The Shocking Climate Graph @climateofgavin Doesn’t Want You To See

Just a couple of days ago, climate scientist Dr. Roy Spencer suggested U.S. Warming Trends could be largely spurious.

In his analysis, Dr. Spencer examined another dataset maintained by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and found that when adjusted for population density, weather stations used to measure climate trends report lower long term temperature trends:

“… the highest population density stations had ~0.25 C/decade warming trend, with a reduced warming trend as population density was reduced…”

He adds:

“Significantly, extrapolating to zero population density would give essentially no warming in the United States during 1973-2011. As we shall see (below) official temperature datasets say this period had a substantial warming trend, consistent with the warming in the highest population density locations.

How can one explain this result other than, at least for the period 1973-2011, (1) spurious warming occurred at the higher population density stations, and (2) the evidence supports essentially no warming if there were no people (zero population density) to modify the microclimate around thermometer sites?

I am not claiming there has been no global warming (whatever the cause). I am claiming that there is evidence of spurious warming in thermometer data which must be removed.”

He also cited my work published at AGU in 2015:

Note that this is about the same as the trend I get with the stations having the highest (rather than lowest) population density. Anthony Watts reported qualitatively similar results using different data back in 2015.

Now, along the same lines, in a response to a Tweet I made today, panning the Biden appointment of NASA GISS Dr. Gavin Schmidt to a senior advisor on climate to the White House, atmospheric scientist Dr. Wei Zhang had this to say, and included a graph of his analysis I had not seen before:

We know with Gavin in charge , the temperature will go up… No matter what the thermometers say. I’m still waiting for a plausible explanation of why temperature adjustments are almost perfectly correlated with carbon dioxide. Would expect correlation to be near zero.

Wei Zhang adds in a follow up Tweet responding to another poster who ignorantly tries to tell him it the greenhouse effect 101, bold mine:

That’s not what I said. Why do temperature ADJUSTMENTS correlate with CO2? The probability that this happens by chance is shockingly close to zero.

For those of you that don’t immediately grasp the significance of this, here’s the meat of it.

What Wei Zhang has illustrated is almost a perfect correlation between adjustments to the surface temperature record made by NASA GISS (and Gavin Schmidt) and the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. They’ve artificially cooled the past prior to 1960 (about the time Mauna Loa CO2 measurements started) and artificially warmed 1960 to the present.

The result? A steeper warming trend (adding 0.24°C) than what actually exists in the unadjusted data.

It is proof of man-made climate change – created by adjusting the temperature data to fit a premise – that man-made CO2 released into the atmosphere is driving temperature.

But it seems very clear from Dr. Wei Zhang’s analysis that statistical adjustments are the major drivers of temperature increase here.

In my opinion, this is either scientific incompetency or fraud in my view, possibly both. I seldom use the word “fraud” in my criticisms, but when millions of dollars of funding, prestige of being appointed a White House climate advisor is at stake, what else is left? If they are true scientific experts, how does scientific incompetency like this persist for years?

Inquiring minds want to know.

4.9 122 votes
Article Rating
298 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
February 3, 2021 10:00 am

It was clear the jig was up when HADCRUT no longer databased or transmitted the “unadjusted” data.

David A
Reply to  Mike Smith
February 3, 2021 10:04 am

I believe Tony Heller published this perfect correlation between CO2 increase and T several years ago.

Larry in Texas
Reply to  David A
February 3, 2021 12:06 pm

He’s been repeating this information a lot since the end of the 2020 election especially. This stuff needs to be said over and over again.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  David A
February 3, 2021 1:05 pm

Tony Heller has been the ONLY prominent voice revealing the lies, bad science and how it was done for years. It’s the lukewarmers who have done the most damage. On can’t be just a little bit pregnant.

David A
Reply to  Rory Forbes
February 3, 2021 1:56 pm

I can’t quite accept that. IMV there are many many fine skeptical sites, most all linked here at WUWT, a fine example in itself. Also Tony H accepts the basic premise of CO2 possibly providing some increased atmospheric T. Luke warmers dispute the C in CAGW and assert that CO2 is very beneficial. IMV the blame is political, and bought post normal science.

Last edited 25 days ago by David A
MarkW
Reply to  Rory Forbes
February 3, 2021 3:29 pm

Why is it that religious bigots always demand complete purity in others?

Rory Forbes
Reply to  MarkW
February 3, 2021 5:16 pm

I have no idea, do you? I can’t see anyone discussing religion on this thread, so I can’t understand why you’re asking me.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Rory Forbes
February 4, 2021 8:32 am

I think MarkW is equating the climate change fanatics with a religion, and I think he is correct.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Tom Abbott
February 4, 2021 9:51 am

Thanks for the hint. I also agree. Perhaps it was the phrasing … but more likely I was just dense.

anthropic
Reply to  MarkW
February 3, 2021 10:16 pm

If by religious bigots you include Cultural Marxists, I agree wholeheartedly.

Reply to  anthropic
February 4, 2021 4:37 am

The Church of Warming is a denomination of the main faith of Secular Socialism, whose deity is government.

Reply to  Billyjack
February 5, 2021 1:57 am

No, the diety is Bolsch. Government is just the high temple, abode of the anointed papacy, the sciencers are the priesthood. The dogma of faith is Economics/Political Theory, the holy sacrament is GMO, Aspartame and Roundup. The promised hereafter is population control, and apostates will burn in the hell of white supremacy.
Not that the blasphemous heathens on this site cares… anti-Climastrologists, the lot of them. Our Lord Baal Gates will soon vaccibomb them back into the Adjuctocene

Tom Abbott
Reply to  MarkW
February 4, 2021 8:31 am

If religious fanatics allow you your own view, different from theirs, then that means their own view might not be the correct view, and they can’t handle that thought, so they do things that keep them from having to think those thoughts.

The True Nolan
Reply to  David A
February 4, 2021 7:05 pm

Here is Heller’s chart from 2016. Adjustments match CO2.comment image

[awesome username-mod]

beng135
Reply to  The True Nolan
February 5, 2021 9:43 am

The Adjustocene.

Mr. Lee
Reply to  Mike Smith
February 3, 2021 10:51 am

Not giving the raw data is the “new” science. it’s more inclusive, as anybody can do it. way better than that old white man science. lol.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Mr. Lee
February 4, 2021 8:34 am

I have a problem with them calling it “Raw” data. I think that is deliberate propaganda meant to convey the idea that the written temperature records are somehow flawed and need to be corrected.

MagneO
Reply to  Mike Smith
February 3, 2021 1:20 pm

Is that true? I have heard it before, but is this actually the case? There must be some files or tapes or disks or whatever where the original readings are available? Otherwise it is complete madness!

Reply to  MagneO
February 3, 2021 3:27 pm

If you can find it, great! I’ve tried many times.

I sent the Hadley Center an email at the time and asked, “How can I keep getting this data?” They never replied.

My instinct (of course, cannot prove it) is that they didn’t want people to see the raw data behind the curtain. When I plotted HADCRUT3-unadjusted it clearly falsified the climate models.

Reply to  MagneO
February 5, 2021 2:39 am

Not so long ago, the interweb-thingy allowed every plebe with a telephone line to log into weather stations and aggregation servers for real-time data. That was stopped when the first blasphemous bastard started asking stupid questions about the source of doomsday data. They even had the temerity to start drawing their own graphs, and with that, gasp! draw their own conclusions!
I am saving True Nolan’s graph, though. I hope he’s not shitting me, I am going to use it to rag every climatey eskatologist I find. Got a link to the original, Nole?

Magne O
Reply to  paranoid goy
February 5, 2021 4:54 am

What’s baffling here is that all these datasets are produced by organizations funded by the taxpayer. One should think this lack of transparency caused an uproar!

Reply to  Magne O
February 5, 2021 5:03 am

You are only baffled because you neglect your collection of Terry Pratchett, arguably the most important social philosopher of the late twentieth century. He taught us the true meaning of transparency in governance: Every politician strives for Total Transparency, because a thing that is totally transparent, becomes invisible! That way, don’t even have to lie anymore, they say exactly what they mean, only nobody bothers opening a bloody dictionary anymore.
That is why I am trying to found the Democratic Acoitheists for Translucent Anarchy… But nobody wants to shove money up my butt. Well, no decent people, anyway.
https://greenpets.co.za/index.php/en/12-paranoid-goy/204-assange-against-transparency

The True Nolan
Reply to  paranoid goy
February 5, 2021 9:42 am

Hey paranoid goy! Link to the original? Sure:
https://realclimatescience.com/2016/11/noaa-adjustments-correlate-exactly-to-their-confirmation-bias/
I would like to put in a word about Heller. The man has consistently, for years, done the most excellent work imaginable. In a better and more rational world he would be declared a national treasure.

Bloke down the pub
February 3, 2021 10:05 am

People sometimes ask what motive scientists could possibly have for lying about cagw. Being given a top job by the president probably qualifies

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Bloke down the pub
February 3, 2021 10:29 am

power, prestige, attending the Caesar’s inner circle or the King’s Court is an ancient lure of power and social status. We can at least be thankful Zhao Bai-den didn’t pick Mann.

David Wolcott
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
February 3, 2021 1:23 pm

Another example of Bidentity politics.

Leonard
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
February 3, 2021 2:10 pm

Joel, that is the most precise and shortest complete explanation of why bureaucracies’ main objective is to grow,and I think it has been true in all civilizations and a lot of organizations most would call uncivilized.

Mason
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
February 4, 2021 8:35 am

Zhou Bai Den, Zhao is Jow

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
February 4, 2021 8:39 am

“We can at least be thankful Zhao Bai-den didn’t pick Mann.”

That is a silver lining in this dark cloud. 🙂

Mr. Lee
Reply to  Bloke down the pub
February 3, 2021 10:40 am

It’s the nature of bureaucratic administrators. Their job is to grow their bureau. If nobody holds them accountable, why wouldn’t they lie and deceive to achieve their “goals”?

Bill Powers
Reply to  Bloke down the pub
February 3, 2021 11:17 am

I agree with Anthony’s postulation that it is both scientific incompetency and fraud but Central Authoritarian Cultural/Political fraud is the principle driver, using vast amounts of other peoples money to buy the best incompetent scientists that that money can buy.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Bill Powers
February 3, 2021 12:35 pm

Scientific incompetency/mistakes in method can be best fingered as Causal in a one-time bad publication where the error(s) are pointed out by others, and then corrected/retracted.

But a continuing, decades-long “incompetence” as we see in the adjusted surface data sets clearly points to an planned, intentional deception campaign.

Call it Multi-decadal Climate Fraud.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
February 4, 2021 8:41 am

“But a continuing, decades-long “incompetence” as we see in the adjusted surface data sets clearly points to a planned, intentional deception campaign.”

No doubt about it, in my mind.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
February 4, 2021 9:17 am

NONE of these 50,000+ T stations (land + air above sea) are in heat islands. And they show globally we are at -0.08°C anomaly to the 14°C historic baseline. temperature.global

NASA needs to fire NASAGISS as a “credible” global T source. It is not!
And Biden needs to fire Gavin and hire Heller.

Reply to  UV Meter
February 4, 2021 9:21 am

Clickable link: http://temperature.global

The True Nolan
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
February 5, 2021 9:52 am

Hey Joel, more than a few years back, (maybe 8 or 10?) there were some official requests made demanding an explanation for the bizarre and ongoing adjustments being made. The bureaucratic response was that “the algorithms are working as designed”.

(If anyone is so motivated to dig out that gem of an incident, please do. I saw so many such responses, and non-responses, that I no longer keep track of them.)

Russ Wood
Reply to  The True Nolan
February 6, 2021 3:16 am

On “algorithms working as specified” – I had to use this as an excuse when I was working on an Air Traffic Control system. The ‘algorithms’ were 20 years old, and there was no budget to re-design them. Anyone who saw the old movie about New York ATC, called “Pushing Tin” will know what the problem was…

Mark Pawelek
Reply to  Bill Powers
February 4, 2021 11:42 am

These fraudsters believe they have “progress” on their side; much like Lysenkoists in 1930s Soviet Union. Those Lysenkoists killed up to 170 Russian scientists but up to 10 million peasants also died of starvation – partly due to the regime’s Lysenkoism.

So don’t assume these fraudsters will ever correct themselves.

4 Eyes
Reply to  Bloke down the pub
February 3, 2021 12:32 pm

Especially when the top dog would not have a clue about interpreting data

Mumbles McGuirck
Reply to  4 Eyes
February 3, 2021 1:50 pm

Biden trips over the top dog.

john harmsworth
Reply to  Bloke down the pub
February 3, 2021 12:50 pm

Many of these are activist true believers and the rest are opportunists. I think Mann is actually so blindly self interested that he’s able to convince himself that anything that benefits him is true. That’s where the scary starts!

Gary Ashe
Reply to  john harmsworth
February 4, 2021 10:09 am

Its a condition Mann has, and many of the others, they believe that ”white lies” don’t good and ethical because they are doing great good, its called Noble cause syndrome.

another ian
Reply to  Bloke down the pub
February 3, 2021 1:12 pm

“Wokeyleaks — the shallow sickness and obsession of the fameroise”
https://joannenova.com.au/2021/02/wokeyleaks-the-shallow-sickness-and-obsession-of-the-fameroise/

TallDave
Reply to  Bloke down the pub
February 4, 2021 7:10 am
Bill Everett
Reply to  Bloke down the pub
February 4, 2021 5:10 pm

I don’t think Gavin Schmidt can see the forest for the trees. NASA Earth Observatory has a paper on the internet entitled “Satellite Detects Human Contribution to Atmospheric CO2” which describes a Finnish study that used satellite data to map the human contributed “excess” CO2 in the atmosphere. Almost all of the human CO2 contribution on the map of the US occurred in the Eastern US. There was practically none in the Western half of the country. This correlated closely with the World Book climate map which divided a cold, moist Northeast and warm, rainy Southeast from a semi-arid West and a vegetation map which showed a combination of needle leaf and broadleaf forests in the East and only needle leaf forests in the West. The mapping showed good correlation between the “human caused CO2” and the forests of the East and poor correlation with the leading population centers everywhere. Based on his quoted statements in the paper, Gavin Schmidt appeared to observe none of this pertinent evidence that the source of the “excess” CO2 would appear to be natural and not human caused.

Reply to  Bloke down the pub
February 5, 2021 2:42 am

Have you ever been in a management budgetary forecast meeting? The aim is to appear wonderfully profitable in the coming financial cycle. In the last three months, your department gets ‘straemlined’, half the workfprce retrenched, to ‘save on costs’ to make the figures appear at least within one order of magnitude of the ridiculous promises you made to the big boss end of last quarter.
Standard Bolshevik business ethics.

Ron Long
February 3, 2021 10:16 am

Good presentation, Anthony. The CAGW goal is control and expanding government at the expense of capitalism. There was a switch to Covid_19, but that started to look iffy as a substitute, so back we go to CAGW. “…there is either scientific incompetency or fraud, possible both.”. Alex, I’ll take “both” for a million bucks.

Hang in there, Anthony, you’re one of the few holding back the corrupt idiots. Thanks.

Joel O'Bryan
February 3, 2021 10:18 am

Embracing The Biggest Lie Possible is just Gavin and The Cause channeling their Goebbels methodology training.

Hotscot
February 3, 2021 10:25 am

If they can fake an election, they can fake the climate.

Simon
Reply to  Hotscot
February 3, 2021 11:16 am

You must really enjoy watching those fake moon landings and telling people no plane crashed in to the pentagon.

Big Al
Reply to  Simon
February 3, 2021 11:57 am

Hotspot believe what he see’s. Simon follows instructions .

Simon
Reply to  Big Al
February 3, 2021 12:03 pm

Hotspot obviously needs glasses then.

paul courtney
Reply to  Simon
February 3, 2021 12:37 pm

Simon: So he can see you following instructions?

Rory Forbes
Reply to  paul courtney
February 3, 2021 1:08 pm

Simon has been unable to see what really happened on account of his head is lodged securely up his fundamental orifice.

mcswell
Reply to  Rory Forbes
February 3, 2021 3:11 pm

I suggest you need to clean up your mind. Unless of course you’re a bot, in which case you don’t have any mind.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  mcswell
February 3, 2021 5:19 pm

I suggest you’ve found your way into the wrong thread and are having difficulty following the plot.

MarkW
Reply to  Simon
February 3, 2021 3:30 pm

Yes, he needs a pair of glasses like the one’s Simon uses. Those that only see what he wants to see.

Gary Ashe
Reply to  MarkW
February 4, 2021 10:28 am

Rose tinted innit.

Graemethecat
Reply to  Simon
February 3, 2021 12:00 pm

So you have nothing to say about the specious warming trend?

Simon
Reply to  Graemethecat
February 3, 2021 12:02 pm

I as commenting on the comment. Maybe you should try….

MarkW
Reply to  Simon
February 3, 2021 3:31 pm

In other words, Simon knows that he has nothing to contribute, so he makes up for his shortcomings by being offensive.

fred250
Reply to  Simon
February 3, 2021 8:14 pm

Poor slimon, Your comment is trite, puerile and totally meaningless.

Devoid of anything resembling science or comment sense.

Just like ALL your comments

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Graemethecat
February 4, 2021 8:45 am

What *do* you think about the spurious warming trend, Simon? Do you think it’s spurious?

MarkW
Reply to  Simon
February 3, 2021 12:02 pm

It really is fascinating how pathetic progressives get when they try to discredit someone who is on to them.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  MarkW
February 3, 2021 12:09 pm

Even Spock thinks so.

Hotscot
Reply to  Simon
February 3, 2021 12:13 pm

Even acknowledging those two is evidence of your own conspiracy inclinations.

Apparently I was a conspiracy theorist for voting Brexit, but England is now rolling vaccines out faster than almost anywhere in the world, faster than the rest of Europe combined at the last count.

And judging by your attitude, having a sense of humour is a conspiracy, but then it must be as you don’t effing well have one!

Burgher King
Reply to  Hotscot
February 3, 2021 12:32 pm

Hotscot, having voted for Brexit, has the SNP identified you as a potential domestic terrorist for having done so?

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  Hotscot
February 4, 2021 3:14 am

Perhaps I think too deeply about these things. But I can understand why Brexiteers find it strange why many Scots want independence and to join the EU. This goes back a long way, one of Wallace’s first acts after expelling the English was to write to the Hanseatic League saying Scotland was open for business again.
But what really puzzles me is Brexiteers who claim it was purely about taking back control being totally opposed to the nations of the UK taking back control from Westminster, I’ve met a few over the years and the ones who get mardy about it too. The same goes for Orkney and Shetland taking back control too.

David Guy-Johnson
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
February 4, 2021 5:46 am

The really strange thing is that independence and being in the EU are mutually exclusive.

JamesD
Reply to  Simon
February 3, 2021 12:27 pm

Actually he just has a brain. When they say a water main blew out in Atlanta and shut down the voting, he’d like to see the water main blow out.

4 Eyes
Reply to  Simon
February 3, 2021 12:34 pm

Simon, do you have anything to say about the subject of the post?

Derg
Reply to  Simon
February 3, 2021 4:57 pm

Ole Simon with his “what has Trump done about Covid?”

He instituted a travel ban.

Ole Simon said “he did?”

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Simon
February 3, 2021 8:04 pm

Simon
I think you have set some kind of record with the most ‘down votes’ — 50 — that I think anyone has ever received. Griff must be jealous.

Simon
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
February 4, 2021 1:10 am

I’ll take it. Ive made a badge.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
February 4, 2021 8:49 am

I believe that is a record, It was 66 when I looked at this thread.

Simon
Reply to  Tom Abbott
February 4, 2021 4:34 pm

I’m gonna make a Tee Shirt, but the number keep changing.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Simon
February 5, 2021 9:00 pm

Better hold off on the T-shirt. You’re up to -76 now!

David Guy-Johnson
Reply to  Hotscot
February 3, 2021 11:19 am

People like you give us sceptics a bad name. There’s no plausible evidence of electoral fraud. Just crazy statements by moronic idiots.

MarkW
Reply to  David Guy-Johnson
February 3, 2021 12:03 pm

There is plausible evidence, it’s just that some are afraid to be labeled if they disagree with the MSM.

Big Al
Reply to  David Guy-Johnson
February 3, 2021 12:05 pm

No Dave, It is you. Sad for you. MSM fake news. Trump playing clowns. March 4th, 2021. We see who crying .

Klem
Reply to  Big Al
February 3, 2021 2:41 pm

What happens March 4th ?

Big Al
Reply to  Klem
February 3, 2021 5:02 pm

President Trump. First President of NEW , FREE , AMERICA. Only question is four or eight more years. Look for Military Tribunals. Last year of Boomerang. This year, Boomerang REURN. Heads Will ROLL !!! DC will became museum. Look for New WH built on AMERICAN soil.

David Guy-Johnson
Reply to  Big Al
February 4, 2021 5:46 am

You are quite mad.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Big Al
February 4, 2021 9:11 am

I don’t think we are to that point yet.

Let’s use the tools the Founding Fathers gave us to hold the president and his regime accountable.

Under our Republic, the powers not invested in the Federal Governent are invested in the States.

States have something to say in this type of government arrangement.

No need to leave the Union yet.

If you are getting nervous, move to Texas, that will be the last Bastion of Freedom, if that ever becomes necessary.

R.O.
Reply to  Big Al
February 4, 2021 7:32 pm

I’ll believe that when I see it.

If that’s something you got for Q-Anon, don’t believe it. Q-Anon is acting just like the “Operation Trust” that the Bolsheviks ran in the 1920s, while they slowly disarmed the Russians who could have opposed them. “Oh the army is going to save us. Therefore we need to wait for them to act.” and similar stories kept the Russians quiet when they should have acted.

Q-Anon sounds like a CIA Psi-op, an enemy.

The top generals are politicians, not soldiers. They won’t act until we act. They’ll wait to see which side butters their bread.

If the Democrats pass H.R. 127 and Biden signs it into “law” (a fake law not to be obeyed because it violates the Constitution), the Democrats will have declared war on the Constitution and the American people. Therefore any policeman who tries to enforce that illegal law will be an enemy combatant, to be killed in combat. Any police department that signs on to that “law” will transform every officer in that force into enemy combatants, to be killed wherever found. In those departments, the individual officers will have to make a decision, which do they value more, their jobs or their lives?

I don’t expect anything of note to happen on March 4.

Big Al
Reply to  R.O.
February 6, 2021 5:04 pm

President dead traitor Bush give speech Praising NEW WORLD ORDER. Deep State Clowns In America hide out Epstein Island. Any Bush CIA ? NWO worship Satan. Cue much attacked by MSM. Yeah, CIA ops. You forgot the Queen is Lizard . Sept 19th. tick tock. sec. 11.3.

Big Al
Reply to  Big Al
February 6, 2021 10:57 pm

Feb 19th, not Sept. Soon.

Hotscot
Reply to  David Guy-Johnson
February 3, 2021 12:18 pm

Didn’t some states have substantially more votes than they had registered voters?

You may understand science mate, but you don’t understand common law, criminal evidence.

You’re another one who needs a sense of humour transplant. Doubtless you’re a member of the cancel culture mob who would rather not have people express themselves freely!

Simon
Reply to  Hotscot
February 3, 2021 1:00 pm

Didn’t some states have substantially more votes than they had registered voters?” No. And there weren’t thousands of dead voters in Georgia like Trump said… there were two.

“You may understand science mate, but you don’t understand common law, criminal evidence.” Huh? Evidence requires… well, evidence. And that is where the whole voter fraud thing doesn’t get out of the starting gate.

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  Simon
February 3, 2021 3:36 pm

Nothing like repeating lies from the MSM.

Simon
Reply to  Gerald Machnee
February 3, 2021 3:45 pm

Nothing like telling the truth. You should try it.

Big Al
Reply to  Simon
February 3, 2021 5:21 pm

The truth is Military is in control due to overwhelming evidence of foreign manipulation . Guilty plea from Dominion employee who said he switched many votes from Trump to Joe. Italy I think. Troops tuned their BACK’S to Biden’s motorcade. Biden’s last president of slaves. You are one.

fred250
Reply to  Simon
February 3, 2021 8:18 pm

“Nothing like telling the truth”.

.

Something Slimon has NEVER done..

It knows NOTHING about the TRUTH,

His whole life revolves around Mills and Boon style fantasies.

Tsk Tsk
Reply to  Simon
February 3, 2021 8:26 pm

He did and you didn’t like the results. And there was plenty of evidence, sport. Granted your understanding of the rules of evidence is probably worse than your understanding of the science of global warming, but still.

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  Simon
February 4, 2021 11:02 am

I have. CNN does not broadcast truth. They have a job for you.

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  Hotscot
February 4, 2021 3:25 am

Hasn’t the phrase “Vote Early – Vote Often” got a history going back to the 19th century? It’s even easier with postal and proxy voting. There are instances of community and religious leaders voting for large numbers of people in the UK. Also in some communities the head of the household, usually male, does the postal votes for the entire family. I have no indisputable proof but I’m convinced it happens.
The only fraud proof way is voting in person and indelible dye

David Guy-Johnson
Reply to  Hotscot
February 4, 2021 5:51 am

Well that shows how little you know me. I’m right wing, a free market conservative, someone who is proud of the UK and of it’s past contribution to the world we live in and a CAGW sceptic from day one. What I do insist on is solid reliable evidence. There is no such evidence of any widespread fraud in the US election, no matter how much I would like to believe there was. I’m impressed by many of your posts on CAGW, but you’re badly informed about the US Election

Tom Abbott
Reply to  David Guy-Johnson
February 4, 2021 9:20 am

“What I do insist on is solid reliable evidence.”

I’m with you there. I too insist on evidence.

If Trump does not produce any evidence, I will be the first to say so.

I anticipate Trump will have some evidence to offer, and we all will have to judge the quality or lack thereof, after we see it.

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  David Guy-Johnson
February 4, 2021 11:06 am

It is quite obvious you have not checked anywhere except the MSM like CNN whose main line is “conspiracy theories” when they cannot contradict the evidence.
Start with the Georgia Senate hearings. Then go to the Michigan analysis of Dominion which should be extended to all sites:

https://neonnettle.com/news/13586-judge-releases-dominion-audit-report-system-designed-to-create-systemic-fraud-
                                      
Judge Releases Dominion Audit Report: System ‘Designed’ to ‘Create Systemic Fraud’

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  Gerald Machnee
February 9, 2021 1:55 pm

The following site shows what the computer hacking did. The video at the top shows the flow back and forth of the vote stealing and transfers.

https://www.electionrecords.com/scorecard/index.html

Next is a video on several aspects of election irreghularities.
For the short version of how an when the computers were hacked start watching at 1 hr 36 min.

https://realclimatescience.com/2021/02/mike-lindell-absolute-proof/#comment-431427

JamesD
Reply to  David Guy-Johnson
February 3, 2021 12:29 pm

There’s plenty of evidence. Just no investigation. Well there was the district that had to flip the winner when machine irregularities were uncovered. Oh, and the water main break. And signed affidavits, under penalty of perjury. Plenty of evidence.

Klem
Reply to  JamesD
February 3, 2021 2:49 pm

Don’t forget the multiple suitcases full of Biden ballots pulled out from under a desk. That was conspiracy to commit election fraud, but no one will be prosecuted because science.

mcswell
Reply to  JamesD
February 3, 2021 3:14 pm

The water main break was evidence? Of what? Afaict, evidence that the pipes were old. And nothing more. Similarly for your other so-called evidence. You really are grasping at straws, JamesD.

Derg
Reply to  mcswell
February 3, 2021 5:00 pm

Lol

gringojay
Reply to  mcswell
February 3, 2021 5:01 pm

‘Twas a leaking urinal at StateFarmArena in Fulton County (look it up if uncertain). My assumption is the building code obligated bathroom floor drainage, but some adults still got their knickers in a twist about some water potentially being under their body mass index.

Tsk Tsk
Reply to  mcswell
February 3, 2021 8:27 pm

Show us the repair order. Oh wait, you can’t because it wasn’t true.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  JamesD
February 4, 2021 9:26 am

“There’s plenty of evidence. Just no investigation.”

The problem has been that this election fraud evidence has never been characterized properly and put in one place where people can look at it.

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  Tom Abbott
February 9, 2021 1:56 pm

Look here:
For the short version of how an when the computers were hacked start watching at 1 hr 36 min.

https://realclimatescience.com/2021/02/mike-lindell-absolute-proof/#comment-431427

paul courtney
Reply to  David Guy-Johnson
February 3, 2021 12:47 pm

Mr. Guy-J: Plausible evidence? Joe Biden got some 10 million more votes than Obama. That fact alone is “plausible evidence”, not a smoking gun (there’s a few other facts, but why waste your time?), but some evidence of ballot-stuffing. Makes me a moronic idiot, huh?

mcswell
Reply to  paul courtney
February 3, 2021 3:17 pm

How is that “plausible evidence”? The US is bigger than it was a couple of presidential election cycles ago, plus Trump was so controversial that it brought voters out of the woodwork who had never (or seldom) bothered to vote before.

paul courtney
Reply to  mcswell
February 3, 2021 5:26 pm

Mr. swell: Since I already answered your question, I’ll move on to your points. Catastrophic sea level rise (if it were so) woulda made the US smaller, right? Was the number of registered voters bigger? By how many? You’re not curious, are you?
“Trump was so controversial”, he drove more dem voters, 14% more than the One We Waited For? That much more enthused? Or was it ten million racist dems who refused to vote for Obama,but came out for the white guy? You should be more careful with your idle ramblings.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  mcswell
February 3, 2021 8:18 pm

That is speculation, not proven fact.

Tsk Tsk
Reply to  mcswell
February 3, 2021 8:28 pm

Some of them who hadn’t even bothered to vote after they died. Until now.

Chris Hanley
Reply to  David Guy-Johnson
February 3, 2021 12:53 pm

All such elections involve fraud, how could it be otherwise, there are only degrees of fraud.

Simon
Reply to  Chris Hanley
February 3, 2021 1:01 pm

All such elections involve fraud, how could it be otherwise, there are only degrees of fraud.” That is absolutely correct and as William Barr said, there was no evidence he saw that would overturn this election.

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  Simon
February 3, 2021 3:37 pm

More lies. That is why he would not do a forensic audit.

Simon
Reply to  Gerald Machnee
February 3, 2021 3:47 pm

So the guy who had Trumps back (Barr) for so much of the time suddenly turned on him? Very plausible.

Tsk Tsk
Reply to  Simon
February 3, 2021 8:31 pm

“Had his back” so much that there’s still no Durham report. Of course it’s incontrovertible that multiple states had their election laws illegally overridden, but because the judicial system is as corrupt as the rest of Amerika’s institutions there was “nothing” they could do after the election (laches) and before the election the problem wasn’t “ripe.”

But keep telling the Big Lie.

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  Simon
February 4, 2021 11:11 am

Yes, Barr and a number of others became turncoats. The corruption has reached the top including the FBI and CIA. Read the Russia Hoax Documents released to see the extent of the corruption. It took two years for Trump to get them released. But maybe the facts are too much for you. You will not see the truth on CNN.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Simon
February 3, 2021 8:20 pm

What Grand Jury or bipartisan congressional committee was Barr citing?

Simon
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
February 3, 2021 8:34 pm

He was citing common sense.

fred250
Reply to  Simon
February 4, 2021 2:13 am

How would you know..

You have absolutely NEVER had any common sense…

..and are, in fact, totally incapable of knowing what common sense is.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Simon
February 4, 2021 10:06 am

So, by implication, you would support the idea of evidence-less trials where the most articulate sophist wins. The leftist spokespersons become loonier every day.

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  Simon
February 9, 2021 1:58 pm

He was lying, but to Simon and Barr it is “common cents”.

mcswell
Reply to  Chris Hanley
February 3, 2021 3:18 pm

Are you saying Trump’s 2016 election victory could have been fraudulent?

Chris Hanley
Reply to  mcswell
February 3, 2021 4:45 pm

Without election fraud Clinton’s defeat could have been more decisive.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Chris Hanley
February 3, 2021 6:32 pm

The Democrat’s realized after 2016 they needed to step-up the ballot fraud a notch or two.

Simon
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
February 3, 2021 8:33 pm

Proof please. I see the crazy lawyers Sydney Powell and Rudi G are being sued for some of their statements about fraud and the election. I will be very surprised if they don’t end up paying quite a lot of money. Watch this space.

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  Simon
February 4, 2021 11:13 am

The suit is a diversion. Everyone knows the lawyers are correct so they are trying to avoid a forensic audit. they will try to tie up the courts for years without yielding to the discovery process.

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  Simon
February 9, 2021 2:00 pm

Dominion will have to prove the following is false. All that the lying CNN can do is call the evidence “lies” because they cannot counter it:
For the short version of how an when the computers were hacked start watching at 1 hr 36 min.

https://realclimatescience.com/2021/02/mike-lindell-absolute-proof/#comment-431427

Derg
Reply to  mcswell
February 3, 2021 5:01 pm

Russia colluuuusion 😉

Tsk Tsk
Reply to  mcswell
February 3, 2021 8:32 pm

Are you saying that #RUSSIA was a hoax?

Narrator: It was.

philincalifornia
Reply to  David Guy-Johnson
February 3, 2021 1:14 pm

You could watch it live in the Perdue-Ossoff Senate election if you knew what you were looking for. I did between 9 and 10 pm CA time that evening. There was no attempt to cover it up even.

Twist yourself into a pretzel explaining this one to us moronic idiots David:

https://phzoe.com/2021/01/06/something-rotten-in-georgia/

mcswell
Reply to  philincalifornia
February 3, 2021 3:32 pm

In that post, Zoe Phin asks “How did Republicans manage to vote more for a less important race?” That is the wrong question. The right question is, How did voters (mostly Republicans) vote more for a Republican candidate in a less important seat than they voted for either Republican candidate in a senate race? To which the answer surely is cross-over: people who might otherwise have voted Republican didn’t like the Republican senatorial candidates, and also some Democrats preferred McDonald (the Republican candidate for the less important seat). The latter has happened in the blue state of Maryland, where there is a two term Republican governor. The latter reason would explain why the Democratic candidate for that Georgia commissioner position got fewer votes than either Democratic candidate for Senate: some Democratic voters crossed over to the Republican side for that particular race.

See, it’s not that hard to explain. No pretzel required; not everyone votes a straight party ticket.

Tsk Tsk
Reply to  mcswell
February 3, 2021 8:33 pm

Laughable when all of the trends are for less ticket splitting than ever. The plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not data.

CptTrips
Reply to  David Guy-Johnson
February 3, 2021 2:36 pm

While there was definitely election fraud (as there is in every election), proving a particular person committed it is extremely difficult, as the nature of American elections makes it fairly easy to hide. You can identify where it likely took place and to what magnitude through the analysis of voter rolls and voting patterns, but that does not provide criminal evidence sufficient to sustain a conviction.

In this election there were 3 categories of illegal votes:

1. Voters who were not eligible to cast a ballot that did so. (the dead, people not registered to a physical address)

2. Ballots cast in contravention of state law. (absentee ballot not requested correctly, absentee ballot turned in after deadline)

3. Ballots canvassed and counted in contravention of state law. (signature match or postmark ignored, observers blocked, ballot harvesting)

Some, but not all, of the ballots of category 1 were fraud (intent to deceive), while categories 2 and 3 are just unlawful and not fraudulent. In six states (Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin) the number of ballots falling under categories 2 or 3 (or the parts of 1 that would not be fraud) was much larger than the margin of victory in those states, depending upon the interpretation of the statutes involved as well as the US Constitution. So while fraud might have made up only a small portion of those votes, the fact that the illegal vote tally was arguably larger than the win percentage makes the results of those contests invalid, again based on one’s legal interpretation.

Thus it is perfectly reasonable for one to skeptical of the election outcome. It doesn’t even require actual fraud, only a combination of corruption and incompetence which any governmental entity has in spades.

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  CptTrips
February 3, 2021 3:38 pm

The corrupt at the top would not do a real audit because they knew it would throw the results out the window.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Gerald Machnee
February 3, 2021 8:24 pm

I suspect that a lot of those (such as SCOTUS) who might have had the power to do something, were more concerned about the turmoil it would create, and the loss of confidence in the system, that they thought it better to look the other way and let it play out.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
February 4, 2021 9:33 am

I think you are correct. I think the leftwing mobs and their rioting over the summer intimidated the U.S. Spreme Court, or rather, intimidated Chief Justice John Roberts.

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
February 4, 2021 11:15 am

So that means they did not do the job they were appointed to do. In other words aided corruption.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Gerald Machnee
February 5, 2021 9:06 pm

Yes, but that is nothing new. The 9th Circuit Court has a long history of such behavior.

Simon
Reply to  CptTrips
February 3, 2021 3:50 pm

In six states (Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin) the number of ballots falling under categories 2 or 3 (or the parts of 1 that would not be fraud) was much larger than the margin of victory in those states, depending upon the interpretation of the statutes involved as well as the US Constitution.”
Please provide proof of this statement. I call it BS.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Simon
February 3, 2021 6:04 pm

How does that sand taste, BTW?

Mr.
Reply to  Simon
February 3, 2021 8:29 pm

Something to contemplate Simon –

Here’s why the 2020 result was close:

Popular Vote: Joe Biden 81,268,757 (51.3%), Donald Trump 74,216,722 (46.9%)

Electoral College: Biden 306, Trump 232

States Trump would have had to flip to win Electoral College:
Georgia, Arizona, Wisconsin

Georgia:
Biden 2,473,633, Trump 2,461,854 – Biden wins by 11,779 (0.24%)

Arizona:
Biden 1,672,143, Trump 1,661,686 – Biden wins by 10,457 (0.31%)

Wisconsin:
Biden 1,630,866, Trump 1,610,184 – Biden wins by 20,682 (0.62%)

Combined Margin 42,918

In other words, the outcome of the 2020 election was very close. Trump did not lose by “8 million” votes .
In short, if Donald Trump had obtained an extra 43,000 votes across the states of Georgia, Arizona and Wisconsin he would have won in 2020. That’s close.

h/t
https://thesydneyinstitute.com.au/blog/issue-527/

Simon
Reply to  Mr.
February 4, 2021 1:13 am

Close but no cigar.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Mr.
February 4, 2021 9:37 am

I heard some numbers the other day I thought were interesting.

There are 3006 counties in the United States.

Trump won 2500 counties, and Biden won 506 counties.

Six of those counties are in the contested States and account for Biden’s victory.

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  Simon
February 9, 2021 2:02 pm

Proof is here. Terrbytes of data:
For the short version of how an when the computers were hacked start watching at 1 hr 36 min.

https://realclimatescience.com/2021/02/mike-lindell-absolute-proof/#comment-431427

Simon
Reply to  CptTrips
February 4, 2021 1:17 am

I would like it noted that CptTrips has not responded to me calling this…. “In six states (Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin) the number of ballots falling under categories 2 or 3 (or the parts of 1 that would not be fraud) was much larger than the margin of victory in those states, depending upon the interpretation of the statutes involved as well as the US Constitution.” BS. I wonder why?

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  Simon
February 4, 2021 11:17 am

A real forensic audit would clearly show that Trump won handily, so they will never do one. They just recount the fake ballots.

Simon
Reply to  Gerald Machnee
February 4, 2021 12:24 pm

A real forensic audit would clearly show that Trump won handily, so they will never do one. They just recount the fake ballots.”
Who are “they?” Trump was in charge remember. “They” (many of them) are republican governors who say there was no fraud. His own team have called him a liar.

CptTrips
Reply to  Simon
February 4, 2021 2:06 pm

Well, the simple reason why is that I don’t spend my entire day on WUWT nor do I even get here every day.

As to examples, there are plenty out there so put in the research yourself, but I’ll provide you with a few examples.

In Wisconsin, several election officials encouraged people to claim to be indefinitely confined due to the pandemic so they could request a ballot without having to show up with ID to request an absentee ballot. More than 238,000 did so, including 20,000 first time voters. In 2019 that number was 72,000. The Wisconsin Supreme court ruled that claiming indefinite confinement for the pandemic was not valid. So of the 166,000+ new indefinitely confined people, if as few as 13% of them were mis-claimed, then their ballots, being illegally cast (even if through being misinformed) is larger than the margin of victory in Wisconsin.

Also in Wisconsin, the State election board, with no authority given it in state law put out about 500 drop boxes for the collection of ballots. They collected 150,000+ ballots in a way that was illegal and as such making those votes illegal. That’s a total seven times the margin of victory that were counted.

In Arizona, a court ordered a statistical sampling of mail-in ballot signatures to audit the signature match procedure. They were then analyzed by two experts, one provided by the Democrats, and one by the Republicans. In that sample, the Democrat expert said 11% of them failed to match. By that standard, applied to all mail in ballots in Arizona, there were 30 times the number of invalid ballots counted than what was the margin of victory.

In Fulton county, Georgia, election officials told the count observers that they were stopping the count for the night and to go home and the count would resume in the morning. Then less than an hour after they told that to the observers they restarted counting. They counted through the night without the observers being present in violation of the law. There were more than 500,000 votes cast in Fulton county. If a mere 2.5% of them were counted during that night without the observers present, that is again larger than the margin of victory.

Now Simon, should you choose to respond to this and I don’t come back with a comment, your assumption should be that I have moved on to other things and haven’t bothered to return, or that maybe I’ve returned, read your comment, and didn’t feel it necessitated a response. The last thing you should ever assume is I am unable to show my rationale for any comment I make and am therefore hiding from your high intellectual argument of, “I call BS.”

Last edited 24 days ago by CptTrips
Simon
Reply to  CptTrips
February 4, 2021 4:42 pm

CptTrips
Thank you for taking the time, but….You have given me accusations. If you don’t mind I want concrete evidence from reputable sites that confirm what you are saying is true. Till then you sound like Rudy and Sidney and look where they are headed. It’s easy to throw numbers round, but much harder to prove them which is why none of these accusations held water with the courts.

Red94ViperRT10
Reply to  Simon
February 5, 2021 8:45 am

A tape from a security camera is not evidence? Maybe you need to review your definition of “evidence”.

Simon
Reply to  Red94ViperRT10
February 5, 2021 10:26 am

Please point me to this tape?

Reply to  David Guy-Johnson
February 3, 2021 3:34 pm

Are you kidding? There is no question there was fraud. I readily admit I do not know if the level of fraud was sufficient to change the outcome; but the evidence of [at least some] fraud existed in the 2020 Presidential Election is overwhelming.

Go to statistician Matt Briggs’ blog. He was written extensively. Because I trusted his work long before the election, I trust his analysis here.

Red94ViperRT10
Reply to  Mike Smith
February 5, 2021 8:50 am

Exactly!!!! If the damn Democrats have nothing to hide, why are they trying so hard to hide it?

Up-thread somewhere I saw the question, let’s just do a forensic audit… Testimony before the Pennsylvania legislature found the system of voting and record-keeping was forensically destructive. I still would welcome a forensic audit, even though the only concrete result would show that the Leftists/Lame-Stream Media/Tech Giants claim of “absolutely no … election fraud…” cannot be supported, either.

Simon
Reply to  Red94ViperRT10
February 5, 2021 10:29 am

Exactly!!!! If the damn Democrats have nothing to hide, why are they trying so hard to hide it?”
They are not. The courts are saying there is nothing worth wasting time over. And let’s not forget the Republican in charge in Georgia (Rafensberger) says there is nothing to see. So how do you explain that? The lead guy on your team says let’s all move on.

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  David Guy-Johnson
February 3, 2021 3:34 pm

A lot of evidence which is why the corrupt judges will not approve a real forensic audit like the one done in Michigan:
https://neonnettle.com/news/13586-judge-releases-dominion-audit-report-system-designed-to-create-systemic-fraud-

Simon
Reply to  Gerald Machnee
February 5, 2021 10:41 am

So in a county Trump won they found a machine that had not had it’s software updated. Wow that is one successful fraud.

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  Simon
February 9, 2021 2:04 pm

A hand count is recounting the same fraudulent votes without accounting for the fraud.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  David Guy-Johnson
February 3, 2021 8:14 pm

Above and beyond the claimed affidavits alleging fraud, Jo Nova presented a number of statistical analyses that called into question the probability if Biden winning.

What I find interesting is that even if no fraud occurred, there are enough people who believe that it did, that it puts a cloud over the legitimacy of Biden’s election. If I were in Biden’s place I’d be anxious to remove that cloud and encourage investigations and gathering of evidence. Instead what we got were Democrat lap-dogs (aka MSM) repeatedly claiming the allegations were “baseless” and “unsupported.” That’s about as believable as saying “I did not have sex with that woman!”

Steve Z.
Reply to  David Guy-Johnson
February 4, 2021 3:42 am

Re: “There’s no plausible evidence of electoral fraud.”

Sorry. That is incorrect. Trump lost the election by a total of 43,000 votes in three states – Arizona, Georgia, and Wisconsin. In those same three states, they had 5 million completely unverifiable mail-in ballots. With those three states, Trump and Biden were tied at 269-269. Trump would have easily won in the House of Representatives because they vote by state delegation, not by individual Congressmen.

David A
Reply to  David Guy-Johnson
February 4, 2021 4:28 am

There is massive credible evidence of voter fraud, and the current thieves in charge are making it a crime to present that evidence.

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  David A
February 4, 2021 11:20 am

When you count the correct ballots and remove the fake ones the totals end up about 80,000,000 for Trump and not more than 75,000,000 for Biden.
So you will never see a forensic audit.

Simon
Reply to  Gerald Machnee
February 4, 2021 12:25 pm

When you count the correct ballots and remove the fake ones the totals end up about 80,000,000 for Trump and not more than 75,000,000 for Biden.
So you will never see a forensic audit.”

You are making it up. Evidence please?

Red94ViperRT10
Reply to  Simon
February 5, 2021 8:53 am

See the Navarro Report. https://navarroreport.com/

Simon
Reply to  Red94ViperRT10
February 5, 2021 10:53 am

OK read it. What a load of complete nonsense. No wonder no one took it seriously.

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  Simon
February 9, 2021 2:06 pm

It shows you have no comprehension. You just quote CNN the most corrupt media.

Simon
Reply to  Red94ViperRT10
February 5, 2021 10:59 am
Gerald Machnee
Reply to  Simon
February 9, 2021 2:05 pm

Evidence is here Simon, but I doubt you have the intelligence to grasp it. It is all in the last half hour:
For the short version of how an when the computers were hacked start watching at 1 hr 36 min.

https://realclimatescience.com/2021/02/mike-lindell-absolute-proof/#comment-431427

Tom Abbott
Reply to  David Guy-Johnson
February 4, 2021 8:57 am

“There’s no plausible evidence of electoral fraud.”

Yet.

I believe Trump still intends to present a case for election fraud. We should all hold our fire until we hear from Trump.

I do hope this presentation of evidence does not take place in the U.S. Senate chamber during this upcoming trial. I hope it is over quick and never gets to that point.

I think th Senate hearing would be the wrong forum for it, unless the Democrats accuse him of lying about the election, and then I guess, Trump will have to defend himself by producing some evidence.

My only problem with doing it here is the Democrats will turn it into a Three-Ring Circus, which will obscure the facts possibly.

We won’t have much longer to wait until we find out whether Trump has the evidence he says he has.

Simon
Reply to  Tom Abbott
February 4, 2021 12:27 pm

I believe Trump still intends to present a case for election fraud. We should all hold our fire until we hear from Trump.”
You will be holding fire a long time Tom. I will bet any money you like he has got nothing which is why he lost… the election and in the courts.

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  Simon
February 9, 2021 2:09 pm

The corrupt courts did not hear the evidence because it was too compelling so they opted out on procedures.

Simon
Reply to  Tom Abbott
February 4, 2021 12:45 pm

And I see Rudy and Sidney Powell along with Fox are being sued for 2.7 billion by Smartmatic today. So it seems we will see what they had/have.

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  Simon
February 9, 2021 2:07 pm

The suit will fail when they are asked to provide Discovery.

Analitik
Reply to  Hotscot
February 3, 2021 4:50 pm

If they can fake an election, they can fake the climate.

True, but I would have put it the other way around.

DHR
February 3, 2021 10:30 am

This is old news. climate4you.com has had such graphs of temperature adjustments for many years. The NASA chart on that web site shows that only temperatures measured around 1970 require no adjustments while those earlier must be cooled and those after warmed.

Wim Röst
Reply to  DHR
February 3, 2021 11:08 am

comment image

WR: For many years I follow the info by climate4you, like the graphic above. A lot of excellent factual information can be found here:
http://www.climate4you.com/index.htm

David Guy-Johnson
Reply to  DHR
February 3, 2021 11:20 am

Why must they be cooled?

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  David Guy-Johnson
February 3, 2021 11:40 am

Because your great grandfather couldn’t read a precision mercury thermometer.

Hotscot
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
February 3, 2021 12:20 pm

Anyone who reads a fixed position mercury thermometer should append it with their height……

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Hotscot
February 3, 2021 1:10 pm

Anyone who reads a fixed position mercury thermometer should append it with their height……

Oh dear. I see a new argument for adjusting temperature data. As people have been getting taller over time (probably because of better diet and medical care) all older data need to be adjusted down, because people were shorter and therefore read the temperature as higher, seeing it from lower down. Obviously newer data need to be adjusted up as people are now taller.

It’s worser than we thought!

MarkW
Reply to  Hotscot
February 3, 2021 3:39 pm

If they had been properly trained, then height wouldn’t make a difference. I remember back in the day of analog multi-meters. The more expensive ones came with a reflective strip that you could use to help make sure your eye was in the right position for an accurate reading.

JamesD
Reply to  David Guy-Johnson
February 3, 2021 12:30 pm

Makes current warming more extreme when compared to the past cooled data.

John F Hultquist
Reply to  David Guy-Johnson
February 3, 2021 3:23 pm

Why cool?

Let’s start with the idea that a person living in 2021 will expect a summary of weather in 2020 to be accurate. A person might also question whether or not it was really colder and snowier back when grandmother walked to school up to her crotch in snow, up hill both ways.
So then one can question whether the temperature was recorded in the same way back then, as it is today. If not, and you still want to check on your grandmother’s recollections, some adjustments might need to be made.
This topic was explored here at WUWT years ago, and at other places.
For example, “time of observation” bias is presented and discussed (575 comments) here:
https://judithcurry.com/2015/02/22/understanding-time-of-observation-bias/

There is likely 8 weeks of reading just on WUWT on these various “biases”.
{8 is a number pulled from thin air}

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  John F Hultquist
February 3, 2021 8:32 pm

Time of observation probably isn’t too critical if a max/min thermometer was used. Particularly if the mid-range of two extremes are only used to calculate a daily ‘mean.’

John F Hultquist
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
February 3, 2021 9:21 pm

I gave just one of, perhaps, half a dozen biases. My point stands.
If one wants to answer the question of “why cool?”, you will start with the axiom that you want the reading now from your local weather station to give a correct report.
Then go back and find any bias. Deal with it.
There are many posts questioning these issues.
If one is interested in such questions there is much reading to do to try to answer “why cool?”

Tom Abbott
Reply to  David Guy-Johnson
February 4, 2021 9:50 am

They must be cooled in order to make it appear that the global temperatue profile is showing that temperatures are getting hotter and hotter and hotter, for decade after decade, as a means of promoting the Human-caused Climate Change narrative, and if the temperatures show to be just as warm in the recent past (the 1930’s) as they do today, then that means things have not been getting hotter and hotter and hotter, for decade after decade, and that means that Human-caused Climate Change is just a fantasy, so they artificially cool the past and warm the present, and that gives us the infamous, fraudulent, global temperature, Hockey Stick chart

Science Fiction that is scaring Greta, among others, to death. Greta is almost in a panic over how she is seeing the world. The Data Manipulators are harming children with their exaggerations.

Lee Kington
Editor
February 3, 2021 10:31 am

I wonder what it would look like if only night time temperatures were used?

Hotscot
Reply to  Lee Kington
February 3, 2021 12:20 pm

Dark.

Fraizer
Reply to  Hotscot
February 3, 2021 12:58 pm

Forecast for tonight:
Dark with scattered lightness towards morning.
RIP George Carlin

paul courtney
Reply to  Lee Kington
February 3, 2021 12:52 pm

Mr. Kington: After Gavin adjusted them, you needn’t wonder.

Vuk
February 3, 2021 10:33 am

Averaging ‘Global temperature’ is a bit of nonsense, it is they say somewhere just below 300K..
Anyone knows what might be average ‘Global altitude’ ? I suspect it might be somewhere around 210 meters.
Landmass 840m, Oceans 0m
/sarc

Last edited 25 days ago by Vuk
Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Vuk
February 3, 2021 11:44 am

Of course they are averaging anomaly values, not actual temps. Averaging the Temp of London with the temp average of Liverpool would of course be nonsense. But I’m sure someone has and called it science.

Vuk
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
February 3, 2021 12:25 pm

Come on JO’B, can you have more authoritative source than BBC:
“What is climate change?
The Earth’s average temperature is about 15C but has been much higher and lower in the past. There are natural fluctuations in the climate but scientists say temperatures are now rising faster than at many other times”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24021772
Tufts university is there too:
“the average surface temperature of the planet at 288 degrees kelvin (15 degrees Celsius)”
https://ase.tufts.edu/cosmos/view_chapter.asp?id=21&page=1
promoting itself as ‘Tufts is a leader in American higher education’

.

Last edited 25 days ago by Vuk
Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Vuk
February 3, 2021 8:36 pm

“… scientists say temperatures are now rising faster than at many other times”

So, what is that supposed to mean? I would imagine that temperatures are also rising slower than at many other times.

Hotscot
Reply to  Vuk
February 3, 2021 12:30 pm

The concept of a ‘Global Climate’ is of course ridiculous in itself.

‘Climates’ were used by Geography teachers in my day to describe prevailing weather patterns between regions.

Mashing the concept up to concoct a global climate is utterly ridiculous, and the product of the ever fearful left’s wildest imaginations of impending doom.

We should no longer be designated ‘Left’ or ‘Right’ politically, but ‘Pessimist’s’ and ‘Optimist’s’.

Did I utilise apostrophe’s correctly? I don’t give a monkeys as I’m optimistic ya’ll get my drift. See how it works?

Danley Wolfe
February 3, 2021 10:43 am

“BUT IT IS EVIDENCE OF MANMADE CLIMATE CHANGE – but not the in the way you think. By making manmade adjustments to the actual historical temperature records the self designated climate consensus make the data appear to agree with / support the claims of “manmade climate change.” How ironic to change the data making it “manmade climate change.” This became very clear when Thomas Karl published his temperature record adjustments (Science Express, 4 June 2015) which was opportune in the runup before the 2015 Paris COP meeting.

Bill Rocks
February 3, 2021 10:43 am

This graph and some context should comprise an effective press conference or front-page article in a news publication. Rebut the CAGW agenda with a simple, factual, visual data display. This should be “front-page” news.

Reply to  Bill Rocks
February 3, 2021 11:08 am

Too many math and statistics-illiterate people around for such publicity to matter. Even if the mass media reported it accurately, the general public wouldn’t understand it. For that matter, most of the media people are incapable of understanding it either. The blind leading the blind.

Hotscot
Reply to  Ralph Dave Westfall
February 3, 2021 12:34 pm

I’m only able to upvote your comment once, so please accept another 999 with my compliments.

Moderator – could you alter the votes accordingly please.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Ralph Dave Westfall
February 3, 2021 1:43 pm

This is precisely why we need to change the narrative to simply “warmer is better.”
The general public can understand that and perhaps if enough do they will finally ask, Why do we not want it warmer?

AndyHce
Reply to  Bill Rocks
February 3, 2021 12:06 pm

That’s lke telling Christians that Christ’s body was secretly removed from the tomb and disposed of elsewhere — believer’s rarelyt change their beliefs for any reason.

MarkW
Reply to  AndyHce
February 3, 2021 3:42 pm

Do you have any evidence that this happened, or is it just that you believe that this must be what happened.
In which case, how can you claim to be any better than the Christians you disparage?

markl
February 3, 2021 10:46 am

There won’t be a rebuttal to this because they can’t. This will be put on ignore by the MSM and AGW community and the populace will not get to see it. Only a deep freeze will awaken the people.

philincalifornia
Reply to  markl
February 3, 2021 1:31 pm

Even that won’t work. There are millions of uneducated people who will believe that global warming was the cause of global cooling. The climate liars are very well aware of this, so don’t kid yourself.

Mr. Lee
February 3, 2021 10:48 am

Every time alarmists show me some “scary” graph, it is an “average” where, invariably, they have their thumb on the scale.
If this is not the case they should be able to show me the data for a single weather station that is terrifying. That is, if the “average”s are so daunting, then there should be some extremely scary historical datasets for individual weather stations.
Until then, they are a bunch of statistical frauds.

Reply to  Mr. Lee
February 3, 2021 12:02 pm

We are always used to see anomalies, to find raw data isn’t very easy, as bad as it is.

Hotscot
Reply to  Mr. Lee
February 3, 2021 12:38 pm

An ‘average’ need only ever be achieved anywhere, by anything, in momentary, fleeting passing.

On the other hand, some regions may never achieve ‘The global average’. Cases in point – The Poles.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Hotscot
February 3, 2021 1:40 pm

Or the Hungarians.

Gordon A. Dressler
February 3, 2021 11:03 am

Two quotes apropos the above article and its implications, especially re: Gavin Schmidt:

“The primary method by which governments increase their control is by creating fear.” — Charles Eisenstein

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” — Joseph Goebbels

philincalifornia
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
February 3, 2021 1:33 pm

You sure? I thought it was Michael Mann who said that.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  philincalifornia
February 3, 2021 2:55 pm

I’m sure . . . Michael Mann did not say that, in fact he hid that.

Doonman
February 3, 2021 11:05 am

Remember, there is “The Cause” that must be supported in climate science. No one doubts that as the climate scientists themselves all talk about it in their emails.

What you see in the graph is the result of the “cause”. Of course, by any other measure, “The Cause” is easily defined as agenda propaganda.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Doonman
February 3, 2021 7:13 pm

“The cause” is the source of decision-based evidence making.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Doonman
February 4, 2021 10:02 am

““The Cause” is easily defined as agenda propaganda.”

Or a criminal conspiracy.

Vuk
February 3, 2021 11:28 am

Scientific numerology is a curious thing, today’s sunspot count is 7 (seven)
Here is up to minute solar imagecomment image
For a test just zoom in to the max and see if you can find the offending sunspot !
(it’s on the disk somewhere around ‘2pm’ location near the edge)

Last edited 25 days ago by Vuk
Redge
Reply to  Vuk
February 3, 2021 11:34 am

I have pimples bigger than that

Reply to  Vuk
February 3, 2021 12:04 pm

There is a very tiny group of spots, if you follow spaceweather.com to know about 😀

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Vuk
February 3, 2021 12:19 pm

It’s there. AR 12801.
Limb darkening from our zero heliographic longitude view makes it hard to see. But you knew that. Flattening the image helps. This interesting thing is that Stereo-A shows us that the next two weeks the Sun may remain spotless after this AR rotates out of view.

Screen Shot 2021-02-03 at 1.15.06 PM copy.jpg
goldminor
Reply to  Vuk
February 3, 2021 4:01 pm

It shows up on SDO. … https://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/

latest_512_0131.jpg
Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  goldminor
February 3, 2021 6:39 pm

The Stonyhurst Heliographic image at the Stereo webpage shows it best. -70º beyond the approaching east limb its currently barren too.

David A
Reply to  goldminor
February 4, 2021 4:49 am

Would it have been seen it recorded 60 years ago?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Vuk
February 3, 2021 8:41 pm

I couldn’t find it. Are you sure it isn’t taking a siesta at 2PM?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Vuk
February 4, 2021 10:12 am

I read an interesting item in Astronomy magazine (Aug. 2020, p. 12).

It said astronomers had studied a lot of Sun-like stars (396) in the neighborhood, and it seems the Earth’s Sun is very tame in its behavior as compared to some other stars its size.

One example that was given was a comparison of a Sun-like star to the Sun, and this particular Sun-like star’s brightness fluctuations were about five times as strong as those of the Sun.

Another odditiy of our existence. We have a large Moon and a tame Sun. Just what life needs.

Vuk
Reply to  Tom Abbott
February 4, 2021 10:58 am

Yes we are lucky with our sun and planet, and even more so that we developed science and technology to a degree enabling us to understand not only our solar system but our tiny corner of Universe.
My hypothesis of solar activity being ‘tame’ is due to two magnetic gas giants, Jupiter and Saturn.
I think that solar activity would be much more violent if it was not for the J & S huge magnetospheres which sun links into resulting into magnetic flux transfer. . The Earth’s has same role but it is tiny in comparison ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flux_transfer_event ).
Sun-Jupiter-Saturn magnetic reconnection loads solar open field, the events culminate when J & S line up with Sun along Parker spiral, when the field is short-circuited and activity shut down http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/J-S-angle.htm.
Once Sun-J-S get out of Parker’s alignment the solar surface activity takes off again.
If it was not for J & S strong magnetic fields our star may frequently erupt into far more violent and prolonged activity with radiation so powerful that life on our planet would only be possible below sea surface.
The above is another planet’s life Goldilocks state that science has not recognised so far.

Last edited 24 days ago by Vuk
Vuk
Reply to  Vuk
February 4, 2021 11:49 am

This is image of the sun after about 4-5 years activity when J_S link is at its weakest.
comment image
Now try to imagine what our star would look like if it continued on the same trajectory of activity rise for another 10-20 or more years.

Last edited 24 days ago by Vuk
Redge
February 3, 2021 11:31 am

In my opinion, this is either scientific incompetency or fraud in my view, possibly both.

Anthony, I don’t know how these things work in the USA but have you just invited a lawsuit?

Or is that just the Mann?

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Redge
February 3, 2021 12:05 pm

“. . . have you just invited a lawsuit?”

Not all all, at least here in the US. The first Amendment of the US Constitution covers free speech . . . especially any phrase that starts off with “in my opinion” (smart move, Anthony!).

However, in the US, it is also true that anyone, at any time, can file a lawsuit for the most frivolous of reasons . . . not they will necessarily be successful (e.g., Michael Mann).

It is much more likely that the nation state will resort—IF they resort at all—to indirect means of retribution, such as business interference and/or third-party attacks/censorship of WUWT.

It’s not like this hasn’t happened to Anthony/WUWT before.

Redge
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
February 3, 2021 12:11 pm

ok, good

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Redge
February 3, 2021 12:43 pm

The legal process of Discovery would be what the govt-paid Climate Fraudsters can’t allow. It’s only libel/slander if it’s not true.

Last edited 25 days ago by joelobryan
February 3, 2021 12:01 pm

The Shocking Climate Graph @climateofgavin Doesn’t Want You To See

On the contrary, it is displayed on the GISS site, here:
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/history/

They give an interactive presentation, showing various years that you can choose to compare. I chose to highlight 1997, 2002 and 2019
comment image

The plot below is the difference plot shown by Wei Zhang. You’ll see that the 1997 data only goes back to 1950; that is true also in 2001. The reason is that they didn’t back then have enough SST data to go back before that date. I suspect that what Wei Zhang is doing here is subtracting from 2019 land/ocean data the GISS met stations only data for 1999, calculated using land stations only. So the difference is not due to adjustment.

And, as you’ll see, it is just not true that the adjustments (made by NOAA, not GISS) are the main driver of warming.

JamesD
Reply to  Nick Stokes
February 3, 2021 12:45 pm

That’s not what I said. Why do temperature ADJUSTMENTS correlate with CO2? The probability that this happens by chance is shockingly close to zero.

Reply to  JamesD
February 3, 2021 1:07 pm

That’s not what I said.”
How so? The (shocking?) graph of the post shows exactly the same as the GISS site history plot.

The adjustments “cool the past” for well known reasons. Past enclosures shown spurious warmth because of poor screening of radiation. And then there is TOBS. That is a correlation with time. And, of course, CO2 correlates with time.

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  Nick Stokes
February 3, 2021 3:43 pm

Nonsense, Nick.
A net change of at least 1.5 degrees over time is baloney. The correlation coefficient of over 97 % PROVES it.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
February 3, 2021 3:53 pm

I used to be a NOAA climate observer in a rural, windy location (top of a low rise).

How was it an official mercury-in-glass thermometer in an official Stevenson Screen over a grass exposure measured “spurious warming”? This especially true when some of the newer electronic thermometers are located, literally, over patios and bar-b-que grills as Anthony has amply documented.

I was one of the people documenting current generation climate stations in Kansas for Anthony and this is a photo I took of the official NOAA site in El Dorado. I measured, the official thermometer is less than six feet from an air conditioner blowing exhaust air on it and it is next to a sidewalk. Doesn’t say much for the quality of modern temperature observations.

Last edited 25 days ago by Mike Smith
fred250
Reply to  Mike Smith
February 4, 2021 2:20 am

The thing is, Nick KNOWS all these issue,

and yet he STILL SUPPORTS THE MASSIVELY CORRUPTED DATA.

You have to wonder why.

No real scientist would EVER support the amount of manic agenda-driven adjustment and corruption that is evident in GISS et al.

fred250
Reply to  Nick Stokes
February 4, 2021 2:17 am

“for well known reasons

.

Yes.. they needed to be”adjusted” to fit the AGW SCAM

YOU KNOW THAT , Nick

Why are you continuing to support this FRAUD ?

Last edited 25 days ago by fred250
David A
Reply to  Nick Stokes
February 4, 2021 4:54 am

“The adjustments “cool the past” for well known reasons”

Yes indeed, peer pressure, confirmation bias, funding, political power, “the cause”, “defending the indefensible” etc…

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Nick Stokes
February 4, 2021 11:44 am

NS -> “The adjustments “cool the past” for well known reasons. Past enclosures shown spurious warmth because of poor screening of radiation. And then there is TOBS. That is a correlation with time. And, of course, CO2 correlates with time.”

What you are claiming are systematic errors at various and sundry locations based upon a “feeling”. Raw data should never be changed or hidden. It is the MEASURED DATA. It is what a scientist should start with. Metrology teaches that you must not use other instruments to alter the reading of other instruments. They each have their own accuracy, precision, and uncertainty parameters that do not transfer on an ad hoc basis.

Systematic errors require a study and analysis to determine the factors causing the errors. They result in correction charts unique to each device. Any certified lab can provide you with the appropriate references and procedures.

If you believe an adjustment is appropriate, it should be documented giving the REASON WHY, and the result. This will allow others to judge for themselves what is appropriate for their use. Adjusted data should be plainly marked and referenced. It should be recognized that these changes could adversely affect the validity of local studies needing accurate temperature readings for numerous kinds of studies from crops to insects to evaporation.

From what I know, all of this has been ignored in favor of simply making adjustments based upon some “homogenization algorithm” that has no relationship to any specific error study at a device. That means you have no clue if the adjustments are appropriate or not for any given device. They are certainly not industry accepted corrections to a device’s readings.

Lastly, as far as I can ascertain adjustments have no specific period. Adjustments should only last for the period until a device is maintained, calibrated, changed, etc., and then cease. Otherwise the adjustments should only be done once and made continuously. Multiple adjustments to a single station indicate a flawed procedure for determining any systematic error at a device. This is not correction, and should be considered data manipulation.

Last edited 24 days ago by Jim Gorman
Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Nick Stokes
February 3, 2021 1:00 pm

Averaging Pt. Barrow and Kuala Lumpur then subtracting Cincinnati and calling it THE CLIMATE is meaningless and inane.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Nick Stokes
February 3, 2021 1:07 pm

Nick,
Your graph shows exactly what Wei Zhang’s graph shows just the delta just at a different scale. The red line rides above the black line consistently till about 1960 when they overlap to 1970. The difference being about -0.15 ºC.

After 1970 the black line rides consistently over the red line thereafter. The difference being just under about +0.1 ºC.

And as Wei Zhang’s point of the tweet is that the odds of that happening “naturally” is close to zero, not the r^2 of close to 1 that it is. Mann-made warming indeed.

Take out those synthetic adjustments, and the observation- to model discrepancy is even-more untenable than it already is becoming. They know it. The window of opportunity on the Climate Fraud is rapidly closing.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
February 3, 2021 2:03 pm

And as Wei Zhang’s point of the tweet is that the odds of that happening “naturally” is close to zero

It is an ignorant point. It is based on the assumption that the data points in both are subject to random variation, independently distributed. And they are nothing like that. They are determined, and by single processes. CO2 rises with time, because we are emitting it. And the adjustment rises with time, because older measurement techniques tended to exaggerate warmth. It is not a random chance that they align.

Your graph shows exactly…
Yes, that is my point. It isn’t a “shocking” graph that GISS doesn’t want you to see. It has been displayed on their web site for several years.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Nick Stokes
February 3, 2021 6:44 pm

“because older measurement techniques tended to exaggerate warmth.”

A completely circular logic argument. One that should be rejected by any objective standard.

Last edited 25 days ago by joelobryan
Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Nick Stokes
February 3, 2021 8:49 pm

“It is based on the assumption that the data points in both are subject to random variation, independently distributed. And they are nothing like that.
That is exactly the point! What we disagree on is the process that creates the too-perfect data.

fred250
Reply to  Nick Stokes
February 4, 2021 2:21 am

Why do you still support this fraudulent temperature fabrication, Nick

Aren’t you ASHAMED to do so ? !

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  fred250
February 4, 2021 10:13 am

My experience interacting with Stokes is that the word shame isn’t in his vocabulary. He is a consummate sophist.

alastair gray
Reply to  Nick Stokes
February 3, 2021 1:44 pm

No Nick
According to Gavin on his website the different plots are the adjusted values published each year compared with each other. Nothing about a comparison of adjusted vs unadjusted which Wei Zhang is talking about. Afraid that your comment is misleading or just as Procrustean as Gavin’s

Reply to  alastair gray
February 3, 2021 2:09 pm

Wei Zhang is not talking about adjusted vs unadjusted. Where does he get the unadjusted? Like GISS, he is comparing GISS 2019 with GISS 1999. Although I think they are different things.

I do calculated temperature based on unadjusted data. The difference is very small.

fred250
Reply to  Nick Stokes
February 4, 2021 2:23 am

Nick, why are you now LYING THROUGH YOUR TEETH in your manic support of this fraudulent once-was-data set ?

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  alastair gray
February 3, 2021 3:45 pm

Check out the charts here Nick.
https://realclimatescience.com/61-fake-data/

Reply to  Nick Stokes
February 3, 2021 3:43 pm

Assuming your observation is correct, that “adjustment” accounts for 10% of the warming observed since 1950.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Mike Smith
February 3, 2021 6:51 pm

No. If you think about it (when the adjustments were applied 2017 to a 1999 product), it actually accounts for +0.25º C of the ~0.4 ºC warming since 1999.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
February 3, 2021 11:37 pm

No, there is no information here about adjustments since 1999. He has just subtracted the published 2019 data for 1880-1999 from what was published in 1999.

In fact data since 1999 gets very little adjustment. It is mostly AWS in stable locations.

fred250
Reply to  Nick Stokes
February 4, 2021 2:26 am

MASSIVE CHANGES in past data

No real scientist would ever condone such fraudulent and corruption of data..

Only someone in on the CON from the start.

But hey, it all you have , isn’t it Nick.

fred250
Reply to  Nick Stokes
February 4, 2021 2:15 am

Poor Nick

STILL knowingly presenting data that HE KNOWS IS FRAUDULENT

How much lower are you going to stoop in your defense of this scam, Nick ? !!!!

paul courtney
Reply to  Nick Stokes
February 4, 2021 8:44 am

Mr. Stokes: Wei Zheng graph shows co2 line, GISS does not. Therefore the “shocking” chart is NOT displayed on the GISS chart. The “shocking” part is the match to the co2 line, which is highly improbable. Your response is a non-response. Would you care to overlay a co2 line on the “plot below” so we can see what you are actually doing?

paul courtney
Reply to  Anthony Watts
February 5, 2021 8:34 am

And the reason for that is apparent here. From the jump, he ran a circle around the point of Wei Zheng’s graph showing CO2. He simply avoids the point by saying the GISS graph is the same and never acknowledges the comparison to CO2. He could respond to my post, but doesn’t. Why not simply show CO2 overlay the GISS graph, Mr. Stokes?

Rud Istvan
February 3, 2021 12:44 pm

I covered several variations on both Dr. Spencer’s findings (data from California) and this graph’s message (including a very similar one plus some other alternative depictions) in essay When Data Isn’t in ebook Blowing Smoke. Bottom line conclusion was the surface temperature data simply isn’t fit for purpose because of UHI over time, homogenization makes things worse, and the easily provable constant data fiddling is plainly warming biased—and not just in GISS.

john harmsworth
February 3, 2021 12:47 pm

Science itself is massively corrupted. Government dollars only pay for what they want, which is tools to manipulate the public. This is a primary lever of the Left and has been promoted as such for decades in their internal communications. It sounds too fantastic to be true so the average citizen doesn’t usually believe it but such is their contempt for the “people” they purport to fight for that they have no problem lying to them. This is the true background of climate change .University graduates from third world countries working at the UN and promotingtheir Great Lie to destroy Capitalism.

WILLIAM B HANDLER
February 3, 2021 1:01 pm

The size of the adjustment is in fairness much less than the temperature change observed, such as the 0.7 C rise since 1980 seen in the satellite data. It is true that the adjustments seem wrong, but they also seem smaller than the effect, which is also important.

February 3, 2021 1:20 pm

What can I say.
There is no emperical evidence supporting CO2 driven AGW.
https://breadonthewater.co.za/2021/01/26/am-i-a-climate-denier-denialist/

Pity I did not get a reply from Roy.

Vuk
Reply to  HenryP
February 3, 2021 1:37 pm

Hi Henry
There is no empirical evidence that space is expanding, but they claim red shift is the proof.
“Within Einstein’s general theory of relativity there is an effect known as “gravitational redshift,” in which light becomes redder because of the influence of gravity; the wavelength of a photon, or light particle, gets longer and appears redder as the wavelength climbs farther away from a gravitational well.” 
https://www.space.com/einstein-gravitational-redshift-observed-double-star-system.html
Light from distant galaxies where the red shift is observed passes within gravitation field of other galaxies in the same direction, each of them causing a bit of red shift. Further away the source more red shift, If there is so called ‘black mass’ around, it will contribute too. i.e. space is not expanding at ever faster rate, it’s not even expanding at all, it’s just siting there as the dilectissime Dei intended it to be.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Vuk
February 3, 2021 8:29 pm

The CMB data and attendant polarization analyses are independent data that falsifies your position.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Vuk
February 3, 2021 8:39 pm

read more here:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02126-6
the research preprint papers are also available on Arxiv.

The Type I-A supernova method derives a Hubble constant about 10% greater than the Planck satellite (and now Atcama Cosmology telescope) CMB estimate for the Hubble constant. Although there is discrepancy that needs to be sorted out, these are two entirely different methods arriving at roughly the same conclusions regarding the age and expansion of the universe that we can see today.

Vuk
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
February 4, 2021 1:10 am

The comment was intended to fit into HP’s theory of universe, but again it may not be everyone’s cup of tea.
If you look at one of AE papers I think 1905, he said that we can assume that the speed of light is constant only if it is equal in both directions in space. It is physically impossible to measure it in one direction only, and of course no one has measured unidirectional speed of light, but as we know space isn’t uniform bidirectionally.

Vuk
Reply to  Vuk
February 4, 2021 2:36 am

For anyone interested to dwell more into problem of the uni-directional speed of light see wiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-way_speed_of_light

Vuk
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
February 4, 2021 4:25 am

Or photons dissipating energy into the ‘dark mass’; consequence increase in the wavelength.

Mumbles McGuirck
February 3, 2021 1:55 pm

It’s all part of the plan. 😉

Adjustocene.jpg
alastair gray
February 3, 2021 1:57 pm

Climate and mythology . Gavin Schmidt is a mix of Cassandra and Procrustes. Cassandra was the prophetess of doom. Procrustes was an innkeeper who boasted that his bed would fit any guest. He was right . If you were too short it had a built in rack to stretch you. If too tall then a built in guillotine lopped of the excess bits. Anthony Watts plays the role of Theseus who slew Procrustes and also the Minotaur , a Cretan purveyor of bullshit, and as we all know all Cretans are liars. So one castigates Schmidt and his like as a rogue and purveyor of porkeys and Procrustean arguments. As for Mikey Mann , distinguished professor of being distinguished he is just Zeus-less.

Marcus
February 3, 2021 2:18 pm

“In my opinion, this is either scientific incompetency or fraud in my view, possibly both.”

I remember when you accused NOAA of deception, stating that “It can be shown that they systematically and purposefully, country by country, removed higher- latitude, higher-altitude and rural locations, all of which had a tendency to be cooler.”

And you were wrong, both about them “removing” stations, and about what the effect of station drop-out would be. Perhaps that, the mistakes you’ve repeatedly made regarding anomalies and different baselines, the fact that there are multiple independent groups who use the raw data and come up with very similar estimates (Berkeley Earth, Nick Stokes, GISS, HadCRUT, Cowtan & Way, and so and and so forth), the agreement between the US Climate Reference Network and the USHCN, and such would lead to a little humility before slinging accusations of fraud once again. If there’s any scientific incompetency here, perhaps you should look in the mirror…

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Marcus
February 3, 2021 7:01 pm

So, this graph is incorrect?
It doesn’t show the changes made to the thermometer record?

Reply to  Pat from kerbob
February 4, 2021 2:05 am

Pat
If enough high-paid people all jowl-flap in unison, then fraud smoothly transitions into scientific orthodoxy of the establishment. It happened with Piltdown Man (consensus for 50 years).

fred250
Reply to  Marcus
February 4, 2021 2:33 am

“agreement between the US Climate Reference Network and the USHCN”

.

IS TOO EXACT TO BE ANYTHING BUT DATA MATCHING.

Or are you too mathematically inept to understand that ?

(Its called ClimDiv now, by the way.. try to educate yourself before commenting.)

They would be pretty darn stupid if they let their USHCN fabrication have a warmer trend that the near zero trend in USCRN , wouldn’t they.

USCRN has brought the “artificial” data warming under control in the USA.

Unfortunately the scam continues apace in other parts of the world, eg BoM in Australia, the NZ farce, etc etc.

Anything from Berkeley, Stokes, Cowtan etc can be immediately thrown in the GARBAGE as being agenda driven conform-ational bias.

Last edited 25 days ago by fred250
Mike Dubrasich
February 3, 2021 3:00 pm

Fraud or incompetence? Fraud implies the perpetrators are knowingly lying. Incompetence implies the perps are stupid. Both are undoubtedly represented in the alarmist camp.

There is another category, however, that of victims of extortion. Many so-called scientists are forced by academic thuggery and threat, open or veiled, into acquiescence or agreement with the alarmist narrative. Loss of one’s job or career for the sin of dissenting is ample inducement to toe the line. Very few have the courage or integrity to be skeptical given the punishments that can and do result.

This is not a defense for those victims of extortion but an explanation for their behaviors.

Gerald Machnee
February 3, 2021 3:31 pm

SteveMcIntyre at Climateaudit posted about the manipulations years ago. NASA/NOAA did about 7 changes gradually, but now they do larger changes in the name of???????. Steve had a post in 2007:
https://climateaudit.org/2007/02/15/ushcn-versions/
In addition, other countries are doing it as well, such as Australia.
Tony Heller calculated the correlation coefficient of the temperature adjustments and CO2 increase at 97-98 %. Not bad when done with real science.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Gerald Machnee
February 3, 2021 8:55 pm

The only thing more egregious would be to claim 100%.

Al Miller
February 3, 2021 4:55 pm

When you go back to the very beginning of the IPCC and see that they ONLY allowed for the input of CO2- well what else could the result be- even if temperatures refused to cooperate the gig was always a fraudulent exercise.

Xinnie the Pooh
February 3, 2021 6:19 pm

#climategate never forget never forgive

Pat from kerbob
February 3, 2021 6:57 pm

This is basically the graph Steve has been posting as well

Outright fraud.

If I did this with the financials of my company, The CRA would throw me in jail

Rod Evans
February 3, 2021 11:39 pm

I guess this is actual proof that Man made global warming is real. If it wasn’t for the man adjusting the data, there would not be any global warming to be seen.

Matthew Sykes
February 4, 2021 1:23 am

HO LEE CR_AP! That’s nailed GISS to the wall, temperature adjusted in line with CO2!

Editor
February 4, 2021 2:57 am

For Wei Zhang: If the adjustments are spurious, then they should show up in the difference between satellite temperatures and the adjusted temperatures. The satellite age is very short, and there’s a lot of noise, but it would be worth looking for it.

Editor
February 4, 2021 5:24 am

The evidence is overwhelming that the surface records are corrupt.

D Boss
February 4, 2021 5:32 am

Excellent post! Fraud is not too strong a term to describe these “adjustments”.

Imagine a person or a corporation starting with a premise that they believe their income tax amount should be X, and then they go about “adjusting” their gross and net incomes vs expenses so they always end up appearing to owe X in taxes.

That would be tax fraud and you and I and most of the unwashed masses would be charged, tried and convicted of tax fraud if we did such a thing.

Why is it so hard for people brainwashed by this ongoing fraud to see clearly? And why don’t we see the fraudsters who do these things with objective data, face any consequences for their actions?

Andy Pattullo
February 4, 2021 8:23 am

“If they are true scientific experts, how does scientific incompetency like this persist for years?”

There is the problem we should highlight to all, discover the cause and implement a solution. Not holding my breath it will happen soon in the current political/media environment.

Tom Abbott
February 4, 2021 8:27 am

From the article: “In my opinion, this is either scientific incompetency or fraud in my view”

I vote for fraud.

These guys know what they are doing. They are just hoping noone notices. They know the real temperature profile of the Earth looks nothing like their “hotter and hotter” anamoly chart profile.

All regional surface temperature instrument record charts from around the world show it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today, yet the adjustments Gavin has overseen turn this completely on its head and make ETC warming appear to be cooling.

I’m betting Gavin knew all this before he started fiddling with the temperature records.

I think these guys who did this ought to go to jail, considering the dire consequences their distortions of the temperature record have spawned.

They know what they are doing. And we know what they are doing.

The official global temperature record is pure Science Fiction created to promote the Human-caused Climate Change agenda. Pure Politics. Pure Fraud. Pure Evil.

Fran
February 4, 2021 8:47 am

In my experience scientists who adjust the data do so from a deep conviction that they are revealing the truth: they can explain to themselves reasons why the data needed adjustment. It is much worse than just lying for position and honours, because it they feel they are better scientists than their critics, and that the honour and position that follows is rightfully theirs.

Bellman
February 4, 2021 8:50 am

Here’s my own comparison, between 1999 and 2021 data.

I got the 1999 values from the Wayback machine

https://web.archive.org/web/19990220235952/http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/gistemp/GLB.Ts.txt

comment image