There are numerous published reports that the fundamental temperature records have been artificially corrupted in such a manner as to introduce a warming bias where none actually exists. And, that this process of altering temperature records is deliberate and well-understood by researchers. In fact, researchers are warned specifically that some of the nation’s data may be corrupted.

Here is the warning contained in the “README” file at NOAA  <Source link to government database redacted> …


And researchers are their own when it comes to finding changes …

GHCNM, V3, status file

(users can use this file to determine overall current status, including
information related to previous changes and errata).

DISCLAIMER: The status file does not record every possible change that may
have occurred from one version to another.  This would be impractical for a
variety of reasons. Therefore if a user is interested in discovering every
possible difference between two different file versions, they will need to
construct their own program to determine all possible changes between the file
<Source link to government database redacted>

And, if you don’t read the fine print, you might use the wrong data at the wrong time …

noaa header

NCDC uses two correction processes to remove inhomogeneities associated with factors unrelated to climate such as changes in observer practices, instrumentation, and changes in station location and environment that have occurred through time.

The first correction for time of observation changes in the United States was inadvertently disabled during late 2012. That algorithm provides for a physically based correction for observing time changes based on station history information.

NCDC also routinely runs a pairwise correction. algorithm that addresses such issues, but in an indirect manner. It successfully corrected for many of the time of observation issues, which minimized the effect of this processing omission.

The version 3.2.1 release also includes the use of updated data to improve quality control and correction processes of other U.S. stations and neighboring stations in Canada and Mexico.

Compared to analyses released in January 2013, the trend for certain calendar months has changed more than others. This effect is related to the seasonal nature of the reintroduced time-of-observation correction. Trends in U.S. winter temperature are higher while trends in summer temperatures are lower. For the globe, ranks of individual years changed in some instances by a few positions, but global temperature trends changed no more than 0.01°C/century for any month since 1880. <Source link to government database redacted>

Since most climate researchers did not provide their model source code and datasets along with their peer-reviewed climate-related papers, there might be inconsistencies in older data that have now been corrected. We are not saying that these researchers are acting out of self-interest, but there have been cases where “program adjustments” have been made to make the computed data more closely resemble the “observed data.”

Visualizing the effects of TOBS (Time of Day Bias) courtesy of Steve Goddard …


In this visualization you can see how correcting raw data with the Time of Day Bias might change the underlying data from a cooling trend to a warming trend. And, when this information is used by researchers without adequate examination of the data, they can honestly cite a particular dataset and claim that their analysis and conclusions are justified by the data. You may wish to read more at Real Science.

Here is a published story that is being falsely painted in some media as “denier” or “skeptic” propaganda …

The Australian Bureau of Meteorology (ABM) was recently forced to admit it alters the temperatures recorded at almost all the official weather stations in Australia. The ABM came clean on its temperature fiddling largely because of the fierce scrutiny of Graham Lloyd, environment editor for The Australian and The Weekend Australian, who published a series of articles on the ABM’s number-fudging.

Using a process it calls homogenization, ABM has replaced actual temperature measurements with massaged numbers. ABM claims anomalies have arisen in both the historical data and current measurements due to a wide variety of factors unrelated to climate, such as differing types of instruments used, choices of calibration or enclosure and where it was located, and the closure of some stations and opening of others. The ABM argues such factors justify homogenization of the numbers.

Critics point out a much worse anomaly in the homogenization process: Almost all the alterations resulted in higher temperatures being reported for the present and lower numbers for the past--with the higher numbers being used to demonstrate a historical warming trend--than the numbers that were actually recorded. Downward homogenizations in recent years were rare. In some areas, downward temperature trends measured over time showed a significantly increased temperature trend after homogenization. The difference between actually measured temperatures and homogenized temperatures topped 4 degrees Celsius over certain periods at some measuring stations. <Source>

Justification for homogenization?

Many of the people who handle the large weather datasets are confounded by missing data, instrument failures, station relocations, urban heat islands, and other issues that produce “dirty data,” yet they are at a loss when it comes to explaining why homogenization efforts resulted in changes in rural areas where such problems did not exist. The likelihood is that much of what we assume is the inviolable raw data record doesn’t even exist anymore and the existing data should be considered suspect.

Dishonesty by design?

There should be no doubt that climate research is a big multi-billion dollar business driven by politicians who are seeking to use science to justify onerous public policies that might otherwise cause a revolution if they were implemented to pursue a particular political agenda. Most of the climate researchers work directly for the government or for institutions that receive substantial government funding. While most researchers are honest, they are working with biased data; and even worse fail to falsify much of the previous research because of little or no funding and operational support for those suggesting contrarian viewpoints or falsification studies.

There are other datasets that do not show substantial global warming and yet these datasets are often omitted from studies conducted by global warming activists who mostly rely on the GHCN (Global Historical Climate Network) and their homogenized data.

The two datasets that are often ignored are those from Remote Sensing Systems (RSS - satellite data) and the state-of-the-art US Climate Reference Network (USCRN) which has none of the problems like those experienced by the GHCN. Both of which contradict the severity of the terrestrial datasets produced from the Global Historical Climate Network.

In spite of continuing rises in the atmospheric carbon dioxide level, climate researchers cannot seem to find an acceptable or adequate scientific basis for what appears to be an 18-year break in global warming nor can they find where the heat has been dislocated.


And about those models …

Of course, these are the activist/scientists who believe that human activity provides the tipping point to global warming and that non-human events such as: the Sun’s energy output; the Earth’s position relative to the Sun; the Earth’s precessional and rotational dynamics; the Earth’s vuclanology and plate tectonics; the deep ocean currents; and the greatest of the greenhouse gases, water vapor, are not responsible for the failure of their models.

Extremely short-sighted as these models are but crude approximations of physical processes and many do not incorporate all of the factors needed to adequately model the underlying physical phenomena of global climate change.


In spite of continuing evidence of data corruption and flawed modeling, the politicians and activists continue to pump out dire warnings of a planetary catastrophe that demand immediate action via public policies that are known to disrupt entire economies, enlarge the size and scope of governmental controls, result in higher taxes, higher costs, lower standards of living, allow political wealth re-distribution, encourage special interest corruption, and worst of all – result in fewer personal freedoms.


Bottom line …

We know that science is not performed by consensus, but when are the activists and their media shills going to admit that science based on corrupt data is not science. And, that the big lie “the science is settled” is just that – a lie – because we can clearly and convincingly demonstrate that the “data is not settled” and the analysis and conclusions drawn from biased datasets is not only flawed, but cannot serve as the basis of public policy.

-- steve

“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell

“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS