Earlier I showed that the USHCN stations which are losing data since 1990, were much cooler stations than the ones which aren’t losing data. NOAA is replacing cold station data with warm station data.
So now lets look at what has happened since 1990, when the station data started disappearing. The stations with complete data are warming much faster than the ones which are losing data.
There are two ways this could be interpreted.
- They are replacing missing cold temperatures with warm ones, and creating a fake warming trend.
- The stations losing data are by some spectacular statistical fluke selectively losing warm data. That gross impossibility is the fundamental assumption behind the FILNET adjustment.
I did an experiment (below) to see what happens to the absolute temperature if you randomly remove 30% of the months. Not surprisingly, it has very little effect on the trend, which is what I was trying to explain to Zeke.
This leaves the only real possibility – NOAA is losing cold station data, and doing a large warming adjustment when they should be doing a large cooling adjustment.
Bottom line is that USHCN data alterations are either fraudulent – or just plain stupid. Take your pick.
It cannot ever be fraud if you take the Government’s cheese.
Yep… Just shut off “Inconvenient Data”….
There is something going on in the government data that simply makes no sense.
Let’s all be grateful that those numbers are readily available. If they are wrong, and my suspicion is they are, we can find them out. We really can. So let’s get to work.
The interesting thing is that, assuming you are right, the “official” record will drift warmwards regardless of actual temp. At some point, and that point may have been this winter, yelling “heatwave” in a blizzard will simply look silly.
When the record is ridiculed you know reality has won.
They are digging a big hole for themselves each time they do this, they make the current temperatures appear warmer than older data sets. But what are they going to do in the near future? Will they adjust the current data sets down?
I think we need a justification for why they continue to use fake data, when it’s possible to remove 30% of the actual data and still get the same trend.
I think fake data may have been a reasonable choice back when they had only dropped a small percent of stations. The reason is that the trend in the smaller number of dropped stations may not be representative of the entire network. However, now that a large number of stations have been dropped from the total population of stations, the law of large numbers says that the trend in the dropped stations should converge to the trend in the stations that remain.
Can we get some rationale for the continued use of fake data?
It’s results based science, which obviously is not science at all, just propaganda.
Even children in Boulder know from school that political science is real science.
I want to let you know of my new book for your perusal.
‘The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science’, available on Amazon.
I have been silenced for 40 years by the MSM.
Thank you.
Tim
Historical Climatologist
PS My website is
How do stations lose data?
The same way Lois Lerner loses emails.