Anthony pointed this out on WUWT.
Orland, CA in 2007
Orland, CA in 2010
Overlay is below. They deleted almost five degrees of cooling prior to 1920, turning a long-term (sharp) cooling trend into a warming trend.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Mission Accomplished
- Both High And Low Sea Ice Extent Caused By Global Warming
- Record Sea Ice Caused By Global Warming
- “Rapid Antarctic sea ice loss is causing severe storms”
- “pushing nature past its limits”
- Compassion For Terrorists
- Fifteen Days To Slow The Spread
- Maldives Underwater By 2050
- Woke Grok
- Grok Explains Gender
- Humans Like Warmer Climates
- Homophobic Greenhouse Gases
- Grok Explains The Effects Of CO2
- Ice-Free Arctic By 2027
- Red Hot Australia
- EPA : 17.5 Degrees Warming By 2050
- “Winter temperatures colder than last ice age
- Big Oil Saved The Whales
- Guardian 100% Inheritance Tax
- Kerry, Blinken, Hillary And Jefferson
- “Climate Change Indicators: Heat Waves”
- Combating Bad Weather With Green Energy
- Flooding Mar-a-Lago
- Ice-Free Arctic By 2020
- Colorless, Odorless CO2
Recent Comments
- Disillusioned on “pushing nature past its limits”
- Francis Barnett on “pushing nature past its limits”
- Disillusioned on Mission Accomplished
- conrad ziefle on Mission Accomplished
- conrad ziefle on Mission Accomplished
- Billyjack on Mission Accomplished
- conrad ziefle on Both High And Low Sea Ice Extent Caused By Global Warming
- conrad ziefle on “pushing nature past its limits”
- conrad ziefle on Mission Accomplished
- John Francis on Mission Accomplished
And what can we do about this fraud? Serious!
clear unambiguous fraud,
How can any of you say this is not conspiracy?
Try deleting financial records at the office.
Again Tony what is the real reason every temperature record gets adjusted upwards always? Really?
There doesn’t have to be an outright conspiracy if enough people in the right places have corresponding attitudes and intentions. (This could be called the Pod Person Hypothesis, as opposed to the Conspiracy Hypothesis.)
gee i was going to post –
Here’s some more fraud for you Tony!
but he’s already been here
if they are not going to publish what the actual thermometers read, they may as well publish their wildest fantasy.
wait, that’s what they are doing!
What can we do? In the US you can lobby for bill S 4015, the Public Access to Historical Records Act. In the UK probably nothing while we still have the Con-Dem coalition, as the loonies at the Met Office are still owned by the MoD.
What needs to be lobbied for is information about their justification for the removal and adjustment of data. Like Steve says: try doing these kinds of shenanigans to financial data and see how far you get.
Policies affecting the whole Earth are being driven by data that include manipulations like this, and those involved need to be held completely accountable for their actions.
Problem is that it is already a criminal offence at least in the UK – see fraud by false representation, Fraud Act 2006 at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/section/2
But there is no incentive to prosecute – and even if there were, imagine the problems with expert evidence (and you would have Hansen giving defence evidence at the drop of his hat!).
I think it’s better to have a rigorous audit process, under independent control, as bill S 4015.
We are discussing different things here. Big Jim and company are covered by academic freedom where stuff is always made up. We would like to see it being conducted in a real world environment where making stuff up is not legal. Only by privatizing and removing the researchers from the academic community will they be subject to competitive practices. Now their claims are called academic best guess scenarios whereas in the real world it would be considered fraud.
GISS admits that their product is not real world temperatures but extrapolations based on model outputs (Fairy Tales). If government agencies want to base future regulations on fantasies they should expect to fail.
Maybe they should first determine if CO2 is hazardous to the environment by doing controlled experiments like subjecting flora to increased levels of CO2!
OH! They already do that in a little known section of the community called agriculture by using CO2 to increase productivity in Greenhouses!
I’d like to know what all of the unadjusted temperature stations located in good areas (i.e. away from AC units, not near roads, etc.) say about the last 150 or so years. Has anybody ever calculated this?
It really isn’t worth the time to comment, but one can only restrain themselves so long.
No sources, no pointer to an article, I don’t know what data are being used. Same old story….
“Anthony pointed this out on WUWT” “About 107″ times according to Google.
Google search on WattsUpWithThat for “Orland” –
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Orland%22+site%3Awattsupwiththat.com&hl=en&num=10&lr=&ft=i&cr=&safe=images&tbs=,qdr:y
Here you can find the NDCD info for the station at Orland, CA –
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/stationlocator.html
It starts in 1931. So I have no clue what data are being used when. The locations of the graphs in the article give no source, all are located on this web site.
1 – http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/orland_station_plot_2007.gif
2 – http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/station.gif
3 – http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/paintimage4090.jpg
Mr. Goddard, could you at least give us a clue besides vague or no references to what actual data and articles you are writing about? You fling old stuff out so quickly and without real references that it seems like a rapid fire assault mission with cap guns.
Hmmmm…. I think I’m on to something.
(And, please, don’t bother responding with some lame comment that has nothing to do with my question concerning your inability to provide sources, just provide the sources.)
I posted the wrong Google address. The above was for one year (6 results). Here is the “anytime” address (107 results) –
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Orland%22+site%3Awattsupwiththat.com&hl=en&num=10&lr=&ft=i&cr=&safe=images&tbs=
A two-second search on WUWT:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/11/giss-raw-station-data-before-and-after/
Two seconds to find an article on WUWT, but that is not the source of the data. My question is why references to the data sets from which the graphs were created are not listed. I have no way of knowing what data is being displayed.
I searched the WUWT article and clicked on many links contained therein. That took about 15 minutes until I figured out it was a waste of time. A link to an article is not useful to me; a link to the data source is what is required. An article is not a data source.
How can there be a conversation about the data, if the data is not identified? Why would one except as fact something that has no sources? Just because someone says something is true does not make it true. I want to look at the data myself and try to discern the situation.
I have spent a lot of time trying to track down this data blindly. All that would have been required is a link to the data, not circular references. How hard is it when writing an article to add links to the data being used? If a writer wants to convince readers of their proposition, it would seem that the writer would do their best to help their readers find the information upon which they are building their proposition, not just splash their proposition on a page with no accessible, substantiating evidence.
Mr. Goddard, why can you not give your readers a specific link to the location of the data? I would think that if you had a valid argument, you would direct your readers to the relevant data, as opposed to dropping them in the middle of a forest without a map. As a mentor of mine drilled into my head, “To be terrific, be specific”. There is nothing specific in this sourceless article, just unsubstantiated words.