The Practical Philosopher's Blog

Using the practical application of timeless wisdom to address modern issues

US Government Agencies Manipulate Raw Temperature Data to Hide Decline

This is one of the most definitive smoking guns I have seen of government corruption and collusion in creating a climate crisis that doesn’t exist! The US raw ground temperature data used to support any statement of the climate trends and, therefore, political decisions are no longer credible or trusted. They have been manipulated in what can only be described as an Orwellian manner.

In the UK Climate Research Unit (CRU) ClimateGate incident, much of the raw data behind their temperature record was revealed as ‘missing’. All they had was manipulated data that no one could validate as accurate. Not to worry, the CRU defenders said. They are only 1 of 3 major global temp datasets used to ‘prove’ Global Warming. Anthony Watts of the Watts Up With That? blog explains:

There are three main global temperature datasets. One is at the CRU, Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, where we’ve been trying to get access to the raw numbers. One is at NOAA/GHCN, the Global Historical Climate Network. The final one is at NASA/GISS, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies. The three groups take raw data, and they “homogenize” it to remove things like when a station was moved to a warmer location and there’s a 2C jump in the temperature. The three global temperature records are usually called CRU, GISS, and GHCN. Both GISS and CRU, however, get almost all of their raw data from GHCN. All three produce very similar global historical temperature records from the raw data. (Source)

When Anthony Watts stumbled across issues in the shoddy network of ground temperature stations in the US in 2007, he started an independent review with a site called SurfaceStations.org. The scrutiny and embarrassment to the US governing body (National Climatic Data Center) overseeing this critical network of raw climate data led to admissions of poor quality in the USHCN and the creation of a new network in 2003. Over 90% of temperature stations failed the NRDC’s own standards for siting them away from urban or environmental factors that create a false heat bias.

What now makes the US-component of the supposed ‘raw’ temperature data suspect came with unexplainable changes to ‘raw’ temp data between 2007 and 2009. The Internet was the undoing of this attempt at invisible data manipulation by NASA/GISS/NOAA/GHCN. It was caught by comparing the snapshots of raw data and surveys built out at the SurfaceStations.org site in 2007 with the current online data. While looking at an example of one of the few properly sited ground temperature stations in Orland, CA, that station showed how- amazingly!- the temps showed a decline from it’s start in 1880 to the present:

It was very interesting that the recent decade was NOT the warmest- it was back in the pre-1900’s. But even if you dumped that data segment as possibly corrupted, the next hottest temps in the 20th century were in the 1930’s, particularly 1934 that NASA had to be embarrassed into correcting itself after being audited by private statistican Steven McIntyre– not 1998! While anecdotal, this is in the continental US and a point worth following up on at other temp recording stations. This strongly undermines Gore and company’s predicted climate doom since the warm summer of 1998 was not the peak high of the 20th Century. This (1998 temp) was previously the Global Warming alarmist gold standard proof of man-made influence since they said it was an UNPRECEDENTED warming year and occurred only recently. With 1934 as the peak year and the 1930’s the peak warm decade, the case for human-driven CO2 emissions strongly influencing temps looked doubtful.

The site also had an active link to the current GISS source. Since the graphic from 2007 was smaller, I clicked on the link to see the actual Government tax-dollar financed data in an expanded view, but got this instead! 

Not only does this have the warmest data clipped off of it, it changes the ‘raw’ data to re-establish 1998 as the warmest temp and depresses the whole first half by a significant factor. Seems to be that ‘raw’ data is no longer raw and is re-made into something fitting the political climate alarmist template. The raw temps in any of the stations are now suspect and several that were snapshotted in 2007 show this blantant manipulation- always in a conforming Warmist direction.

When will the manipulation by those with political, financial or professional environmental interests stop? Virtually none of our climate data we have now can be trusted. Who has changed what? Where is the objective raw data? We certainly are NOT at a point where we should jump off the green cliff to ‘save’ the planet by going back to a 3rd world standard of living.

Here’s other research (video) on how the GHCN climate record of ground temps is no longer trustable: Global Warming: The Other Side

Advertisements

Filed under: Environment, Global Warming, Politics, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

9 Responses

  1. Brian H says:

    But … but… it’s “fake, but real!” It’s the overall “thruthiness” which is important!

    Seems I’ve seen this movie before —

  2. Brian H says:

    Edit: “truthiness” of course. My authentic-misspellchecker got confoosed.

  3. Philosopher says:

    Brian, Ha-yes, maybe there is a minimum truth-content percentage the Government shoots for. Sort of like a ‘fruit’ punch drink like Hi-C containing only 10% real fruit juice.

    Maybe it should read something like this:
    ‘Government climate information: contains 10% real truth and 90% other information from concentrated politics and ambition.’

  4. Cut2Chase says:

    Lol- that 90% is termed ‘value added’ or ‘derived product’.
    Anyway, the most appropriate quotation for the whole climate pr0n gala should come from R. Crumb’s guru, Mr. Natural.

    I know analogies suck, but what the heck-
    if I went to a doctor and he took the temperature of my toe, ear and belly button and averaged them to see if I had a fever- well… it’s not going to produce data. He’ll get a meaningless number, but it’s not data and will serve no diagnostic or predictive purpose. It can not.

    This is post normalism. The numbers have no intrinsic meaning- they are magical things with which a witchdoctor prepares incantations to summon funds. It works for that. It has nothing to do with science.
    The warmists are petitioning their lord with prayer for a disaster to ‘prove the science’
    hearts of stone, minds of moss
    give us a scien oh powerful COz!

    manbearpig strikes again http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1254619/Baby-girl-survives-shot-chest-parents-global-warming-suicide-pact.html?ITO=1490#ixzz0gyrMhSat

    Gore should have to eat em and sequester their carbon.

  5. kudzudechase says:

    It really is all about the marketing, isn’t it!?! I guess the warmers need to come out with their own version of Hi-C called Hi-CO2. Politicians market themselves via “campaigns”. They make promises that barely contain 10% truth, i.e. “it will all be on C-SPAN”. Follow the money. At the end of the day Al Gore and his ilk could not care less about the condition of the earth. Besides, is it not the height of arrogance to think that mankind can really do catastrophic damage to a planet in such a short time?

  6. Philosopher says:

    I would agree with the ‘follow the money’ comment. If it’s not that, then I would add follow the power to see the political motives that come into play here.

    CO2 and it ‘catastrophic’ potential is a good point as well. CO2 only makes up 38/100’s of 1 percent of our atmosphere. Over 95% of the greenhouse effect we do have comes from water vapor and it’s essential for life to exist. Of the CO2 that is produced, 97% of it come from natural sources. That means what ever man does is like spitting into a lake and claiming that we are flooding that area!

    How did anyone EVER come up with such a ridiculous hypothesis about CO2 climate-forcing given it’s availability (tiny) and sourcing (overwhelmingly natural)?

  7. Brian H says:

    Philosoph;
    Nope, that’s 38/1000ths of 1%, or 3.8% of 1%. Or .0038 x 1%, or .000038 of the atmosphere.

    The AGW people use hypothetical amplifying effects of H2O to leverage the effect of small fluctuations. Despite the fact that HUGE past variations had no such result, and despite having no plausible complete picture of what H2O is up to, and despite strong evidence that the process of evaporation, cloud condensation, precipitation, repeat, serves as a potent NEGATIVE feedback loop which can dump far more excess heat out of the troposphere than CO2 could ever build up. IOW, there’s a HUGE water-leak in AGW theory.

  8. Brian H says:

    Correction: my list of equivalents above has an error. Here’s the corrected correction:
    that’s 38/1000ths of 1%, or 3.8% of 1%. Or .038 x 1%, or .00038 of the atmosphere.

    I think the all-time high geologically speaking was about 7,000 ppm, which would be 0.7%, or 70/1000ths.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

February 2010
M T W T F S S
« Jan   Mar »
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
%d bloggers like this: