fact that they are even out there asking for contributions when so much is easily available already sounds a lot like a setup job.

    It’s wrong to presume bad faith but really the people making the adjustments need to explain why those adjustments are valid, rather than the other way around. The basic rule of data is all adjustments are wrong. Always.

    • cheshirered says:

      @ Tel.
      You think NOAA / GISS / CRU etc are going to try and justify their adjustments to their inquisitors? Really?
      Mann wouldn’t release his data for a decade until he was caught out.
      Phil Jones wouldn’t release his data because someone ‘may try to find what’s wrong with it’.
      Gavin wouldn’t sit at the same interview desk as Dr Roy Spencer.
      These people are the antithesis of open science. Hence why Tony, GWPF etc are whistle-blowing.

      • Tel says:

        In which case the only submissions that skeptical researchers should put forward are questions asking for justification on each point of adjustment. Please justify infilling, please justify TOBs, provide running code and source data for full reconstruction of a “global” temperature series.

        Explain why adjustments correlate strongly with CO2.

        At no point should it be accepted that ANY adjustment stands just because someone says so.

        Further, ask for justification as to why all associated climate graphs do not include a message “WARNING: Adjustments in use here”. Any other product would include that.

        • cheshirered says:

          Yep, absolutely agree on all that. Accountability is coming. Will be interesting watching them squirm, but squirm they will. Nothing will come easily.

  20. Hazze says:

    Get in contact with them…givem your terms for participating…If you dont sign on to the results and their conclusions..evryone will know that they messed it up. And you can tell us why. Respect your clear point…but it wont weaken by trying to put the project right.

  21. annieoakley says:

    RE: how to keep the skeptics from getting in the way? I just don’t know. Were I trying to present any facts to an opinion the word Berkley alone would make me wonder if I was being set up.

  22. ossqss says:

    Tony, you miss 100% of the shots you don’t take. Simple math.

    You can help. Just do it!

  23. David Perrell says:

    Even “raw data” can be crap. Coop station data is misinterpreted by those who receive it from observers and corrupted by those who convert it from written to digital form.

    For an extreme example, go to
    Click on “Earth’s surface…” and select “Arizona”
    Click on “State of,” scroll down and select “Workman Creek”
    Click on averages and select “extreme high/low”
    Move your cursor on the chart over 2012 and look at the high and low extremes below the thermometer.

    Those numbers were taken from what is supposedly “raw data.”

    Now go check out what Berkeley Earth calls “raw data” for Workman Creek.

    How should these wacky absurdities be dealt with? Does anyone go back to the written record and see if maybe an OCR program or incompetent interpreter screwed up?

    I don’t see how you can get accurate “average global temperature” from raw data from surface stations that come and go. I don’t see how there can be believable average temperature records for the entire globe. Tony’s compilation of news articles is a better indicator of climate trends.

    The most analyzed temperature records are records of extremes. Is there anywhere in the world where extreme weather has been recorded over a larger area for a longer period than in the U.S.? (That’s not a rhetorical question.)

    In the U.S., 38 state extreme high temperature records were set prior to 1937.

    There have only been 4 state high temperature records set since 1985. Of those, 3 were set in 1994, at Laughlin, NV, Lake Havasu City, AZ, and Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, NM (a nuclear waste dump).

    The Laughlin station was created in 1988, Lake Havasu City in 1991, and Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in 1986—all in the hottest areas of their respective states. Those stations have not had hotter temperatures since, and average temps have been declining rapidly at two of them.

    I’m dubious the latest “quest for reality” will be fruitful, because long-term global changes in climate cannot be conclusively discerned from any of the data, however it’s been manipulated.

  24. soulsurfer says:

    Steve, since you (say you) know so well what needs to be done, you need to get involved and share what you know and share your insights. If you don’t, all your work will be for naught and you’ll be just another high-horse screamer. And that is putting it nicely. This is your chance and opportunity to get involved and do what you do best. Do it! GL!!

  25. cb says:

    The hippies (i.e. atheists/ humanists) invented evolution -> environmentalism -> AGW -> sustainability -> etc as part of ongoing efforts aimed at imposing world socialism (the better to kill their enemies with – just like socialism did in Germany, Russia, China, etc): their single greatest threat in this are Protestants (the RCC is, as any moron can see, big-time pro-socialist, anti-truth, and all-round supporter of corruption and lies).

    You, and the idiots/ loose thinkers who keep refusing to name these hippies for what they are, namely IDEOLOGICAL fanatics, are working towards the EXACT same goal.


    So. You mean ‘clever’ like the GOP must be ‘clever’ in order to defeat the Dems?? Yeah, its ‘cleverness’ that is lacking, sure… not the fact that many of them are as Boehner is to Obama: I recall saying several times that people like Hall are AN INTEGRAL PART of the problem… and so are you: seems I was right… but then, it is such an easy call.

