My Climate Forecast From Three Years Ago

I’ll bet the hottest dataset wins the biggest government grant.”

– Dr. Roy Spencer

NASA’s surface temperatures have been steadily altered over time to cool pre-1970 temperatures, and warm post-1970 temperatures. This creates the appearance of warming, which is necessary to keep government grants coming in to the agency.

1981: Challenge_chapter2.pdf         2001: Fig.A.ps     current: Fig.A.gif 

During March of 2015, I predicted that Carl Mears at RSS, under extreme pressure from the climate mafia,  would alter his satellite data to match the fraudulent NASA surface temperature data sets.

Look for the satellite data to be adjusted to bring it into compliance with the fully fraudulent surface temperatures. The Guardian is now working to discredit UAH, so it seems likely that RSS will soon be making big changes – to match the needs of the climate mafia. Bookmark this post.

And that is exactly what happened. I captured this image about a year ago, which showed that both satellite data sets (RSS and UAH) closely matched, and diverged sharply from NASA’s surface temperatures.

This is the current version of the same graph.  The RSS satellite data has been tampered with to make it match the NASA surface data.

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

The next graph shows the changes to the RSS satellite data since early last year.

The only two people who were qualified to review this data tampering by RSS, Dr. Roy Spencer and Dr. John Christy, were not consulted and the changes were not submitted for peer review to them.

Here were Dr. Spencer’s predictions from January, 2017.

“I expect there will soon be a revised TLT product from RSS which shows enhanced warming, too.

Here’s what I’m predicting:

1) neither John Christy nor I will be asked to review the paper

2) it will quickly sail through peer review (our UAH V6 paper is still not in print nearly 1 year after submission)

3) it will have many authors, including climate model people and the usual model pundits (e.g. Santer), which will supposedly lend legitimacy to the new data adjustments.

Let’s see how many of my 3 predictions come true.

-Roy”

Roy Spencer’s Prediction | The Deplorable Climate Science Blog

The climate mafia quickly trumpeted their latest corruption of science :

Climate change sceptics suffer blow as satellite data correction shows 140% faster global warming | The Independent

Conservatives are again denying the very existence of global warming | Dana Nuccitelli | Environment | The Guardian

Global warming is the biggest scam in history, and the only climate forecast that is reliable is that climate scientists will do whatever they have to to keep their funding coming in.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to My Climate Forecast From Three Years Ago

  1. arn says:

    Imagine weather/climate would become as predictable as AGW scientists.

    Won’t happen as one is a supercomplex system while
    the others are a bunch of primitive prostitutes who disguise the statistics
    about their own ever increasing corruption as global warming hockey stick- once you know how an automaton works it is easy to predict.

    And this won’t change as long as these people get paid to have a very specific opinion.

  2. Graham Kirk says:

    Just how long can this corruption go on?!!!

  3. Edmonton Al says:

    Trump has been in for over a year now and still this section of the swamp has not been drained.
    WHY????

    • neal s says:

      PDJT’s MAGA approach is unlike anything ever seen before in our lifetimes. There are many trillions of dollars at stake in keeping everything going as it had before. (Downhill and ever faster too). PDJT has many many enemies, and far too few friends, other than us deplorables. There is corruption deep within nearly every government agency and many who would like nothing better than to remove PDJT from office one way or another.

      There is a huge effort underway to clean up the swamp. For information on how things are progressing, visit https://theconservativetreehouse.com/

      Should PDJT be removed from office, then all hope of MAGA and draining the swamp will be gone. PDJT must be careful to strategically clear out those portions of the deep state that are the most corrupt and the biggest threat to his continued presidency. I take heart in the fact that there are well over 9000 sealed indictments at this time all across our country. (Largest increase in sealed indictments in a given time-frame ever)

      Interesting things could happen as early as the state of the union address, but certainly before the next general election.

      But don’t worry too much. The more brazen and extreme the tampering, the easier it will be to prove malfeasance later when the time is right.

      “Complicated business … complicated business”

  4. Squidly says:

    Tony .. this is absolutely STUNNING!

    OMG! .. the blatant audacity! .. we need to spread this information far and wide!

  5. RAH says:

    I remember that later, after that prediction, you also said they were starting to fool with the Radiosonde data. Any news on the status of that?

  6. Phil. says:

    The only two people who were qualified to review this data tampering by RSS, Dr. Roy Spencer and Dr. John Christy, were not consulted and the changes were not submitted for peer review to them.

    Here were Dr. Spencer’s predictions from January, 2017.

    “I expect there will soon be a revised TLT product from RSS which shows enhanced warming, too.

    Here’s what I’m predicting:

    1) neither John Christy nor I will be asked to review the paper

    2) it will quickly sail through peer review (our UAH V6 paper is still not in print nearly 1 year after submission)

    3) it will have many authors, including climate model people and the usual model pundits (e.g. Santer), which will supposedly lend legitimacy to the new data adjustments.

    Let’s see how many of my 3 predictions come true.

    -Roy”

    They’re hardly the only two qualified reviewers, Po-Chedley and Fu who along with Mears were among those who pointed out the errors in Christy and Spencer’s original product would obviously be suitable.

    As to Roy’s predictions:
    A paper on TLT following the already published paper on TMT would obviously be expected, since it also suffers from similar problems. In fact it had been submitted to the journal in Oct 2016 before Spencer’s prediction.
    It took the usual time to get through review, online version out in about a year.
    It had 2 authors.
    They were postdictions not predictions.

    • tonyheller says:

      Mears altered his data to match GISS, which had been previously altered to match theory. Utter garbage and junk science.

      • Gator says:

        Remotely sensed data must be verified by in situ observations, the problem is that those observations have now been altered. So now we are adjusting actual data to fit biased artifacts of analysis.

      • Phil. says:

        No he didn’t, he did exactly what Christy and Spencer did, correct for satellite drift. The method used was completely described in their paper, nothing to do with GISS.

  7. Rud Istvan says:

    First Karlization, and now Mearsation. Warmunists never seem to realize that skeptics have good memories and know how to screen capture. The most egregious example is NOAA’s switch in early 2014 from Drd964x to nClimDiv for state by state reporting. Used California, Michigan, and Maine as examples in essay When Data Isnt in ebook Blowing Smoke.

  8. Billyjack says:

    There is little difference between the educated clergy of the monarchies who provided credence the the king’s right to rule by divine providence so that they could share in the plunder from the peasants and the government sponsored climate scientists. Their belief system is so persuasive that one would have an easier time arguing the veracity of the virgin birth with an Evangelical than disagree with anthropogenic CO2 warming.

  9. GW Smith says:

    Great one, Tony. Nails them to the wall. Who could argue it?

Leave a Reply

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