“Massively Altered” …German Professor Examines NASA GISS Temperature Datasets

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

UPDATE 2: Tremendous interest in Ewert’s findings: shared or liked 2400 times up to now. I’ve decided to take the day off from blogging and let this one run another day.

UPDATE 1: Also read here.

Veteran journalist Günter Ederer* writes a piece reporting that massive alterations have been found in the NASA GISS temperature data series, citing a comprehensive analysis conducted by a leading German scientist. These results are now available to the public.

Ewert

Professor Dr. Friedrich Karl Ewert. Source: University of Paderborn

Ederer reports not long ago retired geologist and data computation expert Professor Dr. Friedrich Karl Ewert began looking at the data behind the global warming claims, and especially the datasets of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS).

Ewert painstakingly examined and tabulated the reams of archived data from 1153 stations that go back to 1881 – which NASA has publicly available – data that the UN IPCC uses to base its conclusion that man is heating the Earth’s atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels. According to Ederer, what Professor Ewert found is “unbelievable”:

From the publicly available data, Ewert made an unbelievable discovery: Between the years 2010 and 2012 the data measured since 1881 were altered so that they showed a significant warming, especially after 1950. […] A comparison of the data from 2010 with the data of 2012 shows that NASA-GISS had altered its own datasets so that especially after WWII a clear warming appears – although it never existed.”

Ederer writes that Ewert particularly found alterations at stations in the Arctic. Professor Ewert randomly selected 120 stations from all over the world and compared the 2010 archived data to the 2012 data and found that they had been tampered to produce warming.

The old data showed regular cycles of warming and cooling over the period, even as atmospheric CO2 concentration rose from 0.03% to 0.04%. According to the original NASA datasets, Ederer writes, the mean global temperature cooled from 13.8°C in 1881 to 12.9°C in 1895. Then it rose to 14.3°C by 1905 and fell back under 12.9°C by 1920, rose to 13.9°C by 1930, fell to 13° by 1975 before rising to 14°C by 2000. By 2010 the temperature fell back to 13.2°C.

But then came the “massive” altering of data, which also altered the entire overall trend for the period. According to journalist Ederer, Ewert uncovered 10 different methods NASA used to alter the data. The 6 most often used methods were:

• Reducing the annual mean in the early phase.
• Reducing the high values in the first warming phase.
• Increasing individual values during the second warming phase.
• Suppression of the second cooling phase starting in 1995.
• Shortening the early decades of the datasets.
• With the long-term datasets, even the first century was shortened.

The methods were employed for stations such as Darwin, Australia and Palma de Mallorca, for example, where cooling trends were suddenly transformed into warming.

Ewert then discovered that NASA having altered the datasets once in March 2012 was not enough. Alterations were made again in August 2012, and yet again in December 2012. For Palma de Majorca: “Now because of the new datasets it has gotten even warmer. Now they show a warming of +0.01202°C per year.”

Using earlier NASA data, globe is in fact cooling

The veteran German journalist Ederer writes that the media reports of ongoing global warming are in fact not based on reality at all, but rather on “the constantly altered temperatures of the earlier decades.” Ederer adds:

Thus the issue of man-made global warming has taken on a whole new meaning: Yes, it is always man-made if the data are adjusted to fit the theory. The meticulous work by Ewert has predecessors, and fits a series of scandals and contradictions that are simply being ignored by the political supporters of man-made climate change.”

Ederer also brings up the analysis by American meteorologists Joseph D’Aleo and Anthony Watts who examined 6000 NASA measurement stations and found an abundance of measurement irregularities stemming in large part from serious siting issues. According to Ederer the findings by Professor Ewert are in close agreement with those of Watts and D’Aleo.

Ederer writes of the overall findings by Professor Ewert:

Using the NASA data from 2010 the surface temperature globally from 1940 until today has fallen by 1.110°C, and since 2000 it has fallen 0.4223°C […]. The cooling has hit every continent except for Australia, which warmed by 0.6339°C since 2000. The figures for Europe: From 1940 to 2010, using the data from 2010, there was a cooling of 0.5465°C and a cooling of 0.3739°C since 2000.”

Ederer summarizes that in view of the magnitude of the scandal, one would think that there would be in investigation. Yet he does not believe this will be the case because the global warming has turned into a trillion-dollar industry and that that too much is tied to it.

All datasets are available to the public at any time. The studies by Prof. Ewert may be requested by e-mail: ewert.fk@t-online.de.

*Günter Ederer is a former journalist for ARD and ZDF German Television and has won numerous awards.

 

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

192 responses to ““Massively Altered” …German Professor Examines NASA GISS Temperature Datasets”

  1. David Johnson

    This is very good. I must get a copy of the full findings

  2. kurt

    this is interesting. think the key question I always have also goes back to the data. One would think/expect that the fundamental reasons for the temperature shifts/adjustments would be rooted in clearly defensible positions.

    1. richard clenney

      Problem: if the data is right, you cannot “adjust” it.
      If it isn’t “right”, it isn’t data and must be discarded,
      archived for future study on how you got it wrong.
      You NEVER DESTROY, OR ALTER DATA! (if it’s wrong, how do you
      know which way to adjust it, and how much???)

      If a stock broker altered the past data on a stock, to show
      it was growing, and even changed the dividends upward to make
      them more valuable, then sold it, he would be put in prison.
      When a “CLIMATE SCIENTIST” does it, he gets a big cash subsidy.
      Something stinks in Denmark.

  3. sod

    Not a single word about the reasons for the adjustments. This is garbage!

    2015 was extremely hot. The summer was hot and the beginning of november was just plain out insane. You do not even have to measure anything to know that!

    1. DirkH

      You start to sound pretty incoherent.

    2. Walter H. Schneider

      sod stated, 20. November 2015 at 10:15 PM :

      “Not a single word about the reasons for the adjustments. This is garbage!”

      And your comment isn’t? “2015 was extremely hot. The summer was hot and the beginning of november was just plain out insane. You do not even have to measure anything to know that!”

    3. lemiere jacques

      i am prone to agree about adjustmtents ,though the author doesn’t explicitly speaks about them, for sure to get something global ,because of variable geographical coverage , ,uncontinuous data and other very good reasons there must be adjustments…but any adjustment need a set of assumptions to be made…

      but the main problem is data itself…stations tmperatures set is a proxy for something that has no physical meaning..

      and when adjustments made make you believe that the temperature given by a particuliar station is “bad”, it is an issue to me.

      1. Stephen Richards

        As a trained physicists former MInstPhy I was told that you do not under any circumstances adjust previously registered data. You may create a seperate data set from an existing one showing the algorythms used and, at each step, why you used it, what made it more accurate, and what the effect on the original data is and then a full peer reviewed paper on your reasoning. You still may not replace the original data just in case your work is found to be suspect in later years.
        I have seen none of this from GISS, NASA, NOAA or UKMO or Phil Jones.

        1. Ned Harrison

          You may have been told this, but you were told wrong. For example, if new analysis shows that for all data before 1950 the system of measurement included a systemic bias that means all records before this point are 1 degree too low, and you want to be able to have a record of the whole century, you would be correct to adjust the temperatures from before 1950. This is a simplification of the sort of thing that is done to climate datasets all the time, transparently and correctly.

          Is that what has happened here? I don’t know, because they have not bothered to ask for an explanation. There is no presentation of the data and it’s global impacts – the suggestion that the world has cooled by over a degree is astonishing. But it is not evidenced. Nor has there been any second opinion on this.

          So forgive me if I withhold the celebrations.

    4. Ben Palmer

      It’s snowing in Geneva right now, at 2°C, snow accumulates on the hills above 800m. Yes it was rather pleasant and mild recently, so what? How would you know if this was due to CO2?

    5. Mike Haseler (Scottish Sceptic)

      You need to add /sarc (We in Scotland had one of the most miserable wet and cold summers I’ve seen)

      1. DirkH

        Ignoring cold spots and amplifying hot ones is the normal perception of the politically motivated warmunist. Mosher calls this normal necessary adjustment and homogenization.

      2. Oswald Thake

        It wasn’t so brilliant in East Anglia. I’m a naturist, so I ought to know!

    6. Gunner

      not here, it was unseasonably cool where I live this summer, we did have a late indian summer in November, but nothing out of the ordinary. it always amazes me that people buy the global arming/climate change BS. When the real data shows no average or mean temperature increase over the past 18, and it is the same song and dance from the 70’s only it was an ice age is coming because of pollution, the smog is going to block the sun, only Al Gore and his buddies have figured out a way with carbon taxing to make a buck on it.

    7. Mlorrey

      How do you know it was hotter?

    8. Tom

      The reasons for the changes of the data my non indictive reasoning friend is to make it appear the earth is warming, when in fact it is not. A lot of money to be made on warming. I have to laugh when they first came out with the 97% of scientists agree BS. You cant get 97% of scientists to agree the sky looks blue, let alone on climate change.Now they are saying two things. its only 64% of scientists agree, and that the climate is in a “pause” in the warming trend.

      1. Reggie Brian

        Saying there is a “pause” in the warming trend, is suggesting that global warming has its own thought process. A similar thing happens on the nightly news, when the talking heads say things like “the storm wants to break the record this weekend” or even “we wanted a white Christmas but the weather is not cooperating.”

        Back to basics: a scientific theory is based on known facts, makes a prediction, compares subsequent events with that prediction. If the prediction fails (a.k.a. “pause in the warming trend”) you CHANGE THE THEORY. You don’t change the source data.

    9. Keith

      I don’t know where you were, but eastern USA was not hotter than normal and in fact a bit cooler.

  4. David Appell

    Wonder if this scientist will submit his claims to peer review. Like Karl et al did.

    Somehow, I doubt it, or, if he does, that it will get published.

    Have some standards people.

    1. Craig

      David, I didn’t realise you needed peer review to uncover corrupted science. As a journalist, why don’t you do your job and investigate Professor Ewert’s claims or are you so bereft of investigative skill that your ‘appeal to authority’ is as good as it gets?

      1. David Appell

        Yes, peer review is the basic test a scientific claim must pass.

        There is so much junk out there that needs vetting. I realize the readers of this site will swallow anything that meets with ideological needs, but we have higher standards.

        1. AndyG55

          “Yes, peer review is the basic test a scientific claim must pass.”

          That is a total load of rubbish.

          Peer review is for journal publication, especially in the farce that is “climate science™”.

          The basic test is that all the data and methods are open and repeatable and that results can be used predictably.

          Most of what passes for “climate science™”, be it peer-reviewed, or grey lit as used extensively by the IPCC, does NOT stand up to this criteria.

          1. Crispin in Waterloo

            The wonder is that the GISS/NASA adjusted data sets get through peer review. Someone analysing widely available data doesn’t have much to prove other than they used the data as supplied. It is the adjusted product that needs better peer review. ‘Adjusting’ data sets until the trends are reversed needs quite some ‘splaining.

          2. AndyG55

            Crispin, only the basic methods of adjustments is ever given..

            Nobody has any idea if those methods are actually followed.

            I doubt you will find one paper describing why a particular adjustment was carried out, and certainly not papers showing each individual adjustment.

          3. David Appell

            Andy: You are not qualified to judge the science. Same for Pierre.

            Peer review doesn’t mean a paper is right. It means it
            (1) is formatted to basic scholarly standards, and
            (2) isn’t obviously wrong.

            I have yet to see any commenter on this site who is qualified to make such judgements, especially number 2.

          4. AndyG55

            Actually David, I am.

        2. Ben Palmer

          Peer-review or pal-review. If you have 2 data sets from the same measurement station and they don’t match, what do you want to peer-review; looking at the data sets doesn’t shows it all, no matter how many peers review the obvious.

        3. richard clenney

          Like when Einstein’s work was rejected by his “peers”?
          Peer review require peers who have no axe to grind. As
          Einstein said, It only takes one to prove him wrong. One
          false prediction beats 100 “peers” OPINIONS. At this time,
          the “peer review” needs to be peer reviewed, IMHO.

        4. al-e

          There’s no one single great discovery or invention that was peer-reviewed.

        5. Stephen

          Peer review is little measure of anything. So much of pharmaceutical ‘medicine’ has been peer-reviewed, and it’s a crock. It is accepted because money is paid to make it look scientific when it is not. The same applies here.

          1. David Appell

            Stephen: You must refuse to take any pharmaceutical product, then. Do you?

        6. GP Alexander

          Projection David. Pure projection.

        7. Slywolfe

          Where is the peer review of data “adjustments?”

          1. David Appell

            Adjustments are attempts to correct for known biases.

            How would you correct for those biases?

    2. DirkH

      David Appell 20. November 2015 at 10:21 PM | Permalink | Reply
      “Wonder if this scientist will submit his claims to peer review. Like Karl et al did.
      Somehow, I doubt it, or, if he does, that it will get published.
      Have some standards people.”

      So you agree that Einstein was a crackpot?

      1. David Appell

        Sorry Dirk, but Einstein’s work was all peer reviewed and properly published.

        1. DirkH

          Nice try, waterboy.
          “How many of Einstein’s 300 plus papers were peer reviewed? According to the physicist and historian of science Daniel Kennefick, it may well be that only a single paper of Einstein’s was ever subject to peer review. ”
          http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/three-myths-about-scientific-peer-review/

          1. Jeff

            Thought this might be interesting, though it studied medical research papers, rather than
            warmunist tomes.

            So much for peer review: the papers studied were retracted AFTER they were published.

            “Stanford Report, November 16, 2015
            Stanford researchers uncover patterns in how scientists lie about their data”
            http://news.stanford.edu/news/2015/november/fraud-science-papers-111615.html

          2. David Appell

            Balderdash. Every one of Einstein’s published papers was peer reviewed. Back then it often mean the journal’s editor approved of it, in consultation with colleagues. Today it is more formalized.

        2. StewGreen

          @David Appell makes a strong assertion
          #1 anyone can google Einstein “not peer reviewed” to see many articles & books contradicting that.
          #2 It’s quite poor to let people think the modern system of rigorous anonymous external peer review is what peer review meant in the past..when it could have meant just that editor himself had looked over it as what happened with E’s papers in Annalen der Physik in1905 and editor Max Planck.

          1. StewGreen

            Secondly Crichton wrote about Hwang’s cheating :
            \\… many studies have shown that peer review does not improve the quality of scientific papers. Scientists themselves know it doesn’t work. Yet the public still regards it as a sign of quality, and says, ‘This paper was peer-reviewed,’ or ‘This paper was not peer-reviewed,’ as if that meant something. It doesn’t.//

        3. Stephen Richards

          You throw out statements with no real knowledge hoping not to be found wanting. Just like the people you support.
          All of Einsteins papers were refused at first as is normal in the world of physics and the royal society.
          I wrote a paper on Einstein for my second degree and on Newton for my first.
          In fact, near the end of his life Einstein refused to accept quantum mechanics because “God doesn’t play roulette with nature ” (sic)

          1. Tom

            My question to Einstein about the expanding universe is, If the universe IS expanding, what is it expanding into, nothingness? It kind of like saying if the sky (universe) does end, whats on the other side?

          2. David Appell

            “All of Einsteins papers were refused at first as is normal in the world of physics and the royal society.”

            Wrong. Utter crap.

        4. yonason

          “Albert Einstein’s famous 1905 paper on relativity was not peer reviewed”
          http://newnostradamusofthenorth.blogspot.com/2012/06/albert-einsteins-famous-1905-paper-on.html

          And everyone knew his theoretical paper on the photoelectric effect was wrong, …until Millikan actually did the experiment. I.e., it never would have been published, if today’s “standards” were in place.

          More on what’s wrong with peer review.
          http://www.iscid.org/papers/Tipler_PeerReview_070103.pdf

          1. David Appell

            “And everyone knew his theoretical paper on the photoelectric effect was wrong, …until Millikan actually did the experiment. I.e., it never would have been published, if today’s “standards” were in place.”

            Bullshit.

            Einstein was a theorist. He proposed ideas, and then experimentalists tested them.

            And Einstein was right.

            Theorists do the same thing today, every day of the week.

          2. yonason

            @ David Appell 26. November 2015 at 5:47 AM |

            Learn some history, and stop making things up. Millikan only did the experiment to show that Einstein was wrong. He was as surprised as anyone that it proved Einstein was correct, and didn’t even accept the fact even after his results confirmed Einstein’s theory.

            For all his efforts Millikan found what to him were disappointing results: he confirmed Einstein’s predictions in every detail, measuring Planck’s constant to within 0.5% by his method. But Millikan was not convinced of Einstein’s radical interpretation, and as late as 1916 he wrote, “Einstein’s photoelectric equation… cannot in my judgment be looked upon at present as resting upon any sort of a satisfactory theoretical foundation,” even though “it actually represents very accurately the behavior” of the photoelectric effect.


            http://www.aps.org/programs/outreach/history/historicsites/millikan.cfm

            Don’t you ever tire of parading your profoundly willful ignorance in public?

    3. R2Dtoo

      Hey Sod: I went deer hunting in Canada last week- it was 8C. I went out tonight and it was -11C (WC -22C). One was 9C above average the next 9C below average. We call it weather.

      Appel: Go to number watch and see all the peer reviewed articles about CO2 warming causing shrinking goats, prostitution, climate refugees ( that scientist Kerry agrees) ad nauseum. The number of absolutely ridiculous articles that have passed “peer review” is astonishing. I wish I could have had it that easy for publication- I’d be famous.

      1. Tom

        didn`t you hear, climate change caused ISIS to evolve and it is also our biggest national security threat…lol

    4. Jonas N

      Wonder if this scientist will submit his claims to peer reviev …

      Needing peer-review for confirming that recorded historical numbers have been changed multiple times? And that when plotted they look quite different!?

      And you guys wonder why fewer and fewer take you seriously? Or your claims about what your ‘experts’ allegedly say we now must believe …

      1. David Appell

        How does Ewert account for station changes like re-siting, new technologies, and time-of-observation?

        1. bz

          How does Ewert account for station changes like re-siting, new technologies, and time-of-observation?
          How does anyone do that accurately and why not go back to say 1724 and do it? Certainly the sites have changed, there has been new technology and OMG the time of observation has certainly changed.

    5. Gunner

      how about nasa and their bunch submit their experiment for peer review, none of the climate change crowd will do that, because their models are wrong, their data is false, and because they are getting paid big buck their conclusions are lies.

    6. Tom

      Or he ends up missing

    7. Victor Erimita

      Maybe they could get Phil Jones, Michael Mann and James Hansen to peer review it. Or the people at NASA who won’t release their own raw data to be checked by anyone else.

  5. Steven Mosher

    Pretty stupid.
    GISS ingests data from NOAA. The changes happen at NOAA.

    1. AndyG55

      “The changes happen at NOAA.”

      Yes.. we know that. !!

      Thanks for the confirmation, though. 😉

    2. Craig

      So Steve, you’re endorsing data manipulation to support a 1.5 trillion dollar industry?

    3. DirkH

      Steven Mosher 20. November 2015 at 10:22 PM | Permalink | Reply
      “Pretty stupid.
      GISS ingests data from NOAA. The changes happen at NOAA.”

      steve, we know that you believe there is no such thing as unadultarated measurement data and that all data must be tortured until it confesses.
      What gives you then the idea that GISS does NOT do what you see as normal handling of data – falsifying it some more?

      1. Squildly

        So, my question to Steve Mosher would be, how long is it going to be before you begin using NOAA/NASA, Gavin Schmidt, and the rest, as a scapegoat? … Proclaiming that you were misled by these individuals. That is it not your fault for riding the AGW rail-line, but you were taken for a ride by these OTHER folks?

        You know very well that day is coming. So when will it be? … I have popcorn, and a lot of time, I’ll wait…

      2. David Appell

        Dirk: The data are corrected for known biases.

        How would you correct for those biases?

    4. Manfred

      It seems in their enthusiasm the GISS / NOAA kollectiv forgot an old axiom,
      “You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.”
      Abraham Lincoln

      Professor Dr. Friedrich Karl Ewert will one day go into a Global Freedom Hall of Fame.

      1. Tom

        I like this one better, “It is easier to fool the people than it is to convince the people they have been fooled.”

    5. Ben Palmer

      Stupid? Who, what? Speak clearly, don’t just mumble …

      1. Ben Palmer

        Steve, why are you unable to state simple facts (or opinions) without name calling?

    6. Craig King

      What do you think should be done about the reported rising temperature Mr. Mosher?

  6. ‘Massively Altered’ — says German professor about NASA temperature data | JunkScience.com

    […] NoTricksZone.com reports: […]

  7. David Graham

    I expect nothing less from a Geologist, good rational review of observable information and precise summation, well done hopefully more of your colleagues will begin doing the same.

  8. Scott Mc

    This is no surprise, its been pointed out frequently, HOWEVER it is not published by the MSM but instead its the 97% consensus, the arctic and antarctic have almost disappeared, and sea levels are rising at a foot a year or more…Thats what people believe and the hundreds of billions$ are flowing in to feed the story.

    Note this scientist is retired, he doesnt care about losing his job and hes too stupid to try and find some consulting work and get paid real money to say the sky is falling, and the temps extremes are even worst that what GISS says..

    1. Tom

      Meanwhile Gore buys ocean front property for his new home…lol Here is an interesting way of putting it to “warmists” If it were true that globe is warming, then why lie about the polar bears dying off when in fact they are as populated as ever, or why did Gore tell us back in 2007 the polar ice cap, based on scientific evidence would be gone by 2014? Of course it is as big as ever.Where is the cause an effect? where is the evidence?

  9. Patrick

    Who is going to jail?

    1. Scott Mc

      Who is going to jail?

      Probably Dr. Friedrich Karl Ewert for blasphemy…

  10. Scott Mc

    What a diff a year makes, just got back from Miami yesterday where it was slightly warmer than usual hit high low 80’s, was there last year in early Nov and hit lowest temps ever recorded of 51 degrees F, for Miami that was really really cold.

    They must be due for a few hurricanes, been over 10 years since one made landfall in the US

    1. David Appell

      Meanwhile, the western Pacific has seen a record number of hurricanes this year.

  11. Walt Allensworth

    Would it kill you guys to put in a plot of the before/after “adjustments?

  12. StoicAbSpartan

    You don’t seem to understand Modern PC Science. The new PC Scientist is an Artist. Artists are given poetic license to fertilize (used intentionally) the creative process. A Scientist as Artist is allowed to be creative. Don’t forget that Scientific creativity in the pursuit of Good does not a lie make. And reliance on data and hard fact is merely something we learned from Dead-White-Men. We must not allow ourselves to be placed in the strait jacket of harsh reality. Actual facts that don’t support the Good, the Truth are at best irrelevant but could actually be Evil. A little Scientific creativity in support of Good is the only Moral thing to do.

    I am a small ‘s’ scientist now retired. My hope was to be able to recognize a fact when I saw it and not let any of my human biases interfere. Science is replete with tools to help us to keep from going astray and it is still way too easy to make mistakes without going out of our way to fudge. Scientific mistakes can be very costly. And the most costly mistake of all will be if people learn to mistrust science.

    1. GP Alexander

      Welcome to Post-Modern Science.

  13. Farrah Side

    Maybe yes, maybe no. I can tell you, though, that first impressions are not to be dismissed lightly. When I see the title of an article end with an exclamation mark, I’m thinking “National Enquirer” way more than “Wall Street Journal.”

  14. German Professor Uncovers Massive GISS Tampering | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
  15. ELC

    I have taken a look at some of the alterations to GISTEMP since 2007. I didn’t look at individual station data, just at the (alleged) Global Mean Surface Temperature:

    http://www.elcore.net/GISTEMP_Overconfidence_Intervals.html

    “Though climate scientists use complex mathematical formulas to justify changes to the temperature record and to justify the associated confidence intervals, simple arithmetic shows that either the former or the latter, or both, are wrong….”

  16. RCS

    A few years ago I looked at the US historical data. I was shocked by the pauciticity of the data, missing points, step changes in the records etc etc.

    I agreed with Jonathan Jones thet the data was so ghastly that you couldn’t really draw any conclusions from them.

    I really don’t know what can be done except to communicate the findings to Lamar Smith who is investigating the NOAA “pausebuster”. He is clearly a sceptic and in a position to challenge NASA GISS.

    1. David Appell

      The missing data points, gaps, etc are a fact of life.

      The question is, how would you use the observed data, imperfect, to create a long-term temperature record?

      Like other observational sciences, in climate science you rarely get the data you want. SO you have to do the best you an with the data you can get.

  17. Duke Silver

    Easy enough to defund NASA and GISS. They have outlived their utility when they feel it’s OK to “create” science.

    They’ve become very much akin to the journalist who feels the need to create news rather than report it.

  18. Peter O'Neill

    Caution is needed here. This may be a result of comparing unadjusted GHCN v2 data with adjusted GHCN v3 data, both of which can be downloaded from the GISS website, but which are not validly comparable. The proper comparison for the unadjusted GHCN v2 data is with the unadjusted GHCN v3 data, which is not available from the GISS website but can be downloaded at ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/ghcnm.tavg.latest.qcu.tar.gz

    “Between the years 2010 and 2012 the data measured since 1881 were altered” suggests that it is the “raw” data which is being discussed. GHCN v3 adjusted data is used as “raw” data by Gistemp, but it is not “the data measured” as it has already been adjusted by NOAA.
    I have emailed Prof Ewert to alert him to this.

    1. StewGreen

      Agree, Caution is needed
      When extraordinary claims come up like today’s, there might be simple explantions like that the wrong data has been compared.
      David Appell and SOD have points to make, but they do it very badly.

    2. Tom

      Climates have always changed, it is a natural occurrence. To think man is causing this change (of which there is no credible evidence) is pure BS. The earth has been a lot warmer than it is now, and it has been a lot cooler than it is now. Ohio has been under hundreds of feet of ice, and also has been under water many times. Did humans cause those effects? Hell no. Now add fear mongering,and incredible profits to be made, taxes to be collected and scientists to receive large money grants, and you have one really fine cause for climate change/global warming. If warming is legit then why all the lies to convince people of its legitmacy? They told us a while back the polar bears were not able to survive because the ice they travel on is vanishing, even said their numbers were dwindling really fast. Nothing could be further from the truth. The polar bear population is as large as ever. Gore, back in 2007 said based on scientic fact, the polar ice cap would be gone by 2014. Well not only is it nor gone, but is even larger than 8 years ago. Why the lies if it is legit???

      1. Pethefin

        So where’s your evidence?

        1. Pethefin

          My question was directed at a comment by David Appell, but his comment seems to have disappeared.

          1. Alan Falk

            Need a special David Appell archive link? 🙂

  19. Graeme No.3

    Congratulations Pierre.

    You are now in the DAGW (dangerous to AGW) class and have been up-graded to 2 troll status.
    When you look at the attempted distractions by these two – presumably the best available – it says something about the quality of “Climate Science”.

    1. sod

      Or could it be, that this article is so false, that it is attracting even interest of those who ignore this site normally?

      Is Mosher considered an alarmist troll over here?

      1. DirkH

        Mosher is a warmunist and contributed to the fraudulent BEST crackpottery.

      2. AndyG55

        Mosh is the hired salesman of Muller’s little propaganda group.

        He lacks any sort of integrity, as is shown by his change of “opinion” as soon as he was hired.

      3. David Johnson

        If it was so false they wouldn’t bother. Your logic stinks

  20. Peter Whale

    Australia BOM caught out New Zealand BOM caught out NASA , GISS, UEA. all caught fiddling.

    The real question is what causes “Man made warming”? A trace gas or billions of ££££££ s?

  21. sod

    So was this year actually cold and all the heat reported is just “altered” data from NASA?

    Who will tell the australian firefighters that they are fighting fake fires which are just a NASA “alteration”?

    http://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/climate-change/absurdly-hot-october-as-earth-sets-8th-heat-record-this-year/news-story/db8d635907dc874c50eb4e58be0042a3

    1. Peter Whale

      So what part of the historic fiddling is untrue?

    2. cementafriend

      As is normal Sod does not know what he is talking about. He does not live in Australia and has never been in a bushfire. Here is a list of bushfires in Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Australian_bushfire_seasons
      Look at 1991 in Sydney Oct 16th the fire was all around the house, We lost all the fences and some out buildings. Two people were burnt to death in their house about 1000m away on the next ridge. Next door had their garage burnt down, two doors down the road the roof of the house caught fires and collapsed, the whole house was a write off.
      Ten years later in December 2001 we again had fires around the house. It came from 3 directions. We have pictures of the bitumen road burning as the fire crossed the road to our house. Trees were alight in the front and back. Again we lost all our fencing (treated pine posts with wire)
      Get back in your box Sod, your are a troll who knows nothing and understands even less.
      Bush fires have occurred regularly in Australia since recorded time. In modern times fires have been somewhat more frequent because they have been lit -many deliberately by stupid people like Sod or arsonists that have been caught and jailed. The fires also have been more severe because stupid “greens” have prevented clearing of firetrails and back burning of undergrowth in the winter.

      1. Robert

        Like in the US, our largest fire was in the 19th century.

    3. DirkH

      sod 21. November 2015 at 11:05 AM | Permalink | Reply
      “Who will tell the australian firefighters that they are fighting fake fires which are just a NASA “alteration”?”

      What total dolt would think that global average temperature (a physically and mathematically meaningless number in any case) would have any causative relationship with a forest fire?

    4. Craig

      Sod,

      Bushfires happen because of green policies legislated at the federal level that rural land owners are not able to clear land properly and create fire breaks, instead the fuel load is at an all time high and what’s happening? Bushfires!

      Yep, continuous hot days don’t help but son, this has nothing to do with ‘climate change’. Give you a little tip, the climate has always changed, did you know that Sod? Yea, pretty amazing knowledge I agree, might want to store that one away for another day when you’ve got nothing relevant to add to the no-problematic global warming debate.

    5. GP Alexander

      Fallacy of Logic.

    6. Tom

      Have you ever heard of the great DUST bowl? Massive droughts back in 1934, 1936, 1939-40 caused drought conditions for 8 years right across the heartland of the US.Very hot temps and very dry conditions cause dust storms where visibility was one meter.If that happened today, the warmists would be screaming ,”see told you so!” It had nothing to do with man. It is called weather. Imagine So. Cal having a drought. Well it is a desert area. Humm a drought in or near a desert???
      $$$$ is causing this climate change, period. People are so gulible,just folow the money.

    7. David Walker

      “Who will tell the australian firefighters that they are fighting fake fires which are just a NASA “alteration”?”

      So there were never any bushfires before the advent of anthropogenic emissions, is that what you are implying?

      How do you account for the way that a number of plant and tree species have evolved that actively require to be subjected to fire before they can reproduce?

  22. mothcatcher

    Calm down, folks.. comments here all pretty partisan and not very informative. Stephen Mosher and SOD do have a valid point of view (though I’m disappointed to see the usually rational SOD going off unscientifically like that!).

    Of course, if you want to get anywhere near calculating a global temperature, let alone a trend over centuries, you’re going to have to adjust the data, and readjust it, and even homogenise it. The fact that adjustments are done should be no criticism at all. I expect – though some of the institutions, such as BOM, are very coy and vague about revealing the processes they use – that the adjustments, in each case, CAN be justified. But – so could lots of adjustments that they didn’t make have been justified. Therein lies the rub.

    It will all come down to whether you think that the people involved in the various stages of arriving at the final datasets are open-minded as to the adjustments they choose to make, and publish, or whether various biases and prejudices come into the equation. I used to believe the former. Now, reluctantly, I am inclining to the latter. The shameless antics of the hockey set – and also, importantly, the tenacity of their defenders and apologists ever since, have clearly shown that the science – even, and perhaps especially, the peer-reviewed science, should not be taken at face value.

    I’m quite satisfied that the trend which will be presented as fact at Paris is indeed at least partly manufactured. Of course, it shouldn’t really be important, because of the large and intractable uncertainties involved in the estimation of the averages. Satellites ought to provide much better guidance, but perhaps a longer series is necessary before we can say.

    1. David A

      It is not necessary for a longer satellite series as NASA GISS surface graphics are now well outside their own error bars compared to the sets published in the 1980s.

      The satellite data sets, within their entire error bars, do not show this year as being anywhere close to the warmest year.

    2. DirkH

      mothcatcher 21. November 2015 at 11:16 AM | Permalink | Reply
      “Calm down, folks.. comments here all pretty partisan and not very informative.”

      You should inform yourself about the long term strategy of the globalists using eco scares to achieve world domination – since the junk science Club Of Rome Limits To Growth toy model over Maurice Strongs 1972 summit on the environment where they started to use their NGO’s.

      Tolerance against traitors, destroyers and psychopaths is not warranted. Neither against their idiot foot soldiers and water carriers like the warmunist “scientists” – who are probably just dolts who got lucky and now cling on to their posts in the total absence of any logical reasoning.

      1. Tom

        It is easier to fool the people, than it is to convince them they have been fooled….

    3. Robert

      “– though some of the institutions, such as BOM, are very coy and vague about revealing the processes they use – that the adjustments, in each case, CAN be justified.”

      They can’t be justified without a clear description of what has been done that can be used to repeat the work.

      Looking at how much the temperatures vary around the globe, not just daily and seasonally but the anomalies from the mean of some period, there is no way that the thermometer record could come so close to the satellite estimates with just a drift away due to a systematic error. So much data is missing, guessed and adjusted introducing more random error but what I found strange was how a significant trend for the past 15 years was more likely found in areas with very sparse temperature stations eg. Western Australia, Namibia. They could get a significant trend in an area of WA with a few stations separated by 200km and with a lot of missing data but not in heavily populated areas. That kind of tells me that the density of weather stations is nowhere near enough in heavily populated areas to get a meaningful indicator of a trend unless its degree per decade.

      And yet, the thermometer record and satellites follow each other closely (apart form drifting away) after adjustments that are independent of the satellite data? Pigs arse.

  23. Jaime Jessop

    “It will all come down to whether you think that the people involved in the various stages of arriving at the final datasets are open-minded as to the adjustments they choose to make, and publish, or whether various biases and prejudices come into the equation. I used to believe the former. Now, reluctantly, I am inclining to the latter. . . . .
    I’m quite satisfied that the trend which will be presented as fact at Paris is indeed at least partly manufactured.”

    About sums it up.

  24. Mervyn

    After reading this article, some people might be interested in take a trip down memory lane, when American meteorologist, John Coleman of KUSI News San Diego, made the extraordinary revelation about temperature data fraud:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsQfr7wRZsw

  25. Ben Palmer

    The document written by G. Ederer including graphics can be found here (German): https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-A2LKQDjVQbdGwwam5IREdMU2s/view?usp=sharing
    The study by Prof. Ewert can be requested by sending an email to him.

  26. DirkH

    Massive internet outage in Germany, Spiegel, Focus and other Drecksmedia offline for hours, reason: power outage in Gütersloh data centre.
    http://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/webwelt/article149110845/Warum-grosse-deutsche-Websites-nicht-erreichbar-waren.html
    Article does not tell whether random Green Energy spikes were the reason.

    How will the regime saturate the population with lies when their propaganda infrastructure breaks down due to their anti-civilization measures?

  27. “Massively Altered” …German Professor Examines NASA GISS Temperature Datasets | Scottish Sceptic

    […] From the publicly available data, Ewert made an unbelievable discovery: Between the years 2010 and 2012 the data measured since 1881 were altered so that they showed a significant warming, especially after 1950. […] A comparison of the data from 2010 with the data of 2012 shows that NASA-GISS had altered its own datasets so that especially after WWII a clear warming appears – although it never existed.” See more at: NoTricksZone […]

  28. ALTRO SCANDALO SULLA MANOMISSIONE DELLE TEMPERATURE: NASA-GISS - "MASSICCIA ALTERAZIONE"... IL PROFESSORE TEDESCO DR. FRIEDRICH KARL EWERT ESAMINA I DATASET DELLE TEMPERATURE : Attività Solare ( Solar Activity )

    […] Fonte originale: NoTricksZone […]

  29. Hoi Polloi

    Did Dr.Ewert replied to the concerns that Peter O’Neil expressed already?

  30. TimiBoy

    I wish it was in English 🙁

  31. “Massively Altered” …German Professor Examines NASA GISS Temperature Datasets! | wchildblog

    […] From NoTricksZone, by P Gosselin […]

  32. AP57

    “I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.”
    – Leo Tolstoy.

    Or

    “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”
    – Upton Sinclair.

    Notable Quotes:

    “We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”
    – Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation.

    “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
    – Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment.

    “The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
    – Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research.

    “The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.”
    – Dr. David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University.

    “I believe it is appropriate to have an ‘over-representation’ of the facts on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience.”
    – Al Gore, climate Change activist.

    Global Human Carbon Tax to fund a Global Banking Mafia New World Order? Naahh…

    1. Tom

      AP57, I like this one… It is easier to fool the people than it is to convince them they have been fooled.

  33. Massively Altered Climate Data | Lexington Libertarian

    […] “Massively Altered” …German Professor Examines NASA GISS Temperature Datasets […]

  34. Jonathan Story

    If true, wouldn’t this constitute fraud — a criminal offense?

  35. “Massively Altered” …German Professor Examines NASA GISS Temperature Datasets | Flying Tiger Comics

    […] Source: “Massively Altered” …German Professor Examines NASA GISS Temperature Datasets […]

  36. sod

    So was this a hot year or not (globally)?

    Do the ground datasets show this or not?

    do the satellite datasets show this or not?

    1. David Johnson

      It is not hot historically speaking

      1. sod

        “It is not hot historically speaking”

        Sorry, but we are looking at our life time, not at prehistoric times and temperature guesses.

        1. Pethefin

          Suffering of grandiosity are you Sod? Who besides yourself do you refer to by “we”? Only fools like you believe in scary apocalyptic CAGW-stories and deny the history of the earth.

        2. DirkH

          sod 24. November 2015 at 12:40 PM | Permalink | Reply
          ““It is not hot historically speaking”
          Sorry, but we are looking at our life time, not at prehistoric times and temperature guesses.”

          soo…. what would be your guess about the HISTORIC past… About the medieval warm period and the Roman warm period…

          It is actually friggin cold, historically speaking.

          Warmunist leaders are cunning political fraudsters – Warmunist followers are mind-controlled cult victims with no logical thinking left.

        3. DirkH

          …meaning: they are two totally separate groups. A warmunist follower can never rise in the ranks of the movement beyond a certain lowly position… because he actually thinks there is dangerous global warming – which obviously marks him as incapable of making decisions.

  37. News of the Week (November 22nd, 2015) | The Political Hat

    […] “Massively Altered” …German Professor Examines NASA GISS Temperature Datasets Veteran journalist Günter Ederer* writes a piece reporting that massive alterations have been found in the NASA GISS temperature data series, citing a comprehensive analysis conducted by a leading German scientist. These results are now available to the public. […]

  38. Scientist finds massive Warming fraud – data “altering” in order to create a desired Warming |

    […] NoTricksZone […]

  39. Did You Know the Following Facts About Global Warming? | Global Warming is Unfactual

    […] UPDATE 23 NOV 2015: The outright tampering of data is astoundingly blatant and dishonest: […]

  40. Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup | Watts Up With That?

    […] Professor Examines NASA GISS Temperature Datasets By P Gosselin, No Tricks Zone, Nov 20, 2015 https://notrickszone.com/2015/11/20/… A $100,000 climate prize By Andrew Montford, Bishop Hill, Nov 18, 2015 […]

  41. GP Alexander

    Lots of angels dancing on the head of a needle.

    Bottom line, if one cannot have access to the original unadulterated data, then it isn’t science, it’s garbage.

    If your peddling theories based on such, you are not a scientist, you are a garbageman.

  42. Eco nutjobs refuse to listen to science, hand over American Sovereignty

    […] – See more here.  […]

  43. Recent Energy And Environmental News – November 23rd 2015 | PA Pundits - International

    […] NASA Temperature Datasets “Massively Altered” […]

  44. Kurt in Switzerland

    Could someone share a link to the actual article, essay, paper, analysis, … whatever the document containing Ewert’s calculations and arguments is being called?

    Asking for interested parties to send him an e-mail request for his calculations is very strange. Equally strange is the representation of a “global mean surface temperature to ten thousandths of a degree Celsius.

    Perhaps Ewert has found a bombshell; perhaps not. Irrespective, he should present his case in the open.

  45. Moonbattery » German Expert Evaluates NASA Climate Data, Confirms That It Has Been Falsified

    […] Just in case there is still anyone out there taking the federal government’s “scientific proof” of global warming seriously, […]

  46. German Expert Evaluates NASA Climate Data, Confirms That It Has Been Falsified | Tea Party News

    […] Just in case there is still anyone out there taking the federal government’s “scientific proof” of global warming seriously, […]

  47. Earth is Cooling, Not Warming | Frank Davis

    […] Via James Delingpole and NoTricksZone, […]

  48. SpecialKinnJ

    Observations of yearly averages, 1880 to date, for local land and ocean surface temperatures as reported from widely dispersed sites are archived by Nasa, and available for downloading at nasa.com. The overall 1880-2009 average was 57.1 degrees (F). The 2000-09 average (58.1) was approximately 1.4 degrees higher than that for 1880-89 (56.7) Selected decadal averages of the annual temperatures (converted to Fahrenheit)are shown below:
    (1) 1880-1919 decadal average temps stable (56.7, 56.7, 56.7, 56.7)
    (2) 1920 -1949 increasing decadal gradient (56.9, 57.1, 57.3)
    (3) 1950-1979 stable decadal gradient (57.2, 57.2, 57.2)
    (4) 1980-2009 increasing decadal gradient (57.5, 57.8, 58.3)
    (5) [2010-2014] half-decade average (58.1)

    Assuming validity for the observed land and ocean surface observations, and freedom from computational error, it seems reasonable to conclude that the average observed land and ocean surface temperatures is higher today than during the 1880s; also that more than half of the increase occurred during the last four decades. If the upward trend continues, will it conform to the decadal pattern for 1880 to date, i.e., alternating periods of stability and increase?

    What does the future hold in store? Based on experience, assuming continuity in the pattern of causal factors, decadal averages for this and a couple of succeeding decades may tend to be flat, in the neighborhood of 58.1 degrees Fahrenheit.

    No indication in these findings, based on data downloaded from nasa.com, of a warming trend since the 1950s.

  49. Jan P Perlwitz

    And where is this alleged “report” published? Where was is peer-reviewed? I guess no scientific standards need to be adhered to, when it comes to libelous accusations against scientists.

    Only the most gullible ones among the “skeptics” will believe the nonsense claimed by Ewert and posted here by P. Gosselin.

    All the climate research groups all over the world, who do similar temperature analyses as the one done at GISS get basically the same results. Global conspiracy anyone?

    The raw data for land and oceans combined show a stronger warming trend over the last century than the adjusted data:
    http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-opy7LoBO__w/VNoo9u5ynhI/AAAAAAAAAg4/_DCE5Rzm9Fw/s700/land%2Bocean%2Braw%2Badj.png

    The global cabal must be really incompetent.

  50. Tysk professor analyserer NASA’a klimadata: massiv manipulation | Hodjanernes Blog

    […] Læs det hele her. […]

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy

Close