This post by Steven Goddard brings together a number of pieces of evidence that “real world” data has been systematically adjusted to fit the theory.

This is only the second time I have reblogged somebody else’s work in the four years my blog has been running. The reason is that I often observe lots of pieces of evidence that suggest bias, but rarely are some of the pieces of evidence put together to corroborate each other.
Other bits of evidence (from memory)
1. The Darwen, Australia temperature record.
2. The temperature record for New Zealand.
3. The temperature record for Australia – which has recently be replaced to evade an external audit.
4. The HADCRUT temperature series being brought into line with GISTEMP to save having to hide the divergence.

It is not just ex-post adjustments of individual temperature series that creates an artificially large warming trend. There are also the statistical methods used to determine the “average” reading.

Real Science

There wasn’t any hockey stick prior to the year 2000.

The 1990 IPCC report showed that temperatures were much cooler than 800 years ago.

Briffa’s trees showed a sharp decline in temperatures after 1940

The 1975 National Academy Of Sciences report also showed a sharp decline in temperatures after 1940

NCAR reported a sharp drop in temperatures after 1940

The USHCN daily temperature data showed a sharp decline in temperatures after 1940

GISS graphs from the eastern Arctic showed a sharp decline in temperatures after 1940

Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis

GISS US temperature graphs showed a sharp drop in temperatures after 1940

NASA GISS: Science Briefs: Whither U.S. Climate?

The Directors of CRU and NCAR forecast a continuing drop in temperatures.

Hubert Lamb CRU Director : “The last twenty years of this century will be progressively colder

John Firor NCAR director : “it appears…

View original post 322 more words


  1. there will be fossil caobrn corporations and governments of states with large fossil caobrn extraction industries who see climate action as a real threats to their profits, employment levels and tax revenue.The climate action opponent attack fronts include:1. The risks are exaggerated: a. Climate science is grossly exaggerating the effect of rising greenhouse gas levels on climate. b. The impact of temperature increases and higher CO2 levels are exaggerated.2. The action required to slow climate change will destroy our country’s/the world’s economy.On each of these fronts what is being put forward by climate action supporters is complex. There is the inherently complex science and complex action plans based on ETS or caobrn taxes. There is not a great deal that can be done about the science at this stage although some of the communication might be improved.On the other hand there are things that can be done about the action plan. It is pointless getting sucked into arguments about long term targets. All that is doing is convincing people that it is all too hard. What we need at the moment is a simple action plan for the next 5 to 10 years. An action plan that can at least convince people that there are easy things that can be done to at least slow down the rate of climate change until we are better prepared to do something about it.

  1. Esper et al 2012 Orbital forcing of tree-ring data – Corroborating the Sceptic Position « ManicBeancounter
  2. The Bias of Climatology – Pulling Recent Strands Together « ManicBeancounter
%d bloggers like this: