U.S. Agencies Accused of Fudging Data to Show Global Warming
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Latest From Michael Mann
- Maldives Refuse To Drown
- Game Over For The Climate
- Another Ice Age?
- Historic Heatwave
- Historic Heatwave
- Science-Free Journalism
- Why Is Venus So Hot?
- Color Or Monochrome?
- AI Doublespeak
- AI Doublespeak
- Net Zero Intelligence
- “The Green Party dropped nearly 9 per cent”
- Fake Record Heat In India
- RFK Jr’s Plan For $12 Gas
- Hockey Match
- Hockey Match
- Giving Proper Credit
- Conspiracy Theory!
- “No One Is Above The Law”
- CNN Experts Discuss Medicine
- Looking For Their Lost Keys
- Rapid Climate Change
- CBS News 1982 : One Fourth Of Florida To Drown
- Affordable Transportation
Recent Comments
- arn on Latest From Michael Mann
- czechlist on Latest From Michael Mann
- Disillusioned on Latest From Michael Mann
- Gordon Vigurs on Latest From Michael Mann
- Jack the Insider on Latest From Michael Mann
- Conrad Ziefle on Latest From Michael Mann
- arn on Latest From Michael Mann
- scott allen on Latest From Michael Mann
- Mike on Maldives Refuse To Drown
- Mike on Maldives Refuse To Drown
I saw this New American report earlier today. Congratulations, Steve, for your dogged pursuit of this matter. Glad to see that your work is getting some national exposure.
Fudging (adjusting, with intent) data is the most egregiously un-scientific practice for anyone who professes to be a scientist.
It is akin to a stock broker “adjusting” the historical price of a stock or commodity to give the appearance of an upward trend in value.
If these practices were uncovered on Wall Street, people would rightly be in jail.
But in “Climate Science” (TM), this is standard methodology among Nobel Prize winners, er Laureates, er uh Lead Authors, uh uh … … OK, just guys hanging out at the sausage factory when the product came out.
Kudos Steven,
NASA and NOAA caught red handed in Climategate 2.0!
Steve is a reliable source. Roy Spencer is, too, of course. But The New American is not. It’s a Bircher rag, and they’re stark raving nuts, so be careful not to trust what they write without separate verification.
Real journalism, complete with background and non-denial denials from the officials, including Gavin, digging deep into lawyerspeak? Excellent development!
Excellent work by Steve! Thank you. Somebody at NASA/NOAA needs to explain this crap instead of just saying “trust us.” The fact that bloggers are mopping the floor with bilion-dollars-in-funding agencies shows we’re on the right track.
@Andy: Shouldn’t it be ClimateGate 3.0 at this point =) I think 2.0 was when the second batch of emails got leaked. How many more can the AGW hoax survive???
@Dave: That’s a dumb comment. At least when it comes to AGW and related topics the NA has been infinitely better than the mainstream media (talk about unreliable).
“Fudging”…as if you can clean up the mess by licking your fingers.
Steve – Excellent you have gained some recognition for this work.
Thanks. But what is gratifying is that the information is getting out there and people understand that the entire basis of this scam is completely fraudulent.
WND carrying this story as well.
http://www.wnd.com/2014/01/again-massive-fudging-on-global-warming-temps/
Steve, when you first posted your observations, you mentioned a freedom of information request. Is that the next step?
Good question… I think GISTemp procedures have been posted, though I’m not sure anyone has ever gotten them to work. It would be interesting to see the code behind these charts. I’ll bet there are some dead giveaways in the code, probably with some really interesting procedure names.
Anyone interested in GISTemp would do well to start with E.M. Smith’s work with the code.
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/gistemp/
Reblogged this on CACA.
I think a further strategy is to keep emphasizing specific cases. When Gavin Schmidt says that GISS is “committed to producing as accurate an analysis as possible” – then people need to see what they did to the records from Reykjavik, erasing the marked 40’s to 70’s cooling (which, by the way, also jettisons some of the history of the field – since that decline is one of the icons of the older literature). Or the records for La Paz, Bolivia (which someone on this site mentioned). People like Schmidt need to be cornered with specifics – and reporters (the ones that are not Pod People) need to know enough to do this.