Really GISS? Dishonesty Continues In Post Hansen Era!!!

Wow, just wow. 

As we all know, GISS constantly fiddles with the historical data of our temps.  Back in Feb, 2012 I wrote a post, basically laughing at the nutters about the lack of response to the diminishing ice in the Arctic. 

Polar Amplification!!!! Earth’s Response to Sea Ice-Albedo Feedback

In it, I used GISS data to laugh at the nutters.  Today, I used a GISS graph to laugh at the nutters about tornadoes. …..

Climate Reminder! Tornadoes Are Tied To Global Warming!!!

The first post had a GISS graph was from 2001.67 to the then most recent GISS data.  Today’s post was from 2002 to the most recent.  This is shown directly below.  Again, today’s graph is directly below.  For reference points, I drew a straight line to the vertical axis.  The graph I used for the Feb post is below the first graph.  Again, for reference I drew a straight line. 



Assclowns.  Yep, 2001-2010 was the hottest decade evuh!!!  And, it’s still getting hotter!!!

Another observation.  I should have drew lines for the bottom temp troughs.  Although, those aren’t even needed!  The cool part of 2008 has warmed by more than 0.05 C!  As did the cool part of 2004! 

But, look at the apexes!  2002, 2007, and 2010 all got noticeably warmer …… retroactively, of course.  What new information has come to light for 2010 that we didn’t know in 2012?  That people in 2004 didn’t know how to properly read a thermometer?  We didn’t know this in Feb of 2012, but we do know this now?

Not that this graph tells us anything about the energy budget, it doesn’t.  But, this is central to the open and abject dishonesty of the nutters.  By their own metrics, I’m willing to bet that it would show significant cooling for the decade 2001-2010.  But, we’ll never really know because they keep jacking up the real temp records.  But, we’re suppose to believe them when they make declarations of hottest this ever or hottest that ever.  Why should we?  We absolutely know what ever they recorded at the time, it will change, and it will continue to change.  Always. 

And now they’re pretending to know what the OHC is?  You wouldn’t believe the re-drawing of those values they done.  Why?  Because they lie, constantly.  In their mind, the world is warming.  Any data which conflicts with that view must be corrected.  They’re doing the same with the satellite sea level data.  Over and over and over again.  Some of the nutters don’t even recognize their dishonesty.  They simply believe so hard that the world is hotting up, that they know the data is in error when it conflicts with their world view and ideology.  That’s why the HadCrut data had to be adjusted.  That’s why the OHC data had to be adjusted, that’s why the Envisat, Jason I, and Jason II data has to be constantly adjusted.  And, that’s why GISS data has to be constantly adjusted. 

We will get 2.3 meters of sea level rise per degree C, and we will get the rise in temps, regardless of what our lying eyes are telling us. 

Lastly, let’s take a moment to laugh at the lunatics who are trying to understand how much temp rise we should expect from additional atmospheric CO2 and how much sea level rise we should expect.  Because the values of the *laugh, cough, laugh* empirical values constantly change, they’ll never be able to begin to think about properly modeling any of it.  Consider the constant revision down of CO2 sensitivity, even with these artificially inflated values. 

Nutters are to be mocked and not taken seriously. 

This entry was posted in Climate. Bookmark the permalink.

53 Responses to Really GISS? Dishonesty Continues In Post Hansen Era!!!

  1. DirkH says:

    Ok, I asked at WUWT a while back whether Gavin continues Hansen’s work in constructing more warming into the temperature history. So this answers it.

    But it’s no surprise. NASA earns 1.2 bn USD a year with Global Warming:

  2. miked1947 says:

    It is all a computer program that produces different results every time they run it. This is one of their climate models being used to provide their guess about surface temperatures. No two runs will produce the same results and the changes are due to the way they instructed to model to preform.
    That is why I keep this link available.
    They are honest about the “Quality” of their surface temperature record. They “Hope” it represents the real world.
    Nasa was reducing their program for space exploration in the 80s! Hansen was hired to research the feasibility of settlements on Venus and Mars, so he studied their atmosphere composition. When it was decided we would not continue that project, NASA was going to lose some of their funding. Jim promoted the idea of NASA researching our climate with his computer model and “Proved” we were doomed because of AGW. Hansen became a NASA Hero because he convinced the government to increase funding his fairy tale. I suspect we will not see any real science come out of GISS as long as we pay them to provide propaganda.
    Gavin is worse than Jim. NOAA is doing their best to get their “Fair Share” of the POT!

  3. PhilJourdan says:

    Any reason that I no longer try to debate your nutters? The imbecile ignores all facts presented, Popeye merely starts yelling insults out of the gate. and the clown pretends he can’t read.

  4. AndyG55 says:

    Looks to me that they have shifted the whole thing upwards by about 0.05C +/- a bit

    The plots seem to be “anomilies” based on some particular period of time.

    Have they changed the reference period, perhaps ?

    • suyts says:

      Andy, sorry for the wait in moderation. Now that you’ve been approved, you can freely comment.

      As far as I know, no, they have not changed their reference period. But, even if they had, if it were a later date, then the anomalies should be smaller, no?

      But, yes, you’re correct, they’ve shifted, as they always do, higher the more current. No doubt the past is shifted lower, as they always have in the past.

    • AndyG55 says:

      Thank goodness the satellite records now exists.
      I imagine it would at least 2-4C degrees warmer now if it didn’t exist 😉

      The satellite record sort of keeps them from too much further corruption of the post-1979 record, and the pre-1979 record is becoming more and more irrelevant now that we have just passed the natural peak.

  5. AndyG55 says:

    Hope you don’t mind, I’ve sent this url link to JoNova

  6. Pingback: More Subtle GISS Revisions! How Come The Modelers Don’t Get Mad? | suyts space

  7. Rob Nicholls says:

    Yeah, they faked the Arctic Sea Ice melting as well…
    I’ve been looking at these issues for a few years now and personally I see no evidence of fraud on the part of the climate scientists in question. It appears to me that adjustments have been made to temperature records for scientifically valid reasons (e.g. to make data which has been measured in different ways over different time periods compatible for trend analysis, e.g. by removing time of observation biases.) HadCrut4 is an update of HadCrut3 which contains more data covering a larger proportion of the Earth’s surface…As more data is now available than was available when HadCrut3 was developed, it would seem pretty silly not to use it. In this sense, HadCrut4 seems to me to be an improvement over HadCrut3. You can claim that expanding the area of the Earth covered by HadCrut is a fraudulent adjustment if you like but that’s not how it seems to me.

    • suyts says:

      Yeh, except Rob, they expanded it to places where there are no observations. So, it’s just made up crap. Not that I wrote anything about HadCrut3 vs 4. But, you’re right! 4 included more territory, most of which have no thermometers. So, yeh, big improvement, if you like to base assumptions on imagination as opposed to empirical data.

      And, now, you’re telling me you believe we didn’t know how to properly measure temps in 2010? Yeh, in 2010 we still hadn’t quit masted that TOB trick….. except that we had already included adjustments for it when we recorded it.

    • DirkH says:

      Well Rob, then why does every adjustment warm the present and cool the past. Maybe there’s a scientific reason for that; I would assume a 50:50 chance; maybe you can tell me; David Appell couldn’t; nor could any other warmist I asked.

      My personal explanation is that the scientists are fraudulent rent-seekers. Of course I could be wrong; I’m just looking for an explanation. This one would explain it perfectly.

  8. Mike Mellor says:

    Will everybody stop giving Gavin such a hard time. He’s only following orders. (The Nuremberg Defence.)

  9. Rob Nicholls says:

    I don’t think the extra data in HadCrut4 (when compared with the previous version, HadCrut3) is imaginery. The extra data and the changes to the methodology in HadCrut 4 are described in .

    I note on the GISS website there is some documentation of changes to the methodology used in the GISS global temperature reconstruction fairly recently, see . I don’t see any evidence of fraud there. As improved methods are developed and problems are noticed relating to various data sets it seems appropriate to update the analyses to improve their accuracy and to resolve or mitigate problems with the data as far as possible.

    As I said, appropriate adjustments improve accuracy. When analysing long-term trends adjustments are often needed to ensure comparability of data that would otherwise not be comparable. I don’t know what proportion of the adjustments made to individual station records have resulted in more positive temperature trends. However, my understanding is that the adjustments make very little overall difference to the observed global temperature trend over the last century.

    • kim2ooo says:

      However, my understanding is that the adjustments make very little overall difference to the observed global temperature trend over the last century.

      How so, please?

      They are rewriting scientifically accepted historical data. Without empirical scientific evidence that it’s justified.

      • kim2ooo says:

        The scientific way would be first to justify the MODEL – Not adjust the data INTO the model.

      • kim2ooo says:

        If 15 cooking thermometers say the oil is heated to 375 degrees [ The “perfect” for deep frying ] and my stove [ models ] says it’s 450 degrees – who has the problem?

      • Rob Nicholls says:

        My understanding is that the adjustments make very little overall difference to the observed global temperature trend over the last century, in the sense that if you calculate the global temperature trend using the unadjusted data, I understand that the trend is very similar to the trend calculated using the adjusted data. In other words the adjustments don’t seem to have much overall effect at the global level.

        • kim2ooo says:

          Why do you [ and they ] think it’s scientifically acceptable to “ADJUST” data – without empirical evidence that it’s justified?

        • kim2ooo says:

          You seem to be of a scientific mind.

          Should science consist of rules?
          Does science dictate that empirical evidence is needed before changing values [ data ]?

          Or should we just apply [ adjust ] to fit our hypothesis?

        • kim2ooo says:

          There are two areas that change values w/o empirical evidence.

          The pseudo sciences [ Sociology / psychology etc ] and scientific fraud.

        • kim2ooo says:

          Would you allow someone to tamper with the evidence without empirical evidence, in your court case?

          Why do people who would not allow the above – think what is being done to data sets.. is any different?

          Simply put: It’s data tampering.

  10. Rob Nicholls says:

    I don’t think the adjustments in question are unscientific. I believe they are genuine, careful attempts to improve the accuracy of global temperature trend analysis. I think there are a large number of peer-reviewed papers explaining the methods used for the various adjustments that have been undertaken, and discussing the best methods to use.

    • suyts says:

      Rob, other than their say so, what causes you to believe that?

      Now consider this. These “records” have been continuously adjusted. Not just in the different versions but even within the same versions. For instance, the adjustments shown above are within version 3. The total amount of times they are adjusted is incalculable because they don’t inform us of these “minor” changes.

      Let’s assume these are honest attempts. So, each time they adjust them means that they were wrong in the prior adjustments. How many times do they have to be wrong before you understand they don’t know what they’re doing?

  11. kim2ooo says:

    I don’t think the adjustments in question are unscientific.

    Then you, or them, can provide the scientific justification – Justification based on empirical evidence?

    The data adjustments are made on ASSUMPTIONS – peer-reviewed or not.

    Assumptions are not the scientific way.

    You have two choices if you accept assumptions in science without empirical justification… They are practicing pseudo science or scientific fraud.

    • kim2ooo says:

      Hint: If they had scientific justification – Justification based on empirical evidence – There would only need to be ONE ADJUSTMENT MADE.

      Not continual adjustments.

    • kim2ooo says:

      A scientist seeks the scientific justification via empirical evidence – FIRST.

      AND ONLY after that – applies it to the data.

  12. kim2ooo says:

    I don’t think the adjustments in question are unscientific.

    Because the data sets have been tampered with / without scientific justification – we have data sets filled with Wild A guestimates based on assumptions.

    • kim2ooo says:

      Biased assumptions – at that.

    • Rob Nicholls says:

      As I said, I don’t believe the adjustments are scientifically unjustified. The list of recent adjustments on the GISS website ( seems reasonable to me (appropriate action seems to have been taken when data quality issues have surfaced), and I notice that at least one of the adjustments (dated 16/01/2013) may have caused some retrospective changes to the temperature reconstruction since 1880: “January 16, 2013: Starting with the January 2013 update, NCDC’s ERSST v3b data will be used to estimate the surface air temperature anomalies over the ocean instead of a combination of Reynold’s OISST (1982 to present) and data obtained from the Hadley Center (1880-1981).”

      The adjustment methods described appear to me to be genuine attempts to improve the accuracy of the global temperature trend analysis.

      Even without adjustments, the data appear to show marked global warming over the last century. Yesterday I ran simple processing of raw (monthly mean temperature) GHCN data (see ), and I found that even according to the unadjusted data, 2000-2009 was 0.69 degrees C warmer than 1900-1909. (In the adjusted monthly NOAA data, I found warming of 0.89 degrees C in the same period).

      To use the raw data in this way makes no sense from a scientific point of view, as the raw data contains many discontinuities, data quality problems and biases which I would think are certain to make the analysis less accurate than an analysis of the adjusted data; it seems to me that the adjusted data will surely give a more accurate picture of global temperature trends over the last century. It is interesting to note, however, that a global warming trend is present in the unadjusted data.

      • DirkH says:

        Why is every adjustment warming the present and cooling the past?
        Should one not expect an equal distribution?
        Looks like fraudsters to me.

      • Latitude says:

        Rob, the LIA officially was over in 1850…
        ….would you expect a 1/2 degree increase in temps after that?

        • leftinbrooklyn says:

          And sadly, that was probably the last LIA for which we won’t be blamed. Or wait, maybe we were—witches and stuff.

      • suyts says:

        No doubt. Uhmm, Rob, did you notice your “unadjusted data” was vs3? It’s isn’t “raw” as most people perceive.

        And, I agree, there are inconsistencies and continuity issues, not to mention distribution etc….. Are we to believe that after 3 decades of “genuine attempts to improve accuracy” that they still can’t get it right?

        If you accept that notion, then what is it that you believe lends them credibility? They’ve been doing it wrong for more than 3 decades, but, this time it’s better?

        Then, as Dirk and Lat observe, one, the changes always result in increasing the temps closer to the present and decreasing the temps the further from the present. Always. This simply defies odds beyond credulity.

        • Latitude says:

          NCDC collects the temp data…adjusts it…packages it..and passes it on to GISS, etc
          …who adjust it again

          Surprisingly their “adjustments” are exactly the temp increase we’ve supposed to have had….

        • Rob Nicholls says:

          Thanks Suyts, DirkH and leftinbrooklyn for the responses. Just to clarify, I used the “QCU” (“Quality Controlled Unadjusted”) monthly mean temperature data. To quote from

          ‘V3 contains two different dataset files per each of the three elements.
          “QCU” files represent the quality controlled unadjusted data, and
          “QCA” files represent the quality controlled adjusted data. The unadjusted
          data are often referred to as the “raw” data. It is important to note that
          the term “unadjusted” means that the developers of GHCNM have not made any
          adjustments to these received and/or collected data, but it is entirely
          possible that the source of these data (generally National Meteorological
          Services) may have made adjustments to these data prior to their inclusion
          within the GHCNM. Often it is difficult or impossible to know for sure,
          if these original sources have made adjustments, so users who desire
          truly “raw” data would need to directly contact the data source.
          The “adjusted” data contain bias corrected data (e.g. adjustments made
          by the developers of GHCNM), and so these data can differ from the
          “unadjusted” data.’

        • suyts says:

          Yeh, Rob, we know.

          “Quality controlled” and “Unadjusted”.

          When I saw that, I knew it was all a lie. No one with a straight face can say that. It’s like a bad joke.

          Rob, these are roads we’ve already traveled. Years ago. And, the data continues to be Quality controlled yet unadjusted, as it continually changes. Personally, I’m waiting for version 12 of the quality controlled yet unadjusted version of the temps. I’m pretty sure that will be the right one!

  13. Rob Nicholls says:

    Thanks for the responses to my comments – I have learned much as a result. I very much doubt that every single adjustment of GISS has led to an apparent increased in the warming trend , and I would be interested to see the evidence that this is the case (I don’t think it’s difficult to find counter-examples). I also think it’s extremely unlikely that the 4 main global surface temperature reconstructions (GISS, HadCrut, NOAA/ NCDC, BEST) are all fraudulent. These reconstructions have been developed by 4 separate, independent teams of scientists, have been extensively documented using methods published in peer-reviewed literature and have been refined over time. The 4 teams have used a variety of methods but have found very similar conclusions. Is it really likely that all 4 of these teams of scientists are acting fraudulently? Personally, I think not.

    • DirkH says:

      “Is it really likely that all 4 of these teams of scientists are acting fraudulently?”

      Of course it is. In fact the modern day climate scientists have never explained what they mean with their global average temperature construct; why it should be a meaningful metric and how they are overcoming the principal shortcomings of their approach.

      It is all a pseudoscience.
      see Joe Bastardi’s and my comment here:

      • DirkH says:

        The more interesting question is how this international fraud has been created. Look back to 1971; Club Of Rome, Limits To Growth; Maurice Strong carting the newly funded NGO’s to Stockholm to his summit. That was the beginning of the modern day enviro-political fraud.


        “The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that
        pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
        dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
        – Club of Rome,

        1975 `Endangered Atmosphere’
        Conference: Where the Global
        Warming Hoax Was Born
        searchterms Meade
        Mead, Schneider, Holdren and Lovelock

        Steve Schneider 1989:
        “To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios,
        make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between
        being effective, and being honest.”
        ( in interview for “Discover” magagzine, Oct 1989)

        It is an international scientific fraud.

    • suyts says:

      No problem Rob, and thanks for the thoughtful observations! It’s always interesting to see a different perspective! I would note, these different organizations only really agree after they adjust in order to demonstrate agreement. Indeed, HadCrut cheered that version 4 was in closer agreement to GISS than version 3. Heaven knows what version 1 would look like compared to GISS’ version 3!

      But, as to NCDC, …. well, yeh, they all use the GHCN data, so you’d expect general agreement.

      Be sure and come back!

  14. Rob Nicholls says:

    Thanks Suyts and sorry for the long delay in responding – it’s taken me a while to find a clear example of changes to GISTEMP global data set which didn’t result in an increased temperature trend (I only had one old version of the data to hand, and I can’t find any old versions on the net so I’ve had to wait for a GISTEMP update). Anyway, I downloaded GISTEMP (monthly global land and ocean surface temperature) data from on the 11th and 17th September 2013 (either side of the latest monthly update of the data).

    I found with simple linear regression that the central estimate of the upward linear temperature trend from Jan 1880 to July 2013 was slightly lower in the download on the 17th September (0.06548511 degrees C per decade) than it was in the download taken on 11th September (0.06600621 degrees C per decade). i.e. there was a very slight drop in the temperature trend between the two downloads. (Admittedly the temperature increase hasn’t been linear between 1880 and 2013).

    I know this doesn’t tell us whether the adjustments / changes are honest and justifiable, but it does suggest that not all of the adjustments or changes to GISTEMP result in an increased upward trend in temperature.

    I can understand that if someone’s convinced that the scientists are acting fraudulently then the fact that multiple teams (GISS , NOAA , Hadley/CRU) have come up with very similar temperature reconstructions probably won’t change their mind, but I would have hoped that the results of the Berkeley / BEST reconstruction might have made a difference – I thought BEST involved scientists who didn’t share the IPCC’s view of global warming and therefore BEST might be seen as a good independent test of whether the other teams have been getting it wrong. I think BEST came up with similar temperature trends to those of the other 3 reconstructions? I’d be interested to hear your view of the BEST temperature reconstruction.

  15. Rob Nicholls says:

    Thanks DirkH.

    For the period from January 1950 to July 2013, using simple linear regression, for the GISTEMP extract taken 11/9/2013, the central estimate of the upward linear temperature trend is 0.1255362 degrees C per decade. In the extract taken on 17/9/2013, the central estimate of the trend is slightly lower, 0.1248934 degrees per decade.

