I think Anthony’s paper was very conservative.
USHCN data tampering is much worse than he indicated. By messing with the data, the USHCN trend since 1930 is actually reversed from a measured cooling trend – to a warming trend.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Making Themselves Irrelevant
- Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- COP29 Preview
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- A Giant Eyesore
- CO2 To Destroy The World In Ten Years
- Rats Jumping Off The Climate Ship
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- “False Claims” And Outright Lies”
- Michael Mann Cancelled By CNN
- Spoiled Children
- Great Lakes Storm Of November 11, 1835
- Harris To Win Iowa
- Angry Democrats
- November 9, 1913 Storm
- Science Magazine Explains Trump Supporters
- Obliterating Bill Gates
- Scientific American Editor In Chief Speaks Out
- The End Of Everything
- Harris To Win In A Blowout
- Election Results
- “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- “falsely labeling”
- Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- Protesting Too Much Snow
Recent Comments
- Trevor on Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- czechlist on Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- arn on COP29 Preview
- arn on COP29 Preview
- conrad ziefle on COP29 Preview
- conrad ziefle on Making Themselves Irrelevant
- stewartpid on COP29 Preview
- GeologyJim on A Giant Eyesore
- GeologyJim on COP29 Preview
- GeologyJim on COP29 Preview
Steven, can you detail this a bit? I’m sure you are correct and that your data could make for a Part II of this fine beginning to set the record straight. The data and the history you present here make for one of the most important blogs on weather, climate, unusual “disasters”, regional history. (I wish you would “sticky” somewhere your chart of the raw data compared to that of the fraudsters. Masterful.) Thanks many times over — at least 2x/day.
Don’t forget that Anthony’s study only went back to 1979.
Eyeballing your charts (not easy to do when they are in perpetual motion), it appears to me that the raw data gives a trend of -0.5C over 80 years – or -0.06C per decade, while the final, adjusted data, gives a trend of +0.7C over 80 years, or +0.09 per decade.
The difference between the 2 trends (0.15C per decade) is very actually close to what Anthony found, is it not, or am I missing something?
Yes. I am. The difference between Centigrade and Fahrenheit!
Doh!
As I recollect, they didn’t address the TOBS biases.
Steve, looking at your data and the paper Mr. Watts and team have put together I can not see any way that one could excuse the “keepers of the data” from not knowing that they were involved in scientific fraud. Could “observation bias” alone account for all the many men and women involved in these data sets not seeing they were involved in a huge lie?
Something is seriously messed up – no doubt about it. GHCN is much worse than USHCN
If he only went back to 1979, the most important fact is omitted: That the 1930s were the warmest decade in the last century.
WND says that in his 2nd term, Obama wants to Outlaw CAGW skepticism, along with Rush, Levin, Hannity, etc., using the “fairness” doctrine as a weapon.
I don’t see a second term for the moron, but I’ve been wrong before. And, I don’t see congress moving left these elections, but, I’ve been wrong on that, too.
The candidate who does the best job of playing Santa Claus usually wins. Obama is talking about another stimulus package!! Hopefully people can see thru it, but I have my doubts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JW68goC4_es&w=560&h=315%5D
That gif is the most well played yet, sir! kudos. Keep hammering those nails in.