Averaging Un-Tampered Raw Temperature Data Is “Bogus”

Politihack did a followup :

Judith Curry, a climatologist at the Georgia Institute of Technology, also originally downplayed Heller’s claims. But after seeing the data from Texas, Curry acknowledged that he might have had a point.

“I infer from this that there seems to be a real problem with the USHCN data set, or at least with some of the stations,” Curry wrote. “Maybe it is a tempest in a teacup, but it looks like something that requires NOAA’s attention.”

That said, Curry also tweeted that “what Goddard did to the data was bogus.

Fox’s Doocy: NASA fudged data to make the case for global warming | PunditFact

What  I did to the data was exactly nothing. I left the data completely intact. That is considered bogus in climate science.

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

62 Responses to Averaging Un-Tampered Raw Temperature Data Is “Bogus”

  1. Latitude says:

    Curry also tweeted that “what Goddard did to the data was bogus.“…

    Uh no…..the strawman that Zeke created was bogus…and she fell for it too

  2. Psalmon says:

    Not on the hero list.

  3. jimash1 says:

    It is amazing how these people will flip the toast before it hits the floor so it lands butter-side up for them.

    • mjc says:

      You butter it before you add your creamed chipped beef?

      • jimash1 says:

        Well it doesn’t matter does it?
        After all I’m not some bigshot, being wined and dined by the establishment climate cabal.
        I’m just some shlub with a dusty chipped beef sandwich.

    • Robertv says:

      Does it matter with the floor full of dirt. It won’t be eatable anymore.

      • Anto says:

        Don’t worry. The thick layer of CO2 will protect it from the dirt.

        • jimash1 says:

          I really don’t think any of you got the joke.
          Here’s Dr. Curry almost endorsing our host’s work.
          [drops toast}
          But manages to flip it on the way down by denigrating him so that it lands butter side up for her in that rareified “who is a real climate scientist” air.

  4. bit chilly says:

    you and others work is to be commended .this is as big as climategate .the only problem is,where did climategate change anything. ever increasing grants,ever increasing climatology graduates,ever increasing human induced climate change thermageddon papers of poor standard when the math is reviewed by the likes of mcintyre.

    it would appear the game is indeed up, but anyone that matters has too big an investment either politically,financially or in reputation to want to change,and of course the money men that really run the world these days are making another fistful of dollars.

    there is a hardcore of followers on either side of the debate that will continue to fill these blog comment sections for evermore ,but in reality ,the vast majority of the worlds population really do not give a shit either way anymore ,they have become numb to catastrophitis (my new word for the day) as reported on a daily basis by the msm. without the support and voice of the middle classes in the developed world,none of this valid criticism is going to change a damn thing.

    • Gail Combs says:

      People will care when the rolling blackouts hit during hot summer days or worse cold winters nights while their electric bills double and quadruple. People didn’t give a hoot about banking and bankers until Foreclosuregate now even the Latinos I talk to know what the politicians/bankers were up to.

      Do not forget the cost of electric will drive the price of everything else up too as stores and what factories we have left will need to increase prices to stay solvent. (Now add in Obummercare…)

      Texas Energy Foundation: Short on Electricity

      ….An organization called the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, which has federal authority to enforce the reliability of the national electrical grid, put Texas on notice last week that it is worried about whether the state will have enough power by this summer — and whether Texas officials are doing enough to fix the problem.

      The Public Utility Commission of Texas and the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) have been working for two years to remedy looming electricity shortfalls in the state. Insufficient generating capacity could cause rolling brownouts and blackouts across Texas. What’s more, if the power grid here becomes unreliable as peak demand outstrips generating capacity, it could affect the reliability of the whole country’s electrical system….

      This is just what has happened so far to costs, but it is a good report:
      American Coalition For Clean Coal Electricity Energy Cost Impacts on American Families, 2001-2012


      (Has not been updated to include the newest EPA rulings or plant closures.)

      • _Jim says:

        The Public Utility Commission of Texas and the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) have been working for two years to remedy looming electricity shortfalls in the state. Insufficient generating capacity could cause rolling brownouts and blackouts across Texas.

        We are fine this year. Note the pub date on that piece: Jan 18, 2013, over a year and a half ago. Things can change in that period of time. Maybe you don’t know where to go to see authoritative up-to-date info on Texas? In which case this page may be of use to you:

        REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS – http://www.ercot.com/news/presentations

        Meanwhile, this is the “Report on the Capacity, Demand, and Reserves
        in the ERCOT Region” issued in May 2014:

        Here are the salient facts from the “Ercot – Quick Facts” sheet:

        Generation Development
        – 48,000 MW new generation added since 1999 137 older units
        . . decommissioned
        – 12,754 MW generation committed for the future (with transmission
        . . contract and air permit)
        – 51,100 MW of active generation requests under review, including
        . . more than 24,200 MW of wind (December 2013)


        • Gail Combs says:

          You really are an Optimist aren’t you _Jim, guess you never had to wrestle with a pig in mud….. ERRRrrr deal with the government bureaucracy.

          ERCOTs scramble to get out of their current mess still does not change the picture for the USA as a whole.

          Over three times as many coal plants are going down than the EPA expected and if new (gas or nuclear) plants are not built in time the grid goes down PERIOD.

          Think of all the red tape and all the bureauRats who don’t give a crap and will say NO just to protect their jobs. If the government is involved it costs 10X as much and takes 5X as long… IF you get it done at all. (See examples below.)

          Then think of all the radical protesters or worse the antifracking crowd. The Canadians have already tossed up their hands and will be shipping their oil and gas to China so WHERE are we going to get all that Natural Gas from to run those new plants? Russia? It certainly will not be from the USA. Given I am sitting on 100 acres over the Triassic Basin shale gas that the state of North Carolina will not allow to be drilled…

          And then the Feds are getting into the act too.

          May 16, 2013
          ….concerning the proposed federal regulations for hydraulic fracturing announced today by the Department of Interior:

          “This regulation places an unnecessary additional burden on American energy producers, and ultimately on energy consumers who will pay for it in the form of higher energy prices. The rule is another power grab by the Obama Administration, which is forever seeking to fix a problem even former EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has said does not exist. Despite sixty years of safe hydraulic fracturing in more than one million successful wells, the Interior Department will now add another layer of sluggish bureaucracy for everyone seeking to harness the tremendous economic and energy potential on taxpayer-owned federal lands. Already, an unresponsive and often hostile federal government has made these lands all but undesirable for energy exploration…

          NUclear? Don’t make me laugh The USA may be shutting down 1/3 of its fleet and some operators have even canceled relatively low-cost “uprate” projects that would increase capacity at existing plants.

          Here is an actual example of what “New Clean Energy” has to go through:

          December 6, 2013 The Debilitating Cost of Federal Regulatory Compliance
          The Mercatus Center just published a new paper explaining how federal regulations actually discourage energy development, even low-impact renewable energy development. The Mercatus paper tells the story of how Logan, Utah developed a micro-hydro plant that cost almost $3 million in the U.S., but would have only cost between $225,000 and $375,000 in Canada. The reason the project was 10 times more expensive in the U.S. than in Canada was the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) regulations.

          Seventy percent of Logan City’s drinking water supply comes from DeWitt Springs located up Logan Canyon. In 2008, the city updated the water line from the springs, increasing both the water supply and the pressure of the line. But the increased pressure necessitated improvements in the pressure reduction valves. The city realized that instead of just installing new valves, they could install a micro-hydro turbine that would help to reduce pressure and generate low-cost renewable energy for the city….

          For Logan, Utah it was indeed complicated, time-intensive, and costly. Despite the fact that the Dewitt pipeline is not new (it was built in 1934 and upgraded in 1949)[1], would not withdraw water from a river nor return water to a river, and the project not require a new pipeline nor new construction outside of existing buildings, FERC required the city to prepare a preliminary Environmental Assessment (EA) under the National Energy Policy Act (NEPA). Ironically, the city had to do a preliminary EA in order to get a NEPA waiver from a full-blown “environmental impact statement,” or EIS.

          The city also had to analyze the impact of the project on endangered species under the Endangered Species Act, even though the project did not require a new pipeline, or a new building, and did not return the water to the environment.

          FERC also required Logan City do conduct an assessment under the National Historic Preservation Act to determine the potential impact on “historic properties.” This is despite the fact that the only construction would occur within an existing structure.

          All told, these analyses drove up the cost of installing a 200-kilowatt micro-hydro turbine to nearly $3 million….

          Sadly, Logan might have gotten off easy. Barre City, Vermont has spent seven years trying to install a 15 kilowatt micro-hydro turbine and Afton, Wyoming has spent $7.5 million ($5.6 million in regulatory compliance costs) to put in a micro-hydro facility.

          As the Mercatus paper explains, regulatory compliance costs are ridiculously high—even for the type of energy project that the Obama administration supports. If federal regulatory compliance increases the cost of project by 10 times, it is time to re-evaluate how laws like NEPA, the ESA, and others are being used to slow down, and halt energy projects.

          It is hard to understand how a nation that has built the world’s greatest economy can long endure if our regulatory costs result in energy facilities that are priced ten times as high as other advanced countries.

        • _Jim says:

          re: Gail Combs July 1, 2014 at 10:35 pm
          You really are an Optimist aren’t you _Jim,

          No, Gail I’m dealing with ‘facts’ as opposed to editorials posing as articles. You posted a 1 and 1/2 yo opinion piece and I countered with what is reality today.

          Now, do you want to discuss how Texas is handling this or ‘coat rack’ into the entire US? You posted information specific to Texas, and now have moved on to the entire United States; without further time invested I don’t know the specifics of how the US generation side of the power supply system is coping with the planned closure of more coal plants.

          I addressed Texas as that was the example in your previous post. Moving the goal posts arbitrarily mid discussion is bad form, BTW, and falls into the category of intellectually-dishonest debate tactics, namely, “Changing the subject”.

          Remember my admonition that ‘adults are in charge’ yet on some issues? Power generation in Texas is one of those issues, fortunately, at least, for the foreseeable future.


        • Gail Combs says:

          Jim YOU are the one shifting the goal posts. I used ERCOT as an example of a grid that was having problems. I also linked to other pieces. As far as I know ALL of the USA is interconnected so you can have the entire East Coast go down (which is the most probable happening) As one power systems engineer commented on WUWT:

          “Letting non-professionals get involved in the power grid is like giving the keys to the family car and a bottle of whiskey to a 14 year old boy and his pals. If the renewables were viable, we’d adopt them by the train-load and build them so fast your head would spin.”

          So there is your ADULT weighing in on the subject. We have a bunch of Idiotic Congress Critters and EPA bureaucrats playing power systems engineer and you think these people are ADULTS??? Have you bothered to talk to a local electric coop about the problem? I have. Mine was even looking into getting a modular nuclear plant a couple years ago because they could see the writing on the wall, unlike you.

          BTW even ERCOT said they were having problems:

          Assessment of Demand Response and Advanced Metering
          On April 17, 2006, ERCOT was forced to use 1,000 MW of involuntary demand response and 1,200 MW of voluntary demand response to successfully prevent a system-wide blackout. Unusually high and unexpected load due to unanticipated hot weather, coupled with 14,500 MW of generation that was unavailable due to planned spring maintenance, resulted in insufficient capacity to meet load. System frequency dropped to 59.73 Hz at one point. Rolling blackouts were required for about two hours, with individual customers curtailed between 10 and 45 minutes at a time. All of the load called upon to respond did so successfully (voluntary and involuntary), though there was a 15 minute delay with one block of involuntary load curtailment.

          Demand Response is the code words for Smart Grid. What they neglect to say is the way this is Demand Response works is with Smart Meters This allows residential electricity to be turned off so the system can be balanced.

          Energy InSight FAQs

          ….Rolling outages are systematic, temporary interruptions of electrical service.
          They are the last step in a progressive series of emergency procedures that ERCOT follows when it detects that there is a shortage of power generation within the Texas electric grid. ERCOT will direct electric transmission and distribution utilities, such as CenterPoint Energy, to begin controlled, rolling outages to bring the supply and demand for electricity back into balance.They generally last 15-45 minutes before being rotated to a different neighborhood to spread the effect of the outage among consumers, which would be the case whether outages are coordinated at the circuit level or individual meter level. Without this safety valve, power generating units could overload and begin shutting down and risk causing a domino effect of a statewide, lengthy outage. With smart meters, CenterPoint Energy is proposing to add a process prior to shutting down whole circuits to conduct a mass turn off of individual meters with 200 amps or less (i.e. residential and small commercial consumers) for 15 or 30 minutes, rotating consumers impacted during that outage as well as possible future outages.

          There are several benefits to consumers of this proposed process. By isolating non-critical service accounts (“critical” accounts include hospitals, police stations, water treatment facilities etc.) and spreading “load shed” to a wider distribution, critical accounts that happen to share the same circuit with non-critical accounts will be less affected in the event of an emergency. Curtailment of other important public safety devices and services such as traffic signals, police and fire stations, and water pumps and sewer lifts may also be avoided.

        • _Jim says:

          re: Gail Combs July 1, 2014 at 11:55 pm
          Jim YOU are the one shifting the goal posts. I used ERCOT as an example of a grid that was having problems.

          Faulty example, there were, and are, no problems.

          My whole point is as summarized previously. Adults are in charge down here. What, do you think we are stupid or something in this state?


  5. Anything is possible says:

    “What Goddard did was bogus! He didn’t make any adjustments!”


    How are you supposed to actually quantify the adjustments unless you first establish what the data shows without making any adjustments?

    Why do so many supposedly intelligent people find that so difficult to understand?

    • Gail Combs says:

      “Why do so many supposedly intelligent people find that so difficult to understand?”
      When your pay check depends on “Not Understanding” then you “Don’t Understand”

      Turn a blind eye:


      To knowingly refuse to acknowledge something which you know to be real.

      Admiral Horatio Nelson is supposed to have said this when wilfully disobeying a signal to withdraw during a naval engagement. Tales of that sort, especially when they are about national heroes like Nelson, tend to be exaggerated or entirely fictitious. That doesn’t appear to be the case here though and there’s very good evidence to show that Nelson was indeed the source of this phrase….

  6. markstoval says:

    “What Goddard did was bogus! He didn’t make any adjustments!”

    Some of these “scientists” have been accepting bogus data and methods for so very long that they don’t even know what science is anymore.

    Karl Popper call your office! (yes, I know he is dead but with NOAA’s time machine we can still talk to him I bet)

    • Gail Combs says:

      Mark, they never were scientists in the first place. They were Political Hacks with the goal of destroying the USA.

      Look at the timeline.

      The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was created in 1988. It was set up by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) to prepare, based on available scientific information, assessments on all aspects of climate change and its impacts, with a view of formulating realistic response strategies….

      Also in 1988…


      ….It was 98 degrees on June 23, 1988, and the warmth leaked in through the three big windows in Dirksen 366, overpowered the air conditioner, and left the crowd sweating and in shirt sleeves. James E. Hansen, a NASA scientist, was testifying before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. He was planning to say something radical: Global warming was real, it was a threat, and it was already underway. Hansen had hoped for a sweltering day to underscore his message. “We were just lucky,” Hansen said last week. Hmmm. As noted below, Hansen’s cohort then-Sen. Tim Wirth has made clear that this was as close to orchestrated as they could make it — even attempting to time the temperature market (perhaps that’s what Hansen meant by getting “lucky”) — and the aforementioned “overpowered” air conditioner actually had just been turned off and the windows left open before hearing time…..

      As a result of the false testimony given by Hansen and others the USA signed the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change on 12/06/92 and ratified it on 21/03/94.

      Hansen worked for the US Government but was out right lying to Congress in order to produce results that will have major repercussions for all Americans – the “De-industrialization” of our country whether we agreed with it or not. Is this Tre@son? Remember, Hansen has called for trials of climate skeptics for “high crimes against humanity.” Shouldn’t we be calling for the same for him and his cohorts in Tre@son?

  7. geran says:

    Curry used the word “bogus”.
    She was proved wrong (bogus).

    Where does that leave her?

  8. emsnews says:

    HAHAHA. So raw data is ‘bogus’!

    Pass me the joint. I need a toke badly. 🙂

  9. BobW in NC says:

    I’ll skip the toke, but, Steve—Someone is accusing you that RAW DATA IS BOGUS??? SERIOUSLY? Are you KIDDING ME? WHAT THE H*** IS SCIENCE COMING TO?

  10. omanuel says:

    Please be kind to Professor Curry.

    She has been remarkably candid for a tenure-tracked academic scientist.

    Nobody wants to finally admit that Stalin himself took control of science worldwide in the closing days of WWII.

    But that admission may be required to restore integrity to government science and constitutional limits on governments.

  11. Steve, I think the point of those who disagree with you is that an argument for some sort of sane adjustment regime is logical. That doesn’t imply that what NOAA or GISS are doing is defensible. On the other hand if you present what you do as a simple method to compare against NOAA and GISS as a ‘reality check’, I don’t see how such a modest argument could be criticized. The other point is that if your method agrees with an independent method of measurement, such as RSS, better than GISS or NOAA, then it’s a bit of case of the kettle calling the pot black.

    • There are 30 million USHCN daily temperature readings. Attempting to adjust them is just an excuse to introduce confirmation bias.

      In any legitimate science, a Gaussian distribution of error would be assumed, and the data left alone.

      • Gail Combs says:


      • Jason Calley says:

        Your point about the Gaussian distribution is well taken and should be noted by those who criticize you by saying “but he didn’t do gridding!” or “simple averages are not correct if the dropped data has a systematic pattern!” Technically, both those criticisms are correct — but if the data has errors because of drop out, human error or location bias, then they are criticising very small errors and ignoring the GIGANTIC bias being shown in the “adjustments”. If your detractors are serious about their arguments against your simple raw data averages, then they have a duty to justify and explain why lost data and fabricated data have a systematic pattern. Without that explanation, it is completely unreasonable to think that for decades early in the century, bad data was overwhelmingly reading too high and had to be adjusted lower, and that now, for some strange reason, bad data is overwhelmingly reading too low and must be adjusted up.

        It is like you are pointing out that the Emperor has no clothes, and they are responding, “Naked? The Emperor? That’s crazy! Of course he is not naked! Look! He is wearing a necklace!”

        And they still have not given a believable reason why old data must be adjusted over and over and over and over…

    • Gail Combs says:

      What Steve is doing is simple yet devastating. He is showing the ‘Adjustments’ ALWAYS cool the past and warm the present and therefore create a slope in the temperature data that wasn’t there or was modest at best. He also shows that the 1980s & 1990s were nothing unusual.

      If you want independent confirmations then ask the plants (the Köppen climate classification, widely used, vegetation-based empirical climate classification system.)
      Map enlarge to look at the decadal movement of boundaries during the 20th C in the Midwest.

      It agrees with Steven’s raw data and not with the Alarmists’ mutilated data.

      • Jason Calley says:

        Gail, here in north-eastern Florida, you will find towns with names like Orange Park, and Mandarin. One hundred years ago this area had major commercial citrus groves which shipped fruit all up the east coast. Today, you have to drive 80 or 100 miles south to find those groves. We get too many hard freezes here now to have large citrus groves.

        I have pointed this out to CAGW supporters. Their response? “But – but – but 97%!!!! What about the 97%??!”

        • Gail Combs says:

          That pretty much agrees with the Koppen map of the Kansas area. I guesstimate ~ 100 to 150 miles.

        • Larry Geiger says:

          The orange groves that used to line the Florida Turnpike north of Orlando are now mostly pine plantations (and, unfortunately, The Villages…). Did you know that at one time Rocklege, FL was the center of pineapple production for the US. Yep, climate change put a cool end to that. I’m waiting for the cool cycle to bring back some real, three day, freezes and take out the rest of the Australian Pines and Brazilian Pepper Trees. Also might bring back the rain to High Springs and fill the lakes back up and end the local drought. Maybe that will take a few more hurricanes, I don’t know.

        • Larry Geiger says:

          Oooooooooooops. I meant Keystone Heights and not High Springs. Brain fade.

      • Eliza says:

        Actually the graph that Zeke put up at Politifact (to defend his position ironically), shows exactly that: The adjustments always cool the past, Maybe the guy is having second thoughts LOL

        • mjc says:

          Basically, any and all data I could find, supports a much warmer past, for the part of WV where I live.

          The area where I live has pretty much lost a month off the growing season from the early 1900s to now. Back in 1919 the ‘official’ last frost date was May 1. It’s now May 15th and we’ve had killing frosts much later than that at least 7 out of the last 10 yrs…the last 3 yrs all had the last Spring frost Memorial Day weekend or later! The ‘official’ 1919 first frost date was October 6. It’s now September 28.

    • The problem here is the “Adjustments” are always warmer for the present… cooler for the past… = Confirmation Bias…

      What a joke..

    • Brian H says:

      Re: Will Nitschke (Jul 1 22:31), Don’t git it, does ya? Steve/Tony mostly compares data files with their earlier less adjusted selves.

  12. Robertv says:

    Not with all theTampered Raw Data in the world the USA will be in the next round.

    I never knew minutes take so long.

    But now it’s over

  13. CC Squid says:

    I have been looking at Dr. Roy Spenser’s blog post titled “UAH Global Temperature Update for June, 2014: +0.30 deg. C”. I note that he developed this graph from data provided by “http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc_lt_5.6.txt”. Does this data come from the same data you have reported on?

    On 3/2013 Alaska was added to the 48 contiguous states an Australia was also added.

  14. CC Squid says:

    I have a “rice bowl” hypothesis of science that goes something like this. “If one puts rice in my bowl, I will starve if I bite the hand that feeds me.” Unfortunately, the rice being put in the bowl has been collected from the tax payer

  15. Eliza says:

    Politifact put up your reply.
    BTW we now know that ZEke works for BEST (like Mosher) no wonder he is so bloody defensive. Cannot believe ANY of his postings any more just more modeling tripe.

    • Gail Combs says:

      It gets even better Mueller who lied and claimed he was a “skeptic” at one point but the data made him a believer owns a consulting business (Nice way to hide bribes BTW)

      Muller & Assoc.:

      Richard Muller , President and Chief Scientist

      “…Muller & Associates provides expertise for energy challenges that deserve the best minds in the world. Our senior-level team includes Nobel Laureates, MacArthur Geniuses, and recognized global leaders with experience in over 30 countries. We integrate science with business acumen, economics, and long-term trends to ensure that our clients are making the right investments for their organization.

      We know that in order to be effective, solutions must be sustainable
      and we know that for businesses, sustainable solutions must be profitable as well.

      GreenGov™ is a service offered by Muller & Associates for Governments, International Organizations, non profits, and other organizations that work with Government. The aim is to provide politically-neutral counsel that is broad in scope while rooted in the hard facts of state-of-the-art science and engineering. The key is to make the right patch between the best technologies and the strengths of the government. We know that to be effective the political dimension must be integrated into the technical plan from the start. “

      A key word is SUSTAINABLE This ties to the UN Agenda 21, Ged Davis, Shell Oil and the IPCC.
      Ged Davis wrote Sustainable Development (B1) scenario:

      Ged Davis was an IPCC lead author and Shell Oil VP.

      If you then go to the listing of the TEAM at Muller Assoc.
      you find. Arthur Rosenfeld, Former California Energy Commissioner among others.

      Further down you find Marlan Downey
      Click on Marlan Downey, Oil and Gas Executive
      And guess what ? We find SHELL OIL!
      “Marlan Downey, Oil and Gas Executive
      ….. Former President of the international subsidiary of Shell Oil…..”

      More on the Shell OIl connections HERE

  16. GW says:

    Steve, did you confront Judy regarding her “bogus” comment ? Curious what her response is if you did or do.

  17. Eliza says:

    Actually looking at the graph that Zeke put up there (politifact reply), it totally confirms your findings:.Without the adjustments there is no warming. What did Zeke say about that?

  18. hazze says:

    Well WUWT came to its senses…guess Curry will to…its kinda smells calling u bogus…just keep punching…come round 15 they all be down…not begging for a rematch 🙂

  19. Eliza says:

    BTW the models here (I just picked South America where I live) are extremely accurate to 7 days at least in my experience over 2 years monitoring but of course they use real data.Its called meteorology.
    You can see a huge mass of cold air approaching from Antarctica which will reach us in about 5 days, but it usually slips south due to the highs of the coast of Brazil.

  20. Marc says:

    Stupid question perhaps, but how do “they” claim to validate the adjustments (IOW, what confirmation do they have that the adjustments are valid)? Are there really no stations whose raw data is considered “correct” by these clowns? And how do they compare to the others?

  21. José Tomás says:

    Their answer just published at WUWT.

  22. Eliza says:

    Just posted this a WUWT re NCDC reply: As I mentioned before they will do NOTHING or admit nothing. That is why the time is past talking.They have an agenda AGW.. As an aside this is what we shouid worryibg about; Note the definite almost circular shape Antarctica is beginning to form with the extraordinary ice expansion (ABOVE ANOMALY)

  23. jimash1 says:

    “Are the examples in Texas and Kansas prompting a deeper look at how the algorithms change the raw data?”
    “No – our algorithm is working as designed.”


  24. ralphcramdo says:

    Golly gee, this could never happen in climate science, could it?

    AIDS scientist pleads not guilty to faking study
    By DAVID PITT — Jul. 1, 2014 8:54 PM EDT

    DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — A former Iowa State University scientist pleaded not guilty Tuesday to charges alleging that he falsified research for an AIDS vaccine to secure millions of dollars in federal funding.

    Dong-Pyou Han, 57, entered his not guilty pleas to four counts of making false statements during his initial court appearance in Des Moines federal court. Each count carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.


  25. If the 1900s tampering trendline continued into the 21st century, 2013 U.S. temperatures were inflated by over half a degree.

  26. talldave2 says:

    POLITIFACT 2012: If you like your plan, you can keep your plan.
    POLITIFACT 2014: …there remains no evidence that “NASA scientists fudged the numbers to make 1998 the hottest year to overstate the extent of global warming,”

    Yeah… except for the graph at the top of your post.

    They even have an “OUR RULING” section. What a bunch of pretentious, self-important, uninteresting hacks.

Leave a Reply