By Paul Homewood
Tony Heller regularly posts videos about temperature adjustments, but this is a really good summary.
Well worth a watch, and please circulate:
Comments are closed.
 | Nicholas Lewis on Steve Broderick Update |
 | Ray Sanders on Steve Broderick Update |
 | glenartney on Steve Broderick Update |
| Nicholas Lewis on Steve Broderick Update |
| Nicholas Lewis on Steve Broderick Update |
 | liardetg on Govt Wants To Switch Your Heat… |
 | gezza1298 on Steve Broderick Update |
 | Dave Ward on Steve Broderick Update |
 | Stuart Brown on The UK Electricity Distributio… |
 | saighdear on Steve Broderick Update |
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Thank you for this very interesting post about data tampering apparently to erase and thereby not acknowledge what is called the “early twentieth century warming” (ETCW). The contradition here is that the ETCW issue is not a hidden or secretive thing in climate science but something that is openly discussed and about which a number of significant papers have been published. ETCW is not a secret. Climate science does not deny its existence. It tries only to explain the anomaly in their theory of AGW. Pls see
https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/01/28/tcw/
An excellent survey of the ETCW literature which shows well how second-rate scientists when flummoxed by the facts resort to pseudo-scientific incantations to preserve their dignity.
Yes sir. Flummoxed. Thank you for that vocabulary. Will use.
It is because of ETCW and the subsequent cooling that British climate scientist Professor Peter Cox had to move the beginning of AGW all the way up to “the 1970s”. These anomalies are not denied. They are accommodated. In the end AGW survives and the fear of fossil fuels is maintained.
https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/08/24/climate-scientist-proves-human-cause/
This is one of my favorites.
They cool the past and warm the present in order for the data to agree with their bogus CO2 theory. That, and all their other chicanery tells me that it is they, not CO2, that is the real threat to humanity.
Besides erroneous temperature adjustments there is a less well known scandal, that there are major disagreements between the adjusted temperature products at local level. This disagreement cannot be spoken about by Climate Science, a sign of its sickness.
My belief is that Berkeley Earth gets it about right, when it uses enough data. New Zealand is an example of where it fails, because there is very little NZ data in the GHCN database used by BE.
I wish that Tony H and others would compare adjusted data against BE, rather than against raw data, because there are plenty of reasons why raw data has to be adjusted.
“plenty of reasons why raw data has to be adjusted.” Thats a bold statement! Care to list those reasons and justify them? Throw away, unsupported comments like that are exactly the problem. You might as well say ‘there are plenty of reasons why the earth is flat’.
Spoken like a non-scientist. There are really no reasons why raw data should be adjusted, particularly without notation or ability to recover the original raw data.
And if adjustment is required, why does it always seem to raise recent temps and cool past temps? Apart from the Germans having to admit that their record breaking high temperature was recorded at an unsuitable site, I can’t recall anything being reduced.
Almost all raw data of this nature needs to be adjusted. This was not a scientific experiment lasting a few days, in which everything was kept constant, this was temperature data gathered over decades from changing locations, with changing equipment, sometimes defective for long periods in the early years.
Many adjustments are erroneous, but that does not change the fact that adjustments need to be made.
“Many adjustments are erroneous, but that does not change the fact that adjustments need to be made.” Which ones are erroneous, how do you know? If they are erroneous then, surely, they should be restored to the original.
In the 1970s I worked at a laboratory in Scotland and was in charge of the met readings. Every morning certain temperatures, pressure, rainfall etc were recorded at 09h (10h during Summer Time).
Why should any of these readings during the nine years that I was there be ‘adjusted’? When there was a change in thermometer the old and new were compared for a week, or so. There was no change in site position, nor were there changes in buildings. No trees grew.
At a meeting of Met observers to which I went, many of us were incensed at the cavalier attitude of certain ‘climate scientists’ in dismissing out conscientious dedication with a contemptuous wave of the hand. How many of them worked Saturdays and Sundays to take readings; at Christmas and New Year too.
It’s not just Tony Heller. Dr. Richard Keen also effectively exposes the scam.
After a very long and detailed analysis of HADSST adjustments, Judith Curry comes to the following disturbing conclusion.
“The analysis presented here indicates that, outside the immediate war-time period, these adjustments are distorting and degrading the data rather than improving it.”
Tony show how the “climate mafia” forced one satellite data collector to alter his data to agree with their garbage.
So, rather than accept an alternative independent view, they demand that all agree. That is NOT science, nor is it ethical. They aren’t scientists, but thugs and bullies pushing an agenda.
If data recorded decades ago is thought to be unreliable then don’t use it — at all.
Or present the record with uncertainty bars.
I would like to echo the remarks by JohnM de France.
My late father was a meteorologist for the UK Met Office for his entire career. He spent several years on weatherships in the North Atlantic mostly in the 1950’s. He became concerned about the reliability of the sea surface temperature measurements (this was the days of a bucket on a rope and a thermometer), as there were so many factors at work, such as wind speed and temperature, sea state, sunshine, heat radiating from the vessel, etc.. He wrote to the higher-ups, and his concerns were dismissed. Frustrated, he switched to the air division of the Met Office, forecasting instead for the RAF. Sometimes ‘they’ just don’t want to know.
Climanrecon. There you go again with an unsupported Bullpoo statement – ‘Almost all raw data of this nature needs to be adjusted’.
I counter with ‘almost all adjustments of this nature need to be adjusted back to the real data from the subjective adjusted wishlists of charlatans.’
There is no evidence and no reason to believe that historic records need to be adjusted just because they are old and dont support modern magic computer gaming.
Its the modern ‘digital’ records that are unreliable and need adjusting to reflect reliable analogue instruments, and not flakey failing digital fakery!
“because there are plenty of reasons why raw data has to be adjusted.”
Since a large proportion of surface sites are quite heavily affected by Urban Heat, and these are used to smear that urban warming over vast areas of countryside, it is obvious that modern temperature data should mostly be adjusted DOWNWARDS.
Wouldn’t you agree !
Sorry, I would not trust Berkley Earth further than I could throw their combined egos.
The data they use is highly infected with urban bias, that they pretend to discount , by tiny fractions of a degree.
It uses a whole heap of very low-quality data, sludged together with “regional expectations” and other nefarious non-science.
Berkeley Earth, busted.
https://www.c3headlines.com/2015/03/official-fake-temperatures-climate-agencies-temperature-fabrication-issue-big.html
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/07/muller-the-pretend-skeptic-makes-three-claims-hes-half-right-on-one/
I have more, some even less kind.
I don’t trust them, either.
@climanrecon
Oh, what the heck. Here are two more links on why Berkeley Earth shouldn’t be relied on.
Very hard hitting.
… seemingly angry at having been hoodwinked by Mueller?
This next is way too kind, IMO.
http://www.sciencebits.com/WorstBEST
The very fact that Mueller felt he had to lie about being a converted skeptic, is a huge red flag.
http://joannenova.com.au/2017/10/the-rise-of-fake-skeptics-who-change-their-minds-about-climate-change/
If they think they have to lie to add credibility to your conclusions, it’s a good bet that even they aren’t fully convinced by their own conclusions.
OOPS, three more links, heh heh heh
Here Tony looks at TOB (Time of Observation Bias), and shows that it’s just a trojan horse for NOAA/NASA to force the data to conform to their CO2 bias.
In other words, they have no justification for adjusting their data the way the do.
And Paul gets a mention. Great stuff.
Looks like my last went into the spam bin. Please check, and dig it out at your convenience. Thx.
How crooked can they get?
I’ve been watching Line of Duty on catch up. I can see where the writers got their real life material. There are several scenes where evidence is ‘adjusted’ by imaginary corrupt coppers.
One of the many gems from the ‘climategate’ emails that gives outsiders a small insight into how ‘The Science’ is conducted by practitioners:
“September 28, 2009: email 1254147614 Tom Wigley writes to Phil Jones:
Here are some speculations on correcting sea temperatures to partly explain the 1940s warming blip.If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degrees Celsius, then this would be significant for the global average—but we’d still have to explain the land blip.I’ve chosen 0.15 degrees Celsius here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and I think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip …
… It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip?”.
Adjusting away the troubling ‘blip’ is an ongoing incremental process, they are still at it:
part 2 is here
Are we angry yet, a lot of us are dis-spirited I guess. But one thing we can still do is ensure that a hall of fame exists, listing these scientists, their claims back then, thanks Tony and Paul for reminding us of the great deception
And then there’s this.