Is that the BEST they can do?

Well, the BEST project is out of the gates and running strong!  They’ve already exposed themselves as being unscientific, but now they’re going for full stupid.

Apparently, they’ve got this video showing the earth’s historical temp coverage and the anomaly for that various particular times.  This is a BEST product.  You can watch the video here…..,  but I had better luck getting it to play here.  So, I screen shot a couple of particular points in time.


That’s a hoot!  But it even gets better………..


Uhmm, earth to Dr. Muller, ……… you moron.  You’re doing it even worse than GISS!  Do you honestly believe anyone is going to buy that BS?  Even alarmists are going to laugh at you.  And thanks to you, I’m being tortured by an old Air Supply song being stuck in my head!  Arrhhhggg!!!!

A couple notable quotes from Napoleon Bonaparte:   “Imagination rules the world.”  “The surest way to remain poor is to be honest.”  


My thanks to MWhite, Gator, and Steve Goddard


This entry was posted in Climate. Bookmark the permalink.

31 Responses to Is that the BEST they can do?

  1. Latitude says:

    God you’re so picky…..
    ….what’s a little extrapolation between continents……….LOL

    • suyts says:

      lol, yeh…… and they’re discussing their statistical approach and UHI at WUWT……? Why bother? BEST is just making stuff up.

      • Latitude says:

        They forget history too…
        1891 was a famous drought and heat wave in Texas…they show it cool

      • suyts says:

        lol, nice catch! I’m wondering how many other glaring inaccuracies they have? Those pinheads just made crap up and couldn’t even make it plausible. How much funding did those idiots get from the public?

      • Latitude says:

        Steve taught me that one…
        ….every time I see a dated temp map…..I google it

        That’s another case of making the past cooler…..

        I found your post on WUWT and bumped it up….I don’t think people actually realized what it was about

      • suyts says:

        Thanks! And, no, they probably didn’t follow the links. They often get bogged down in the details and don’t see the obvious fraud.

        Why argue about how they treat the smoothed data when the data is just made up stuff to begin with?

        Maybe I’ll be more explicit.

      • Latitude says:

        I sorta tried to be…I think you need to post again and be blunt

        UHI, smoothing, blah blah

  2. suyts says:

    Did comment again……

    lol, no doubt. AR1, smoothing, and UHI have been talked to death and no change has come of it. Nor, will much come of the current discussion. BEST and Dr. Muller simply need to be dismissed out-of- hand.

  3. Hi James

    I have done some more work on Kansas temperature trends.

    One commenter has pointed out that it is not just current population that is relevant for UHI, but also the INCREASE in population over the period. As you know Kansas better than me, is there an easy way to find out populations back say in 1920?



  4. oVER50 says:

    Can someone explain the thermometer location video after 1985 or thereabouts; it appears that suddenly a lot of stations disappear. Thank you.

    • suyts says:

      Yes, suddenly a lot of them did. Budget cuts and redundancy was the reasoning. This has been discussed to great extent. Using cool techniques such as interpolation and extrapolation, we’re told we don’t need such extensive coverage.

      It doesn’t take one long to see that many thermometers were removed from the higher latitude areas. And, if you dig further, you’ll see that thermometers from higher altitudes were removed from the data base, too.

      WUWT used to discuss this quit a bit…… You can go here,….. to see an example of the great purge.

      The biggest problem I have with them doing this is that it misses climatic events, thus skewing the temp record. How much is anyone’s guess. Take Kansas for instance. Yes, usually by looking at Wichita’s temps I can get pretty close to telling you what my home town’s temp is. (Parsons KS) But, every once in a while, we’ll have a sudden drop in temps from winds and fronts from the north. During the spring and summer, this happens along with surges from the south. (Tornado season) So, there are times when Wichita and Parsons don’t correlate temp wise very well.

  5. Mike Davis says:

    The number of reporting stations must remain equal and the stations themselves must remain the same for the results to be valid. If they had 5000 stations in 1950 and only 3000 in 1990 then 2000 stations must be removed from the previous records.
    Of course this this is just saying that global surface land temperatures is worse than regurgitated all you can eat buffet may be as much as 200 years of regurgitated buffets.

    OUT OF NOTHING AT ALL is being to kind. It appears they were following an agenda.
    This can be written off as being worse than NCDC, GISS and HADCRU combined.
    I am waiting for their “Excellent” work on the Sea Surface temperature! I am guessing with “Proper” smoothing they will be able to get similar results as the usual suspects. If they are really good they can show that satellite data is generally consistent with all the other “Best Guess” data sets.
    Ross did the best recent work on technology advancement / economic growth and temperatures.
    They are measuring less than .001% of the earth surface and extrapolating it to represent the land surface.

    • suyts says:

      They are measuring less than .001% of the earth surface and extrapolating it to represent the land surface.
      They certainly did that for the southern hemisphere for almost 100 years. Apparently, they’re doing exactly that for the antarctic. Anyone following the Steig/O’Donnell comedy skit would know there is no f’n way people can know wtf the temps are in the antarctic.

      What pisses me off is the lame brain “skeptics” want to argue over the “form” of the BEST team. This is fallacious. This is criminal. This isn’t a matter of opinion. It is blatant fraud and misuse of government funds. (yes, I know it wasn’t entirely funded by the government.) People should be sent to prison over this. Laws need to be created to halt this sort of stupidity. And I hate laws! But, this is beyond the pale. This is an embarrassment to humanity. Worse, because much of the skeptic community wishes to engage in the merits of the statistical methodology, this is an embarrassment to be called a skeptic!

      Well, we always knew that much of the skeptical community was a bunch of half-ass testosteroned challenged egomaniacal worms. Now, it shows.

      This bullshit isn’t wrong because they used the wrong methods. It isn’t wrong because they used improper sites.

      BEST is wrong because they are INVENTING thermometer readings!!!

  6. Latitude says:

    Paul posted this over at Steve’s…wanted to be sure you saw it

    • suyts says:

      lol, yeh, I thought about addressing that. It is something that most don’t seem to grasp. Our temp record of old, had to be located near some population. Thus, by the very nature of gathering the information, created a UHI bias. To my knowledge, there has been no effort to re-site these stations.

      If you apply Dr. Spencer’s observations (the most prominent effect is moving from 0 pop density to 10/k2. Then we probably have a much larger UHI bias than just 27% of the temp record. I’d put it at somewhere in the 90% range.

      But, I think it misses the mark when addressing BEST and what they’ve done. There is no UHI bias in invented temps from imaginary thermometers.

  7. Mike Davis says:

    A thermometer only gives you the temperature for one cubic meter, centered one point five meters above the ground. every other part of the surface is extrapolated from those areas. I do not even bother with the total number because they have changed over the years and both increased the number reporting and then decreased the number reporting. They input some wiid ass guesses into their models and thank what comes out is valid.
    It may truly be valid but has little to do with reality, The exercise may well be correct in dealing with what they have to work with, but they should not expect any result better than the garbage they use for input! smearing lipstick on a pig and all that.

  8. kap55 says:

    If you had read the BEST paper, you would have discovered that they didn’t limit themselves to GHCN data.

    • suyts says:

      Yes, I know that. The reason why I put that up was to give people such as yourself some historical perspective. If you were to study a bit of history, you’d know there wasn’t any thermometers in the places where they are asserting temps.

      In the 1890s, countries were still sending expeditions into Africa. In my life time an otherwise unknown tribe was discovered in South America. Continuing along that line, there still isn’t enough thermometers in the Antarctica to claim any knowledge of the temps like they’ve attempted to portray. They are simply inventing temps.

    • Mike Davis says:

      They still used data from the US NOAA NCDC who has the repository for historical temperatures. The NCDC determines which stations to include in their GHCN report.
      GISS and UEA get most of their data from NOAA’s GHCN. They all just use independent recipes to cook their results.

  9. Mike Davis says:

    This is the BEST dEscription I have found explaining what is done:
    Q. If SATs cannot be measured, how are SAT maps created ?
    A. This can only be done with the help of computer models, the same models that are used to create the daily weather forecasts. We may start out the model with the few observed data that are available and fill in the rest with guesses (also called extrapolations) and then let the model run long enough so that the initial guesses no longer matter, but not too long in order to avoid that the inaccuracies of the model become relevant. This may be done starting from conditions from many years, so that the average (called a ‘climatology’) hopefully represents a typical map for the particular month or day of the year.

