Say ……. “Steve Goddard Just Might Have A Point!!!!” ….. Says The Lukewarmers

Well….. this is a bit irksome/refreshing.


So, Dr. Curry, and Anthony now decide Steve just might have a point.  I can’t help but note the backhanded compliments they give him. 

So, after literally years and years of skeptics saying that you can’t simply just make up data and pretend it’s real, some people are now paying attention.  Of course, this is after many pooh-poohed it in the LSM and other places. 

In the recent post of Steve’s, he makes a point I tried to make in my original post surrounding this hubbub.  These people aren’t seeing the forests through the trees.  They can’t really be this obtuse, so they’re willfully trying to get people to remain ignorant of the huge beam in the eye of climatologists, and their apologists.

Steve quotes yet another bit of sophistry from The Blackboard.  Here’s a graph Zeke offered …

Goddard and NCDC methods raw adj

Lets take a look at how big a difference the choice of methods makes. The figure above shows Goddard’s method using the raw data in red, the correct method (gridded anomalies) using the raw data in blue, and the fully homogenized data (e.g. NCDC’s official temperature record) in green. Goddard’s method serves to exaggerate the effect of adjustments, though significant adjustment remain even when using a method unbiased by changes in underlying climatology. The majority of these adjustments are for changing time of observation at measurement stations, while much of the remainder is correcting for a max cooling bias due to the change from liquid in glass thermometers to MMTS thermometers. NCDC’s adjustments have been discussed at length elsewhere, so for the remainder of this post I’m going to focus on the factors that result in the difference between the red and blue lines. These differences may seem small, but they result in a non-negligible difference in the trend, and drive incorrect claims like Goddard’s assertion that the U.S. has been cooling since the 1930s and that most of the warming post-2000 is due to “fabricated data” from infilling.

Lets focus in particular on the period after 1990, where the majority of the decline in station availability occurs. It’s worth mentioning again that the decline in stations reporting isn’t a result of some great conspiracy; rather, the network was created in the late 1980s and purposefully included stations that were currently reporting at that point in time. As much of USHCN represents a volunteer effort in the form of co-op stations, these volunteers will sometimes quit or pass away, and NCDC has had difficulty finding new volunteers to take over. Some stations have also been closed as a result of poor siting identified by Anthony and others.

Notice the red-herring.  It doesn’t matter that the closings weren’t from a conspiracy.  What matters is the conspired effects of how one deals with the closings. 

Zeke wants to concentrate on 1990 to the present.  Well, sure, let’s do that.  But, also, let’s concentrate also on the start of the graph.  I’ll just post a graph from The Blackboard that I used the other day.


I note, that in order to show warming, the past must be cooler.  Right?  Where, on the temp graph do we see the coolest period?  Oh, right, that would be when we had the least actual stations, and the most imaginary temps reported.  Oddly, when all of our stations came on line and was giving us actual data, that was when we had the warmest temperatures, until our stations started dropping like flies and we just started to make up imaginary temperatures, again. 

Sorry, Zeke, Blackboard, Mosh, Nick, and the rest.  There’s no amount of rationalizing which makes this fact go away.  There’s no amount of beautiful maths which makes this go away. 

Zeke, you’re agreeing with the lunatics because it fits your notion of how things are.  However, you’ve clearly demonstrated how things are.  When the fact don’t fit your notions, the correct answer is not to change the facts. 

Our infilling and adjustments, for whatever reasonings and rational are the coolest and warmest part of our temp record.  They have created the outliers. 

Yes, there is a TOBS bias.  I observe that when we make up temperature records, they fit rather nicely to some preconceived notion of a warmer world/nation.  And, yes, we call this confirmation bias. 

This entry was posted in Climate. Bookmark the permalink.

31 Responses to Say ……. “Steve Goddard Just Might Have A Point!!!!” ….. Says The Lukewarmers

  1. philjourdan says:

    Steve/Tony is a hot head. And sometimes he does make mistakes – which he then eats. But I have yet to see him double down in defiance on a mistake. Anthony just did not have the time to check Steve’s work and so trusted others. I think his (Anthony’s) best course is a healthy dose of humble pie at this point.

