Hardly a day goes by without expert comments like this appearing in comment sections, like this one from yesterday.
All reported warming in the US over the past 25 years is due to infilling fabricated data.
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.
The station data being fabricated is dominantly from rural stations, which are being infilled with surrounding urban stations
Fake temperatures are marked with an “E” in their final database, as seen below in the 2008-2011 January-June data for Cadiz, Ohio.
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.
Could we get some more context? Did Watts really say you were wrong? Where was this? What is the Reason magazine thing?
I was thinking the same. Context would be helpful in understanding this.
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.
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.
Anthony shot from the hip called Steve a liar and then had to retract. Unfortunately he picked a very critical piece of evident and effectively killed it. When ever this evidence is brought up the first thing a warmist will say is “Well EVEN ANTHONY WATTS said that data is not good.”
Yes, the whole episode was a nightmare.
And all we have to do is show the retraction. WHich is not that bad when you think about it. It shows the purveyor to be the fool.
Liberals don’t respond well to changes in their narrative, Phil. See ‘Hands up, don’t shoot’. The retraction would no doubt fall on deaf ears.
We will never know about a retraction as the MSM does not admit mistakes, they bury them.
Mark,
I think Anthony might have been suffering from a bit of ‘mosh-pupitisis’
Wasn’t there a minor error in the original claim and and the “puppets” got very excited and vocal to dismiss the premise of the claim, and then it was immediately corrected showing that the original claim was indeed correct after all. And the “puppets became really sad and quiet again..
It reminds me of these guys behave ‘stanton and waldorf’
http://img4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110325180958/muppet/images/3/3d/TMS-Statler%26Waldorf-BalconyBox.jpg
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.
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.
Moving from the PRO Colorado to the SRO Maryland. 😉
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.
Thanks! That’s very enlightening. Funny how it was dismissed out of hand.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Besides Steve, E. M Smith(ChiefIO and Verity Jones (DigginginTheClay) have looked at the drop of stations world wide.
This one explains it best: GHCN – GIStemp Interactions – The Bolivia Effect There are many more blogs around that time period.
Such as these:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/06/gistemp-for-tonyb-and-step2-selection-bias/
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/08/05/agw-is-a-thermometer-count-artifact/
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/02/15/thermometer-zombie-walk/
More from E.M Smith – On Airport surface stations:
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/04/27/two-airports/
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/06/15/an-example-airport-issue/
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/07/27/more-airports-hotter-than-nearby-stations/
And now for Verity Jones (Digging in the Clay):
(dT is the change in temperature)
http://diggingintheclay.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/canadadt.png
Graph from:
Canada – Top of the Hockey League (Part 1) – The Shape of the Data
The ‘Station drop out’ problem
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
How is this awesome piece of scientific work ignored?
Wouldn’t you ignore it if your paycheck depended on continuing the fantasy?
+1
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.
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?
I think that is the raw dataset that Steve uses:
I do not know if Steve uses a subset of the above.
Then combine that with: US – Instructions for voluntary observers 1892
Thanks Gail. I’ll look into that when I get some time. I agree with Steve that the raw data is what we should all be looking at.
What I like best is when Tony uses the entire set of “continuously active” stations, for the entire data set. This to me is the best overall US criteria we have.
Gail, Steve stated…”USHCN has 1,218 stations in their database”, so yes it is the same as your “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”
=================================
What I do not get is how these 1,218 US stations reported by Steven, changes to less then 100 according to this graph…. https://i0.wp.com/www.climateapplications.com/GHCN/images/Raw_NandCAmerica_Unstacked.png
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.
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.
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.
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.
bit of a drive-by merchant at WUWT to boot.
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.
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.
I can’t complain about Anthony. For years I had proof that lies were being promoted as consensus science but did not have the courage to say so.
Do you have a link for “stalins matrix earth sun system”?
SxyxS,
Two falsehoods became consensus science (Standard Models) of cores of atoms and stars in 1946.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/WHY.pdf
For seven decades, these falsehoods hid the fact that the Sun is the creator and sustainer of every atom, life and world in the solar system – a volume greater than the combined volumes of 10,000,000,000,000,000,000 Earth’s!
You also need to understand three historical events that changed the course of world history:
1. Aston’s PROMISE & WARNING about energy nuclear on 12 Dec 1922
2. Unreported CHAOS & FEAR of nuclear annihilation in Aug-Sept 1945
3. Formation of the United Nations on 24 Oct 1945
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/CHAOS_and_FEAR_August_1945.pdf
“Top Debunker Of The Year”
or…
“Why I No Longer Visit Watts’ Site”
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.
“…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”.
“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/
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.
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’.
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.
“Tobbar” spelt his name incorrectly … it should be “towbar” … same hard knucklehead!
You have already solved the problem – improve your arguments. A. Friend
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.
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.
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
Darryl,
Refresh my memory on the info you want and I will see what I can do.
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.
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
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!
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
Mother Nature gave Germany a late Christmas gift too. (The Germans are naming their snow storms)
panorama videos of “Hiltrud”
From Google translate:
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.
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
Insufficient opportunity for data tampering and graft?
The types of data gathered and the coverage makes the results as useful as those from opinion polling. Asking the same questions more often of the same people doesn’t give you better coverage nor any idea about the things that aren’t asked.
I like Colorado Wellington’s explanation better. I would add to that it would eliminate too many government jobs. Look what automation did to the automobile industry.
Automobile? Try banking and ATMs. Just look at how Obama tried to vilify them to excuse his own incompetence!
Ernest, I just applied an event probability theory popularized by Professor Glenn Reynolds.
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
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
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.
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.
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
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.
Pointman already has: Climate Prat of 2014 – We have a winnah!
Enjoy…
Turney of the “Ship of Fools” had to win. Just had to win. Glad to see his crown! 😉
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.
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
Anthony, the Y – Axis on your last graph is labeled Degrees C when it should be Percentage of Stations or something.
Don’t know where I pulled Anthony from, I was thinking Tony or Steven but my fingers did their own thing.
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.
Steven Goddard turn animation.
http://weather.gc.ca/satellite/animateweb_e.html?imagetype=satellite&imagename=goes_nam_1070x_m_………………jpg&nbimages=1&clf=1