  10. Gail C. - NC USA says:

    The BEST report is nothing but a well timed propaganda tool and that is easily proved.

    The problem with the BEST data is that it covers just sixty years starting in 1956! By now we should all be aware that that is only one part of a AMO/PDO cycle and therefore doing a LINE fit to a SINE CURVE is actually a LIE!

    Here are a couple of station records from my home state of North Carolina:
    Norfolk NC

    Fayetteville NC

    North – Raleigh NC

    The sine curve is pretty darn obvious as is the recovery from the little ice age. The starting date of 1956 was used to HIDE the evidence of that sine curve even though they admitted a good correlation to the AMO

    Here is a graph of AMO & HCUT from 1871 t02009 (USA temps)

    It shows the AMO temp correlation AND the sine curve through two complete cycles.

    Probably the most damning piece of evidence is this graph from the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Cores.

    Our current Holocene temperatures have been very level compared to the Eemain and a lot less hot.

    Want more evidence???

    Detailed Chronology of Late Holocene Climatic Change (Includes lots of references)

    Archaeological Finds in Retreating Swiss Glacier including remains from several distinct periods: from ~ 2800-2500 BC; from 2000-1750 BC; ~150 BC-250 AD; and the MWP up to the 14th/15th Century….Stone Age trade routes yield spectacular finds on alpine pass – clothes, weapons and devices also from Roman time and the Middle Ages:
    “…Afterwards the pass over the Schnidejoch was locked in again by ice and snow until 2003. “These finds are so important, because they reflect that on and starting from the Vergletscherung in the past 10,000 years that we also know from other sources”, stressed Peter Suter. For instance from the drill cores of the Greenland glaciers, which serve as climatic archives. For the times from which the finds originate from the Schnidejoch, these drill cores show clear references to warm periods.

    Also investigations of researchers of the ETH Zurich on the apron of the Unteraargletschers in the upper Bernese country resulted in strongly varying temperatures in the Alps, into whose attendants the glaciers advanced at times and retreated at times. “Scientific and archaeological findings fit together outstandingly”, says Suter. From climatic research, it is well-known that in Europe between the 3rd Millenium and 1750 BC, a mild climate prevailed. The average summer temperatures might have been at that time for 0.5 to two degrees than today. As consequence the pass was passable over the 2756 meters high Schnidejoch in the summer and represented together with that 2000 meters high Simplonpass the shortest connection between north Italy and the Bernese upper country. The large number of finds is for the Bernese experts evidence of traffic movement at that time…..”

    Original in German:

    So yes it has warmed since the fifties (well DAH) and now we are at the top of the sine curve about to head into another period of cooling. It does not take a PhD to figure that out especially with the AMO headed into a cool cycle.

    Dr Roy Spenser shows the Sea Surface Temps and cloud cover here:

    Reflected sunlight is trending toward increasing and Sea surface temperatures are trending down. Water in all its forms are a heck of a lot more important that CO2 when it comes to the climate but try telling that to the Bastards bound and determined to extract more of our wealth and hand it to the rich like Al Gore and the World Bank.

    • suyts says:

      Gail, thanks for dropping by, and thanks for the links! And yes, pure propaganda.

      • Spen says:

        What is the accuracy of modern thermometers? Muller is claiming an accuracy 0f 0.04deg for the anomaly figures. Perhaps some one can advise – if you measure temperature to within +/- 0.5 deg. (the range for old style mercury thermomters) is that not the accuracy range of the anomaly also?

      • suyts says:

        Spen, yes, the claimed degree of accuracy, especially in the historic perspective is a hoot. Some time ago someone stated something akin to “Global Warming is a rounding error.” I tend to agree with the thought. We don’t know how much the earth has warmed because we don’t know how accurate our temp reads were back when. Today may be a little better, but there are other issues with the more modern equipment. A couple of years ago there was a post on WUWT about the various thermometers and the problems with them.

  11. Pingback: The top 10 posts for the year (by views) | suyts space

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s