Top Debunker Of The Year

Hardly a day goes by without expert comments like this appearing in comment sections, like this one from yesterday.

ScreenHunter_5592 Dec. 27 10.29

All reported warming in the US over the past 25 years is due to infilling fabricated data.

ScreenHunter_5147 Dec. 12 21.27

USHCN has 1,218 stations in their database. Prior to 1990, they typically recorded temperatures at about 97% of these stations. But for some reason, USHCN has been reporting monthly temperatures at a smaller and smaller percentage of stations since 1990, and now about 30% of monthly temperatures are completely missing.

What NCDC does in those cases, is to fabricate temperatures for the missing stations. The graph below shows the percentage of stations which have fabricated data, which is increasing in a hockey stick.

ScreenHunter_5149 Dec. 12 21.43

The station data being fabricated is dominantly from rural stations, which are being infilled with surrounding urban stations

ScreenHunter_5178 Dec. 13 12.17

Fake temperatures are marked with an “E” in their final database, as seen below in the 2008-2011 January-June data for Cadiz, Ohio.

ScreenHunter_5152 Dec. 12 22.23

Nearly 40% of the 2014 final temperatures are marked with an “E” – which is even larger than the 29% percentage of stations which are completely fake. This indicates that they are also making up temperatures for a large number of stations which actually do have thermometer data.

ScreenHunter_5167 Dec. 13 06.12

About Tony Heller

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

91 Responses to Top Debunker Of The Year

  1. MrX says:

    Could we get some more context? Did Watts really say you were wrong? Where was this? What is the Reason magazine thing?

    • Jeo says:

      I was thinking the same. Context would be helpful in understanding this.

    • bill.capron says:

      I too want context … is this infighting or incorrect or lies with a purpose … or to put in bluntly, I haven’t a clue what this posting is talking about! And since I visit once a day, I’d like to know.

    • SMS says:

      I believe Anthony was a little skeptical at first but after he did his own investigation he was in full agreement with Steve Goddard’s ( aka Tony Heller’s) assertion. The comment from above is probably based on some early correspondence from Anthony and has no basis in truth. Just normal alarmist cherry picking.

    • Beale says:

      For context, check out these links:
      http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/26/anthony-watts-saves-alarmist-from-becoming-a-heretic/
      http://www.catholic.org/news/green/story.php?id=55953
      http://reason.com/blog/2014/06/23/did-nasanoaa-dramatically-alter-us-tempe
      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/28/the-scientific-method-is-at-work-on-the-ushcn-temperature-data-set/

      Reason.com is the online service of Reason magazine, which advocates, as the tagline says, “Free minds and free markets”. Heaven save us from our friends!

      I would like to know where the ‘Tobbar’ item came from. It looks like a tweet, but I can’t find it.

      • Send Al to the Pole says:

        So, per Anthony’s post above, even NCDC admitted their data was erroneous:

        from Anthony’s post >>>>>”All of that added up to a big heap of confirmation bias, I was so used to Goddard being wrong, I expected it again, but this time Steve Goddard was right and my confirmation bias prevented me from seeing that there was in fact a real issue in the data and that NCDC has dead stations that are reporting data that isn’t real: mea culpa.

        But, that’s the same problem many climate scientists have, they are used to some skeptics being wrong on some issues, so they put up a wall…………….

        Now that the wall is down, NCDC won’t be able to ignore this, even John Nielsen-Gammon, who was critical of Goddard along with me in the Polifact story now says there is a real problem. So does Zeke, and we have all sent or forwarded email to NCDC advising them of it.

        I’ve also been on the phone Friday with the assistant director of NCDC and chief scientist (Tom Peterson), and also with the person in charge of USHCN (Matt Menne). Both were quality, professional conversations, and both thanked me for bringing it to their attention. There is lots of email flying back and forth too.

        They are taking this seriously, they have to, as final data as currently presented for USHCN is clearly wrong. John Neilsen-Gammon sent me a cursory analysis for Texas USHCN stations, noting he found a number of stations that had “estimated” data in place of actual good data that NCDC has in hand, and appears in the RAW USHCN data file on their FTP site”………… <<<< from Anthony's post

        ……….and as far as I know….. after 6 months…… silence…. and continued false data. Anthony thought he was talking to rational humans (from among the climate brethren) who realized their mistake and would move to correct it….. but what they will do is move to cover what they've done with false data and contorted explanations. THE CULT does not respond rationally.

        • Remind me what I was wrong about?

          Some people are unable to distinguish between their current nonsensical accusations, and their prior ones.

        • philjourdan says:

          Moving from the PRO Colorado to the SRO Maryland. 😉

        • Daavid A says:

          Al says…”and as far as I know….. after 6 months…… silence…. and continued false data.”
          ——————————————————————————–
          please amend to… “and as far as I know….. after 6 months…… silence…. and SYSTEMICALLY INCREASED false data.

      • MrX says:

        Thanks! That’s very enlightening. Funny how it was dismissed out of hand.

      • Ernest Bush says:

        As I recall, most of the posts that were flinging back and forth had to do with Tony using methods Anthony Watts considered unorthodox. Because Watts couldn’t get past his own biases about Tony’s methods, he ignored the conclusions reached using that methodology. I personally was quite surprised as it was not hard for me, a layman, to follow Tony’s presentations and accept the conclusions as fact. Even today Watts and posters at his site sometimes accept data and conclusions from government and government-sponsored research even though those organizations have been shown to be absolutely untrustworthy.

        In this time there are a large number of scientists who seem to have no problem playing with raw data until it conforms to their preconceived notions about climate and weather.
        Their Progressivist belief system allows them to lie to achieve the ultimate goals of Progressivism. Truth to tell, there has always been an element of fraud in science. It has increased in volume as more and more academics have subscribed to the Progressivist theology.

        These scientists have trouble with Tony Heller precisely because he is not of their religion. They tend to accept information as being honest from now questionable sources because those sources subscribe to the same religious beliefs.

  2. MrX says:

    Also, you say that 29% of the stations are completely fake. So there are other stations that do have valid data for some of its data, but that some entries are made up (E). Totaling up the E’s used, that accounts for 40% of the record being fake? Do I have this right? This is quite serious. That’s deception of the highest order.

    • I don’t exactly how their algorithm works, but they have temperatures for 29% more stations every month in their final data set than they do in their raw data set.

      • MrX says:

        I see. So how is the 40% calculated? Does that include the 29% of stations? Or is it 40% of the raw data is made up? And then they add 29% more stations on top of that?

        • Daavid A says:

          I think your confusion is in this statement by Steven
          ..”Nearly 40% of the 2014 final temperatures are marked with an “E” – which is even larger than the 29% percentage of stations which are completely fake. This indicates that they are also making up temperatures for a large number of stations which actually do have thermometer data.”
          ===================================================
          The key confusion is in this comment… “the 29% percentage of stations which are completely fake”
          I think Steven means fake data, but not fake stations, but am not certain. Is it not possible to check the E stations directly?… https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/screenhunter_5152-dec-12-22-23.gif?w=640.
          … and see if they have actual data for those stations? I also am not certain what the apparent distinction is between the 29% and the almost 40% E stations. Perhaps there is none. What would be additionally interesting to know is if the “E” stations change monthly. Do the keepers of the data claim that their algorithm is public knowledge and released to the public?

    • Ernest Bush says:

      MrX, did you just receive a wake up call? If so, welcome to the land of Skeptics. This is a place where you can sit and watch Progressivist scientists out there say the most outrageous things on a daily basis.

      • MrX says:

        No, I’ve been a skeptic for a while. The whole AGW thing is one of the things that helped me snap out of the liberal mindset though. I’m a programmer and I just wanted to know how this data was organized. If I had the source data, I could siphon through it myself.

        And I agree, it’s amazing how much stuff Tony finds on a daily basis. It’s just insane the amount of false information the “progressives” put out there.

        • Dougmanxx says:

          The “data” is here: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2.5

          Please note: IT CHANGES EVERYDAY. I took some time and satisfied myself about Tony’s claims of fake data. You can find the hand written records of station data here:

          http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/IPS/coop/coop.html

          I found several in my researches that had written notice of closure in the records, and yet there is a continuing stream of “data” from those closed stations.

          My advice: keep each daily data file, and start comparing them. You’ll be amazed at what you see.

  3. pyromandcer76 says:

    Yes, this is deception of the highest order. Stephen Goddard has continued researching this fraudulent aspect when Anthony Watts seemed to decline to follow his original station studies with the vigor they required. WUWT remains a must if you want all the scientific method on climate change, however. And change the climate does, often right out from under civilizations (see Bond events).

    If you want the computer coding in detail as to how it is done, go to chiefio.wordpress.com and search for temperature frauds (E.M. Smith). He has it all catalogued. Therefore, Stephen does not have to do this; he can spend his time — where is most perfectly talented — calling out the frauds where they lie with a razor sharp wit. The perpetrators are elites who want to empty our bank accounts while they accomplish a human-caused crash of modern western civilization., Thank you, Stephen. Thank you. Thank you.

  4. Daavid A says:

    I see several things here. Warmist often say that the average T is not what they measure, but the anomaly, so the average does not matter. However they do both (Warmest year ever is based on both) Ignoring an area local reading,, and infilling a warmer reading, is increasing the anomaly as well. They also drop the number of stations. This gives more mathematical power to fewer readings. (The average area measured per reading has increased, making any individual bias more potent)

    Likely this explains the divergence from the satellites, and there may even be a good correlation to that divergence, and the number of in-filled readings?

  5. DSC says:

    This goes back to just before the ICCC-9 conference in July where Tony was a speaker. Anthony Watts cried “Pants of Fire” but later retracted in lengthty post after Judith Curry & Paul Homewood confirmed Tony’s work. (see The scientific method is at work on the USHCN temperature data set
    Anthony Watts / June 28, 2014)
    Tony in the end will be the one remembered as the single most responsible person to bring down this fraud perpetrated on the world.

    • Scott Scarborough says:

      He will be remembered by a few of us at least. But the world doesn’t work that way. The big shots never get called to task. It will all just get covered over and they will come out with a new scare story that will be harder to prove wrong.

  6. Gail Combs says:

    I am copying some of this because it says the same thing Tony does, but for the global data.

    Temperature stations : how many have data adjusted?

    …A previous post looked at the how the number of stations used in reporting climatic temperature data through the NOAA GHCN database has varied since 1880. Here, before starting to examing the effects of adjustment, I’m simply looking at how much of the data is adjusted. It’s a lot actually. I’m not going to do too much discussion here; I just really want to let the graphs speak for themselves….

    https://diggingintheclay.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/totaland25.png

    Figure 2. Graph showing the total number of stations in the NOAA/GHCN database and the (black line) percentage that are adjusted by year.

    Looking at the adjustments by region is quite revealing too. In Figure 3 there is quite a bit of variability in the percentage adjustments by region. Antarctica starts with 100% adjustment becuase data from Base Orcadas (60S) is modified and pasted into the record prior to any stations below 64S reporting data in 1945. Data from Europe, Asia and the South-West Pacific (Australia, New Zealand, Indonesia, Malaysia etc.) are adjusted most, whilst African data is adjusted least….

    https://diggingintheclay.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/all25.png

    Figure 3. Regional percentages of adjusted data: numbers of adjusted stations for each region are expressed as a percentage of the total number of stations.

  7. tallbloke says:

    Reblogged this on Tallbloke's Talkshop and commented:
    .
    .
    Whole lotta ‘estimating’ going on. And it has increased dramatically. Why? Infilling from non-rural stations into rural raises the ‘adjusted’ temperature according to Steve Goddard.

  8. markstoval says:

    Can anyone help me with this?

    I would like to see a graph of US temperatures from around 1900 until today. The data would come from sites that are not near cities or airports. The data would hopefully come from sites in service the whole time. Has anyone done anything close to this? Can it even be done?

    • Gail Combs says:

      I think that is the raw dataset that Steve uses:

      The United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) is a high-quality data set of daily and monthly records of basic meteorological variables from 1218 observing stations across the 48 contiguous United States…. Most of these stations are U.S. Cooperative Observing Network stations located generally in rural locations, while some are National Weather Service First-Order stations that are often located in more urbanized environments. …. The period of record varies for each station. USHCN stations were chosen using a number of criteria including length of record, percent of missing data, number of station moves and other station changes that may affect data homogeneity, and resulting network spatial coverage…
      http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/background.html

      I do not know if Steve uses a subset of the above.

      Then combine that with: US – Instructions for voluntary observers 1892

    • KuhnKat says:

      Moshpup commonly challenges people to select the stations for him to run a temp series. I have requested several times that he use all stations not subject to human influence. Needless to say he has NEVER taken up the challenge. Actually there are damn few stations that would apply to. He knows it yet still rants that UHI is virtually nonexistent in the US even though there is a large difference between city and surrounds temps!!

      Yeah, the man is a lying liar along with Phil Jones and others.

      • Daavid A says:

        I have repeatedly challenged Mr. Mosher to explain just the Iceland adjustments at one station, before he tries to justify the entire FUBAR surface record we now have. He ignores every attempt at reasonable discussion.

        • DD More says:

          Yes, and someone else ask why they were adjusting the South Pole station readings. Taken on fully automated, hourly readings by climate scientists. No answer on that one either.

      • Ernest Bush says:

        Quoting from another site: “Steven Mosher is an English major with a long career in marketing and technology.” Mosher is a troll who delights in causing chaotic discussions at skeptic sites about meaningless drivel. THAT is what he is expert at. Scientist at those sites will spend a ridiculous amount of time trying to correct him. He thrives on that. If he were ignored he would fade away.

        • Ben Vorlich says:

          bit of a drive-by merchant at WUWT to boot.

        • Streetcred says:

          He’s a seagull, flies in sh1ts on you and flies off … and you spend too much time wiping the sh1t off and cleaning up.Meantime, he has the hot chip (nothing faster than a seagull after a hot chip) and is sitting back laughing.

  9. omanuel says:

    Steven Goddard seems to be the first to realize the implications of Joseph Stalin’s decision in OCT 1945 to ally with an international network of geophysicists to “save the world from nuclear annihilation” by fabricating a matrix of complete deceit about the Earth-Sun system.

    Regretfully, Anthony Watts has little or no comprehension of physics.

  10. gator69 says:

    “Top Debunker Of The Year”

    or…

    “Why I No Longer Visit Watts’ Site”

    • markstoval says:

      Good for you.

      Tony can get all snarky with those of us who don’t toe the luke-warming line on what CO2 does but he does not delete posts and threaten people over our scientific postition. (well there was that one little threat, but was most out of character) At WUWT one had better never sound like a “slayer” or post a link to a “slayer site”. (did not know about them until Anthony threatened a guy and I went a-googling to see what it was all about)

      As CO2 skyrockets and raw temperature data stays pretty well constant a logical man would have to say that, on net, CO2 does not do squat.

      • gator69 says:

        “…have to say that, on net, CO2 does not do squat.”

        My understanding is that additional CO2 does do diddly squat as far as recent climate change is concerned, and that is the ground upon which all skeptics should stand and agree. And for God’s sake, enough of the own goal crap.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6xYxfYdS5o

        As the announcer says at the end, “Watch and Learn”.

        • markstoval says:

          “And for God’s sake, enough of the own goal crap.”

          The Scottish Sceptic wrote a pretty good post on good physics and horrible PR. Well worth a read if you missed it.

          http://scottishsceptic.co.uk/2014/07/04/skydragons-good-physics-appalling-pr/

        • Gail Combs says:

          I will have to agree with you Mark.

          The ‘Slayer’ stuff? does not hurt to look at it. No One has a corner on ‘Truth’

          I think we can all agree that as Gator said, adding more CO2 at the present levels does diddly except it makes plants grow better. Something that a colder climate makes imperative.

        • gator69 says:

          Yep, that post pretty much sums up what I have been able to grasp of this whole affair. I still think that the ‘Greenhouse Theory’ as it has been sold to the world, is so poorly contrived, that it needs to be renamed and rebranded. Just as ‘Continental Drift’ became “Plate Tectonics’.

  11. Dave N says:

    You can’t debunk without providing proof that can be replicated. I can say someone is “wrong”, but that isn’t proof.

    On Watts’ retraction: apparently “Tobbar” doesn’t keep up to date.

  12. DHF says:

    You have already solved the problem – improve your arguments. A. Friend

  13. markstoval says:

    Gail Combs wrote: No One has a corner on ‘Truth’

    Amen sister, amen. That is what science is all about. That is what M. Mann refused to do — put all his theory, data, methods, and all the rest out there for everyone to see and comment on.

    Science is always wrong to some degree and over time we should progress and get closer to the “truth” using the scientific method. Science is about ever better explanations of this bizarre and wonderful universe we live in. But mostly science is about data and experiments. (in my biased opinion at least)

    The Hockey Schtick pointed out that James Clerk Maxwell is arguably the greatest physicist of all time on the topics of heat and radiation. Maxwell debunked the idea of the luke-warmers on CO2. One of his (HS not Maxwell of course) many posts on the topic here: http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/12/maxwells-demon-proves-why-cold-gases.html

    Disclaimer: I am a huge fan of Maxwell for various reasons.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Mark,
      I can see where Anthony is coming from. He is trying to walk a very fine line. Going out side the ‘box’ far enough to show CAGW is a crock without alienating too many of the establishment scientists. So in that he does the rest of us a great service.

      Others can take a walk on the wild side. They may be wrong but perhaps they will be headed in the correct general direction. Observation generally comes before mechanism, sometimes centuries before.

      What is really great is the discussion and the fact that none of us see ‘Climate Science’ exactly the same and that is as it should be.

      • darrylb says:

        Gail, if you are able to put together info that you suggested in a couple of threads ago, I would be glad to pay you for the consolidated info especially if you can put it in a hard copy.
        Of course I would have to analyze it, but I have a large amount of trust in you

      • darrylb says:

        Also, RE WUWT, he IMHO is trying to do an honest job.
        We have to accept the fact that we all are going to make some mistakes.
        It was the alarmist, arrogant attitude that caused me to doubt the magnitude of what was being professed (about six years ago). That skepticism has grown ever since.
        I also follow several other including Judith at Climate etc, which I recommend because she is simply being honest and in doing so has damaged her career, as has happened to others Steven G. has mentioned. There are some obnoxious jerks at Climate etc.
        The ones I like to challenge are Schmidt at Real Climate and the jerks at the antithetically named skeptical science.

      • markstoval says:

        Gail,

        “Mark,
        I can see where Anthony is coming from. He is trying to walk a very fine line”

        I can see that as well. I don’t fault him for never selecting a post to put up that deviates from the Jim Hansen line. After all, editorial control says a lot about any organization. I also can see not letting the comment area be overwhelmed by a few crazies pushing whatever line they want to push.

        But I saw a single comment out of several hundred a while back on one thread that just said that CO2 did not do what everyone thought it did — and Anthony told the fellow to “take that Slayer trash elsewhere or be banned”. (that is a paraphrase from memory so take it with a grain of salt) I think that is being overly paranoid. After all, Steve at this site is not responsible for every comment made and neither is Anthony at his site.

        I think there is such a thing as “back radiation” and there is also such a thing as “the atmospheric effect” (some folks call that the “greenhouse effect”) but I have come to be convinced that Jim Hansen’s theory is trash and the atmospheric effect works differently than what we are telling the “man in the street”. Steve Goddard will allow that comment to stand here (prediction is the heart of science — even political science) while I fear that is very close to the line for a comment at WUWT.

        ~ Mark

        • Gail Combs says:

          Oh, I agree Mark. That is why I am here and at ChiefIO’s and at Jo Nova’s and sometimes Tallblokes. I read WUWT but I do not comment very much.

          I do not think Anthony would appreciate it if I let loose my sense of humor but the guys here don’t care. Refreshing!

  14. Gail Combs says:

    O/T – Debunking an old Clim-Astrologist. Eat your words David Viner (Children just won’t know what snow is)
    Heavy snowfall in Britain leaves travellers stranded

    Wild and wintry weather has swept the UK, with travellers left stranded as heavy snow covered roads and forced two airports to close.

    Many motorists simply abandoned their vehicles as drivers became stuck in Sheffield….

    A coachload of people travelling from Sheffield to London had to take refuge in a church after their bus became stuck in the snow ….

    The Met Office had earlier said there was a 90 per cent chance of severe cold, ice or snow in parts of England between this afternoon and New Year’s Eve.

    An area including Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales, the Midlands, East Anglia, the North West, Yorkshire and as far south east as London and Kent has been put on a separate yellow alert for snow by the Met Office.

    Christmas night was the coldest night of the year so far, with minus 8.5C recorded at Braemar in Aberdeenshire.

    Temperatures could also drop as low as minus 10C in some places at the start of next week as the cloud and wet weather gives way to clearer skies.

    Mother Nature gave Germany a late Christmas gift too. (The Germans are naming their snow storms)
    panorama videos of “Hiltrud”
    From Google translate:

    Temperatures down to minus 26 degrees
    Hurricane “Hiltrud” brings more snow and freezing cold… “Hiltrud” brings to the south and southwest plenty of snow and winter weather. For the new year, the mercury drops below minus 10 degrees. Almost everywhere there sleekness. (sleet I think)…

    • Sophie says:

      I live in the midlands in the uk, we had a dusting of snow when we went out on Boxing day and that is all. There is a lot of exaggeration for what we used to call winter. Although not last year,but during the previous few years we had heavy snow falls. It caught me by surprise as I I’d got rid of all my heavy duty cold weather clothes, because of being told we would have warmer winters/no snow and because around the turn of the century, the winters were getting warmer. For a few years we saw the spring coming early, now it is all back to normal.

  15. darrylb says:

    This may be a repeat—-but
    If we can have 3,000 plus argo floats worldwide sending info on temp and ocean salinity to satellites, and also if knowing temps worldwide is of such great importance, then why can’t we replace (or initially place nearby all temp stations with systems that
    1) can read and record every second– not any time of day bias
    2) do not need humans present to gather information
    3) can probably be used to determine the effects of nearby residual heat sources.
    4) Give greater precision and accuracy
    5) Give information of much more than just temperature
    6) –and more

  16. omanuel says:

    The scientific revolution began in 1543 with Copernicus’ report of a fountain of energy at the core of the solar system (Sol) and ended 1945 with Stalin’s decision to hide the source of energy:

    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Solar_Energy.pdf

  17. omanuel says:

    The good news is Stalin’s geophysicists cannot hide the true nature of the Sun!

    The bad news is that society will suffer a lot of unnecessary grief if they think CO2 controls Earth’s climate.

    See: Stuart Clark, The Sun Kings: The unexpected tragedy of Richard Carrington and the tale of how modern astronomy began (Princeton University Press, 2007) 224 pages http://www.bookslut.com/nonfiction/2007_07_011472.php http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/0691141266

    • Ernest Bush says:

      I think society is already suffering a lot of unnecessary grief because of the CAGW belief. It looks like our planet’s climate system is about to school us all about the lack of a large role for CO2 in the climate system. Hopefully we are only entering a mini ice age.

      • omanuel says:

        I agree, Ernest.

        The pulsar core of the Sun will reveal itself at a time that we cannot predict.

        Historically, it happened on 1 Sept 1859 to initiate the study of modern astronomy.

        The record of cosmic-ray atoms at the Earth’s surface indicates exposure to the Sun’s pulsar core in 775 AD.

  18. rah says:

    Media Research Center’s Year-End Awards: The Planet in Peril Award for Climate Hysteria

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rich-noyes/2014/12/23/year-end-awards-planet-peril-award-climate-hysteria

  19. rah says:

    Perhaps it would be interesting to doing your own awards here at Real Science Tony. Awards for such bunk from the scientific community and their publications and not from the liberal media and their obviously observationally challenged chattering class as MRC does.

    Then for each given year there after there would be a record.

  20. omanuel says:

    Five years ago Climategate emails revealed a serious problem that world leaders are still seeking to avoid:

    Stalin won WWII during unreported CHAOS & FEAR of nuclear annihilation in Aug-Sept 1945 and formed the UN on 24 Oct 1945 to “save the world” from annihilation by recruiting geophysicists to build a “Matrix of Deceit” to block public knowledge of energy in the Earth-Sun system.

    Stalin died in the 1950s, but world leaders do not know how to escape the “Matrix” themselves without being punished for having betrayed the public since 1945.

    That is where we need to concentrate our efforts now: Identifying a win-win solution to a problem that now threatens the survival of humanity.

  21. gallopingcamel says:

    So how many stations do you need to estimate the average temperature of the USA? Can we get by with one?

    Four years ago, before I was banned from Skeptical Scienec I used to point out to them that discarding 90% of the station data was non-science = nonsense. The SKS faithful assured me that the number of stations would not affect the result. If that is true then one station should be as good as 1,000:
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=2&t=78&&n=164#11144

    Eventually I got tired of arguing with zealots who are super sensitive to dissident ideas:
    http://www.gallopingcamel.info/docs/DeletedCamel.doc

  22. Wizzum says:

    Anthony, the Y – Axis on your last graph is labeled Degrees C when it should be Percentage of Stations or something.

  23. globalcooler says:

    Reblogged this on Globalcooler's Weblog and commented:
    They are making it up. We are talking about the United States of America making up temperature data to push an agenda. Some might say Agenda 21.This is a dangerous situation. Your freedom is at stake and it is being disguised as an innocent temperature trend. This needs to stop. Senator Inhofe, we need your help.

Leave a Reply

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