Claims of Massive Climate Data Fudging Looking More Credible
UPDATE 7/4/2014: at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/04/practicing-the-dark-art-of-temperature-trend-adjustment/#more-112530
a comment by rgbatduke, (who is actually Robert G. Brown at the Duke University Physics Department), agrees with my concern about the general direction of the graph, contrary to the expected influence (if it was predominant) of the Urban Heat Island effect:
July 4, 2014 at 1:33 pm
It is really extraordinary how given the UHI effect the adjustments in temperature always seem to raise the temperature of the present compared to the past, on average, when one expects precisely the opposite to be the dominant trend.
A second thing to note is that statistical angels fear to tread the long, dark path to data adjustment and infilling, because it always presumes knowledge that, in fact, you almost certainly do not have. Furthermore, all of the adjustments you make come with a substantial cost in the probable error of the “improved” estimate. Of course this never matters in climate science because the uncertainty in the “anomaly” computed is almost never presented, in part because it would then have to be added to the uncertainty in the actual global average temperature that the anomaly is supposedly referenced to. The noise, in fact, exceeds the signal by more than a factor of two everywhere but the satellite era.
There are other “interesting” things — just about exactly half of the state high temperature records were set in a single decade, and it wasn’t the last ten years. Guess which decade it was?
The #1 visited blog on climate is the skeptic (or so-called “climate change denial”) blog called Watts Up With That. I often quote from that blog, in my well-received (just kidding) posts on climate science, here at MyFDL. For the record, and for the millionth time, WUWT doesn’t deny that climate changes, nor that there was some warming of the world during the 20th century, in part due to human CO2 production. ( I think that occasional guest blogger Tim Ball rejects the Green House Gas theory, but he is an exception that proves the rule.)
I live in Columbia, Maryland – an amazing city where I can ride my bicycle everywhere through the forest, and never need to get in a car.
I am a lifelong environmentalist. I testified at my first Congressional subcommittee hearing at age 15 in Kanab, Utah, in support of a wilderness area – very close to the one which President Obama recently set aside. I worked to get the Clean Air Act passed. I worked as a volunteer wilderness ranger for two summers in the Cibola and Santa Fe National Forests in New Mexico. I worked on the Safety Analysis Report for DOE’s nuclear waste disposal site in New Mexico. I probably have the smallest electricity bill in Columbia, Maryland because I am very careful not to waste. I have never turned on my heat or air conditioning.
I have degrees in Geology and Electrical Engineering, and worked on the design team of many of the world’s most complex designs, including some which likely power your PC or Mac. ,I have worked as a contract software developer on climate and weather models for the US government.
I do not receive any funding other than small donations on my blog, which have worked out well below minimum wage. I have tried to obtain funding, but skeptics with money are terrified of political attacks directed by the White House and/or being targeted by the IRS. They openly state this to me.
It turns out that Goddard (I’ll use his nom de plume) was considered by Anthony Watts (the head guy at Watts Up With That) to be error-prone. Watts recently confesses, in The scientific method is at work on the USHCN temperature data set, that he had a confirmation bias against Goddard:
Sometimes, you can believe you are entirely right while simultaneously believing that you’ve done due diligence. That’s what confirmation bias is all about. In this case, a whole bunch of people, including me, got a severe case of it.
I’m talking about the claim made by Steve Goddard that 40% of the USHCN data is “fabricated”. which I and few other people thought was clearly wrong.
Dr. Judith Curry and I have been conversing a lot via email over the past two days, and she has written an illuminating essay that explores the issue raised by Goddard and the sociology going on. See her essay:
Steve Goddard aka Tony Heller deserves the credit for the initial finding, Paul Homewood deserves the credit for taking the finding and establishing it in a more comprehensible
way that opened closed eyes, including mine, in this post entitled Massive Temperature Adjustments At Luling, Texas. Along with that is his latest followup, showing the problem isn’t limited to Texas, but also in Kansas.
I don’t want to dig into the details of Goddard’s recent work, that has gotten some mainstream media attention, as well as meriting a positive re-evaluation by Watts.
I do, however, want everybody to pay attention to the following graph, which (I argue) is more credible the more we consider Goddard to be credible. (Yes, I know, this is not a slam dunk argument.) Note, too, that Goddard’s outing himself makes him more credible, than otherwise. The graph is posted in Goddard’s diary One More Time ….. (See also the amusingly titled The Hockey Stick Is Real)
The problem that this graph points to isn’t just that it points to a possible skewing of released, massaged temperature data that makes climate catastrophist claims more plausible. More importantly, IMO, it’s the smoothness of the graph (since the 1940’s) that suggests DELIBERATE FUDGING. Even if there are are occasional changes in methodology that we can assume are wholly legitimate, how on earth can they lead to a graph that is not only mostly monotonically increasing, but monotonically increasing in such a smooth manner????
IMO, that’s impossible, and this graph is a smoking gun of not just groupthink, but more likely,DELIBERATE FRAUD.