Climate Mafia At Work

During March of 2015, I predicted that Carl Mears at Remote Sensing Systems RSS, under extreme pressure from the climate mafia,  would alter his data to match the fraudulent 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.


That is exactly what happened. The RSS web page used to have this graph, showing how badly climate models have failed. “The simulations as a whole are predicting too much warming”

Climate Analysis | Remote Sensing Systems

They have since altered their graph and changed the text to say : “there is a small discrepancy between the model predictions and the satelllite observations.”

Remote Sensing Systems

One would expect that Dr. Carl Mears would know how to spell satellite, and that he would also notice that even after he changed the data there is still a very large discrepancy between the models and observations, with observations falling at the very lower end of the model range.  But let’s look how he changed the data. He simply got rid of his error range (light blue) and moved the temperature (black line) up to the very top of his error range.

Even after doing this data tampering, RSS still shows the current temperature outside the model 95% confidence range (yellow.)

Prior to the data tampering, RSS agreed quite closely with the other satellite data set from the University of Alabama at Huntsville, but they now show an extra 0.15 degrees of warming.

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

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 are 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 Spencer’s Prediction | The Deplorable Climate Science Blog

The climate mafia has many carrot/stick tactics to force compliance, but nearly everyone in the academic community sooner or later falls in line with their demands.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

74 Responses to Climate Mafia At Work

  1. Griff says:

    These satellites don’t measure temps directly… there’s a lot of ‘adjustment’ in getting any results. Why should the UAH model be any more reliable? We do know they have decided on the proof they want before they look at the results…

    • Gator says:

      Oh look! A hypocritical genocidal climate alarmist. Always hates poor brown people, but only hates adjustments when they disagree with her agenda.

    • jbsay says:

      Thermometers do not measure temperatures directly.
      Unlike ground based measures whatever adjustment in satellites are going to be uniform and predictable – there are not 10’s of thousands of humans making independent errors.
      Unlike ground based measures the raw data is available to any of us and we can verify ourselves.

      UAH and RSS use the same satellite data. You can compare their methods determine the differences and decide why you chose one over the other.

    • AZ1971 says:

      Because their spatial coverage is the entire globe, instead of a few selected ground-based locations that require double-paired homogenization to yield an “accurate” mean? Is that reason enough or does it scare your sensibilities?

    • AndyG55 says:

      poor griff, you never did understand anything to do with actual science, did you. !

    • AndyG55 says:

      “Why should the UAH model be any more reliable?”

      Because its not part of the AGW Agenda trough.

    • AndyG55 says:

      Maybe you would prefer this graph?

    • Former95B says:

      Accessory to fraud is a felony.

      Under the “Precautionary Principle” , tying it to likely (98%) global genocide (didn’t a bunch of enviroNazis say we should reduce the Earth’s population by 4 billion or so?), it would be a crime against humanity, punishable by execution.

      The likelihood of catastrophic Climate change is 1%

    • Robert B says:

      Only about 25% of the data to get global average temperature anomaly for the past 100 years exists. The rest needs to be filled in. This is done assuming the mean of maximum and minimum readings is an intensive property even though there is usually a large movement of air in the 6-12_hours in between.
      At least the UAH measures most of the globe and doesn’t make up any of the numbers.

  2. Hivemind says:

    Hasn’t this article been published before? If not, would you please indicate which part is new.


  3. neal s says:

    I note a few places where the 2018 line lies outside the 2015 error band. So this means some combination of lying and/or incompetence, either now or then or both.

  4. Jimmy Haigh says:

    Climate Scum.

  5. frederik wisse says:

    These people ara lot worse than the mafia .The mafia was a society of sicilians under pressure of hundreds of years of foreign government . Mafia is in essence not the proper wording of their oath to secrecy , which is better described as omerta . These people are looking for the opposite ,publicity to advance their criminal goals . Mafia started as an honorable society where men were proud to be men of their words , that it later degenerated has more to do with human weaknessess like greedyness and jealousy than with the essence of mafia . To compare these climate-gangsters with mafia is giving them to much honor . We are dealing here with the scum of the earth showing no respect for any decency or morals to further their objective : The destruction of western society as we know it . Thank you Tony for keeping us awake .

    • arn says:

      Well-they have a lot in common.
      Both starter with good intentions(mafiusi=brave man) and both
      were corrupted with taxes.
      Similar the carbon tax
      the modern day mafia was turned into a criminal organisation by the tax collectors=gabelluttis.
      They constantly were rising the taxes((as big government) and permanently created new ways of income(eg. protection money,drug smuggling(air america etc)
      and they are coordinated in a semi secret way(p2 lodge)
      similar to the bilderbergers,CFR and trillateral commisions.

      They keep their members in line with a certain set of unwritten laws of buttkissing and silence.
      And the buttkissers are kept socialy and economically dependent
      to keep them in line.
      And both therefore are fascist by default((the mafia helped mussolini to grab power))

    • Robertv says:

      Like pirates were free men living in a real democracy fighting oppressive kings. George Washington in that sense was a pirate like the founding fathers.

  6. Disillusioned says:

    Disillusionment is a good thing.

  7. Robertv says:

    The Climate Mafia puppets are only a small part of the organisation enslaving We The People. Follow the yellow brick road.

  8. realtime says:

    Hey, PeterGriffith@seeoh2 ! Is that you Griff ??

  9. Nicholas Schroeder, BSME, PE says:

    “back” radiation bogosity

    RGHE theory could not exist without the concept of “back” radiation, energy/heat moving backwards, swimming upstream, without added work, from a cold tropospheric “surface” to a hot ground “surface.”

    Consider a small heated rod, surface area 1, inside a larger outer tube, surface area 2.
    The heated rod is fed 25 watts of electricity, its temperature rises and over 0.5 m^2 the radiative flux is 50 W/m^2.

    The outer tube absorbs that radiation. It’s temperature also rises but not as high as the rod’s and with 2.0 m^2, four times the area, its radiative flux is 12.5 W/m^2.

    RGHE theory says that 50 W/m^2 radiate outward but 12.5 W/m^2 radiate backwards for a net of 37.5 W/m^2, the “back” radiation warming the earth as a greenhouse supposedly does. (It doesn’t, but lets move on.)

    A small surface at a high temp versus a large area at a low temperature.
    The problem stems from amatuers confusing power and energy.

    A watt is not energy, but power, energy over time: 3.412 Btu per English hour or 3.6 kJ per metric hour.

    25 watts is 85.3 Btu/h.
    25 W spread over surface area 1 yielding 50 W/m^2 moves 85.3 Btu/h.
    That 25 W/85.3 Btu/h moves on to surface 2.
    25 W spread over surface area 2 yields 12.5 W/m^2 and also moves 85.3 Btu/h.
    Conservation of energy demands that input and output must be equal.
    The 25 W that entered as electricity left surface 1 moved onto surface 2 which must then radiate it to the world.

    There is exactly ZERO left over to “back” radiate and RHGE goes into the same trash can as cold fusion and a flat earth – except in Boulder.

  10. duwayne says:

    Is it possible to get the link to the graph on the RSS site?

  11. Richard Keen says:

    Hey, I like the tilted graph in the first chart here. Tony does it sarcastically, but the Union of Soviet Socialist Scientists (UCS in cyrillic) does that for real. Here’s UCS’s Brenda Ekwurzel tilting a chart to somehow make the point that anyone who disagrees with UCS dogma is spreading “misinformation”:
    Go to 1:06 is you wish to miss the pictures of the babies who will be harmed by o.2C of warming.

  12. GW says:

    Any idea what made Mears surrender his integrity (specifics) ?
    And what is keeping Christy & Spencer from yielding ? We would assume they face the same pressures, carrots & sticks.

  13. Eben says:

    Doesn’t anyone question that RSS measured temperature error range is getting so much bigger to the present from the tiny range in the past, How is that even possible ???

  14. AndyG55 says:

    MASSIVE changes from RSSv3.3 to RSSv4.0

  15. AndyG55 says:

    Interestingly, RSS v$ still shows…

    NO WARMING from 1980-1997

  16. oldbrew says:

    If the data needs adjusting, what was the quality of it anyway?

    • terak says:

      New datasets are better than old ones and the quality improves. Denialists deny this of course.

      • AndyG55 says:


        We have a contender for DUMBEST troll. displacing griff .. looks like by a wide margin.

        “New datasets are better than old ones “

        Only if the new data is SCIENCE driven, not AGENDA driven.

        Here is a new data set of Arctic sea ice, driven by SCIENCE not Agenda.

        • terak says:

          Well, I see people who even deny evolution despite the overwhelming evidence, due to brainwashing-type indoctrination. Never take scientific advice from a person who cannot figure evolution out!

          But that kind of scientific ignorance is off-topic. Why don’t you look at Connolly et. al. for the reconstructed annual arctic sea ice extent? Figure 12 clearly shows we are now way below levels seen since 1900:

          • Gerald Machnee says:

            Re terak;
            First remember that fig 12 is a reconstruction not observations. You cherry picked it.
            However, I prefer fig 11 (c) by the Russian.

          • Former95B says:

            Got your check from Mr. Soros?

          • AndyG55 says:

            You seem to be a MANIC Climate Change Denier, terak

            DENYING that the LIA was an anomalously COLD period that caused EXTREME sea ice levels.

            You should really try to stop displaying such IGNORANCE and DENIAL.

          • AndyG55 says:

            The one I posted matches recorded temperatures.

            GET OVER IT !!

          • AndyG55 says:

            If you accept the last one, you are saying that sea ice is NOT linked to temperatures, and your whole AGW scam goes down the S bend where it belongs.

