Odd Citizen

Odd Citizen
An Odd Citizen’s Search For Vanishing Freedoms

U.S. Govt. Database Complicit in Climate Data Deception

December 14th, 2009

An article in Save Capitalism blog exposes the dirty data manipulation engaged in by GHCN (Global Historical Climatology Network, a part of NOAA – National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) as it pertains to temperature measurement records for Antarctica. The artcle’s author, an amateur, shows how the actual data has been adjusted to produce a bogus warming trend line. This is one of only about 3 data sets relied upon by all the climatologists, including Phil Jones of Climategate-CRU fame and our own “Dr. Doom” Hanson of NASA GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies). The article details how the temperature reports from 110 data series was reduced to essentially the data from 18, hand-picked to show a warming trend. If this isn’t scientific fraud, I don’t know what is.

From this:

To this:

The subject was then picked up and elaborated upon by The Air Vent which further suspects that the data from a single, coastal station was actually used in the “science” of IPCC climatology.

When the data is foul the conclusions are garbage. It doesn’t take a climate scientist to recognize this reality.

2 Responses to “U.S. Govt. Database Complicit in Climate Data Deception”

  1. comment number 1 by: bkalafut

    http://www.gilestro.tk/2009/lots-of-smoke-hardly-any-gun-do-climatologists-falsify-data/

    Giorgio Gilestro did what I would have done would I have had more time on my hands: plotted an empirical distribution (histogram) of adjustments made to the data by the homogenization procedures. Note the symmetry and the sharp peak at zero.

    In short: No, you do not know what scientific fraud is.

    “Scientific fraud” in this case would be claiming to use one homogenization procedure but instead using something else–or not stating that one is using a homogenization procedure but employing one anyway.

    An homogenization procedure that introduced a statistical bias–asymmetry in that distribution, or simply shifting it away from zero–wouldn’t be “fraud” but would make the result suspect.

    Neither occurred. Will this graph make your ‘blog?

    Last week, wasn’t the “smoking gun” the Darwin station, but then that was discredited by Tim Lambert and numerous others. This week, yet another station. Will we be treated to a station per week?: “Oh my god, they’re using the homongenization procedure they say they’re using–it’s fraud!” That histogram should put the whole matter to rest.

    I used to think that the claim that just giving data to non-academics on the Internet (like the people who have been whipping up this frenzy over homogenization) was like giving money to bums for booze was hyperbolic, but seeing what Watts and co. are doing with the data and the amount of slander that ensues, I’m starting to believe it. “Don’t give him money, he’ll just spend it on MD 20/20”, Watts edition is: “Give it to them, and they’ll just misrepresent it, misrepresent our papers, and call us liars, too!”

  2. comment number 2 by: admin

    I’m reluctant to engage you in a discussion regarding mathematical analyses. Fortunately I’m not the only one who’s looked at this posting. See: Statistics And Other Things.

    The only thing I noticed about the graph Gilestro showed is that the X-Axis scale exaggerates the similarity of the two tails. Looking closely at the graph, except for the first (central) pair, each of the right hand (upward revision) bars looks higher to me than the corresponding downward revision bars, which would be more obvious if the scale went from -1 to +1 instead to -4 to +4.

    Also, I’m not sure that Gilestro is using the same selection of stations that his colleagues at CRU and elsewhere are using to do their
    homogenization and modeling work.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.