    • Latitude says:

      not exactly phil…
      Zeke was fast on the draw, and concocted a strawman argument, sucked Anthony and the rest on them in….it was never about divining a temp history…that was Zeke’s invention
      Steve sent Anthony his code and all the numbers…..Anthony couldn’t get it to run…Anthony didn’t try another way to run it..and fell for Zeke’s bull shit
      Anthony made an even bigger fool of himself going public….I think half the known planet emailed him to tell him it’s not about temps moron….it’s about infilling stations that don’t even exist…phantom stations they claim they are getting raw data from….and they have been closed for decades…infilling 90% of a stations data….etc…all infilling has a warming bias…the more you infill…the warmer it gets

      Anthony just finished his stations in a toilet paper….Zeke knew what to hit him with that would wreck his paper…and Anthony bit

      Anthony’s paper is about to show that ~80% of all stations have a warm sitting bias..when you have a phantom station and you fake the record by 24/7 infilling…..where are the numbers going to come from to concoct that record…..bad sitting stations

      Goddard was 100% right….and now they are trying to smooze it over

      • suyts says:

        It’s fascinating. There will be a time for reckoning.

        One of the things I’m trying to drive home is that the supposed “skeptics” try to refute Steve by accepting the notions of the lunatics. Over at Curry’s, they affirm the “scientists” did it exactly proper in dealing with Tuling’s missing data. Unbelievable.

        • Me says:

          Yep and that was Me point when I posted the link to Willis at real science, He was playing stupid. Like Willis didn’t know what was going on. Get real!!!!!!

        • Me says:

          So this backfired on them Me guesses! 😆 and now they have to eat it…..

        • Me says:

          So James do you know what this means?

        • suyts says:

          I’m still waiting to see what happens next.

        • philjourdan says:

          I am heading into a busy season, so will not have a lot of time to check. So I will just watch your space for further developments.

        • Me says:

          What happens next is a cover story to explain it all away like usual. No money in that until it is explained away.

        • Me says:

          But in the mean time, they all hit hard earning taxpayers and people that did their dues with more.

        • Me says:

          And when I said “So James do you know what this means?” that cover story is part of but not it!

        • Latitude says:

          an important part of this I didn’t mention……they are infilling even when they had perfectly good raw data….and Goddards other point is every month they run a program that is based on that months readings…..when they infill…..that warming bias cools the past every month with that program

      • Me says:


      • philjourdan says:

        Much better narrative, but I am not seeing any disagreement between us.

        I did not get into Anthony’s upcoming paper, as while I thought the same as you, I have no evidence, and wanted to think better of Anthony than his initial reaction was one of territoriality.

        But perhaps it was not a “threat” to Anthony’s paper but the fact he has to go back and recheck all the sites since he must pull out the E sites now. Being so close to the finish line would make some cranky.

  2. Me says:

    Steven has been saying this for a while, and he as far as I know was outed after Watts did his thing and was posted at the site that we all know of now. I would never have known of him as Tony Heller until that happened.

  3. copernicus34 says:

    This “should” be the end game. At least in terms of the US temps. Further investigations need to be done with other countries data. If ANYONE is interested in the sanctity of science, they implore CONGRESS—-yes, fucking CONGRESS to get involved with a bipartisan panel to investigate this malfeasance. Suyts, people should be headed to jail on this. This should be the threat; they need to start machete(ing) the bushes to make the weak minded admit to their criminal shenanigans.

    Momentum is the key. This cannot sit and wait to be blown over. Any, scientist, statistician worth their salt needs to admit whats happening here. A systematic criminal manipulation of data, with the potential to waste trillions fighting a war that doesn’t need to be fought. This is all so unbelievable to me. Tony has an abrasive side, but that shouldn’t take away from the fact he is 100% right about whats going on here with this data.

    • suyts says:

      You’re right, Cop, momentum is the key. Watts already killed it in the larger public view. And, the morons at the Blackboard. They were too blinded by their personal animus towards Steve/Tony, that they refused to see what had been plainly before their very eyes, for years. Thousands, perhaps millions of people were thwarted from becoming skeptical of the made up data because supposed skeptics continually dismiss Steve. Mostly because they don’t understand what he’s trying to tell them.

      • Latitude says:

        nonono, Watts took something that had been flying under the radar for years…..blew it up into a big deal…..made a 1000 times bigger deal out of it
        …and finally brought it to everyone’s attention

      • suyts says:

        Lat, I think the details has come to the attention of the people involved in the climate discussions. I don’t think common man looked beyond the articles declaring Steve wrong.

  4. copernicus34 says:

    also, I will say it here, because I need to…AGAIN. JASON needs to be looked at. Maybe Heller is the man to do it. Maybe the great Suyts.

  5. Lars P. says:

    Well, Steven did a really nice work and now can enjoy:
    Toto Pulls Back The Curtain And Locates The Wizard!

  6. Chip Bennett says:

    I think it’s time for the gloves to come off. These agencies need to be demanded to produce the original, unadulterated, raw data sets. If they cannot now be produced, then every person involved needs to be prosecuted for fraud.

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