Skip to content

Temperature Adjustment Scandal Goes Viral

February 9, 2015

By Paul Homewood  

 

image

 

 

The genie is well and truly out of the bottle now. 

 

I have now had more than 50,000 views in the last two days, as the story of temperature adjustments has taken hold. Many, many more will have read the accounts in the media from Britain to America and Australia.

 

Regardless of the validity or otherwise of some of the adjustments, this is a story that has been hidden from the public for much too long.

25 Comments
  1. 1saveenergy permalink
    February 9, 2015 11:03 pm

    well done paul, at last the hard graft pays off

  2. February 9, 2015 11:03 pm

    Congrats, Paul, a just reward for all your diligent investigations.

  3. myrightpenguin permalink
    February 9, 2015 11:06 pm

    Well done Paul. A considerable amount of detailed diligent work gets its just reward, as evidenced by the weak responses so far.

  4. Brad permalink
    February 9, 2015 11:17 pm

    Paul,
    I have done my fair share of promoting your work, even to the point of severely irritating friends and family. Drudge coverage is an excellent booster!!

    KEEP UP THE GREAT WORK!!

  5. February 9, 2015 11:41 pm

    the SkS commentary is most fascinating. Somersaults abound to show adjustments from cooling to warming don’t matter “because SST”. The Pandora’s Box of SST adjustments remains unopened.

  6. February 10, 2015 12:13 am

    Well done, you’ve put a lot of hard work in on this over a very long time and deserve the credit.

    But let’s not forget that just in the way adjusting LIBOR rate was a crime, so fabricating the global temperature rate is also a crime and it’s really time the police were involved.

  7. February 10, 2015 12:22 am

    Thanks again, Paul.
    This is a story that deserves to be told.

  8. February 10, 2015 1:42 am

    The magnitude of the adjustments makes no sense.

    Here’s another one: https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/02/09/mind-blowing-data-tampering-at-addison-new-york/

    The numbers just don’t add up. A tenth of a degree here and there; maybe. But 4 degrees? If such drastic corrections are needed, the entire station should be thrown out – instead the past is cooled in order to produce a long-term warming trend.

  9. tom0mason permalink
    February 10, 2015 2:45 am

    With your work here Paul, and Tony Heller (aka Steven Goddard) in the USA, and the two Australians Joanne Nova and Jennifer Marohasy chipping away for quite a few years at this ‘adjustment’ issue, it was only a matter of time before the public and numbskulls of MSM finally stumbled on it.
    Also I’d like to say a big thank-you to the many, many other sceptical professionals who have pointed out these and other errors, and that sadly some of them paid a high career price for so.
    To all of you here’s a big thank-you from me.

    Yep, I now await the many newly established ‘investigative reporters’ of main stream media, reheating your work, then serving it up in their own sweet and sour sauce, and calling it their ‘exclusive’. But we all here know who really did the leg-work.

    Now onwards to fight for freedom with just words and good intentions…

  10. February 10, 2015 2:49 am

    Paul mate , There is an uncomprehensive debunk from arstechnica
    “Do we have to go through this every year?
    by John Timmer – Feb 10 2015′
    “All of this based on a few posts by a blogger who has gone around cherry picking a handful of temperature stations and claiming the adjustments have led to a warming bias.

    Why would Booker latch on to this without first talking to someone with actual expertise in temperature records? A quick look at his Wikipedia entry shows that he has a lot of issues with science in general, claiming that things like asbestos and second-hand smoke are harmless, and arguing against evolution. ”
    (Warmists Debunk by smear again)

    – With the webpage adverts on Tirygraph and Breibart money is being made now.. You should be getting a cut.
    – But based on the above so should the Telegraphs libel lawyers.

    • February 10, 2015 2:53 am

      Something fishy with the Telegraph comments ?
      gone from normal 300 to 15,000 !
      0. Today I see no comments (on Android)
      1. Yesterday I saw something strange, so many new comments, but no one was ‘liking’ the top old comments, they remained at 256 likes
      2. Why would I bother writing a comment unless someone is going to read it ? at 11,000 no one is reading
      2. A possible scenario to me that someone was deliberately overloading the page
      – to spoil the discussion
      – or to so overload moderators, that they would be deterred from allowing comments in future stories ?

  11. February 10, 2015 5:18 am

    Well done, Paul. This is impressive and, as you say, it’s an important issue the mainstream media have kept from the public for too long.

  12. February 10, 2015 5:43 am

    Great result. The power of good blogging. Hoping you feel encouraged to keep up the good work!

  13. February 10, 2015 6:47 am

    Can we now have the result of “measurement”, please? Measurement indeed always has error, but easy to understand! But such error is always wee, as compared to the gross error from Hansen’s GISS Playstation-64.results. Thank you Paul.

  14. February 10, 2015 7:52 am

    About time too!

  15. February 10, 2015 9:45 am

    Thanks Paul for your hard work and dedication to uncovering the fraud. Keep up the good work.

  16. Bloke down the pub permalink
    February 10, 2015 1:14 pm

    i’m sure Paul that this won’t go to your head.

  17. Pragmatist permalink
    February 10, 2015 1:50 pm

    Could somebody point me to a single critique of Paul’s analysis of the 19 arctic stations? I would think somebody would have made a sincere attempt to explain the specifics of the adjustments at these 19 stations? Thus far, the approach from the climate scientists has been 1) attack the messenger (Booker) or 2) state they’ve already addressed skeptic’s concerns repeatedly and comprehensively in the past and thus no need to revisit.

  18. Eliza permalink
    February 10, 2015 2:04 pm

    Judith Curry has allowed Mosher, Zeke ect to respond to your findings. You’ll have to go through each one. Im sure its an attempt to salvage/deviate from the true raw data with homogenization ect its so long no one will read it but will appear professional as taht is all that they have got left. Most of their replies are of the nick stockes variety

    • February 10, 2015 7:35 pm

      Eliza, actually they have not responded to Pauls specific regional GISS critiques (central south America, part of the Arctic). Rather, they explain BEST and use it to assert everything evens out on a continental basis. That may be so, but misses the point. I have challenged them to do what they should have done in response to Booker’s two columns: show the BEST raw final for these spefic regions compared to GISS GHCN. They have many more stations, less need for infilling, and the software already in place. Perhaps they will. If they do, I suspect it will show the GISS bias also.

  19. Green Sand permalink
    February 10, 2015 3:55 pm

    Australia could be interesting in the coming months:-

    “Members of the Technical Advisory Forum on climate records announced”

    19 January 2015

    “As recommended by an independent peer review, we are establishing a Technical Advisory Forum comprised of leading scientists and statisticians to review and provide advice on Australia’s official temperature data set. The Technical Advisory Forum will meet in March.

    The Bureau of Meteorology is responsible for the climate record, as a trusted and respected organisation, and welcomes robust assessment of its work in order to maintain the highest levels of public confidence.

    The establishment of this Forum will provide an independent framework for quality assurance tests and analysis of the Bureau’s data sets for greater transparency.

    The Bureau’s climate information services were subject to a rigorous independent peer-review in 2011. The Review was conducted by a panel of international experts and found the Bureau’s data and analysis methods met world’s best practice…… ”

    http://www.environment.gov.au/minister/baldwin/2015/mr20150119.html

    So “met world’s best practice” in 2011, but in short order needs another coat looking at?

    Funny stuff is whitewash, always more difficult to apply than thought, never lasts as long as anticipated, needs constant maintenance and most importantly I have never know anybody to apply it without ending up with significant personal staining:-)

  20. Steve J permalink
    February 10, 2015 8:54 pm

    There’s a station at the northern end of Madagascar called Diego-Suarez where the adjustments changed a -0.30C/decade trend into a +0.18C/decade trend. There are no nearby stations to the north or east of this station and the only station west is on an isolated island. But somehow, the Chicken Little adjustment algorithm knows that the temperatures were almost 2.5C too high during much of the 1940s and 50s. It is insane to think that nobody noticed their thermometers were reading almost 5F too high for twenty straight years.

    http://s1381.photobucket.com/user/steve09355/media/diegosuarez_zpsuvedhdrz.png.html

    • tom0mason permalink
      February 11, 2015 10:44 am

      Good catch, that’ll be a difficult one to argue a scientific reason for adjusting.

Trackbacks

  1. Temperature Adjustment Scandal Goes Viral | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT | Cranky Old Crow
  2. Climategate II? | Scottish Sceptic

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: