Climategate II?

After Booker’s article in the telegraph: “The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever“, based on Paul Homewood’s work exposing what appears to be fraudulent changes made to S.American temperatures, things are certainly heating up.
I read on Paul’s blog that he had had some 40,000 visitors (Temperature Adjustment Scandal Goes Viral). Now today there are a raft of likeminded articles:

And Steve Goddard continues his massive series of revelations with his latest:

Temperature Fraud Is “Indisputable”

Mind Blowing Data Tampering At Addison, New York

Another Smoking Gun That NCDC Temperature Adjustments Are Incorrect

Gavin’s Spectacular Data Tampering In The 1990’s

Reblogged by Climatism: Temperature Fraud Is “Indisputable”
Even Red hot alarmists are jumping in:

and many many many more (I got tired copy and pasting!)
Noticeable omissions (after Booker): WUWT,  Bishop Hill (Holidays and away travelling), Jo Nova, Tallbloke. (Nothing obious)
[Seems some commented when the unethical “2014 is warmest year” claims were made e.g. Hottest year ever? Skeptics question revisions to climate data]
In other words, this scandal has largely only been picked up outside the big climate enthusiast blogs. It has got out of the stable and is now wrecking havoc. This is what happened in Climategate I. Climategate  started in the mainstream climate blogs, but never got traction until it escaped.

Addendum

Clearly the scandal has gone viral. What is less clear is whether it has or has not been reported by other climate blogs in some shape or form perhaps when commenting about the 2014 “hottest year”.
But the simple truth, is that as far as I can see, there is a prima facia case of fraud. I cannot see any legitimate reason for these “upjustments” and those doing these upjustments have clear financial and person gains from these actions.
Also see: Temperature Adjustments In The Canadian Arctic

This entry was posted in Climate. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Climategate II?

  1. waterside4 says:

    Yes, it just gets curiouser and curiouser. It is good I am not a conspiracy theorist, or I would believe there is a conspiracy of silence on this subject among the Interweb big hitters as you point out above.
    Just came from the most amazing piece over at Lubos Moltls place http//motls.blog.co.uk
    For years I have enjoyed most of his rather rude agnostic stuff on the great green scam.
    However today he has the most remarkable volte-face where he is justifying all the fraudulent upward adjustments by the temperature gatekeepers.
    He then goes to great lengths to assure us that he is still a non believer in the Church of Gore.
    There appears to be a similar view expressed over at Judy Currys’ place.
    I have only one question for those who are giving succour to the alarmists – Can you show me one (just one) instance where any temperature has been molested in a downward direction.

  2. daveandrews723 says:

    Yeah, they have cooled a lot of historical temps (40’s for example) to make the increase since the 50’s appear greater. They make them whatever they want them to be to keep the panic up and those grants coming in.

  3. nigelf says:

    Without these adjustments the warming goes away or is irrelevent.

  4. manicbeancounter says:

    Like Lubos, I think that the overall impact on the rise in temperatures is likely to be small. Also like Lubos, I believe that claims that 2014 was the hottest year ever are undermined by the small warming bias that does exist. It is not the magnitude that is affected, but the headline.
    The Paraguayan data does point to something else. The raw data shows a fall in average temperatures in 1967-1970. This was offset by a 1C adjustment that cooled the past. It suggests to me not fraud by something more basic. It was regarded as an anomaly, as it does not fit into the view of GHG driving warming. But a similar sharp rise in temperatures elsewhere would have not been regarded as an anomaly. The overall effect globally will be small, but patterns of variability could be smoothed. Paul Homewood has identified similar patterns in Bolivia and at a site in North Argentina.
    The issue might lie in a lack of standardisation of adjustment methods, along with aubit checks. Data mining techniques could identify anomalies in a more objective way. There is much more complex data for currencies and stock data that have abilities to spot anomalies. There should be similar techniques adopted to raw temperature data.

Comments are closed.