USHCN 2.5 Cheating Goes Full Hockey Stick

Index of /pub/data/ushcn/v2.5/

Index of /pub/data/ghcn/daily/hcn/

The graph above shows the full year to date adjustments to US temperature data being performed in the new USHCN v2.5 data set. The upwards adjustments for 2012 blow away the previous record. Note the sharp spike upwards since 2007. The total upwards adjustment relative to 1903 is more than two degrees!

NOAA has apparently been tasked with making 2012 the hottest year ever, regardless of the actual temperatures. Kudos to them for throwing out any need for integrity or honesty in reporting temperature data. The planet must be saved from global warming, even if it isn’t warming.

Their graph shows that there have only been three years when Americans knew how to read thermometers (2005-2007) and that since 2007 we have been getting exponentially more incompetent at recording temperatures.

There are no checks and balances in this system, and NOAA knows that they can get away with anything in the current political environment.

About Tony Heller

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

18 Responses to USHCN 2.5 Cheating Goes Full Hockey Stick

  1. How do satellite measurements compare? Or is it apples versus oranges?

  2. Perfekt says:

    This might be considered cherrypicking, but isn´t there an alarming rise in the “correction” in the last five years? Maybe we should wait 30 years to see what happens?

  3. Andy DC says:

    Would anyone care about a sporting event if the home team was allowed to “adjust” the score. Would anyone believe an election if the party in power was allowed to “adjust” the vote? Come to think of it, I might be on to something…?

  4. robert barclay says:

    Time to call the FBI

  5. Dan says:

    Interesting title “USHCN 2.5 Cheating Goes Full Hockey Stick” is the later part meant to be a reference to the Myth that the Hockey Stick has been discredited.
    Silly attempts at creating conspiracy theories reflect on nobody but the attempted creators of said theories and their continuing and sad attempts to belittle the science.
    Which is of course why such claims, like the many made before don’t go beyond blogs where you can say what ever you want.

    • Do you have anything intelligent to say about the content of this post, or are you always a moron?

      • John Stevenson says:

        Steven? This is John Stevenson. Remember me? Care to come over to this website and debate with the owner of the website on your misconceptions of global warming and climate change? Since you seem to think you’re an authority on the subject?

        • I have no idea who you are.

        • gator69 says:

          But we know who and what John Cook is…

          “In my first post here, I accused John Cook (the propietor of Skeptical Science) of lying about evidence. He had written an article which misrepresented multiple sources and even fabricated a quote. To this day, that fabricated quote remains in the piece. John cook has made no indication he thinks it needs to be changed (though he has fixed the quote elsewhere). This led me to observe:

          Additionally, you have not apologized for fabricating the quote or explained how it happened. That is troubling. One may reasonably wonder what would have happened had I not happened to randomly read this piece and check your reference (something you apparently didn’t do). Had I not caught the mistake, would it ever have been fixed? Nobody will ever know.

          Being accurate with facts, quotes and references is a fundamental aspect of reporting. If you are as apathetic toward such glaring failures in this regard as you seem to be, why should anyone trust what you say? Why should anyone trust you the next time you “quote” a source?”

    • I wonder if Dan even understands *what* the technical claim was and exactly what was discredited.

      I also find it amusing that the trolls criticize blogs but as soon as they attempt to provide any sort of information on a topic, they invariably link to the activist blogs RC or ‘skeptical science’, which is where they get 99% of their information from.

      • Dan says:

        Will, an interesting comment, I see from the hostility of reply I have hit a nerve, as to who uses blogs, a look at the links page of WUWT answer that better than I could.
        My supplied link was to NOAA, As for Mr Goddards response, name calling really!
        That’s the best you can do, as I said this is empty blog nonsense, in a long line of such things, when it comes out in a real peer reviewed journal I will happily look at it, but I feel safe in saying it never will, because peer review doesn’t deal in such loaded rhetorical nonsense.
        You call me names while suggesting “cheating” from a serious scientific organization like NOAA, that’s laughable. The science community as a whole has a long history of no tolerance for “cheating” or “faking” even a small amount of real research shows that.

    • John Stevenson says:

      Dan. Steven Goddard isn’t a Climate Scientist…which is why he cannot respond to you technically. I know Steve. He was a produce buyer the last time I worked on his car and has been duped by alot of the right wing misinformation. I hope he’ll see the light by me showing him where ALL of the data he’s looking at is wrong.

  6. Dan says:

    For those calling me a troll, OK look at the above graph 5 data points (months) of elevated temps for the U.S. in the latter part of 2012, being, according to this blog blamed on USHCN 2.5, fine, look up when USHCN 2.5 started, (September) but don’t believe me go look it up. Then look at a calendar and tell me if that was 5 months ago.

    • look up when USHCN 2.5 started

      So, I guess since USHCN 2.5 “started” in September, the adjustments they’ve made to historical records don’t exist. Magical thinking is rotting your brain, “Dan”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *