Jihad, a Warning Shot

A person on Twitter made some comments about my last post, and I updated it in response. Part of that update was two new images I made. I've since realized the issue I highlight in the update deserves more attention than being buried at the end of a post, and as such, I've decided to create a new post for them. My hope is this "shot" in the "war" can serve as a warning for others.

First, Steven Goddard's graph:


I attempted to replicate that graph, and my results were reasonably close. I then made two changes. I removed the use of post-1980 data as we're looking at the temperature record created from 1980 data. I also picked a baseline that doesn't makes the old and new data look as bad as possible. That produced this graph:


I think the differences speak for themselves. There is some difference between the two data sets, but it is nowhere near as much as Goddard portrays.

We could leave it at that and say, "After 30 years, of course there will be differences." However, there is one last aspect of Goddard's image which is deceptive. He cited e-mails discussing a desire to adjust ocean temperatures, but the graph he displayed uses only data gathered from surface stations.

Naturally, one might be curious what the record using ocean temperatures looks like compared to the old record. The record including ocean data has more data in it, and as such, it's what is recommended for use. The comparison with it is striking:


Remember, according to Goddard, the people making this temperature series committed fraud by cooling the past and warming the present.


  1. Brandon,
    Are the lines in the SG graph labeled correctly? I am not asking if the data comparison/statistics/choice of baseline, etc. is correct. Just is it labeled correctly. I think and SG are looking at this issue in a completely different way. SG is saying that the data was adjusted to make the past cooler and make the warming trend look worse than reality. You are doing your own analysis of the data and getting pissed because you don't like the way someone else did it. SG did not do an independent graph. He is comparing two NASA graphs. If he has labeled them incorrectly that is one thing. If he is comparing apples to oranges that is another legit area of criticism.

    You say the emails only discuss adjusting SSTs. But it does discuss that that is what is required to get a 1.5 to 2.0 times as much adjustment to the land records. Hadley and CRU have land as well as SST data sets. The point is that the emails show that there was collusion behind the scenes to adjust the data that these folks were in a position to oversee to fit into their idea of what they wanted to present to the world and the data looks different today that before they started tampering with it. I would think that is more important. Maybe you can show that the data was not adjusted and the 1930s to 1940s warm period is still in the official records. I don't know.

  2. Glacierman, the graph isn't even labeled completely. It sure isn't labeled correctly. There's no way anyone would know what Steven Goddard did without actively trying to figure it out. If nothing else, they certainly wouldn't know he was using a data set GISS doesn't recommend people use.

    As for what you think is going on here, you're completely wrong. You're also lacking in any support for your view. If you have a case to make, I suggest you make it. Otherwise, it'll be clear to pretty much everyone you're just waving your hands. Nobody cares to see paragraph after paragraph restating Goddard's views without actually dealing with anything anyone has actually said.

  3. It is sad you have chosen to assume to know what I think is going on here. I also am not looking for any support. I asked some questions to better understand the issue of whether or not the temperature records have been manipulated to fit an agenda. I did not post paragraph after paragraph restating Goddard's views as you incorrectly indicate above.

    I tried, but now I have seen enough. You state: "You’re welcome to also discuss my response to your comments, but as a moderation policy, when a person on this blog is told they’re wrong on factual matters, they must address that criticism.”

    When Andrew said this on the Jihad post: "First of all, the only group that has actually done something with the “ocean blip” is HadCRUT. Second of all? It strengthens the mid twentieth century cooling, making in more continuous rather than sudden. Third, this is like one time an adjustment has made past data warmer. Not colder." I posted that this is not accurate. They were not discussing making the past warmer, just the opposite. Also, the statement about the only group that did anything about the ocean blip being HadCRUT being out of line is wrong as well as the email in reference was to Phil Jones of the CRU - a person in position to adjust the HadCRUT data.

    Your response was to praise Andrew for feeling the same way you do about Goddard. No mention of anything wrong with his statements, or enforcement of blog policy.

    I see that is what you are looking for and you will assume and assign motives to anyone who doesn't agree with you. Sad.

  4. Glacierman, you specifically said what you think. Why would it be sad for me to assume I know what you think when I can read what you say you think? Should I have assumed you lied when you told me what you think?

    And why do you tell me you are not looking for support? I didn't say you were. I said you had none. I said you made an argument without any support for that argument.

    But most importantly, why do you paint me as a hypocrite? I require people, as a moderation policy, address any claims a factual statement they made is wrong. You claim this makes me a hypocrite because my response to your claiming another poster said incorrect things "was to praise Andrew for feeling the same way" I feel. Leaving aside the fact I didn't praise him for such, the only comment I made in relation to anything he said was made before you said anything. I obviously didn't respond to you an hour before you first posted, and I certainly couldn't have told anyone to address what you said before you said it.

    I see that is what you are looking for and you will assume and assign motives to anyone who doesn’t agree with you. Sad.

  5. timetochooseagain wrote:

    Which is exactly what I claimed they did: they made the past warmer.

    Except for the 1940s, which was cooled, if I am reading that paper correctly. Figure 3 shows a pronounced warm bias to the data in that period in all regions, though the resulting effect upon the data in Figure 4 seems less striking. The impact of the change in 1946-47 (in Figure 3) is barely evident in Figure 4 for the northern hemisphere. I wonder how they modeled that.

    ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

  6. I agree with Keith. Here is a poster from the Met Office, used mainly because the figures are easier to see, but it is a summary of the paper by Morice, Kennedy, Rayner, and Jones from 2011 and references the paper by Kennedy and Smith, et al 2011 linked to above by timetochooseagain. They did warm the past before the 1940s, but applied a cooling adjustment during the 1940s of about 0.25 degC. Look at figure 2 to see the down adjustment during the 1940s.


    Also, I did not say what they did do, I said what the email to Phil Jones from Wigley in 2009 discussed. I am not convinced that they were discussing adjusting the data warmer. I think the text is clear that they were concerned with adjusting the 1940s warm period temperatures down.

    Also, I am trying to ascertain the truth about what has really gone on with the data. I see one blog that says the data from the 1940s was adjusted down, and another saying that is complete BS, so I get intrigued and try to see why it is utter BS but I have been met with a really ugly attitude. The only affirmative statement I made, or position I took, is that the email from 2009 discussed making the 1940s warm period cooler, which I still believe. I have been told I have no support for my position. I have not said anything about what was done to the temperature data records, I am simply trying to figure out who is right, but I fear I am wasting my time.

  7. Glacierman, it'd help if you stopped saying untrue things. Your depiction of my behavior in your previous comment was wrong, to the point you just made things up. I'll note you've chosen to ignore my response to that comment. It's difficult to see why anyone should listen to your claims about what people's attitudes are when you show so little interest in what people actually say.

    Similarly, you now say:

    Also, I am trying to ascertain the truth about what has really gone on with the data. I see one blog that says the data from the 1940s was adjusted down, and another saying that is complete BS,

    When there is nothing in any of my posts which says this. I have not addressed the issue of how data was adjusted. All I've done is dispute the "evidence" Steven Goddard has provided. Saying an argument for a position is wrong is not the same as saying that position is wrong. At the very least, there's the possibility the position is right, but exaggerated.

  8. @Glacierman-I think I recall the reply email to Tom Wigley, Jones, as I recall, acknowledged that there was a problem but seemed to think it would have the opposite effect that Wigley thought.

    Long story short: Wigley is kind of an idiot.

    As for the adjustment to the forties: this is an adjustment "down" because the data both before World War II and immediately after are both adjusted up. You could set the constant offset so that it leaves the forties where they are and just cools all the other data both before and after. Same effect. But I was primarily talking about the fact that the adjusted the 1950's up: this adjustment did exactly what I said, it strengthened the mid twentieth century cooling, which previously appeared, upon inspection, to be a drop in 1945 and flat to slightly warming from the 50's to the 70's. The adjustment made the cooling more continuous.

    But you don't need to be curious what was done, you could have just read the paper. And then if you still can't figure out what was done you should file a FOIA request. But listening to Steven Goddard is just a good way to get yourself really angry at the big bad boogeymen climate fraudsters, who apparently can't even breath honestly.

  9. Brandon:
    I will not side with either on this issue. I will direct you to the GISS FAQ page that answers the questions about SAT:
    SAT or as we know it, Global Temperature Record is in reality a computer model construct loosely based on temperature measurements. In other words it is a "What-if scenario". It may or may not be an accurate representation of historical global temperatures but they hope it will be accepted as such.
    Personally I give the various Global Temperature constructs the same respect as I award the various models and the majority of the IPCC reports. They are fine if you like reading Fairy Tales.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *