Is My Data Correct?

Someone asked me yesterday if I am sure my measurements of NOAA/NASA data tampering are correct.

screenhunter_626-mar-15-10-10 (1)

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

I will let you judge that for yourself. The graph below shows my calculated US temperatures in blue, on top of Hansen’s 1999 US temperature graph in red – normalized to the most recent common years. Other than the much smaller USHCN V1 data tampering in the NASA graph, my calculated temperatures are identical to Hansen’s 1999 version.

ScreenHunter_818 Mar. 22 06.18

NASA GISS: Science Briefs: Whither U.S. Climate?

About Tony Heller

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

13 Responses to Is My Data Correct?

  1. EW3 says:

    Hi Steve,
    Don’t doubt your work, but being a skeptic can you provide a link to the raw data you are using?
    I really want to argue with the alarmists with a firm conviction.

  2. -=NikFromNYC=- says:

    This is epic. Take note, documentarians and book writers. Note especially how skepticism is to this day mired in arcane statistics as scammers continue to control the narrative in a way that requires calls to authority for laypersons to navigate all the while so far skeptics have so few working academics to offer such authority beyond the eccentric blogosphere of low perceived status outsiders who are only too easily stereotyped in bigoted fashion.

    Note, though, also, that posts here are subjected to extreme fine tooth comb scrutiny by a dozen technically trained AGW enthusiasts associated with the hockey stick team and how Steve’s basic before/after message has not been in any way exposed as being misleading. Only innuendo is offered against it by the likes of Grant “Tamino” Foster, the Berkeley BEST team member Steve Mosher, and none other than Tony Watts himself.

    Luckily by now serious conservative and libertarian activists are taking over the public education front so these kind of basic facts of the case background information is finally making its way out of the blogosphere. When after three years of posting a simple infographic of trend unwavering old thermometer records, I then discovered that tide gauge records too showed exactly the same unwavering linearity in utter defiance of alarmist headlines, I realized that most skeptics were overall just a bunch of useless dorks spending hours a day mentally masturbating on WUWT and then Judith Curry’s blog. I mean these basic old thermometer records and even just the basic ultra linear average of world tide gauges don’t even to this day appear on the WUWT reference pages. Huh?!

    No *wonder* it’s taking so damn long for working scientists to feel any pressure to speak out. To laypeople, each week of WUWT is just a bunch of squiggly charts piling up, with thousands of words of tedious nitpicking that for all appearances looks like simple tunnel vision, which strategy wise indeed it is.

    -=NikFromNYC=-, Ph.D. in carbon chemistry (Columbia/Harvard)

    P.S. My my old lab mate, who recently served as Columbia’s department of chemistry chairman, just turned carbon into a new type of metal by co-crystallizing Buckyballs with large organometallic cluster molecules:
    He thanked me profusely in his Ph.D. thesis, a year after both a future American Chemical Society president (Breslow) and a future Nobelist (Chalfie) served on my own thesis defense committee for which I was then awarded also the top organic division student award named after Hammett.

    • D.M. says:

      Well said NikFromNYC. But the AGW enthusiasts would say you are not qualified to comment because you are not a “climate scientist! Well I have recently become interested in what qualifications these “climate scientists” have got, because it would appear that physics, and particularly thermodynamics (which I specialised in), is not one of their strong points. So I looked at the entry qualifications for a BSc Climate Science course at the UK university which is considered to be the home of climate experts (with many email publications in Climategate!). A qualification in physics is not required for entry to this course and I cannot see a module for physics in the actual course. You can make your own judgement on what it means to be a “climate scientist”.

      • Leon says:

        If you can count tree rings and pervert the data, you are a climate scientist.

      • Gail Combs says:


        Even us lowly chemists have to take calculus and tons of physics (classic and Science Fiction Physics) as well as thermo to get a BS degree in Chemistry.

        How the HE!! can you be a ‘Climastrologist’ without at least a couple of courses in physics esp in thermo not to mention at least three to four courses in statistics?

        Heck EVERY scientist should have stat courses up to design of experiments required.

        • Send Al to the Pole says:

          Gail, you posted about the efforts to “dumb down” students. I’m picking up a computer science degree right now. The only math required is a sophomore level statistics class.

          Now, I already had math thru diff eq, but I don’t think it’s needed. The biz type classes are total crap, but they always were. Anyway, very low expectations from students. Everything seems simplified. None of my classmates would survive what I came thru 30 years ago.

        • Shazaam says:

          You are extremely unlikely to find anyone with a decent comprehension of statistics, physics and thermodynamics who believes in CAGW. (well, alt least anyone outside of those riding the gravy train of climate study grants)

          I will admit, I had a gem of a prof for statistics. The mayor’s wife, she presented the problems as “here is a mess, how can you use statistics to put the mess in the best possible light”. Her focus was that statistics are a powerful analysis tool and statistical analysis can and will be misused to mislead people. She wanted all of her students to be informed skeptics of any and all statistical data. My favorite prof of all time.

    • Andy Oz says:

      +1 Nik.

      Steven has a concise message. The observational data doesn’t match the alarmist rhetoric. And it has all happened before. Alarmists are bullshit artists and carbon credit flunkeys. Destroying the middle class and impoverishing the old and the poor. I’d have respect if they wanted to save rainforest environments or plant trees but that is not their agenda. A Global tax on all energy is what their aim is and they have been very successful. It’s truly disgraceful how they have hijacked science and school education dumbing it down to punch lines. And politicians have been pathetic wimps giving in to alarmists like Tim Flannery and Ross Garnaut, flunkies of Gore et al.

  3. Andy Oz says:

    So in 1999 Hansen was being relatively truthful, and then Al Gore lost to George W Bush and went on his bloody climate crusade, getting Hansen to adjust history.
    It’s Bush’s fault. If he didn’t win Florida we wouldn’t be in this mess, cos Gore would have been too busy chasing Bin Laden to do his inconvenient Lies.
    Bloody George W has a lot to answer for. 😀

  4. omanuel says:


    To by-pass criticism over the data base for my conclusions, I showed nine pages of precise experimental data on pp. 19-27 of Chapter 2 of my biography:

    From top-ranked research facilities in nuclear and space sciences:

    Brookhaven National Laboratory
    University of Bern (Switzerland)
    Max Planck Institute fuer Chemie
    University of California-Berkeley
    University of California-La Jolla
    Washington University-St Louis
    University of Chicago
    CalTech, etc.

    These data show the Sun

    1. Made our elements
    2. Birthed the solar system
    3. Sustained the origin and evolution of life
    4. Still controls every atom, life and world in the solar system today, and
    5. Neutron repulsion is the source of energy in cores of

    _ a.) Heavy atoms like Uranium
    _ b.) Some planets like Jupiter
    _ c.) Ordinary stars like the Sun
    _ d.) Galaxies like the Milky Way

    Leaders of the modern, post-1945 scientific community will not address these data in public because they FALSIFY post-1945 consensus models of the atomic nucleus, planets, stars and galaxies.

    As George Orwell warned in the book he started writing in 1946, “Nineteen Eighty-Four,”, modern science is simply a tool of government misinformation to control the public.

  5. Mike Mangan says:

    Tumbleweed tornado at controlled burn at Rocky Mountain Arsenal. Awesome.

Leave a Reply

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