Friday, October 5, 2012

US Temperatures Have Been Falsely Adjusted According to the Level of Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere

Steven Goddard in recent months has been presenting evidence on his real-science site of fraudulent manipulation, by NASA and other renowned federal scientific institutions, of the temperature data used by climate scientists to promulgate global warming hysteria. Goddard has presented the following graph, showing that adjustments made to the US temperature records have systematically lowered past temperatures and raised more recent ones, to give a false indication of warming over the past century and more:
The indicated adjustments looked familiar to me, as being like the actual change in atmospheric carbon dioxide, as measured at Mauna Loa since 1957:
I submitted a comment, suggesting that a graph comparing the temperature adjustments with the measured change in carbon dioxide "would be nice", but I then decided to do it quickly myself, working from the above graphs:
The correlation between the temperature adjustments (which should, it must be emphasized, have nothing to do with the atmospheric carbon dioxide) and the carbon dioxide level is extremely good; the correlation coefficient (R-square value) for the best-fit line above is 0.974. This means virtually all (97%) of the change in the US temperature adjustments, from 1960 through 2010, is due to the measured change in carbon dioxide. The US temperatures have quite apparently been deliberately changed according to the level of carbon dioxide, and can therefore not be used to even suggest, much less prove, that the US has warmed due to increasing carbon dioxide. I consider this the smoking gun that those adjustments made to the US temperature record are indeed fraudulent. This -- along with Steven Goddard's recent efforts to uncover such fraud -- should be made front-page news, worldwide. (Of course, I have already, 2 years ago, showed that there is no greenhouse effect, of increasing temperature with increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide -- and that too should have already become worldwide news.)


  1. Thanks Harry. They are torturing the proof of their theory out of the data. Hopefully responsible people put an end to this soon.

  2. This official organized fraud is the driving heart of CAGW alarmism. Without it we could have seen temperatures going down again which would have been catastrophic for alarmism. This and Steve Goddard's work help chip away at the fraud.

  3. Hi Harry, I have come to this posting a bit late it seems (from your link today at Goddard's site).

    I am wondering though. Would it be possible for you to team up with Goddard to write up a thorough article regarding this? Include data and links to resources and such? I would really like to see this become a front and center topic, at least around the blogosphere, and I believe you and Goddard could do just that.

    Please consider this request, as I believe your could make a good impact with this information if properly presented.

  4. Good Afternoon, Squidly

    I don't know. You may or may not know that, from a serious scientific perspective, I regard the public debate, among supposed "experts", to be insane, since my Venus/Earth comparison--which is definitive evidence against the consensus climate theory(ies)--has been dismissed, derided and ignored, by everyone of any note, for nearly 3 years now, although I know it should be understood and accepted by any competent physical scientist, and it is absolutely necessary for the fundamental correction and progress of climate science. I wrote the little analysis here ten months ago, and I made it plain in the above text that I had first suggested Goddard do it himself, for his readers, in a comment on his site. He has not done so, and made no response to my analysis, either, although I have cited it several times in comments on his site. So, I feel you are asking a sane and good question, but in the context of an insane intellectual environment, where things that should long ago have settled the debate are ignored by practically all, on both sides of the debate--apparently, because those definitive things were not thought of by them (or, in the case of those involved in the political debate, because their politics cannot withstand the cleansing breath of physical truth, so they avoid it any way they can). I can--no, I must--say I have not yet found a way to "properly present" such evidence to anyone, in the present tattered and decayed intellectual atmosphere, of preferred emotional and dogmatic rationalizations (and outright fraud) over solid (competent and honest) dispassionate reasoning.

    If anyone, especially Goddard, wants to replicate the analysis here, they are of course free to do so, and as scientists should feel it their responsibility to do so, to verify my finding here. It is a straight, ordinary-least-squares analysis of USHCN temperature adjustments (as presented by Goddard) vs. CO2 level in the atmosphere. It will only be properly presented, in my view, when it becomes front-page news around the world, along with my Venus/Earth temperatures comparison and interpretation.