The Corruption of the Temperature Record

Hat-tip to Climate Depot.

A couple interesting articles popped up today about tampering with the historical temperature data at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS). It seems that the real, unfudged data shows a steady cooling trend from 1930 to 1999.

Have a look a these articles from the Real Science Blog:

Why (James) Hansen had to corrupt the Temperature Record

Uncorrupted Temperature Data Showed Cooling from 1930-1999

GISS Blocking Access to Archived Data

48 Responses to The Corruption of the Temperature Record

  1. Rob N. Hood June 11, 2012 at 1:41 pm #

    I’d like to know who Real Science is. This article references everything back to them.

    • NEILIO June 12, 2012 at 5:34 am #

      Nothing is stopping you from finding out. Do some research.

  2. Rob N. Hood June 12, 2012 at 6:57 am #

    Bravo. You normally do that for me. Why not this time, what gives?

    • NEILIO June 13, 2012 at 5:18 am #

      Wow, seriously? Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime. But I ain’t Jesus.

  3. Rob N. Hood June 13, 2012 at 7:00 am #

    Yeah seriously. You always go out of your way, from your busy day to dreg up corrections and falsehoods and the peel away the socialist veneer of that which irks you. Are you possibly afraid of what you might find re: Real Science? I know you know the site like the back of your hand. Care to share? You probably wouldn’t like what I came up with anyway. I’m offering you a pre-emptive strike, and you dismiss it out of hand? So I say to you… wow, seriously?

    • NEILIO June 14, 2012 at 7:30 pm #

      There is nothing to report. Steven Goddard (the guy who’s blog it is) is a made up name, so no one really knows who he is. And I don’t know the site like the back of my hand because I rarely look there. I look at WUWT a lot more often. I know the guy used to post at WUWT but had a falling out with Watts, so he started his own blog. As far as the story goes you’ll notice that I really haven’t commented on it because I have not taken the time to see if what it says is true or not. But knowing what I know about the GISS and Hansen I would not be in the least surprised if it were true. It’s definately plausable. But that’s all I will say on it until I can take some time to look into it a little deeper.
      Oh, and I didn’t have to research the blog because I already knew about it.

  4. Rob N. Hood June 14, 2012 at 11:45 am #

    I’m not sure Jesus said that. He fed multitudes on one fish (or so) and a loaf of bread. That is socialistic, maybe even communistic. I wonder what he was trying to tell us by that act? Granted the above statement you posted is a good one, logical, etc. And I can imagine Jesus saying that too.

    • NEILIO June 14, 2012 at 7:34 pm #

      I don’t know, read the Bible. I don’t really care. If you want to believe that Jesus was a socialist go ahead, maybe he was! I’m not a christian, so like I said I don’t care. Not even a little.

  5. Rob N. Hood June 15, 2012 at 7:02 am #

    Wow, what an attitude. What will Joe think of your non-Christianity? What are you then? And I didn’t say Jesus was a socialist, although all evidence points in that direction to say the least; your fangs coming out about it seems a bit strange given your non-christianity and all. But then again you tend to become cranky pretty easily when confronted with ideas that vary from your own. I knew you didn’t have to research that blog- that was my point, but thanks for sharing finally. And yes, I will admit that I do think (know) Jesus (if he was real) was a socialist, and he leaned towards marxism too IMHO. Although you wouldn’t call it Marxism cuz he wasn’t alive then. So what would/should we call “Marxism”, if indeed it was based upon Jesus’ teachings in part or in whole? Christianity perhaps? Certainly not the Christianity we all know. But the real Christianity, based upon Jesus and what he actually taught. Uh oh, I feel Joe getting angry now…

    • NEILIO June 15, 2012 at 7:22 pm #

      I’m not anything. I suppose the closest you could come to a description would be a Deist. I believe that there is a god, but I don’t believe in any religions. I do not hold it against anyone who has a faith though, and I respect their beliefs. People believe what they believe. The only problem I have is religions that instruct its followers to kill non believers.
      As far as what or who Jesus was I will leave that to others who know more than I do about him. When I was young and my Mother dragged me to church I would fall asleep as soon as the priest started talking, so I actually know very little about Jesus. All I know is that he alegedly performed a bunch of miracles, turned water to wine, made a blind man see, appearantly he multiplied a loaf of bread into a lot of loafs of bread, walked on water, forgave a prostitute, flipped some money changer’s tables over, got betrayed by Judas, was crucified, and supposedly arose from the dead, and died for all our sins, etc. etc. And, I don’t believe any of it. So, I don’t really know why you want to have this discussion with me. Was Jesus a commie? Who knows? Who cares? I most certainly don’t.

      • NEILIO June 16, 2012 at 7:11 am #

        Something just occured to me. I think you probably know little more about Jesus than I do, and I do believe that you are attempting to recreate Jesus in the image of yourself.

    • NEILIO June 15, 2012 at 10:50 pm #

      I’d say you were copying me, but the saying “your fangs are out” is a pretty old one. But I would like to venture a guess that you probably would have never used that saying had I not.

  6. steve June 15, 2012 at 8:56 am #

    Nice picking and choosing of the climate record! How about we see the WHOLE record, or would that just be an Inconvenient Truth?

    Are people really that stupid not to see this simple numbers trick?!

  7. Rob N. Hood June 16, 2012 at 2:22 pm #

    No I wouldn’t have use the pharase re: fangs. Never have before and probably never will again. Is that really an issue? Like for real? Like you are so desperate for something that this minor repetition or “copying” is somehow laden with significant meaning? That’s just kinda sad. BUT yes, you got me, I have a Jesus complex. Wow you’re batting 500 (hint). Actually don’t all Christians want to be like Jesus or try to be? I kinda think so, actually. For you to say such a thing not only makes you clueless about Jesus and/or Christianity, it makes you clueless about basic human psychology. And what I know about Jesus is what everyone pretty much knows including yourself. Again, I am not trying to be tricky or manipulative or whatever your paranoid and feverish mind is telling you. I am extrapolating basic concepts and opinions from basic info/data. That is all. Almost boringly so. But you find in me a shiny object to marvel and wonder over like I’m from outer space. That says more about you than it does me. I will now retract my claws (aww, not a quote of yours, boo hoo).

    • NEILIO June 16, 2012 at 7:03 pm #

      Ok, whatever you say. I still don’t care. I am going to stop now because I pledged to limit my comments to one comment about the posted article per article, and I am going to really try to do that. You and I going back and forth over non issue issues is unproductive and boring to the casual reader, and I really want to see what other people think about these stories. I think we both suffer from an affliction that makes us want to have the last word, so I am going to let you have it. Go ahead have the last word. I’m not going to comment on this one until I have a little time to look at it in depth. Uh, the posted story that is. Have a pleasant eavening.

  8. NEILIO June 16, 2012 at 8:53 pm #

    Alright, as promised I am looking at the story a bit more in depth now. The first thing I want to point out is that I think posting the story from the realclimate website was probably not the best choice for a source as there is some controversy surrounding the blogger Steven Goddard. As in some of the stories he has written may not be true. I think a better source would have been Micheal Hammer’s peice at:
    “If we consider, the above graph (see link), which shows, their plot of the raw data (dark pink) and the adjusted data (pale pink), it is obvious that the adjustments have little impact on data from early in the 20th century but adjust later temperature readings upwards by an increasing amount. This means that the adjustments will create an apparent warming trend over the 20th century.”

    “Compare the treatment of UHI with the adjustments made for measuring stations that have moved out of the city centre, typically to the airport. These show lower temperatures at their new location and the later readings have been adjusted upwards so as to match the earlier readings. The airport readings are lower because the station has moved away from the city UHI. Raising the airport readings, while not adding downwards compensation for UHI, results in an overstatement of the amount of warming. This would seem to be clear evidence of bias. It would be more accurate to lower the earlier city readings to match the airport readings rather than vice versa.”

    “This is an extremely serious issue. It is completely unacceptable, and scientifically meaningless, to claim experimental confirmation of a theory when the confirmation arises from the “corrections” to the raw data rather than from the raw data itself. This is even more the case if the organisation carrying out the corrections has published material indicating that it supports the theory under discussion. In any other branch of science that would be treated with profound scepticism if not indeed rejected outright. I believe the same standards should be applied in this case.”

    I think that it is entirely possible that Hansen has, and will continue to manipulate his data to show warming. I think he stopped being a scientist a long time ago, and is now engaged in a partizan political role. IMO.

    • Dan McGrath June 17, 2012 at 3:20 am #

      Glad we have you commenting here regularly, Neil. I wear a lot of hats and don’t always have time to vet every story. I post things I find interesting on the topic. How’d you like to become a guest blogger here?

      • NEILIO June 17, 2012 at 7:26 am #

        I don’t know. What does a guest blogger do?

        • NEILIO June 17, 2012 at 7:06 pm #

          Tell me more. I guess I would be interested if it’s what I think it is, posting articles and such. right? So I’ll give you a definate maybe. Why don’t you send me an email about what you want me to do?

  9. Rob N. Hood June 18, 2012 at 7:06 am #

    There- finally. Took Dan long enough. Now don’t be a cheapskate Dan- this guy’s been doing all the heaving lifting here for some time now.

    • NEILIO June 18, 2012 at 8:40 pm #

      Cheapskate? What do you think a guest blogger is a paid position? I’m thinking it’s not. Besides, I wouldn’t do it for the money. I’d do it for the power! Mwa ha ha ha ha ha. (evil laugh!!!!) Just kidding. I don’t know for shure but I think all he wants is someone to post stories of interest, that are topical to AGW alarmism and scepticism etc, etc, because he is busy doing other things and doesn’t have time to do it. And I have time, and the interest, so……..

  10. Rob N. Hood June 19, 2012 at 7:03 am #

    So get paid, a stipend, whatever you want to call it dude. Don’t be a chump. These people are the ones with the bucks- don’t believe it’s otherwise.

    • NEILIO June 20, 2012 at 8:14 pm #

      What if I do believe it’s otherwise? Let’s ask Dan. Dan, How much does it cost to run this website, and who pays for that?

  11. Rob N. Hood June 19, 2012 at 2:21 pm #

    As the folks at note, deniers employ rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none. Most deniers’ arguments incorporate more than one of the following tactics: Conspiracy, Selectivity, False Experts, Impossible Expectations/Moving Goalposts, and Argument from Metaphor/violations of informal logic. Global warming deniers are big on conspiracy: according to them, an entire community of scientists has some ulterior motive for their climate research, such as an ideology or a desire to keep their funding. Global warming deniers are also prone to cherry-picking their data and their quotes, citing single errors or discredited papers as proof that a whole field of science is corrupt. Because many of those supporting the climate change denial campaign are corporations heavily invested in fossil fuels or are politicians who depend on those corporations for campaign funds, they are prone to put forth fake experts to raise some dust.

    • NEILIO June 20, 2012 at 8:09 pm #

      Really? I disagree. I think it’s funny that they say the sceptics claim there is a conspiracy and then they claim that sceptics conspire with oil companies. Too funny! I guess it boils down to who you believe. This actually describes people who believe in AGW to a tee. They are in denial that the facts do not correspond to the theory i.e. comparing past projections to recorded conditions. Nice try, but I think they’re all wet.

  12. Rob N. Hood June 21, 2012 at 6:56 am #

    Well, Neil, there’s conspriacy and there’s fact. Fact is: big oil is spending money and using various outlets to debunk global warming. I think you even admitted that at one or more times. Now that’s funny.

    • NEILIO June 21, 2012 at 7:15 pm #

      And I have pointed out that “Big Oil”, as you call it, has every right to defend their industry against attack. And that is precisely what the AGW movement is. It is anti fossil fuel. Now I know you don’t like “Big Oil”, and you had probably despised them long before the AGW theory came along. How convenient for the anti fossil fuel people to have this wonderful new weapon. It’s almost as if it was tailored to fit! Hmmmmm……..
      And can you name one of these “fake experts” they claim are employed by the vast “Big Oil” conspiracy? Just one. And how much money is donated to the campaign funds of Liberal Democrats from Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, and the WWF? Come on, wake up and smell the coffee.

  13. Rob N. Hood June 22, 2012 at 9:10 am #

    Ahhh, yes, defense. Victimology. A clever addition for the Right since the late stages of the incredibly corrupt Reagan era. Humans are so easily manipulated.

    • NEILIO June 22, 2012 at 4:27 pm #

      So, you’re saying they don’t have the right to defend themselves. That does not surprise me.

      • Rob N. Hood June 24, 2012 at 4:59 pm #

        That’s obviously not what I said or meant and you know it. But nevermind, we are off the subject and Joe is upset.

  14. Joe June 22, 2012 at 11:26 pm #

    What has the temperature article have to do with Hood’s rants? Talk about off subject. My God.

  15. NEILIO June 23, 2012 at 6:17 am #

    Please understand that by creating a catch-all label like this, you quite literally are moving the entire discussion outside of the realm of science, where evidence and arguments are considered and weighed independent of the humans that advance them, where our desire to see one or another result proven are (or should be) irrelevant, where people weigh the difficulty of the problem being addressed as an important contributor (in a Bayesian sense) to how much we should believe any answer proposed — so far, into the realm where people do not think at all! They simply use a dismissive label such as “denier” and hence avoid any direct confrontation with the issues being challenged. – Dr. Robert G. Brown

  16. NEILIO June 23, 2012 at 10:14 pm #

    “One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.” – James Lovelock

  17. Rob N. Hood June 24, 2012 at 5:01 pm #

    So to then we shuld not use scientific knowledge, or any knowledge for that matter? Whatever knowledge we think we have at any given time is to be avoided or ignored because it is uncertain? Really? Wow, what a platform that would make for the Right- but hey go for it.

    • NEILIO June 24, 2012 at 7:14 pm #

      I find your interperetation of Lovelock’s quote to be comical. Perhaps I should have provided the context in which he made this remark.
      “Having observed that global temperatures since the turn of the millennium have not gone up in the way computer-based climate models predicted, Lovelock acknowledged, “the problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago.” Now, Lovelock has given a follow-up interview to the UK’s Guardian newspaper in which he delivers more bombshells sure to anger the global green movement, which for years worshipped his Gaia theory and apocalyptic predictions that billions would die from man-made climate change by the end of this century.”

      “Finally, about claims “the science is settled” on global warming: “One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.”

  18. Rob N. Hood June 24, 2012 at 7:38 pm #

    Yeah, ha ha, you got me… This is one scientist, and his current opinion. Great. I’m not even questioning his opinion, just that the majority of scientists still disagree with him. Give me a majority and I will stop visiting this site, until then, later.

    • NEILIO June 24, 2012 at 10:32 pm #

      The notion of a “consensus” is carefully manufactured for political, financial and ideological purposes. Its proponents never explain fully what “consensus” they are referring to. Is it a “consensus” that future computer models will turn out correct? Is it a “consensus” that the Earth has warmed? Proving that parts of the Earth have warmed does not prove that humans are responsible.

      While it may appear to the casual observer that scientists promoting climate fears are in the majority, the evidence continues to reveal this is an illusion. Climate skeptics — the emerging silent majority of scientists — receive much smaller shares of university research funds, foundation funds and government grants and they are not plugged into the well-heeled environmental special interest lobby.

      On the other side of the climate debate, you have an comparatively well funded group of scientists and activists who participate in UN conferences, receiving foundation monies and international government support and also receive fawning media treatment.

      The number of skeptics at first glance may appear smaller, but the skeptics are increasingly becoming vocal and turning the tables on the Goliath that has become the global warming fear industry.

      Key components of the manufactured “consensus” fade under scrutiny. We often hear how the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the American Meteorological Society (AMS) issued statements endorsing the so-called “consensus” view that man is driving global warming. But what you don’t hear is that both the NAS and AMS never allowed member scientists to directly vote on these climate statements.

      Essentially, only two dozen or so members on the governing boards of these institutions produced the “consensus” statements. It appears that the governing boards of these organizations caved in to pressure from those promoting the politically correct view of UN and Gore-inspired science. The Canadian Academy of Sciences reportedly endorsed a “consensus” global warming statement that was never even approved by its governing board.

      Rank-and-file scientists are now openly rebelling. James Spann, a certified meteorologist with the AMS, openly defied the organization when he said in January that he does “not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype.” In February a panel of meteorologists expressed unanimous climate skepticism, and one panelist estimated that 95% of his profession rejects global warming fears.

      In August 2007, a comprehensive survey of peer-reviewed scientific literature from 2004-2007 revealed “Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory.”

      “Of 539 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers ‘implicit’ endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no ‘consensus,'” according to an August 29, 2007 article in Daily Tech.

      In addition, a September 26, 2007 report from the international group Institute of Physics’ finds no “consensus” on global warming. Here is an excerpt: “As world leaders gathered in New York for a high-level UN meeting on climate change, a new report by some of the world’s most renowned scientists urges policymakers to keep their eyes on the “science grapevine”, arguing that their understanding of global warming is still far from complete.” The Institute of Physics is also urging world leaders “to remain alert to the latest scientific thought on climate change.”

      -Sen. James Imhofe.

      • Rob N. Hood June 25, 2012 at 7:06 am #

        I wouldn’t trust Imhofe to shine my shoes.

  19. Rob N. Hood June 24, 2012 at 7:40 pm #

    BTW- I was also being partially redundant and ironic- because the Right has already taken a mostly anti-science platform, and has for many years now.

    • NEILIO June 24, 2012 at 10:39 pm #

      Anti-science? Really? What is your evidence of this claim? I don’t believe it. I think that is propaganda. Unless you have some specific examples.

  20. Rob N. Hood June 25, 2012 at 7:05 am #

    Bio-diversity, wildlife corridors, pollution, global-warming, evolution, food additives, GMO, insecticides/pesticides types and amounts, peak oil, abortion parameters, homosexuality. Either you are very naive or very disingenuous.

    • NEILIO June 25, 2012 at 9:54 pm #

      Biodiversity: The number, variety, and genetic variation of different organisms found within a specified geographic region. Um, What has the Right done against biodiversity?
      Wildlife corridors? You must be talking about the mexican border areas that are under the control of the USFWS, and the proposed bill to get those areas under Homeland Security. What would you prefer? Border patrol agents patrolling those areas, or illegals flowing across the border? It seems to me those areas are being disturbed anyway by drug trafficers and cyotes. So what do you want? Thousands of people trampsing north on foot, or a lot fewer people patrolling east and west?
      Pollution? Did you forget who created the EPA?
      Global warming is a scam.
      Evolution? I believe in evolution. I also believe in intelligent design. I don’t see the two theories as being mutually exclusive. I think God made life to evolve! I mean come on, even if we were put here by aliens, or life was deposited here by pansperma, or whatever, where did it begin in the first place? And how is it anti-science if some on the Right want the theory of intelligent design in classrooms? As far as I know, no one is proposing that it replace the theory of evolution, so that is BS.
      Food additives? Isn’t that itself a part of science? How is it anti-science?
      GMO? That is pure science! How can you say that is anti-science? That is the razor edge of science.
      Insecticides/pesticides types and amounts? Again, that is chemistry. That is science. You can argue if it’s good or bad but you can’t say it is anti-science.
      Peak oil? Really? That is a question of geology (a science), and it is a theory that has been proven false time and time again.
      Abortion parameters? The science of abortion is actually very simple. You take a living, developing baby and you kill it! That is not a question of science, or anti-science, that is a question of ethics and morality.
      Homosexuality? Come on, anti-science? really? I just don’t see how that is a question of science. Maybe genetics, or behavioral science, but the objections to homosexuality by some on the Right is not about science. Like abortion it is a question of ethics and morality. And I think that the majority of objections on the Right about anything homosexual are about marriage, not homosexuality itself.
      I think you are really disingenuous, or you have no idea what you’re talking about.

  21. Rob N. Hood June 26, 2012 at 2:10 pm #

    The Right has denied or fought against all of the above, and does so daily. You are terribly naive or deluded. Plus a little simple minded.

  22. Joe July 4, 2012 at 12:14 am #

    Just what does this have to do about temperature records? Can you explain please? I’m serious!

  23. Rob N. Hood July 5, 2012 at 1:10 pm #

    The election of 2012 raises two perplexing questions. The first is how the GOP could put up someone for president who so brazenly epitomizes the excesses of casino capitalism that have nearly destroyed the economy and overwhelmed our democracy. The second is why the Democrats have failed to point this out. Oh, and those temperature records…

  24. Joe July 9, 2012 at 11:34 pm #

    I sincerely believe you need duct tape for your mouth and especially fingers.. Your answers are out of the Obama playbook. Are you related? Oh, My God I Forgot, he’s Irish? Never mind, he’s right. Wrong statement, he can never be wrong, sorry for the idiot post. Simply go about your way, nothing here. forget what I just said, he’s right and by the way and I’m Irish from Adare.

  25. David Shaw July 24, 2012 at 6:24 am #

    I put this on the Real Science blog.

    I think it’s pretty clear that temperatures increased pre WW2 and subsequently decreased post WW2, then from 1970 increased again (if you can believe the contaminated temp record anymore). It seems to be a 60 year cycle. Now you don’t need a wizz stato like me to tell you that if you start fitting inappropriate straight lines to autocorrelated time-series data then the slope will depend on where you start in the cycle. So in 1930 you start from a fairly high point on the cycle and it must therefore go down. In 1970 you start from a low point and it must go up. Nothing remarkable here, walk on.

  26. Joe July 26, 2012 at 10:30 pm #

    Mr. Shaw, interesting observation I must say. Lay person I may ask?

A project of Minnesota Majority, hosted and maintained by Minnesotans for Global Warming.