      • Gator says:

        Amazing that these anti-science Gaia worshippers believe that data can be “improved” and that data is something created in a lab. Of course we recently witnessed one on of the high priests just tell us that they made past data more “pristine” by altering it! ?

        These idiots do not even understand their native tongue.

        • terak says:

          It sounds like you’ve never been involved in making a time-series, or in a scientific activity of any kind. Are you part of the group that cannot “accept” evolution by any chance?

          • Colorado Wellington says:

            Ms Terak, you have an excellent opportunity to demonstrate your scientific acumen by participating in this hands-on scientific experiment.

            You could record a stunning time series and become a household name on TV, even bigger than Bill Nye the Science Guy.

          • Latitude says:

            poor liberals…can only think of people in boxes

          • AndyG55 says:

            You sound like you barely passed primary school.
            Certainly you have NEVER been near any science of any sort.

        • Gator says:

          Ms Terak, temperature data is collected in the field, and it is what you gather, nothing more and nothing less. What man creates is not data, it is at best an artifact of analysis.

          I’m sorry if English is hard for you, but words have meaning, and once temperature data is altered it is no longer data.

          Maybe you should brush up on your vocabulary first, then try reading material that you previously viewed, and let us know if you detect any difference.

          • terak says:

            Thermometers produce voltage I believe. Can you show us the unadjusted average global voltage-series since 1979? It sounds like you do not know jack shit about metrology, unfortunately.

            Also, how did adjustments to the voltage-series cause the arctic sea ice to collapse and trigger extremely widespread retreat of mountain glaciers, and mass-loss from ice sheets? Was it the UHI? :D

          • AndyG55 says:

            Displaying your monumental ignorance.

            So funny !

            We now have dumber and dumbest of the AGW trolls on board.

            Arctic sea ic has NOT collapsed, it has RECOVERED partially from the COLDEST period in 10,000 years.

            Stop being a CLIMATE CHANGE DENIER. terak.

            It makes you look like a brain-dead parrot.

          • Gator says:

            Thermometers produce voltage! Even mercury thermometers? What about MMTS? Are there differences in readings? Does one register more warming than the other? I wonder what a fool believes. ?

            And again Ms Terak, the interglacial triggered the melting of ice. Just as interglacials have done before, it’s kind of a set precedent that needs to disproven before hair brained ideas get a seat at the table.

  17. terak says:

    Gerald, you “prefer” the Russian graph because of your ideological bias, and not because of the innate quality of that research. Denialists do this all the time, without being able to publish studies. The entire climate-denialist world produces about as many published papers per year as a medium-size prolific research-group, but in much shittier quality journals, or even fake journals. Is science too hard for evolution-deniers perhaps? Boo hoo.

    • Griff says:

      Yes… for example, see the persistent posting of MAISIE data here in relation to arctic sea ice, despite repeated detailed information of why this is not a meaningful tool for comparisons…

    • AndyG55 says:

      DENIAL of FACTS is all you poor little sea ice bed-wetter have to keep you together.

      YOU have ZERO facts, and you know it.

      You even DENY that the LIA was the COLDEST period in 10,000 years.
      I bet you both live in warmer places, and use plenty of fossil fuel heat in winter, don’t you.

      You prefer it WARMER, just like 97% of the people on the planet.

    • AndyG55 says:

      Lets see if either of you incontinent, insignificant, little worms can produce one single paper that proves empirically that enhanced atmospheric CO2 causes anything but enhanced plant growth.

      • terak says:

        One paper would convince people who were not convinced by libraries of research for evolution? …the same folks who deny something they call “backradiatiion”? LOL :D

  18. terak says:

    What convinced you folks that evolution is fact and most priests are full of BS?

    • Gator says:

      Why are you changing the subject? Stumped? Evolution has zero to do with this thread.

      Also of note is your broad use of the term “evolution”. Are you referring to macroevolution or microevolution? Do you even know the difference? If your knowledge of evolution is a solid as your knowledge of climate, then I am surprised you can even spell evolution.

      Why not try answering Andy’s question before moving on to a new subject?

      • terak says:

        Species evolved from earlier species, this actually happened and all of DNA proves it directly. Some people are so clueless that they PAY a priest to mislead them in places of worship – those people should ask for their monies back. In other news: there was no global biblical flood either – it’s another myth sold to the gullible.

        My point here is that if you’ve been already brainwashed to believe that evolution is a “scam”, it’s very easy to for you to also believe that Earth scientists are similarly wrong.

    • Kent Clizbe says:


      You can search (ctrl-F) this page for your distraction term, “evolution”.

      Try it. You’ll notice that YOU are the only one mentioning it.


      It’s not the issue under discussion here.

      Try focusing.


  19. terak says:

    I do not take scientific advice from flat-earthers either. Creationists are in the same ark with them…(pun intended).

Leave a Reply

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