Politifiction

Micheal Mann and Snopes both did hit pieces on me this week. I must be making them nervous. Here is the Snopes article.

Since 2014, climate-change deniers have squeezed millions of views, Facebook shares, and Twitter retweets by retelling a story alleging the discovery of “faked” NASA data designed to “fit a climate change narrative.” Though copied almost wholesale from a blog post

The blog post was one I made in 2o12. But instead of pointing to my web site, they linked to an archived version – most likely to keep people from visiting my blog. It included this animation, showing NASA data tampering.

They go on :

The “smoking gun” concerns a climate record known as the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP). These records are based on a massive global dataset of temperature stations from around the world, combining several collections of data originally collected by individual weather stations. The record provides “a measure of the changing global surface temperature with monthly resolution for the period since 1880, when a reasonably global distribution of meteorological stations was established.”

This is what Snopes describes as a “reasonably global distribution of meteorological stations”  The map shows where GHCN has daily temperature data from 1890.

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/daily/figures/station-counts-1861-1890-temp.png

Then they went to their go-to man, Zeke Hausfather, who told them :

All told, the most significant effect of all these changes came from the time-of-day adjustments. Collectively, the adjustments served to produce a slightly increased warming trend in the United States record compared to the earlier records.

This is complete nonsense. TOBS (time of day) is about one third of the total adjustment, and goes the opposite direction of the massive upwards adjustments since the year 2005.

Snopes made no attempt to contact me.  Had they done that they would have known that essentially all of the adjustments since 1990 are due to fake data.

In the 1999 paper where I got the NASA temperature graph, Hansen complained that the US is cooling.

Yet in the U.S. there has been little temperature change in the past 50 years, the time of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases — in fact, there was a slight cooling throughout much of the country.

Snopes described this switch from cooling to rapid warming as :

Collectively, the adjustments served to produce a slightly increased warming trend in the United States record compared to the earlier records.

This is what they call a “slightly increased warming trend.”

Climate journalism is a complete shambles, and has nothing to do with actual journalism.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

31 Responses to Politifiction

  1. rah says:

    “Climate journalism is a complete shambles, and has nothing to do with actual journalism.” Journalism touched by politics in any way is almost dead.

    Great work Tony and keep it up. The fact that they’re feeling they need to respond means your message is getting to them by people questioning them using your posts as their basis and they don’t like it. Thus them Snopes BS and then this.

    I somehow suspect that the continued delegitimization of the old media as they get caught in one huge lie after another in their quest to get Trump has opened the eyes of some people and made them question what else the old media has been lying about.

  2. richard says:

    Don’t worry, Michael Mann is gunning for NOAA now.

    https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/status/1170140378873376768

    Seems he is unhappy with this-

    A new statement from NOAA.
    NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dyamics Laboratory (GFDL): “Leaders in Climate Model Development and Research.”
    For about a decade (or even longer), GFDL has annually updated their statement on hurricanes and climate change. This excerpt from their 15 August 2019 update lists some of their negative findings about current hurricane activity.

    “We find that, after adjusting for such an estimated number of missing storms, there remains just a small nominally positive upward trend in tropical storm occurrence from 1878-2006. Statistical tests indicate that this trend is not significantly distinguishable from zero. In addition, Landsea et al. (2010) note that the rising trend in Atlantic tropical storm counts is almost entirely due to increases in short-duration (<2 day) storms alone. Such short-lived storms were particularly likely to have been overlooked in the earlier parts of the record, as they would have had less opportunity for chance encounters with ship traffic. …

    “The evidence for an upward trend is even weaker if we look at U.S. landfalling hurricanes, which even show a slight negative trend beginning from 1900 or from the late 1800s. …

    “While major hurricanes show more evidence of a rising trend from the late 1800s, the major hurricane data are considered even less reliable than the other two records in the early parts of the record. …

    “In short, the historical Atlantic hurricane frequency record does not provide compelling evidence for a substantial greenhouse warming-induced long-term increase.“

    https://fabiusmaximus.com/2019/09/08/curry-activists-and-hurricane-science/

  3. gregole says:

    To paraphrase Zeke, “we jacked with the data until we got a slight warming trend.” Pure fraud.

  4. G W Smith says:

    They not only hate you, Tony, they are scared to death of you! Keep an eye out. They are on the high wire and you are the coming storm.

  5. Noel Herron says:

    Tony If they are taking time to attack you, you are doin it right. Pound them Tony pound them. The lying scum should be given no quarter . Well done on drawing their fire ,they would not waste ammunition on you if you weren’t damaging their propaganda . Congratulations !

  6. Anon says:

    The bottom line is that they are making the Warming Case based on ADJUSTED DATA. So they need to TRANSPARENTLY DECLARE this in all of their announcements.

    Something like this would be good science: Nasa has “calculated” 2019 to be the hottest year on record, however when you look at the raw data the current yearly average temperature falls below that of the 1930s.

    Or you report 2 records:

    1] The “calculated” temperature record.
    2] The raw temperature record.

    The biggest error Michael Mann is making is that he thinks the Main Stream Media is helping his cause.

    Spooks Turned Spox: US Media Now Filled With Former Intelligence Agents

    https://www.zerohedge.com/political/spooks-turned-spox-us-media-filled-former-intelligence-officials

  7. Rory Forbes says:

    Anon …
    I believe the correct protocol, when adjusting data, is to include error bars to show how much the raw data has been altered. Then everyone gets to be on the same page.

  8. TedL says:

    Of course they are worried. Your video “My Gift to Climate Alarmists” was picked up by Joanne Nova, Mike Shedlock and ZeroHedge, resulting in widespread distribution. YouTube indicates 272,883 views, which is a lot more than your other videos. People are starting to notice!

  9. Gerald Machnee says:

    When they attack you, you are correct.
    I they find an error, they would work on the error.
    So. guess what? No errors.

  10. Lapsley says:

    Tony,

    You consistently and with exactitude clearly show where and how NASA and NOAA alter, erase, falsify and simply make up temperature data. There is virtually no real temperature data in either outfit.

    These are the same people that report the CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Why should we believe their CO2 numbers any more than the temperature record?

  11. Billyjack says:

    More proof of a recent poll that ranked journalism with honorable professions. Journalism came in slightly above pedophilia , but well below armed robbery.

    • Gamecock says:

      ‘nothing to do with actual journalism’

      Great Ceasar’s ghost! The evidence says otherwise. There hasn’t been a good editor since Perry White.

  12. griff says:

    Snopes points out fake news…

    • Gator says:

      Nopes!

      Popular myth-busting website Snopes originally gained recognition for being the go-to site for disproving outlandish urban legends -such as the presence of UFOs in Haiti or the existence of human-animal hybrids in the Amazon jungle.

      Recently, however, the site has tried to pose as a political fact-checker. But Snopes’ “fact-checking” looks more like playing defense for prominent Democrats like Hillary Clinton and it’s political “fact-checker” describes herself as a liberal and has called Republicans “regressive” and afraid of “female agency.”

      Snopes’ main political fact-checker is a writer named Kim Lacapria. Before writing for Snopes, Lacapria wrote for Inquisitr, a blog that — oddly enough — is known for publishing fake quotes and even downright hoaxes as much as anything else.

      While at Inquisitr, the future “fact-checker” consistently displayed clear partisanship (RELATED: Snopes Caught Lying About Lack Of American Flags At Democratic Convention)

      She described herself as “openly left-leaning” and a liberal. She trashed the Tea Party as “teahadists.” She called Bill Clinton “one of our greatest” presidents. She claimed that conservatives only criticized Lena Dunham’s comparison of voting to sex because they “fear female agency.”

      She once wrote: “Like many GOP ideas about the poor, the panic about using food stamps for alcohol, pornography or guns seems to have been cut from whole cloth–or more likely, the ideas many have about the fantasy of poverty.” (A simple fact-check would show that food stamp fraud does occur and costs taxpayers tens of millions.)

      Lacapria even accused the Bush administration of being “at least guilty of criminal negligience” in the September 11 attacks. (The future “fact-checker” offered no evidence to support her accusation.)

      Her columns apparently failed to impress her readership, oftentimes failing to get more than 10-20 shares.

      After blogging the Inquisitr, Lacapria joined Snopes, where she regularly plays defense for her fellow liberals.

      She wrote a “fact check” article about Jimmy Carter’s unilateral ban of Iranian nationals from entering the country that looks more like an opinion column arguing against Donald Trump’s proposed Muslim ban.

      Similarly, Lacapria — in another “fact check” article — argued Hillary Clinton hadn’t included Benghazi at all in her infamous “we didn’t lose a single person in Libya” gaffe. Lacapria claimed Clinton only meant to refer to the 2011 invasion of Libya (but not the 2012 Benghazi attack) but offered little fact-based evidence to support her claim.

      After the Orlando terror attack, Lacapria claimed that just because Omar Mateen was a registered Democrat with an active voter registration status didn’t mean he was actually a Democrat. Her “fact check” argued that he might “have chosen a random political affiliation when he initially registered.”

      Lacapria even tried to contradict the former Facebook workers who admitted that Facebook regularly censors conservative news, dismissing the news as “rumors.”

      In that “fact check” article, Lacapria argued that “Facebook Trending’s blacklisting of ‘junk topics’ was not only not a scandalous development, but to be expected following the social network’s crackdown on fake news sites.” The opinion-heavy article was mockingly titled: The Algorithm Is Gonna Get You.

      Lacapria again played defense for Clinton in a fact check article when she claimed: “Outrage over an expensive Armani jacket worn by Hillary Clinton was peppered with inaccurate details.”

      One of the “inaccurate details” cited by Lacapria was that, “The cost of men’s suits worn by fellow politicians didn’t appear in the article for contrast.” She also argued the speech Clinton gave while wearing the $12,495 jacket, which discussed “raising wages and reducing inequality,” wasn’t actually about income inequality.

      Snipes is a partisan site that sanitizes leftist BS, and packages it as “facts” to sell to the masses. It is a leftist propaganda site.

      Why do you hate poor brown people Ms Griff?

  13. Disillusioned says:

    Tony, you are receiving more flak today, because you are over the target.

    They are squirming. They know there is nothing they can do, except slander the messenger even more – which, in the end will be very costly (slander and libel are not cheap). So, they ramp up the slander even more. An idiot cannot see beyond the end of his/her nose.

    May God bless you and keep you safe from the crazies.

  14. paul courtney says:

    Dear Mr. Heller: Climate journalism “has nothing to do with journalism” And even less to do with climate. It was “nothing” until I adjusted it down to less than nothing. My adjustments are based on science, namely, math (subtraction).
    Please keep up your fine work.

  15. Crispin in Waterloo says:

    I saw the article at Snopes. It was terrible. I also had a little breeze around their site. It has lots of terrible articles. I didn’t know that. Thanks for inspiring them to teach me what they are really about.

  16. Spidly says:

    Did the lead fact checkers Erin O’Bryn and Vice Vixen didn’t send you photos? Lame. Pretty sure those gals can read the temperature of a room and spot whales, but probably shouldn’t be fact checking climate science.

  17. spidly says:

    I downloaded a few years of data from a Forest Grove OR station that had 15 or 30 min intervals I think. I did a quick Excel Max/Min observation bias using 5pm v 6am and came up with about 0.1C adjustment. Possible double counted days per year was something like 10 either side. That went down to 5 or something using 7pm 7am and the adjustment went into the hundredths.

    Does the historical data show that observers were not aware of the possibility double counting hot and cold? Did they report time recorded with temp?

  18. Mark Frank says:

    Tony Heller

    At a minimum do you deny:

    1) All the adjustments and the reason for them have been publically available for over decade

    2) They only apply to the US temperature record which is approximately 2% of the earth’s surface. Any adjustments whether justified or not would have negligible effect on the global trend.

    i.e no fraud and no relevance to the global picture.

  19. MGJ says:

    When any organisation claiming to be a fact checker doesn’t even contact the person making the claim, it should be enough for even the most feeble-minded zealot to see that they are fraudsters.

  20. Sophie Johnson says:

    This was reported on the Daily Caller website two years ago and debunked by Snopes with a well researched and extensive explanation:
    https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/climatology-fraud-global-warming/

Leave a Reply to Gerald Machnee Cancel reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.