    Go get in the pineapple-queue in Hell, with your buddies Hitler, Mao, Stalin, etc.: it is the bin into which an orderly and rational Being would sort you.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Nice bit of name calling without research and therefore WITHOUT ANY BASIS.

      Many of us here can not stand either the ReBoobs or the DemiRats. That major discussion just took place two days ago.

      —-YOU LOSE—–

      • cb says:


        “name calling” – Really? You mean Steven does not endlessly whine about how the REAL problem with these hard-core ATHEISTS is the ‘RELIGION of AGW’…?
        Oh, I forgot. Freeman Dyson ALSO called them ‘religious’… so it MUST be true: one of your gods has spoken, so of course it is now A Settled Truth… oh, wait, didn’t some wheel-chair-bound shit-head say that AGW is true… darn, your gods are ever so confusing…

        “without research” – I have to ‘research’ that Steven is virulently anti-Christian??

        “therefore” – “WITHOUT ANY BASIS” : mindless, much?

        “Many of us here can not stand either the ReBoobs or the DemiRats.” So. What. You THINK just like they do; you ACT just like they do. That one group of hippies does not like another group of hippies is no more surprising than one group of Muslims killing another.

        “YOU LOSE”. Shrug. I know: you are all too damned blind to ever change. I was venting: it is all that can be done against hippies… that, and waiting for you to be killed by your fellow hippies.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Nam calling: Did you not say

          You, and the idiots/ loose thinkers who keep refusing to name these hippies for what they are, namely IDEOLOGICAL fanatics, <b.are working towards the EXACT same goal.

          WELL DONE!

          #1. I am not a Christian however I interact with many protestant churches and they are as brain washed as the RCC in many cases. The Anglicans (where I was baptised and confirmed) jumped on board the CAGW train long before the Rome Catholics. The Cornwall Alliance on the other hand seems to have their head screwed on straight.

          #2. I am not a Republican. Unfortunately this is a two party country so the primaries are where we can make a difference and the Repubs are less socialist. You might want to read E.M. Smith’s “Evil Socialism” vs “Evil Capitalism” E. M. is trained as an economist so his remarks on economic systems are excellent.

          #3. I am not and never was a hippy. I thought they were spaceshot idiots at the time and still do.

          However I said YOU LOSE because you did not do your research to see what is said at this site. You just wade in. You focus on Hippies when they are nothing more than Useful Idiots/Willing Accomplices of a hidden master and even Kent Clizbe doesn’t go back far enough to actually tear the curtain down and expose the REAL PUPPET MASTERS. Kent identifies Poltical Correctness as being Willi Muenzenberg payload delivered to the liberals in the USA by KGB agents.

          But WHERE did the USSR come from? Who backed the revolution with $$$$? Congressman McFadden Remarks in Congress, 1934 tells you in the fifth paragraph.

          I and several others here have been following the trail for years. Here is my SWAG of who is pulling the strings with my usual documentation.

          Read. It you may learn something and have some constructive criticism.

  26. richard says:

    Seems to me the WMO admit that Urban sites are of Zero quality if I have read this correctly.

    Click to access gcos-34.pdf

    With 2% of the world Urbanized and 27% of temp stations in these areas surely this alone should be enough to cast serious doubt. They give stations that have been running many years more points but if they are in Urban areas and of Zero quality what is the point.

    • Gail Combs says:

      The USA suposedly has the best system in place and even that system is too coarse to capture the changes the ClimAstrologists are claiming. 92% of the readings have an error >=1C

      Climate Reference Network Rating Guide – adopted from NCDC Climate Reference Network Handbook, 2002, specifications for siting (section 2.2.1) of NOAA’s new Climate Reference Network:

      Class 1 (CRN1)- Flat and horizontal ground surrounded by a clear surface with a slope below 1/3 (<19deg). Grass/low vegetation ground cover 3 degrees.

      Class 2 (CRN2) – Same as Class 1 with the following differences. Surrounding Vegetation 5deg.

      Class 3 (CRN3) (error >=1C) – Same as Class 2, except no artificial heating sources within 10 meters.

      Class 4 (CRN4) (error >= 2C) – Artificial heating sources = 5C) – Temperature sensor located next to/above an artificial heating source, such a building, roof top, parking lot, or concrete surface.”

      The ClimAstrologists are blowing smoke. Since each site is unique and each measuring device is unique the average has the same error as the worst number used: error >= 5C because in this case the sample size is ONE and not N.

      In Stat. you can get more percision but repeating measurements of the SAME THING using the SAME DEVICE in the SAME TIMEFRAME. ClimAstrologists are misapplying that principle to clain percision they just do not have.

      • AndyG55 says:

        “Since each site is unique and each measuring device is unique the average has the same error as the worst number used: error >= 5C because in this case the sample size is ONE and not N.”

        Probably a bit harsh.. 😉
        Suppose there was only one CRN5, it would not overly affect the average error if all the rest were CRN1,2

        Using a percentage weighting on the assumed average error within each class, from the pie chart is probably a more acceptable way of doing things in lieu of more detail about the spread of errors….

        ie average error CRN1,2 = 0.5, CRN3 = 1.5, CRN4 = 3.5, CRN5??? = 8?
        …. I get a probably error of around 3ºC.. still WAY outside the bounds of any supposed or calculated or fabricated warming.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Andy, look at the actual percentages of CRN4 and CRN5 sites in the USA (~70%). This is the BEST that can be expected for the world historic record so the error is >= 2ºC and more likely >= 3ºC especially when you add in the number fudging, infilling….

          And if you think ClimAstrology is the only place where there is a fight going on…

          The pathetic P-value

          This is the way the story is now often told. RA Fisher is the villain. Scientists were virtuously treading the Bayesian path, when along came Fisher and gave them P-values, which they gladly accepted, because they could get ‘significance’ so much more easily. Nearly a century of corrupt science followed but now there are signs that there is a willingness to return to the path of virtue and having abandoned this horrible Fisherian complication:….

          From the website: Error Statistics Philosophy

          (I have only enough Stat to get me into trouble….)

  27. omanuel says:

    Two Problems:

    1. One problem is too many egos wanting approval for their “science” as opposed to applying Occam’s razor to cut through the crap.

    2. Another problem: Too many agents of Big Brother on this and every other skeptic blog trying to prevent public disclosure of seventy years (1945-2015) of Nobel-prize winning government deception – disguised as consensus science – after nations (UN) and national academies of science (NAS) were united on 20 Oct 1945 into a giant, worldwide Ministry of Scientific Truth.

    In 1946, George Orwell started writing a book to warn that a new totalitarian government would rule by “Nineteen Eighty-Four” through official deceit from such ministries.

  28. richard says:

    MET -“If we compare the climate statistics for three locations in Devon, one upland and the other two coastal, namely Princetown, Plymouth and Teignmouth, each only 20 miles apart, you would think that the climate of these three locations would be very similar. However, looking at the statistics below, you can see that their climates are quite different……”

    GISS estimate up to 1200 kilometres from a temp station, I guess they assume the climate is the same across this vast distance.

    • Gail Combs says:


      Frank Lanser did a lot of research and found you have different types of climatic zones because of oceans and mountains. link Krigging, using stations up to 1200 kilometres apart, does not take these zones into account much less the micro climates. Right now within ~ 30 miles of my local weather station the temperature ranges from 52 °F to 62.6 °F

  29. AndyG55 says:

    I wonder how much “adjustment” free-play is left in the GISS data.

    We can already see the “Schmidt’ effect in the GISS data since 2013

    What sort of adjustment contortions is he going have to get up to if/when the real temperatures actually start to drop ?

    • Gail Combs says:

      All they have to do is keep lowering the past temperatures.

      After all as Tom Nelson points shows NOAA lowered past global temperature by more than 4F since 1997.

      NOAA Global Analysis- Annual 1997
      The global average temperature of 62.45 degrees Fahrenheit for 1997 was the warmest year on record, surpassing the previous record set in 1995 by 0.15 degrees Fahrenheit
      NOAA Global Analysis- Annual 2014
      The average temperature for the year [2014] was 0.69°C (1.24°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F) [ie 58.24F] , beating the previous record warmth of 2010 and 2005 by 0.04°C (0.07°F).


      More seriously the difference between the depths of glaciation and an interglacial seems to be ~10° C.

      According to the Vostok Temperatures**, Interglacial periods typically have temperatures 3° C to 7° C above the average. For the Holocene 3.7° C to 4.8° C above the average. The Wisconsin Ice Age did not go below 3.6° C below average. The Holocene started 11500 to 12000 years ago when the Vostok temperature was 1.2° C above average.

      So that means they really only have 3.5° C to play with before they have the 1800s glaciated.
      1997 was 62.45° F = 16.92° C
      2014 was 58.24° F = 14.58° C
      But they claim 2014 was hotter than 1997 so they had to lowered the hottest year, 1997, by 2.34° C
      So it seems they are almost there since 1900 to 1910 had years 0.9° C cooler than 1997 or a total lowering of the coldest temperature in the beginning of the 20th century by 3.26° C.


      Vostok Temperatures** are from

  30. Michael 2 says:

    Harmless as doves but cunning as serpents.

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