Quote of the week – massive climate FAIL by Mashable's Andrew Freedman

Wow, this is even dumber than Freedman’s story (complete with photoshopped images of airplanes in rising sea water) Quite possibly the dumbest example of ‘Tabloid Climatology’ ever from Climate Central’s Andrew Freedman a couple of years ago, which we rightfully trounced on WUWT for the sheer stupidity of the imagery that somehow, airplanes at LaGuardia would not be able to get out of the way of rising sea levels.

Get a load of this tweet from him today, replete with “conspiracy theory”:

Freedman_FAILGosh, “giant conspiracy”.

Um, Andrew, they all use the same base surface data. The Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN) from NOAA’s NCDC.

For example:  http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/

NASA_GHCNOr how about: http://www.climate.gov/daily-observational-data-ghcn-daily-summary-%E2%80%93-gis-data-locator-0


And, http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/climate/climatview/outline.html


They all agree because they only have one data source. Therefore, they are NOT independent as you claim.

Andrew, you really need to pull your head out of your ass and stop talking about conspiracy theory stuff, otherwise your career will be relegated to writing for Climate Progress.



0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Moran
October 21, 2014 6:57 am

Luv it! “Otherwise your career will be relegated to writing for climate progress”

Reply to  Tom Moran
October 21, 2014 7:00 am

For who?

Reply to  omnologos
October 21, 2014 7:41 am


The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
Reply to  omnologos
October 21, 2014 10:54 am

It’s actually ‘For whom?’. But we’ll let you off. ‘Whom’ should be used after a preposition.

Bert Walker
Reply to  omnologos
October 21, 2014 2:04 pm

Big Jim, except when “who” is the subject of a clause. 🙂
ref: http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/who.html

Reply to  Bert Walker
October 21, 2014 5:06 pm

I only use “whom ” for the Dative case

Reply to  omnologos
October 21, 2014 4:49 pm

Uh…for “whom”.

Reply to  omnologos
October 22, 2014 11:32 am

Their song “Won’t Get Fooled Again” is rather appropriate.

October 21, 2014 7:03 am

The longer it’s out there, the more Twitter becomes the litmus test for stupidity…

Reply to  Dyrewulf
October 21, 2014 7:47 am

As I say “The Internet doesn’t make you stupid, it merely makes your stupidity more accessible to others”

Rhoda R
Reply to  TRB
October 21, 2014 4:01 pm

That needs to be a bumper sticker.

Louis Hooffstetter
October 21, 2014 7:04 am

Did anyone bother to tweet the answer back to this idiot?
If not, someone needs to tweet the answer with a link to this article. (I can’t because I’m not on twitter).

October 21, 2014 7:05 am

I dunno, Anthony. Cruel and unusual punishment is not often your style.

Reply to  iSchadow
October 21, 2014 9:02 am

Not when you’re dealing with professional stupidity masquerading as informed.

Olaf Koenders
Reply to  policycritic
October 21, 2014 9:27 pm

Strangely, they let Freedman behind the wheel. Someone that stupid shouldn’t walk and chew gum at the same time. That applies to many others we know.

Reply to  policycritic
October 22, 2014 11:33 am

They are not stupid. Evil is the appropriate word.

October 21, 2014 7:12 am

AFreedman probably enjoys the view.

kelly burgess
October 21, 2014 7:18 am

Is this in reference to the pause or something else ?

October 21, 2014 7:19 am

All you have to do is compare any NOAA-NASA-NCDC temp record against the satellite data for the last 35 years to see that NOAA-NASA-NCDC are deviating from reality by similar amounts in the same direction.
Conspiracy? Or just institutional resistance to facing facts.
Steven Goddard has done yeoman’s work documenting the divergences between NOAA-NASA-NCDCand reality over at stevengoddard.wordpress.com (Real Science)

Richard M
Reply to  geologyjim
October 21, 2014 10:00 am

I like to highlight the divergence since Copenhagen about 5 years ago. In just 5 years it appears they’ve conjured up .2C worth of warming. Or, in this case, non-cooling.

October 21, 2014 7:24 am

“Multiple independent lines of evidence”
How many times have we heard that talking point? The phrase pulls up about 50,000,000 google hits.

Steve R
October 21, 2014 7:27 am

So it would appear he has his head inside a donkey. eeuuughhh ! 😉

October 21, 2014 7:30 am

This “hottest 6 months on record” meme is starting to get traction. The average person (and journalist) is unaware that other data sets disagree. What the misinformation industry is doing is trying to create the illusion that multiple data sets all show the same things. We need to make people aware of the Satellite record.

Reply to  mpaul
October 21, 2014 7:50 am

always good to point out that its also been a bumper year for agriculture worldwide, even in Australia-
“Despite forecast falls, both farm production and export earnings in 2014-15 are projected to remain well above the 10 year average,” Ms Schneider said.

Reply to  mpaul
October 21, 2014 8:15 am

Satellite sets are nowhere near record levels. But you won’t hear any of this from NOAA or the MSM

Reply to  mpaul
October 24, 2014 11:32 am

They can’t keep it up for ever. It’s so obviously cool outside these days (at least on both sides of the North Atlantic) that even the sheeple will eventually realise it.
That’s what’s so great about this – to repeat myself, “This time all the rats are running to get on the sinking ship.”

October 21, 2014 7:50 am

It depends on what your definition of “independent” is.to
Considering that the alarmists love to confirm their own studies (not to mention exonerate themselves from proven transgressions) while denying anyone else the ability to even look at their data, I’d say this also fits into their distorted idea of “science”.

October 21, 2014 7:56 am

Never has such comprehensive ignorance been encapsulated in so few words.
Congratulations Freedman, you’ve done it!!! (Again). Trumpets, please.

October 21, 2014 8:06 am

This is why you are supposed to do the research *before* the write-up. The demon called ‘ignorance’ is very vain, and loves to show off.

October 21, 2014 8:08 am

You keep using that word. I do not think that word means what you think it means…

John West
Reply to  Curt
October 21, 2014 9:16 am

Am I going MAD, or did the word “think” escape your lips?

Reply to  John West
October 21, 2014 11:12 am

My name is Inigo Montoya. You kill my father. Prepare to die.
[It just had to be said. Part of the Geneva Convention.]

October 21, 2014 8:14 am

Your comment to this tweet (perhaps rant is a better word) seem off-base. The centers are independent, as Freedman claims. You are right that they all include the GHCN data, apart from other data sets depending on the agency. Because of their inclusion of other data sets they get slightly different numbers. However overall they agree pretty, which seems to indicate that the other included datasets largely agree with the GHCN data set(s). You seem to imply that the GHCN data (and their underlying independent sources) are flawed. Unless you (irrationally) believe in ‘a giant conspiracy’, you just can;t be serious.

David Jay
Reply to  Hans
October 21, 2014 9:45 am

That would be because the GHCN has been diverging from HADCRU, RSS and UAH for some time.
So let’s see… 4 Global data sets. One is consistently diverging (do I have to state “to the warm side”) from the other three. You work out the math…

Reply to  Hans
October 21, 2014 2:31 pm

Actually, the other datasets don’t really always agree that well. Greenland ice cores are in extreme conflict as well as various tree ring proxies.
I prefer to keep it simple: ~4,000 years ago there were forests where there are now glaciers – and the northern tree line was ~100KM+ further poleward. That means it was, as a global average, probably warmer at that time than today – even though many official datasets claim otherwise.

David Ball
October 21, 2014 8:21 am

And “oil industry shill” is less of a conspiracy theory?

Reply to  David Ball
October 21, 2014 9:17 am

This “oil industry shill” stuff needs to be seriously challenged. As a 62-year-old, I clearly remember the Arab Oil Embargo of the 1970’s. The oil industry was alarmed by the whole thing and eager to survive “”when the oil ran out.” That peak oil was a bit of a misconception, as we just drill deeper now, but the oil industry invested heavily in alternative fuels. The alarmist screed is for making money with a new tax (carbon tax) AND for OIL companies–yes OIL COMPANIES–to make money from solar and wind and anything but fossils.

October 21, 2014 8:24 am

Your comment to this tweet (perhaps rant is a better word) seem off-base. The centers are independent, as Freedman claims. You are right that they all include the GHCN data, apart from other data sets depending on the agency. Because of their inclusion of other data sets they get slightly different numbers. However overall they agree pretty, which seems to indicate that the other included datasets largely agree with the GHCN data set(s). You seem to imply that the GHCN data (and their underlying independent sources) are flawed. Unless you (irrationally) believe in ‘a giant conspiracy’.

Steve Thayer
Reply to  tallahasseecyclist
October 21, 2014 1:18 pm

The GHCN data set is not based on raw temperature measurements. It includes an adjustment which subtracts from temperatures measurements from the past, before about 1960, and adds a continuously increasing amount to the more recent years. So there is a increase built into the GHCN data. Google ‘global temperature tampering’ to read more. If the adjustments are for an increasing urban heat effect then the adjustment made to the measured data should be continually decreasing to subtract off this effect, but instead they do the opposite, which not surprisingly many people are skeptical about. Some articles have gone so far as to say the adjustments make the GHCN data completely corrupt and meaningless.

Reply to  tallahasseecyclist
October 21, 2014 5:49 pm

Hey Hans 8:14/tallahasseecyclist 8:24 get your name straight or did you both get the same talking points?
Must be a liberal interpretation of the word.
Liberalism is a progressive disease.

lawrence Cornell
Reply to  tallahasseecyclist
October 21, 2014 10:02 pm

… and there you have it. Two trolls (or one?) caught out in the open.
LMAO That’s just too amusing.
Hans/tallahasseecyclist , thanks for the chuckle. Now get off moms computer. LOL

David Ball
October 21, 2014 8:26 am

The point here is that the damage has already been done. No one researches to find out for themselves (save the few who end up here, because they cannot find honest answers except on skeptic blogs). The media gobbles it up and spreads it on the field of believers. It is then absorbed into the body and regurgitated mindlessly.

October 21, 2014 8:42 am

A huge part of the climate obsessed belief system depends on ignoring GIGO.

Bruce Cobb
October 21, 2014 8:43 am

They are really pushing for 2014 to be the “hottest year on record”, and need El Nino to help them out on that. If it happens, which seems doubtful, they will trumpet that as somehow negating the fact of the 18-year “Great Pause”, which is giving them fits. Instead of trying to come up with excuse after excuse for the halt in warming, the goal is to once more to deny that it exists altogether, thus bringing them full circle.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
October 21, 2014 9:38 am

There is a political need to reach the conclusion that 2014 is the hottest year on record.
I see a big practical problem in store for them. About the time they will tout the claim, it will be juxtaposed on the front page with the effects of a massive Polar Vortex tormenting the USA about mid January.

Reply to  Stephen Rasey
October 21, 2014 11:36 am

…juxtaposed with coal plant closures.

Scott in Nebraska
October 21, 2014 8:45 am

So I see over at Wunderground that Dr. Jeff Masters is continuing his “hottest September ever”,” hottest first nine months ever” and “probably hottest year ever” screed as he has no hurricanes to talk about. Is this where he is getting his data to claim there has been no pause in AGW?

October 21, 2014 8:54 am

Here is an interesting point. I spent some time looking at the data presented at the NASA and NOAA web sites on sea level, extreme weather, and temperature. Here is the funny: The data all show 0 trend, in sea level rise, temperature, and extreme weather. But the sites both say the temperature, sea level,and extreme weather are getting worse. I have to wonder how they can say that when their own data contradicts their statements.

Keith W.
Reply to  dbakerber
October 21, 2014 9:14 pm

Simple. It’s getting worse because the lack of change will mean fewer grants for us to do this simple job, which is worse for us. We need change so we can keep getting grants, so it has to be worse.

Darren Potter
October 21, 2014 8:59 am

“They all agree because they only have one data source.”
Additionally – Two of them agree, because they are Big Government agencies, getting their marching orders from an administration known for dishonesty (and that is being overtly polite).

October 21, 2014 9:33 am

Giant Conspiracy?
Or a massive case of Group Think?

Reply to  Stephen Rasey
October 21, 2014 10:23 am

Ya gots to toe the party line if ya wants yer check.

October 21, 2014 9:34 am

Isn’t Andrew Freedman entitled to his own data?
Has he checked the giant conspiracy with a specialist, Prof. Lewandowsky?

October 21, 2014 9:49 am

What was that line in Rudolph between him and Hermy.
“Hey, what do you say we both be independent together, huh?”

Dennis Wiggins
October 21, 2014 9:52 am

AAAaarrrggghhh- give me something else so as to refute the article other than “They all use the same data” or GIGO. Does GISS or RSS trump other sources?

Ed Moran
Reply to  Dennis Wiggins
October 21, 2014 3:30 pm

“They all use the same data” refutes a Twitter entry not an article.

October 21, 2014 10:20 am

The journalarmists seem to be getting dumber every day.

October 21, 2014 10:28 am

First, they adjust the data. Then, they tell you what it means.

Jason Calley
Reply to  pochas
October 22, 2014 7:57 am

While I agree with your sentiments, let me make just a small nit-pick about the word “adjust.” “Adjust” implies that the data has some known and quantifiable flaw which may be compensated for. It is only an “adjustment” if they show exactly why they changed it, how much they changed it, and the method by which they determined how much to change it. While there certainly are justifiable reasons why data should sometimes be adjusted, I do not think that there has ever been any transparency about ALL of the changes that are done. Lacking that transparency, it might be more accurate to say that the data has been “altered” and remain agnostic about whether it was actually an adjustment or not.

Joe P.
October 21, 2014 10:44 am

As some may know, Gavin Schmidt from NASA now running GISS, Hanson’s protégé, who controls temperature data and “adjustments” dropping rural stations thus jacking up the reported rise in average land instrument data due to UHI, making past seem colder, and also for more recent period deviating from RSS showing a rise above satellite data. Now Schmidt also is a degree of a propagandist running RealClimate website on side along with hockey stick celebrity Michael Mann. Pure association with “hide the decline” Mann calls into question the adjusted HCN temperature data put out from GISS and likely mann made global warming as opposed to true recorded temps without cherry picking stations by computer program, or imputed guess temps for parts of central Africa or poles where there are no stations.
You can not have GISS manipulated data with a rising temperatures deviate from RSS satellite forever, the upward gap will get worse as time goes on, I hope a Congressional Committee gets a panel including Schmidt to drill under oath and try to explain his difference from satellite data and get down to the inconvenient truth about the true as opposed to reported temperature record. There is a difference from pure science on the issue of CO2, global warming, and climatic change, versus propaganda put out by multiple gov. agencies and WH, I prefer truth and pure science over politicization, propaganda, and fake data and “facts” to hide things and defend careers or change energy policy or waste billions $ doing things like having Agricultural Department set up climatic hubs to deal with a non-existent or insignificant problem or Interior deal with sea level and Everglades being under water and Muir glacier melting which is no real change in rate from before GHG, now Homeland Security in on climate budget too, more tornades and hurricanes when opposite is true, idiocy of polar vortex and record low N. American temps last winter blamed on warming, get tired of people having careers bent on trying to manipulate public opinion as opposed to truth.

October 21, 2014 11:23 am

One of the great services of climate alarmists, particularly those who claim to be scientists, is the material they give us to make them look stupid in their own words. While it is tempting to completely trash them with such bounty the worry is they’ll learn from their mistakes. Oh, wait – it’s all they’ve got. Never mind.

October 21, 2014 11:26 am

The climate obsessed lose their critical thinking skills in tragic ways, it would seem.

October 21, 2014 11:38 am

The alarmists never mention the recovery from the Little Ice Age. The modern temperature record ,commonly said to begin circa 1850, shows an upward trend simce then. It’s warmer now than in 1850. This existing trend line, independent of CAGW, would cause many years since 1850 to be the “hottest ever”

October 21, 2014 3:23 pm

It is most likely not a planned conspiracy per se, (which suggest an inner council of hooded men meeting in a secret “star chamber”) but rather the last gasp reaction of the “groupthink” death of a theory based on unreliable and often manipulated earth stations.
A theory that simply didn’t survive the truth of independent satellite data.
In selling religions and other belief systems, after all logical arguments fail to support their hypothesis, the evangelist turns to the need for a “leap of faith” to win the conversion.
In other words, suspend all questions from this point onwards and just accept our “truth”.

Jason Calley
Reply to  cnxtim
October 22, 2014 8:11 am

“Groupthink” is certainly the more pleasant explanation — but I cannot accept that for this reason: People joined in a groupthink really, truly, actually believe what they are espousing. They may be right, they may be wrong, but either way, they certain think that they are correct. People engaged in dishonesty know that they are hiding something and are anxious that you not find the truth.
Are the so-called “climate scientists” willing to show their software, their adjustments, their methodology? Are they willing to correct known errors and to answer sincere questions? Or are they unwilling to debate, to explain or to release details of their work? Do their actions best describe people who are sincere in their beliefs or are their actions those of people who wish to confuse and hide their work?

Bill Illis
October 21, 2014 5:06 pm

What the NCDC is doing now is playing around with the Northern Hemisphere ocean temperatures.
They can’t get away with the land so much anymore given how many people are watching this closely and the Southern Oceans have all that ice that can’t be explained away so easily.
So why not just makes some changes to the Northern Hemisphere ocean SSTs instead. Complete sky-rocket this summer in the 0.94C range.
And part of it is the seasonality that they managed to change in some manner so that summers are always in record territory now and winters are always colder. Just since 2000 so that one can see the seasonality which should not be showing up in the anomaly figures like this.
This is evident in the NCDC’s SST maps which are ridiculously hot in the NH and were much worse in mid-August for example than they are now.
Compared to the Unisys SST map which is obviously using its own numbers and not the NCDC’s numbers and has the NH becoming ice age-like. Only one of these is right.

Reply to  Bill Illis
October 24, 2014 11:39 am

The unisys maps are consistent with the weather for the last 9+ months on the east side of the North Atlantic, which has been cool overall, due I believe to the prevailing Westerlies at these latitudes.

John West
October 21, 2014 5:22 pm

Let’s assume for a second that they were all independent and all came to the same conclusion: warmer.
That’s still a far cry from attribution to CO2 emissions and catastrophic projections.
The alarmists are always pulling this on the general public: provide some evidence for warming and conclude its proof of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming alternatively if it’s not warming provide some evidence of change (even if it’s only unprecedented for a few years as long as the word unprecedented is used) then (poof, as if by magic) that’s suddenly proof of catastrophic anthropogenic climate change.

Reply to  John West
October 21, 2014 8:20 pm

Global warming policy is a nonsensical house of cards built on the shifting sands of unreliable models situated directly over the geologic instability of confirmation-biased data, all held stable only through the most profound faith.

Reply to  talldave2
October 21, 2014 8:58 pm

Are the models built above the Californian fault lines?

October 21, 2014 5:48 pm

The heartbreak of proctocraniosis.

John F. Hultquist
October 21, 2014 7:36 pm

About those 3 independent centers:
NASA & NOAA have the same dear leader and all (including the JMA) are adherents of the WMO that “ . . . is a specialized agency of the United Nations.”
The attitude of the POTUS was summerised by his then new Dept. of Interior head, Sally Jewell” ““I hope there are no climate change deniers in the Department of Interior,”

October 21, 2014 8:17 pm

I can independently verify that my claims about being independently verified have themselves been independently verified (after extensive independent verification by me).

%d bloggers like this: