Gavin Moves On To The Next Level Of Fraud

No longer satisfied with pushing temperature fraud, Gavin is now pushing sea level fraud.

Amazing how a break in slope appears when they switch methodologies from tide gauges to satellites, including adding a completely fake GIA (global isostatic adjustment) – which if it was legitimate, would have been equally valid for the tide gauge measurements.

Gavin is claiming a 250% jump in sea level rise rates on the exact date when they switched methodologies, and a further jump after 2010. There is not one tide gauge on Earth which shows this break in slope.  Here is the tide gauge by Gavin’s office. There is no increase after 1993, and since 2010 sea level has fallen.

8518750_meantrend.png (1000×400)

The level of fraud in climate science makes Enron accountants look like saints.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

68 Responses to Gavin Moves On To The Next Level Of Fraud

  1. Kris Johanson says:

    That’s an interesting comparison. Enron’s auditor (the Arthur Andersen company), was driven out of business and long time partners lost everything. In addition, many Enron employees went to prison. In the situation above, we have no audit function whatsoever, and apparently no accountability

  2. Anon says:

    If any readers want to explore this in depth, I recommend reading the IPCC reviewer comments about their 2013 Sea Level Rise assessment, before they arrived at a “consensus”. It is difficult reading but contains illuminating comments like:

    There are no full-length graphs of representative high-quality tide gauges. Fig.
    13-17 has graphs going back only to 1970, despite the fact that the best tide gauges go back over 150 years, and despite the fact that the literature indicates that at least 60 years of tide gauge data are needed to determine a robust SLR trend (see for literature references). FAQ13.1 Figure 1a (p.89) has a few such graphs, but shrunk to the size of postage stamps, and only back to 1950. Good quality graphs of full-length tide gauge records from high-quality tide stations are absolutely essential for “grounding” the reader’s understanding of sea level, in particular the (lack of) response (thus far) in rate of SLR to GHG forcings, and the amounts and timescales of typical fluctuation in relative sea level, and the variation in relative sea level trends between locations. The omission of such graphs appears calculated to hide the fact that, thus far, sea level rise has not increased in response to GHG forcings, and will surely be powerful ammunition for critics of the IPCC and its
    Reports. Here’s a good example of such a graph, from one of the longest, best-quality tide stations in the world:

    There is no mention of the fact that, over the nearly 20 years for which we have data, satellite measurements of global MSL have exhibited a deceleration in rate of sea level rise; nor is it mentioned that the various satellites differ significantly from one another in the rates of SLR they are measuring; nor is it mentioned that the satellite which had the broadest coverage of the world’s oceans, Envisat, has had ex postfacto revisions to its data so dramatic that the corrections more than tripled the “measured” rate of sea level rise. Instead, it is claimed that the satellites (as if they were unanimous!) have been measuring about 3.2 mm/yr SLR. That is misleading. Moreover, the reference to agreement between different data processing groups, without mentioning either the disagreement between the data from the different satellites or the huge calculated adjustments, conveys a deceptive impression that the reliability of the result is much stronger than it really is.

    Then on to the lack of ethics and scientific integrity of Gavin Schmidt here:

    How Government Twists Climate Statistics (video)
    Former (Obama) Energy Department Undersecretary Steven Koonin on how bureaucrats spin scientific data.

    • kyle_fouro says:

      Their “rejections” boil down to fundamental distrust of tide gauge trends and preference over sats. But, they trust sats because during certain “years in question” they agree with tide gauges?

      • Anon says:

        Kyle, I can’t say it is trust, but that some satellites provide data that support the most extreme AGW scenarios.

        The fundamental problem is this. Lets say you go out in your backyard and calculate the circumference of the Earth, the same way Eratosthenes did in ancient Greece. You get a value of 24,000 miles. Twenty years later a group, using satellites calculates the value at 24,900 miles.

        You could draw a number of conclusions from this:

        1] The circumference of the Earth grew by 900 miles during the last 20 years.

        2] The method of Eratosthenes was too crude to determine the real circumference.

        As shown above, none of the high quality tide gauges on the planet show an increase in sea level rise. And, if you average them they show about 1.8 mm of SLR a year over the past 150 years.

        Some select satellites show a SLR of + 3.3 mm a year or greater.

        The two measurement techniques are not giving the same value, but it is disingenuous to say there is an increase from 1.8 mm to 3.3 mm that occurred in 1993. (Although that is what Al Gore wants you to say.) The two measurement systems need to synchronized (which is what Al Gore does not want you to do, as well as all of your grant funding institutions). And the research above points out that all of the high quality long-term tide gauges show no inflection of slope in 1993.

        So, if you take Gavin Schmidt’s word for it, as the Prime Minister of Tuvalu has done, you claim your islands are sinking and that there is a weapon of mass destruction pointed at your nation an that you are entitled to reparations from all of the fossil fuel burning nations. Then, after you have collected your money, then it comes out your islands were actually growing.

        Now, imagine you live along a potentially vulnerable coastline (New York Harbor say) and you want to make sure your house is not inundated by CAGW. If you take Gavin Schmidt’s word for it, you need to apply for a government grant and build a seawall and fast. However, if you go check the tide gauge in New York Harbor, you see no increase in the rate of sea level rise. So who are you going to believe and what are you going to do?

        The whole thing is a mess and completely lacks scientific and political integrity and honesty. IMHO.

        • Kris Johanson says:

          “Who are you going to believe?”
          The people who have skin in the game and must live in Real-Ville… Insurance Companies.
          No change in Insurance flood maps = the thing’s a hoax.

          • Kris Johanson says:

            To develop/construct anything of consequence, you need capital. All lenders or equity participants require commercial insurance… actually many types of insurance throughout a project, not just fire/flood. There are also many layers of permitting and project approvals involved. These are risk-averse people who wouldn’t take part if the ground water level was rising. There is no way…

          • Anon says:

            And from the world of insurance: LOL

            AMP forges new path by appointing climate denier as chairman

            On Friday 4 May, AMP announced the appointment of climate change-denying former Commonwealth Bank CEO and Future Fund Chairman David Murray as its new chairman, ahead of the company’s annual general meeting in Melbourne on Thursday.

            Murray’s appointment is in response to the loss of AMP’s Chairman, CEO and Company Secretary, who left in the wake of scandals that have emerged from the Royal Commission into the financial sector.

            If AMP’s Board is after forward-thinking leadership to tackle the challenges ahead for the financial sector, Murray’s views on climate change and even climate scientists give a clear indication mean we can abandon hope from day one about how the company will handle climate risk.

            In an October 2013 interview on the ABC Latelineprogram, Murray said “the climate problem is severely was overstated” and, when asked what it would take to convince him of the science, he replied: “when I see some evidence of integrity among the scientists themselves”.


    • paul courtney says:

      Excellent post, Anon. The opening sentence in your first quoted comment, “there are no full length graphs…” reminded me of “hide the decline”. Why doesn’t Gavin’s graph keep the gauge data running to present, alongside the new satellite data? In hiding the decline, Mann et al stopped showing tree ring data when it went the “wrong” direction. After exposed, I recall the first explanation was that the tree ring data was flawed, because the better data (thermometers) showed warming so the trees had to be wrong. When confronted with the obvious question (what made you think the tree ring data was ever right?), we got the news that higher concentration of CO2 and AGW had caused the tree data to go off.
      So we can expect Gavin, when pinned down (that’ll take some doing), to explain that AGW and increased CO2 has caused the tide gauge data to be corrupted at the time the satellites were launched. CliSci is easy when you get the hang of it.

    • ducdorleans says:

      Anon, thanks for the “sealevel” link ..

      I just read the Bryan Magee 1975 “Getting along without Doomsday” article … so spot on ..

  3. Leo Hogan says:

    Australian Media are constantly telling us sea levels are rising and ‘climate scientists’ have predicted a one metre rise by the year 2100, they get away with saying this because none of us will be alive in the year 2100 to tell them that they were wrong. Now they are saying record cold is caused by global warming and the public just accept this because they are naive. The scare stories down here in Australia are some of the worse ones in the world, we are now told hot summers are abnormal here, Australia, the home of beaches etc.

  4. Anon says:

    Once you have absorbed all of the above, there are other mysteries to ponder:

    Here we have the Prime Minister of Tuvalu saying that Climate Change is like a weapon of mass destruction aimed at his Island:

    2014: Tuvalu Prime Minister Enele Sopoaga says climate change ‘like a weapon of mass destruction’

    Only to discover his islands have been growing over the past 50 years:

    2018: Pacific islands ‘growing not shrinking’ due to climate change

    And taking a look at the tide gauge outside the Prime Minister’s office it is hard to see what sea level rise he is talking about:

    • ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N says:

      2014: Tuvalu Prime Minister Enele Sopoaga says climate change ‘like a weapon of mass destruction’..

      .. is code for:

      ‘I’m buried up to my neck in the sand of Global Warming scam, and the tide of truth is coming in fast’

      Likely why Gavin’s also very “worried” about sea level and charting it. He’s up to his nose and looking for a similar hand out before he drowns.

      Just build another airport, Gav.

  5. kyle_fouro says:

    What is the average trend of all the active tide gauges?

  6. Lasse says:

    I wonder why and when the expression “dont change … in the middle of a ..”
    I can understand why.

    • tonyheller says:

      Erosion certainly contributes to sea level rise. Sediment moving from land to the sea displaces water. The Congressman was far more accurate than Gavin Schmidt. I post countless articles showing how stupid climate scientists are, and you simply choose to ignore them.

      • Griff says:

        I obviously don’t ignore them… I read them check a few facts, then post a considered response based on the science, where I believe you aren’t accurately representing it

        • Colorado Wellington says:

          “… post a considered response …”

          Ms Griff, all things considered, your contributions strongly suggest you are sniffing glue.

        • Gerald Machnee says:

          You might also want to check where the land is sinking.

          • Griff says:

            The UK is sinking on the right hand side… that doesn’t account for all sea level rise. Still, there’s a sea level rise plan for every inch of the UK coast. Y’all don’t seem to have that on the US side of the Atlantic

          • Gator says:

            The interglacial accounts for all appreciable sea level rise. But you know that Ms Griff, you obviously have an agenda that is served by anti-human alarmism.

          • Rah says:

            About 400 ft of rise. People could once walk across what is now the English channel and some lived there. And some of that rise came in quick spurts as ice dams failed. And the alarmists worry about a mm a year or so?

          • David A says:

            Gruff says, “The UK is sinking on the right hand side… ”

            and this inane statement a few posts after he claims to have the ability to read the thousands of skeptical papers published by PHD scientists and casually debunk them.

            Gruff I hope to many people do not move to the left hand side and the UK over.

        • pmc47025 says:

          Griff checked a few facts and refused to post a considered response to the alarmingly fraudulent Gavin Schmidt sea level change graph.

          • Gator says:

            Ms Griff’s fact checking consists of idiotic bias confirmation. Just look st his sources.

            The Grauniad, who thinks “Nasa” is a name, and Snopes which was created by two wacky leftists and a cat.

            Fact-checking website Snopes is on the verge of financial collapse after its owner was accused of embezzling company funds to pay for his contentious divorce battle and lavish overseas trips with his new wife, a former Las Vegas escort and porn actress.

        • arn says:

          Next time you check facts

          you will find out that a massive increase in sea level rise would have a massive increase in disappearing islands.
          Compare the years 88-18 with 58-88 and you will see you won’t

          There’ll be massive shutdowns of beach holiday resorts as beaches would have disappeared.

          There would have been a massive drop of house prices at the coasts all around the world .There was a huge increase of several 100%.

          There would have been a massive change in shape of countries and continents as result of increased sea level rise.
          Land mass would be shrinking significantly.

          And when you check a little bit more you may find out that Gavin doesn”t even have all the accurate global data he claims to have as many territories around the world had no data at all a 100 or more years ago.(so he pulled this data out of his butt-that’s the place you should check as this is his competence and research center)

        • AndyG55 says:

          “I read them check a few facts, then post a considered response “


          There is ZERO EVIDENCE that is the case.

          You haven’t got a clue, and just DENY anything that doesn’t match up to your far-left social AGW cult agenda. Your responses only consider that AGW farce.

    • Anon says:

      Snopes, now we are getting some place! I hate to say this, but at a typical American university of 10,000 undergraduates, you would be lucky to find 40 chemistry majors and even fewer physics majors. (~.5% of the university population) Those students that can’t handle the sciences, major in English (communications) and then go into law. They then find themselves prepared sufficiently to go into politics, without ever having addressed their weaknesses in science and math. Mo Brooks merely illustrates this point, but he is only following the well trodden path of poorly educated politicians blazed by Al Gore.

      The rest of the population must rely on websites like Snopes to have any hope of stringing together a cogent and logical argument

      My problem is when ill educated politicians (either Republican or Democrat), educated in communications, supported by vast groups of even less educated voters, get into positions of power where they then can censor scientific discussion.

      Exhibit A:

      WikiLeaks Exposes Podesta-Steyer Climate McCarthyism
      In a concluding thought, Pielke told me: “After all this, I’m a big supporter of academic tenure. I have no doubt that if I didn’t have tenure, I’d be doing landscaping now.”

      And fully corrosive outcome of this is explored in Richard S. Lindzen’s paper here:

      Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions?
      Richard S. Lindzen: Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and lead author of Chapter 7, “Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,” of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Third Assessment Report on climate change.
      Program in Atmospheres, Oceans and Climate MIT, Cambridge MA 02139, USA

      The above factors are all amplified by the need for government funding. When an issue becomes a vital part of a political agenda, as is the case with climate, then the politically desired position becomes a goal rather than a consequence of scientific research. This paper will deal with the origin of the cultural changes and with specific examples of the operation and interaction of these factors. In particular, we will show how political bodies act to control scientific institutions, how scientists adjust both data and even theory to accommodate politically correct positions, and how opposition to these positions is disposed of.

      • Griff says:

        Hey, I just picked the first internet reference returned by the search. There are several hundred more saying the guy was as dumb as the rocks he says are falling in the sea, if you want to go look.

        • Anon says:

          The fact that you needed to search at all in this instance is indicative of a lack of critical thinking… and encourages the same in others.

          To illustrate the point and spare you another search:

          Critical Thinking
          the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgement.
          “professors often find it difficult to encourage critical thinking among their students”

        • AndyG55 says:

          ” I just picked the first internet reference returned by the search”

          So absolutely ZERO thought as to the integrity of the reference.

          Snoops.. ROFLMAO.. a backward wannabe non-scientist with a leftist political agenda.

          and the Gruniad.. seriously ???why are you choosing such blatantly far-left political references, griff.

          They are NEVER science.

    • Jimmy Haigh says:

      Whatever the hell Griff is, it isn’t a geologist.

  7. spangled drongo says:

    In my part of the world, SE Qld, Australia, Brisbane and the Gold Coast king tides are lower today than they were 70 years ago by up to a foot. This is based on the sea level datum for sea walls that had to be built to king tide height [AHD 100] in those days.

    This is based also on normal barometric pressure king tides and is easy to actually observe. Storm surge from cyclones is always higher. Although today even cyclonic storm surge rarely gets to the old levels.

    This is an area known for lack of vertical land movement.

    The surf beaches in this area are bigger and healthier than they have ever been and the houses that were being washed out to sea 60 years ago now change hands for many millions of dollars.

    Net sea level rise is just not happening.

    • arn says:

      You have more trust in your own eyes and in common sense
      than into the superior gobbledygook of a sitfarting academic guy living tens of thousands of miles away from you ?
      How dare you!!!

      You must be some kind of conspiracy theorist and bad to the bone.

      ((btw-if people just take the time to collect photos from beached and see regions all around the world from the past 100 years they would see really fast that sea level rise is almost non existent.
      Lazy people just need to take hollywood movies((50 years or older(eg surf movies with fabian and faberes)
      and compare them to the present.

  8. Mac says:

    What I’m seeing over and over again with these people like Schmidt is that this has gone beyond simple corruption and lust for money. Look at this guy “Griff” and the rest of these disturbed people who angrily post their nonsense. This is not just corruption, it’s a fervent and fanatical belief in a religion, which, of course, has nothing to do with science. The religious belief in “climate change” serves some purpose for these people, and gives their lives meaning, like any other religion. However, unlike most religions, the climate change religion promotes violence and hatred towards others who don’t think like them. The behavior is no different from any other fringe religious fanatics. Why do you think liberals love radical Islam and terrorists so much?

    Look what happens when climate change cultists are confronted with actual facts. They lash out, threatening and screaming, and then push for the “heretic” to be silenced. This is not science.

    • Rah says:

      Very much like the deep state. They use their positions and titles to lie, misinform, hide or deny esculpatory evidence, and use Alynsky tactics to villinize those that reveal such evidence.

    • Griff says:

      I’m Methodist by religion (though not a very good one).

      This is science… and not politics either.

      nobody ever, ever argues the science – they just say I’m paid, a leftist (not a leftist!), call me names. Could we at least try and keep it to tide gauges, or satellite data?

      I’m not in some political war, even if you are. I’m in civil discourse on a matter of shared scientific interest…

      • Eternaloptimist says:

        Last week you critised tony for comparing apples with oranges. This week you say its ok. You clearly lack consistency. And integrity

      • Anon says:

        Well, that was revealing:

        Self Reliance by Ralph Waldo Emerson

        A man must consider what a blindman’s-buff is this game of conformity. If I know your sect, I anticipate your argument. I hear a preacher announce for his text and topic the expediency of one of the institutions of his church. Do I not know beforehand that not possibly can he say a new and spontaneous word? Do I not know that, with all this ostentation of examining the grounds of the institution, he will do no such thing? Do I not know that he is pledged to himself not to look but at one side, — the permitted side, not as a man, but as a parish minister? He is a retained attorney, and these airs of the bench are the emptiest affectation. Well, most men have bound their eyes with one or another handkerchief, and attached themselves to some one of these communities of opinion. This conformity makes them not false in a few particulars, authors of a few lies, but false in all particulars. Their every truth is not quite true. Their two is not the real two, their four not the real four; so that every word they say chagrins us, and we know not where to begin to set them right. Meantime nature is not slow to equip us in the prison-uniform of the party to which we adhere.

      • Rah says:

        Your most certainly in a political war even if you don’t know it. The proponents of Catostrophic Anthropological Climate Change are primarily Governments, politicians, politically active NGOs and those who gain income from the issue. It IS a political issue.

      • Gator says:

        I’m Methodist by religion (though not a very good one).

        Yes, the poor know this all too well Ms Griff.

      • paul courtney says:

        Griff says, “Could we at least try and keep it to tide gauges , or satellite data?” We could, but someone posting under your name brought up Mo Brooks, couldn’t have been you, could it?
        Ordinarily, would not waste too much time with a tr0ll, but… “nobody ever, ever argues the science….” The 2d “ever” really got me. Shall we move up the string and count the comments that argue the science? How about mine, pointing to Gavin’s use of “hide the decline” by cutting off a data set and splicing on a different data set? Would love to know how Gavin got the satellite to pick up exactly where he cut off the gauge data in 92-93, do you ever ever wonder about such details? My idea is to keep it to tide gauges AND satellite data, it was Gavin’s notion (and yours) to make it “or”. Let’s discuss them both, shall we?

      • AndyG55 says:

        “nobody ever, ever argues the science”

        That is a load of BS.

        You just totally ignore when real science is put in front of you.

        It is YOU that is constantly yapping the religious far-left AGW mantra.

        You are most definitely a far-left wannabe operator.
        Everything you rant about is right out of the far left charter.. and you don’t even recognise that fact.

        Let’s discuss the tide gauges and actual sea level rise DECELERATION, griff.

      • MrZ says:

        Griff, from what I read between the lines you really like it here. Could it be because arguments backed up by facts and not only by feelings? Let go, study a bit more and join in.

      • pmc47025 says:

        Hey Griff, you have not yet commented on the Gavin Schmidt tweeted sea level change graph (the subject of this post). Is it science, junk science, political propaganda, or fraud?

      • Mac says:

        I simply made a statement about human behavior and the need for religion. Climate change is a religion. It isn’t science at all. If it were science, there wouldn’t be such viciousness on the part of the true believers.

        Also, it’s hard to stick to “data” when it’s being altered by corrupt people with an ax to grind.

        • Griff says:

          The viciousness appears to me to be on the side of those who oppose the science because of their political beliefs (and/or are paid by fossil fuel interests)

          • Gator says:

            I support the science 100%! It is you science deniers that are the problem, Ms Griff.

            The science tells us that added CO2 is beneficial, just like the natural warming we have seen since the end of the LIA.

            Why do you alarmists hate poor brown people? Why do you wish them to starve to death? That is what is truly vicious.

  9. Rah says:

    Gavin, and all like him, need to be permanently reassinged to Summit Station, Greenland.

    • Al Shelton says:

      Yes I agree. Only nothing ever happens to Gav.
      I am still waiting for more swamp draining.
      I hope that I live long enough.

      • Rah says:

        The thing is it’s not a swamp. It’s a particularly nasty sewer. So it takes HazMat procedures to clean it up. And to make matters worse the persident’s team is doing it under combat conditions with incoming fire bombarding them every day!

  10. Rud Istvan says:

    I have researched and written about this extensively. Tony is right for more reasons than the one he points to. See essay PseudoPrecision in ebook Blowing Smoke, and guest post Sea Level Rise, Acceleration, and Closure at WUWT.

  11. CO2isLife says:

    Tony, this article confirms what we wrote over on CO2isLife. They used this tactic with the Hockeystick as well. Read below.

    Multiple Sources Now Confirm; Climate Data “Adjustments” are Obvious Fraud to Anyone Choosing to Look

  12. Andy Oz says:

    BOM has a 26 year long sea level study going for coastal Australia. (Ka Ching $$)

    Points of interest:
    1. Page 27 shows a substantial fall in the tropical ocean levels during the big 2016 El Nino, which would have exposed a lot more coral to the sun – thus coral bleaching on the GBR. just like in 1998.
    2. Page 23 – Sea levels peaked in early 2016 El Nino and have been dropping ever since as ocean temperatures decline.

    The overall trends calculated between 1992 – 2018 show a wide variance
    from 2mm/yr in Victoria to 8 mm/yr on Cocos Islands.
    This is not consistent with the principles of fluid dynamics or gravity.
    It’s more consistent with the problem of measuring massive tidal changes (10 metre) in the tropics versus tiny tidal fluctuations (1 metre) in the temperate zones.
    For my money, SLR is averaging something less than 2mm/year, consistent with the 35 year warming period since 1980, and will now likely fall as we move into a 35 year cooling trend just like 1945-1980.

    And of course the century long trend for Fort Denison which is inside Sydney Harbour, proves that, at 0.65mm/year, South Pacific Sea Level Rise is negligible.


Leave a Reply

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