Climate Alarmists Adjusting IQ’s Downwards

A favorite claim of climate alarmists is that they adjust older temperatures upwards.

Explainer: How data adjustments affect global temperature records | Carbon Brief

This certainly isn’t true for global land temperatures.


Newer versions of land temperatures keep getting adjusted further to cool the past.

Spreadsheet     Data

There is little high quality temperature data outside the US.

A Critical Review of Global Surface Temperature Data Products by Ross McKitrick :: SSRN

The US data is massively adjusted to increase warming.

Spreadsheet         Data

And the ocean data (like the land data) is largely fake.

Climate science is a farce. Junk science built on top of junk data.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Climate Alarmists Adjusting IQ’s Downwards

  1. GW Smith says:

    But, the masses don’t know this. They simply believe all “climate scientists” are gods, and anyone who doubts them is evil. And this never changes. Just keep on pointing out their lies, Tony, and we’ll keep spreading the word. Happy Earth Day!

    • Com says:

      Climate scientists are seldom scientists in the field of meteorology. Most meteorologists do not buy into global warning. But most are cowed into silence. You cannot even begin to understand climate without a theoretical and practical grounding in weather acience.

  2. MrGrimnasty says:

    When I was a kid I built an irregular shaped goldfish pond. I read the simplistic rule that an ornamental pond could support 2″ of fish per square foot. I roughly calculated the area but I was disappointed with the amount of fish I could keep.

    I decided I needed more accuracy, so I measured the width and length at numerous points to get averages, and recalculated the area. It was ‘bigger’, but still disappointing.

    I tried again and again. Sometimes the calculated area actually went down, but that must have been a mistake, so I went back to my tape measure.

    Soon I was measuring the length and width every half inch, but with so much data to write down and crunch, it was getting difficult not to make mistakes. But no matter, eventually I got an acceptable answer, so off I trotted to the pet shop and got my fish.

    Six weeks later with the first hot spell of weather, they were all dead. What went wrong? I obeyed the stocking rule religeously, my surface area calculation was super accurate – I measured the width and length every 1/256″ for goodness sake!

    • Jason Calley says:

      Sure, all the fish were dead, but did you count them in the morning or in the afternoon? If you had used a TOB adjustment and changed the fish count upwards by six fish it would have been more scientifically accurate.

  3. Tik says:

    I am having a friendly debate with an alarmist who is somehow tied to NOAA, I am not sure if he works directly for them or not. He is a really nice and wonderful guy. He is claiming that with satellites they can measure the entire global sea level to within a millimeter with satellites. Using common sense, I find this to be implausible, but does anyone know? Tik

    • Robert Austin says:

      Even if it was possible to measure the sea surface elevation at a particular location and a particular instant to 1 mm precision, one has to deal with the fact that the sea surface is constantly varying with wave action, barometric change and tidal action. Add to the mixture the rise and settlement of lands adjacent to the sea and you get a can of worms that makes a farce of the claimed 1 mm precision.

    • rah says:

      Dr. Roy Spencer, who has forgotten more about remote sensing from satellites than any of us or your friend will probably ever know, has a rather lengthy discussion about possible reason satellite altimetry is not jiving with tide gauges here:

    • Anon says:

      The 1 mm might be theoretically possible, but so what? Currently satellites say that there is a tripling in the rate of SLR since 1990.

      Fake News About Sea Level Rise

      But what does that mean exactly? A tripling from the longterm trend of sea level rise? When put that way, it seems dire. However, what they don’t mention is that if you go back into the longterm tide gauge data (any of the above that Tony presents) you will find short intervals where sea level rise was accelerating at 3 times the longterm rate (and also intervals where it was decelerating).

      Think about, if there really was a significant acceleration in SRL, you would not need satellites to detect it, you could just go out to New York Harbor (or any other) and look at the tide gauge data. The problem is they can’t, for the reason I described above, and therefore they hype the satellite data without explaining the shortcomings.

      • Jason Calley says:

        Hey Anon! “Think about, if there really was a significant acceleration in SRL, you would not need satellites to detect it, you could just go out to New York Harbor (or any other) and look at the tide gauge data.”

        Yes, you have hit the nail on the head! CAGW is the only existential crisis in history which both threatens the entire biosphere and yet is also undetectable at any local level. About seven years ago I had a friend, a strong believer in CAGW assure me that within five years the climate would be so changed that we would be able to walk outside and see undeniable changes to the sky and land. Of course it hasn’t — and my friend still believes! Maybe another five years, huh?

        CAGW is the new Scarlet Pimpernel. “They seek him here! They seek him there! Alarmists seek him everywhere!”

  4. JCalvertN(UK) says:

    Yes. In the case of land temperatures, the adjustments almost always cool the past.
    The reason seems to be a simple failing of the adjustment algorithm.
    The adjustment algorithm is quite efficient at detecting step-changes in a temperature record – especially *downward* step-changes. But it is absolutely useless at detecting a gradually increasing signal – such as would be caused by an expanding/intensifying Urban Heat Island nearby or surrounding the weather station.
    The only option for correcting/adjusting a downward step-change is to cool the past. (The other option would be to warm the present – but that would be too stupid – someone might notice.)
    Likewise, the way to correcting/adjusting an error in the form of a rising signal would be to warm the past. But, for the reasons I given above, that doesn’t happen very often.

  5. Patrick says:

    Even though Tony has a great following here and in other blogs, this information could be pushed through The White House. I’m wondering why Trump and his administration aren’t posting these revealing data points? Does it have to do with his daughter Ivanka? Just wondering. It seems to me that the only way to make it a mainstream debate is to antagonize the left and there’s no better place to start antagonizing them is through the White House.

    • Danilushka says:

      Maybe Trump. unlike Obama, feels it would be an abuse of power to do so.
      Trump, while a blue-collar brawler, tries to be honest, while Obama, an Indonesian-dual-citizen hides his past and the hatred of a “colonial USA” that motivated his actions to take it down in world position. Thankfully for all of us, Trump has largely reversed this.

Leave a Reply

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