    For the period from January 1880 to December 1949, the central estimate of the upward linear temperature trend in the GISTEMP extract taken 11/9/2013 is 0.04022879 degrees C per decade. In the extract taken on 17/9/2013, the central estimate of the trend is slightly lower, 0.03974192 degrees C per decade.

    Was this what you had in mind? Any thoughts on interpretation?
    Thanks for the link – very interesting.

    • DirkH says:

      Yes, that is what I had in mind.
      Obviously, falling current temperatures have resulted in slight reductions of both parts of the trend.
      BUT – the interesting thing is: If they had only extended the data series , this would only have affected the second half trend! Notice what they did? They shifted SOME of the cooling back in time so the first half trend ALSO dropped!

      Not a science.
      This is not a science.
      It is a forgery from start to finish.

    • suyts says:

      Hi Rob, welcome back. I can’t speak for Dirk, but, here are a couple of thoughts.
      Admittedly, some of the things they’re doing, I don’t quite understand. But, I’d say to wait and watch the totality of the movements.

      One of the things I’m watching is a smoothing of historical temps. That is to say, we saw a couple of periods in which warming abated and even cooled for a bit and then warmed again. For instance, the most recent warming period, 1975 about 2000, was almost identical in trend for the period 1920-1945. Skeptics have pointed to this for years. And, yes, GISS doesn’t seem to archive their old runs. At least, not to where it’s accessible. But, HadCru, still maintains HadCru3. So, to illustrate what I’m seeing go here for a H3 and H4 comparison.
      At the bottom of the graph, there is a “raw data” link in which you can see the trend values. GISS is doing this, too, but, it’s such a pain to keep all of the different data. I would also note the changes in the intermittent period. Yesterday, I graphed this for a different purpose, but, you can easily see the significant differences. It overlaps with the 1920-1945 period ,but again, you can easily see the changes.

      Re Muller and BEST. Muller is a showman. aligning him with skeptics is like calling Trump a conservative. The fact is, Muller never was a skeptic. If you can get past my snark, here’s a quick read. He and his daughter also run a climate change consulting company., and did before their BEST project.
      Steve Mosher was also party to the project. And, while he’s pretty critical of much of the science, he is, in fact, a warmist. Much of that could have been ignored except for the sloppy and incredulous work they did. They actually calculated a global temp with 12 thermometers. As I recall, 2 were in what is the present day U.S. and the rest in Europe. And, they hid behind error bars for their sophistry. Probably their worst was the way they addressed UHI, which was pretty maddening because Mosh absolutely knows better. When lukewarmer Dr. Curry quits from the project and openly criticizes Muller, you know its bad.
      What is a skeptic suppose to think of all of this? I’m not much into conspiracy theories, but that was a PR stunt. It was however, a teachable moment for many.

      Rob, specific to the alterations of our historic temps. I recognize the need to ensure good quality temps and for the science to deal with many issues. However, the continuous altering suggests one of two things. Either their intent is to deceive or, this is a tacit admission that they didn’t know what they were doing in the first place, which caused all of the alarm to begin with. Either they are correct now, and were incorrect then, or they were correct then and wrong now, or, as I would assume because of the constant changing, they are incorrect in both instances, and there is no reason to lend them any credulity. Are we going to wait for HadCru v15 before we finally settle on what the global temp was in 1943? GISS v9?

      More than that, consider the horrible implications of a dynamics and fluid history. Not just specific to climate science, but, to science and society in general. Yes, things can and are revealed which alters our view of history from time to time. But, in those cases, the reasoning and rationale have always been thoroughly and openly discussed and vetted. History revisionism without proper cause should be classified as a crime. If people can, without explanation, convince the world that our historic temps are not what were purported to be, and people, without question accept this, what else can they convince people of? How long before the droughts of the dust bowl are revised to where a warm day spell in present is defined as worse than Kansas in the dust bowl? I’m not being rhetorical, look at what they’ve done to defining a drought, now.

      Sorry for the rambling, hope that clears up some of my thoughts for you.

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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