Skip to content

Booker On Temperature Adjustments

January 25, 2015

By Paul Homewood 




Christopher Booker devotes his whole column today to the scandal of temperature adjustments: 


Although it has been emerging for seven years or more, one of the most extraordinary scandals of our time has never hit the headlines. Yet another little example of it lately caught my eye when, in the wake of those excited claims that 2014 was “the hottest year on record”, I saw the headline on a climate blog: “Massive tampering with temperatures in South America”. The evidence on Notalotofpeopleknowthat, uncovered by Paul Homewood, was indeed striking.

Puzzled by those “2014 hottest ever” claims, which were led by the most quoted of all the five official global temperature records – Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss) – Homewood examined a place in the world where Giss was showing temperatures to have risen faster than almost anywhere else: a large chunk of South America stretching from Brazil to Paraguay.

Noting that weather stations there were thin on the ground, he decided to focus on three rural stations covering a huge area of Paraguay. Giss showed it as having recorded, between 1950 and 2014, a particularly steep temperature rise of more than 1.5C: twice the accepted global increase for the whole of the 20th century.

But when Homewood was then able to check Giss’s figures against the original data from which they were derived, he found that they had been altered. Far from the new graph showing any rise, it showed temperatures in fact having declined over those 65 years by a full degree. When he did the same for the other two stations, he found the same. In each case, the original data showed not a rise but a decline.

Homewood had in fact uncovered yet another example of the thousands of pieces of evidence coming to light in recent years that show that something very odd has been going on with the temperature data relied on by the world’s scientists. And in particular by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which has driven the greatest and most costly scare in history: the belief that the world is in the grip of an unprecedented warming.



Read the rest here.


For anyone who has missed my original post on Paraguay, it is here.

  1. January 25, 2015 1:26 pm

    It’s good that your hard work & meticulous research is getting an even wider audience.

  2. January 25, 2015 1:35 pm

    Thank you for this encouraging news.

    Going back in time, we found that world leaders began using federal research grant funds to guide government science toward the goals of UN’s Agenda 21 seventy years ago, in 1945.

    This unethical practice was practically invisible until the goals of UN Agenda 21 were finally published in 1972.

    Compelling evidence of fraud did not surface until Climategate emails in late Nov 2009 showed how the UN’s IPCC used UN’s Agenda to guide global temperature data.

    I will try to post a workable link to UN’s Agenda 21.

  3. January 25, 2015 1:45 pm

    Paul, very well done for making it on to the Telegraph. I have to admit that I find what you have uncovered hard to believe. It is absolutely shocking if true. You need to write to the senior officials involved in the USA asking for an explanation…. along the lines I’m quite sure a perfectly innocent and scientifically grounded explanation exists, I simply would like to know what it is.

    • January 25, 2015 7:26 pm

      Euan, I am afraid there is no innocent explanation. The most vivid example is the US 2014 switch to nClimDiv from the previous state level summary program Drd964x used up thru 2013. Essay When Data Isn’t in newish ebook Blowing Smoke illustrates California, Michigan, and Maine plus CONUS net. Maine is proverbial smoking gun evidence since both 2013 and 2014 were perchance both archived in the new NOAA chart form by Joe D’Aleo of Weatherbell.
      The essay covers a lot more ground globally, but always it is the same story.
      The last technical footnote covers two fundamental logic flaws in all the homogenization algorithms including Aus BOM: regional expectation and Menne stitching. One could presume these have not been corrected because of simple confirmation bias. Or one could presume they are not innocent faults but rather very subtle and deeply buried intentional biases. The essay gives enough explanations and examples for anyone to judge.

      • January 25, 2015 7:52 pm

        I agree with your sentiments that there is large scale fraud going on to keep the status quo, not least because part of our pension money is invested in eco friendly energy: there is VERY big money involved.

        In stats you only have to come up with a reasonable sampling plan to judge global temperature change. I only needed 54 samples (weather stations), really, to see what is happening.. You can see from the graphs at the end of my tables

        Click to access henryspooltableNEWc.pdf

        that you do not really need a bigger sample then the one I took i.e. high correlation for quadratic functions for the rate of change in temperature

        My sampling technique is discussed here:

        I believe my work is repeatable by anyone, preferably taking 50 odd other samples of weather stations.

        Just be aware of the specific specified sampling procedure.

  4. January 25, 2015 1:45 pm

    I like Christopher – I am sure it was his book “the real global warming disaster” that set me out as a skeptic to find the truth for myself.

  5. January 25, 2015 2:00 pm

    Well done!

  6. 1saveenergy permalink
    January 25, 2015 2:04 pm

    That’s good news Paul, hopefully it will lead to more people following this site than the 633 at present. Your hard work in researching the climate scam should be appreciated by a greater audience.

  7. January 25, 2015 2:13 pm

    I have some interesting results from Asuncion, Paraquay. Look at the Means table, blue results.

    Click to access henryspooltableNEWc.pdf

    Over the past 40 years it was warming there, on average at a rate of 0.002 degree per annum, That would be about 0.08 degrees C in total. Max. 0.1K. That is not much.

    Over the past 24 years, it was still warming at an average of 0.017K per annum. 0.4K max.

    However, in the past 14 years it has started cooling, at an average rate -0.018C/annum for the past 14 years. That is -0.25K

    But who but me could be worried about a few tenths of a degree?

  8. January 25, 2015 3:18 pm

    Well done Paul. You are getting deserved recognition for your diligence.

  9. Retired Dave permalink
    January 25, 2015 3:23 pm

    Well done Paul. Once again it is time to thank you for your considerable efforts.

    Mr Booker’s piece will be widely read, but little or nothing will come from it.

    I agree with Euan Mearns that questions need to be asked, but as far as the USA is concerned (and the UK for that matter) these people are simply delivering what their political masters expect. It is perhaps a perfect feedback mechanism – climate scientists feed politicians who tax citizens and then require more evidence to continue doing so and so climate scientists feed…….. etc.

    Christopher Booker understands what needs to happen now and that is a leak such as another Climategate style expose of what is a widespread practice. The 2009 release of emails showed co-ordinated fiddling of data. It needs an insider (because that is what the Climategate release was) to spill the beans. I am not holding my breath.

    Is it co-ordinated? – I don’t know, or do they just all fear that their well-paid sinecure will come to an end. Evidence of very dodgy adjustments has been spotted in New Zealand, Australia, and the USA – with NASA GISS making old coolings and recent warmings all over the world. The HadCrut series gets much the same treatment.

    What is required throughout Climate Science is a no holds barred Red Team approach with no preconceived position. BUT for that to be started you need politicians who want to know the truth, and as the UK government is taxing us 10% of their revenue on the back of the scam, is very unlikely.

    • January 25, 2015 3:42 pm

      Put 10 warmists and 10 skeptics in a room for 10 days, everyone explaining their respective results. It would be like a trial, by a jury of 20 people. They would have to swear to be honest to the truth.
      What would you get?
      On the balance of all probability, on a final vote, the truth, we hope?
      [The problem would be to find the people who actually have measured own results instead of those that come to the table with “calculated” results]

  10. January 25, 2015 4:18 pm

    Thanks, Paul. Christopher Booker has been exposing this global warming scam from the beginning. Thanks, Christopher.

  11. January 25, 2015 4:25 pm

    There is a blog post “arguing” against the article’s assessment

    • January 25, 2015 6:47 pm

      I notice he does not tell us what was wrong with the temperature records, or why all three stations were affected!

      Only that they thought it would be a good idea to change them.

      Perhaps he should change his site name to “Then there’s phydling”

  12. Dave Ward permalink
    January 25, 2015 5:28 pm

    Well done, Paul. I see that JoNova has picked up on this as well – you and Booker both get mentioned.

    Onward and upwards!

  13. January 25, 2015 6:50 pm

    It’s a pity that the actual Sunday Telegraph article doesn’t include the charts.

  14. January 25, 2015 7:07 pm

    Congratulations, Paul. Well done to get the much broader exposure you merit.

  15. January 25, 2015 9:23 pm

    Reblogged this on the WeatherAction News Blog and commented:
    Congratulations Paul. Good to see your work getting more exposure.

    Whatever the reason for these adjustments – accumulative errors, confirmation bias, hockey stick curve fitting – it needs independent investigation.

    Not that I’ll hold my breath 😀

  16. yonason permalink
    January 25, 2015 10:10 pm

    But isn’t Greenland “melting?”
    Oops, nevermind. (first article there)

  17. January 26, 2015 3:01 am

    kudos!!! job well done!!!

  18. January 26, 2015 6:58 am

    Think about the closedown tricks that activists use, as antidote to the truth they are whispered into the ears of naive lazy journalists.
    “oh that was all investigated and found not be true”
    eg for this case I get told “Oh yes the demiers like Watts complained about urban heat island effect but that”s been debunked when the questioned stations were left out the scientists still got the same overall temp, so it really us just another denier myth”, That trick is not only used to close down Urban Heat Island talk for evermore, but is extended to close down ALL & ANY skeptics questioning of temperature datasets.

    in The Booker comments
    someone similarly slings mud hoping that it will stick
    “you can choose to believe the professional scientific community, blah blah
    or Booker and his rag-tag followers in this column.”
    and they hope that is enough to deter anyone from actually looking at your maths and just dismiss it out of hand

  19. January 26, 2015 9:49 am

    Reblogged this on Wolsten and commented:
    Paul Homewood gets deserved recognition in the Main Stream Media.

  20. Hoi Polloi permalink
    January 26, 2015 10:27 am

    Mosher (BEST) explains everything here:

  21. January 26, 2015 8:35 pm

    Thanks to cooperation and unselfish input from many, “the greatest secret of the universe” is being revealed as the “greatest fraudster on Earth” is exposed:

    Misinformation-by-design to fit UN Agenda 21 explains systematic, worldwide distortions in experimental measurements and observations.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: