.
Steve Goddard reveals another trousers round ankles moment for the CO2 driven global warming lobby. Temperature data ADJUSTMENTS to the USHCN dataset match the rise in airborne carbon dioxide to R^2=0.988 i.e. almost perfectly.
This post is not a joke, but is stunning.
The graph below shows the relationship between atmospheric CO2 and the magnitude of USHCN data tampering. There is almost perfect correlation between the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and how much cheating our friends at NCDC are doing with the US temperature record.
Raw: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2.5/ushcn.tavg.latest.raw.tar.gz
Final: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2.5/ushcn.tavg.latest.FLs.52i.tar.gz
Unbelievable. What on Earth are these guys up to? Perhaps I have it backwards. Maybe data tampering drives CO2?
“Our algorithm is working as designed”
– Recent NCDC press release
“If the facts don’t fit the theory, change the facts”
– Albert Einstein.
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
Words fail me!
Can we now declare once and for all that “The Science” of Mann-made AGW is the Western copy of Lysenkoism?
It’s like being in a room and you and your friends understood the joke, but there’s just a huge pregnant pause as we wait for everyone else to catch on.
The aberration around 390ppm is interesting. You don’t suppose NCDC were trying to exaggerate the 2010 El Nino do you?
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:2005/plot/gistemp/from:2005/offset:9/scale:40
I’m sure there’s nothing there that Mosher can’t airily dismiss with a quick flourish of a computer model.
I hope the Heartland Institute, or some other U.S. based organisation, will be pressing for a judicial review of temperature data adjustments made to the USHCN database.
I saw the most amazing thing at Steve/Tony’s site today. Mr. Watts showed up and was supportive of this information. And yet, just recently he attacked Tony and seemed to be unable to understand that government run data sets will be “adjusted” to give the governments what they want to see.
The other day I mentioned a post by tallbloke over at WUWT. It was on CO2 and the atmosphere and I thought it was very informative: “What ‘back radiation’ does and doesn’t do” … https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/07/17/what-back-radiation-does-and-doesnt-do/ and for some odd reason I got moderated. I asked why and some commenter said it was the link itself. I was told that we could not refer to the name of this site directly or link to it without the comment going automatically to moderation. He also said not to mention “tallbloke” or his real name or the same thing would happen.
Exactly what does Mr. Watts have against this site? I learn a lot here on almost every post. It is obvious to me that most people here understand the weather system on earth better than Mr. Watts, but even if everyone here was wrong — that is just the way science discussions go; right?
Anyone care to clue me in?
Mark: team wassup are stick in the mud lukewarmers who don’t understand astrophysics, thermodynamics or common courtesy. They didn’t like having this pointed out to them so Anthony Watts cooked up a storm in a teacup about our PRP publication and threw a number of world class scientists under the bus to spite me. He then sent me an email getting all biblical and telling me I’m now “a Pariah” whose blog would “wither and die”, because he willed it. All this is because I don’t recognise team wassup as an authority on what sceptics are allowed to think or say.
Watts sacked both Steve/Tony and myself from the many hours a week of unpaid work we were doing for him.
Tony for refusing to publish a mea culpa for an error he made about dry ice at the south pole, and me for giving Ned Nikolov advance warming of a scurrilous ad hominem and bad-math attack Willis White’n’black was about to subject him to. Watts then went ahead and published Willis’ nonscience and refused Dr’s Nikolov and Zeller the right of reply at his venue. I published their original work here.
Watts has commented at Steve/Tony’s site now, because he is getting a lot of attention and Watts can’t stand not being at the centre of it.
Thanks for filling me in Rog. And to think, Mr. Watts once claimed that his site allows diverse opinions unlike the alarmists sites. I guess his definition of “diverse” is different than mine.
Oh, and you won “best European Weblog” for 2014. Not bad for a place on the high and mighty‘s bad list.
Mark S: to think, Mr. Watts once claimed that his site allows diverse opinions
Discussion of the solar-planetary theory has been banned at WUWT for years, except when Watts wants to tout a paper which tries (and always fails) to refute it. It’s beyond parody. His failure to even mention McCracken et al’s recent paper (let alone post about it) is proof enough of his lack of fairness and balance regarding the theory we are working on.
For several years I bit my lip and tried to keep things amicable between us. But now he has declared me “a pariah”, I’ll no longer be silent about his lack of balance and fairness.
There’s a part 2 to Tony’s post
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/08/03/proof-that-us-warming-is-mann-made-part-2/
Exponential adjustments. Lol.
This post merely taints skepticism due to sociological factors. Goddard cried wolf for over two years with a late data reporting adjustments hockey stick that only after that long finally finally got enough attention to be immediately debunked in public, and now he’s off to claiming anomalies and time of day adjustment as being fraud, a terrible claim since it doesn’t even pass the laugh test among working scientists who might otherwise consider proven cases of fraud such as the bladeless input data of the latest hockey stick sensation that Willis exposed by simply plotting it. Until someone other than Goddard confirms this mathematically instead of merely reposts it, it encourages the usual alarmists with mass media and news cycle access. Goddard regularly sponsors the most notorious crackpot of all time, every single day, the registered child rapist iron sun fanatic who was also a coauthor of the original Sky Dragon book with Tim Ball.
I’m not criticizing as much as pointing out that skeptics already *have* clear everyday proof of scientific fraud to this day (Marcott 2013) so a maverick claim seemingly out of nowhere from a school shooting CIA gun control conspiracy theorist who keeps posting Holocaust photos and birther factoids requires more level headed *confirmation*. This seemed to start happening but then petered out. Steve McIntyre warned Paul Homewood that criticizing time of day adjustment as fraud was not a responsible, I note, a massive red flag that Goddard’s claims may not stand. When I pressed Goddard for raw/final plots of individual stations he encouraged a whole team of cultist followers to call me crazy before he banned me for weeks at a time, now permanently. Now he’s bragging about not using air conditioning in Texas or heating in winter in a way that simply alienates laypeople in general and lets dozens of veteran Gorebots continue to actively stereotype skeptics as being weirdos.
Confirming Goddard’s claims isn’t going to be done by alarm enthusiasts so it’s up to software savvy skeptics, and without strong confirmation these claims help prevent proven fraud from being taken seriously. They currently stand only as one man’s work, in detail, with serious doubt added as to whether a simple linear trend exists in adjustments due to a sincere attempt to achieve a more accurate record due to actual changes in time of day of measurement over time. Simply throwing out all statistics and normal scientific adjustments is a terrible PR move when Goddard equates his results to exposure of fraud without cooler heads confirming his claim. Lack of confirmation results in rejection of any claim, scientifically, as everybody is aware but often seems to forget.
That Goddard fails to break down his claim into a detailed analysis of which adjustments are involved and how big each one is looks like he’s taking advantage of well accepted adjustments to amplify any discoveries of actual bias and possibly fraud that really exists. This destroys his claim, overall in scientific and civil society unless it is strongly confirmed, which it is *not*. Until it is, each month it is repeated it just offers ammo to the alarm activists who need merely tally Goddard’s wacky world on the second most high traffic skeptical blog to effective neutralize all whistleblowing efforts as being amateur hour disinformation.
Nic: Some fair points in that. what do you make of his claim that NCDC themselves say that TOBS adjustments finished in the early 90’s yet they still appear to be increasing them to this day? How come the adjustments are ever upwards when the huge reduction in station numbers resulted in a lower average elevation?
Lots of questions which haven’t been answered. It’s not my passion, so I won’t be doing the number crunching. It doesn’t look like the passion of many other scientists either, because none of them appear to have come forward to explain these ‘normal scientific adjustments’. The NCDC website doesn’t either.
How come old temperatures get adjusted down, and then a few years later, get adjusted down again? No explanation of any new methodology or new discovery regarding old metadata is forthcoming. Hardly surprising there is widespread disbelief and scepticism about these ‘adjustments’ almost always being in one direction.
Tim Ball, didn’t co-author anything with the slayers. He contributed a chapter that went into the book, true, but that’s a different matter. He didn’t know what else was going in, and he distanced himself from John O Sullivan long ago.
Finally, what legitimate ‘adjustments’ can justify this kind of data fiddling?
Roger: This blog is fantastic, since hypothesis generation is extremely important in any complex system analysis and you do it very well. I’ve been a regular news site activist however, dealing directly with the public and I also live on the Upper West Side only a couple blocks from NASA’s alarmist office near Columbia University, and so I have a pretty good idea of what the problems reaching out to the only demographic that’s left to convert to skepticism and those are liberals who live in bigger cities. And the only sliver of those who are rebellious are the urban high tech crowd who are currently strong privacy advocates and anti Drug War activists, but they still see climate model skepticism as the work of mere lunatics akin to creationists. These people utterly despise conservatives for their religious anti-science instincts. Hypothesis generation is not a crackpot activity at all, whereas someone promoting skepticism who is also fanatically spamming the whole net about the iron sun and Stalin hiding nuclear secrets becomes a second front mainstream skeptics need simply cheerfully confront instead of ignore to their peril. I have little intellectual problem with either Tim Ball or Steve Goddard and appreciate their work and think they are correct in the main. The re-adjustment of data after the original peer review general publication of their method indeed amounts to lack of peer review for the entire field of climate “science” that pivots on these global average plots. That Phil Jones now cites a Saudi university for his latest global average up-adjusment is frustratingly amusing.
Intellectual details are not my point of concern. It’s just making insiders a bit more aware if possible that winning a culture war is a not the same thing as just creating doubt, since that merely leads to books like Merchants of Doubt when conservatives are now *already* fully converted. I think what’s most needed is to apply strong *pressure* with proven cases of fraud, while being aware that unproven cases need caveats added to tamp down negative stereotyping. As (publicly outspoken creationist) Roy Spenser suggested, the debate isn’t about science any more. What is is about I’m not even sure any more. It just seems like democracy has run its course a bit and the masses have decided to vote themselves welfare with any excuse possible, including irrationally running up energy costs for themselves, but if they are on welfare then it’s free anyway as they play on their iPhone all day.
The thing that hasn’t happened yet but is slowly in the works (as Judith Curry and two other skeptics have now been included on the Am. Phys. Soc. committee about their global warming statement and as Watts has picked up on part of Goddard’s discoveries) is a simple investigation by conservatives of scientific *fraud*. It’s such a simple thing, so when I see such fantastic claims that are easily *socially* ridiculed, however unfairly, I cringe and want to speak out about it from a slightly different perspective of a libertarian stuck on the Upper West Side in a large low rent apartment, surrounded by political activists. It’s the ones downtown skeptics can eventually convert, the Silicon Alley crowd, the hipsters, the rebellious casual drug users. Eventually the whole professional college crowd outside of the liberal arts.
Freudian slip: “urban high crowd” = “urban high tech crowd”.
NikFromNYC says:
August 3, 2014 at 6:34 pm
The way to reach liberals is to point out all the faulty science created to support Drug Prohibition. That will at least give you an opening to insert doubt. BTW Drug Prohibition is my passion.
NikFromNYC says:
August 3, 2014 at 6:36 pm
Well you answered me before I even posted. 😉
Nic: Great comment, and thanks for the props. I take your points, and think you’re right. I also think that the ‘policing’ of the sceptical blogosphere is a pluralistic enterprise. each site develops it’s style, reputation and etiquette, and the ‘policy’ isn’t decided by the blog proprietor alone, it grows out of the way the readership interact. The problem is that any such organic development which hasn’t included your target demographic from the start is going to appear alien to them.
So as you intelligently suggest, building up a solidly researched and referenced set of ‘gotchas’ which can stand alone clear of the blogosphere would be a good way to concentrate the minds of the scientifically literate. problem is, they tend to just ignore the proven cases of fraud, or worse, sandbag the offending author and stonewall the criticism. Even worse, get legal on the critics, as we’ve seen with Piltdown Mann.
The demographic you are referring to tends to deal with clear evidence of fraud (Say, of an upside down hockey proxy) by changing the subject:
“So you’re saying 97% of climate scientists are wrong?”
“No, I’m saying this is a clear case of fraud”
“So you’re saying that because of one thing that’s wrong, the rest of the overwhelming evidence can be dismissed?”
“No. I’m saying this clear case of fraud should raise flags about the rest of this guy’s work. Anyway, where is this ‘overwhelming’ evidence?”
“Look, all the main professional scientific bodies agree that….”
And so the long day wears on.
My feeling is that the talking points and rebuttals of them are so entrenched as the ‘stock in trade’ of the debate that only mother nature will ever break the deadlock. And if she decides to do nothing decisive for another decade or two, we’re all going to be old and grey and tired of the argument.
The only other way to break it is to present a sufficiently clear new theory which overturns the old one. Given the woolliness of the endlessly fudged data, this is well nigh impossible. Perhaps then, the best hope is to make good predictions which can clearly mark out a more successful hypothesis. It’ll be a while before it’s clear, but Nicola Scafetta’s phenomenological model is doing well. Even then though, it will be dismissed by the solar-planetary naysayers as a ‘lucky guess’, and by those who don’t understand it as ‘astrology’.
Good science takes time.
I suggest Nic has a look at the adjustments for himself as many others have done, including me.
There is no justification for what NCDC is doing to the Raw data.
Nor BEST for that matter, as Mr Mosher says “if you want to know what the Actual historic temperature was look at the Raw data, if you want to know what we think it should have been use BEST final data”.
tallbloke says:
August 3, 2014 at 2:14 pm
Mark S: to think, Mr. Watts once claimed that his site allows diverse opinions
Discussion of the solar-planetary theory has been banned at WUWT for years, except when Watts wants to tout a paper which tries (and always fails) to refute it. It’s beyond parody. His failure to even mention McCracken et al’s recent paper (let alone post about it) is proof enough of his lack of fairness and balance regarding the theory we are working on.
For several years I bit my lip and tried to keep things amicable between us. But now he has declared me “a pariah”, I’ll no longer be silent about his lack of balance and fairness.
Roger:
The whole phenomenon of global warming skepticism as a movement is dependent on controversy. Conceptual clarity ends the controversy and, thereby, ends the whole reason anybody would pay any attention to the whole thing. So people like Anthony Watt have a vested interest in making sure that his audience remains somewhat confused. This, IMO, is the reason he feels so threatened by you and by others that recognize that the emperor of global warming is and has always been naked.
NikFromNYC says:
August 3, 2014 at 6:34 pm ” … and want to speak out about it from a slightly different perspective of a libertarian stuck on the Upper West Side in a large low rent apartment, surrounded by political activists. …”
I am not exactly sure I understand you or your posts in this thread, but I do understand libertarians. There are different kinds of libertarians. I am a full-on Rothbardian anarchist who believes that the non-aggression principle is the bed-rock of libertarian philosophy and it leads to mutual, voluntary cooperation among humans. And so, I find American “conservatives” and American “liberals” to be both laughably wrong at times — but also right at times.
I cringe at some of the anti-Obama stuff at Goddard’s site, but he does say that he is “just having fun” in his motto tag-line. As a “Voluntary-ist” or “market anarchist” or Anarcho-Capitalist (AnCap) — I find most people’s trust in any government disappointing. But what are you going to do Nik? We are born into a sea of propaganda and most people never get over the brainwashing they receive whilst in government schools as young people.
My take on science is that it will over and over repeat the sorry episode of brutally maligning the poor sod who came up with “continental drift”. Even though he was absolute correct and his theory answered so many problems he was made out to be an idiot. His theory got re-branded and now we all believe in “plate tectonics”. People continue to be in awe of authority and want to believe that the latest “consensus” is right. It makes them feel better.
So, good luck living in NYC if you love liberty. It is not a place where the motto “live and let live” is on the lips of everyone now is it? And good luck trying to get honesty and cooperation among scientists — they can be a contentious group.
I apologize to our host for the rambling, but we radical libertarians just explode with our philosophy once in a while. 😉
Mark: No worries, open house, open floor, open mic on this thread.
markstoval says:
August 3, 2014 at 9:17 pm
Mark Stoval:
My take on science is that it will over and over repeat the sorry episode of brutally maligning the poor sod who came up with “continental drift”.
People continue to be in awe of authority and want to believe that the latest “consensus” is right. It makes them feel better.
Jim McGinn:
Excellent comments.
It’s especially strange when consensus scientists start twisting the thinking of Kuhn and Popper to undo their efforts and reestablish consensus as end and means of science.
http://cadiiitalk.blogspot.com/2011/07/attack-on-consensus-science.html
http://www.flame.org/~cdoswell/How_science_works.html
NikFromNYC says:
August 3, 2014 at 4:59 pm
————————————
“ and now he’s off to claiming anomalies and time of day adjustment as being fraud, a terrible claim since it doesn’t even pass the laugh test among working scientists..”
Your attack on Tony here is without merit. He is right about TOB adjustments. I found this long ago, and recent debate with Nick “racehorse” Stokes proved he had no legitimate answer.
The TOB adjustments to USHCN do indeed stem from Tom Karl’s pet rat TOBy, a computer algorithm that adjusts station data without reference to individual station metadata. This method was proposed in a paper by Karl written in 1985 (which interestingly mentioned climate change in its conclusion), and is still clearly in use. NOAA claims “extensive individual station records” are used in making TOB adjustments, but the fact that newer stations that only ever reported hourly (therefore would not have needed TOB adjustment) puts the lie to that claim.
PS. Kicking up a fuss about the whole “sky dragon / slayer” thing is a dead end. They were challenged and defeated years ago by sceptics including myself at WUWT. Today, hard empirical sceptics may not out number the “lukewarmers” at WUWT, but we do out number the “sleepers” keeping them in line. The lukewarm “Realpolitik” soft landing is no longer an option.
This is only about US temp data.
Does this relationship show up with global data sets as well?
Hunter, the answer is YES.
I have been trying to bring this to everyones attention ever since the story first broke on the Media back in June 26th.
Anthony Watts put up a post about Steve’s finding and said that although Steve had used the wrong maths, the results still stood and that Steve was correct.
During that thread AW put up some Graphs by Zeke Hausfather posted on the Blackboard, the Graphs use Steve’s so called incorrect method of just using raw actaul values.
They are a real eye opener and a serious mistake by Zeke as they show that the actual raw data shows Major Step Changes in the US and Global Temperatures.
This does not fit the slow steady increase as would be caused by increasing CO2.
The whole point of the adjustments being made are not just cooling the past and warming the current, but also to Smooth out the overall Trend.
I do not know how to post Graphs on these forums so I can’t show them to you and the others, but if you are interested have alook at Graphs 6 & 8 on this Thread
The graphs are
I am convinced the whole point of their Gridding and Adjustments is to get rid of the Step changes.
Steven Goddard is very much right about one single thing: Republicans could end this debate in two hours if they really wanted to. It’s no different from a geneticist falsely claiming a cancer cure based on fabrication. By giving into the dark side of the force, Goddard challenges us all to stop him via loud voices of reason against treason.
Nik,
You might try to write a wee bit more clearly.
Is merely shouting strong enough against traitors, and just who is the traitor?
Nik,
Read more of your posts.
Good stuff.
My question is answered.
Thanks,