10
Feb

Australiagate: Now NASA caught in trick over Aussie climate data

In this article we look at the findings of two independent climate researchers who analyse climatic data used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to show warming of two degrees per century for Australia without explanation. We find that an earlier study by Willis Eschenbach in an article on What’s up with That (WUWT) is wholly substantiated by Kens Kingdom’slatest analysis of Ken Stewart at his ‘kenskingdom’ blog. As a consequence, absent any other justification from NASA, we must conclude that the NASA data has been fraudulently cooked.

GISS, based at Columbia University in New York City, has adjusted over a century’s worth of temperature records from the vast Queensland State (the Sunshine State) to reverse a cooling trend in one ground weather station and increase a warming trend in another to skew the overall data set.

Independent analysis by Aussie blogger Ken Stewart exposes a deplorable smoking gun of cynical manipulation of raw temperature data.

The process of adjusting raw data to create a “homogenised” final global temperature chart is standard practice by climatologists whose work is relied upon by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and world governments. This homogenisation process of temperature data has fallen into disrepute since the Climategate scandal where scientists were proven to have unlawfully used a “trick” to fake climate data and then destroyed their calculations rendering it impossible for independent auditors to examine and justify the methodologies used.

Ken Stewart has his own take on these latest findings from Down Under: “Wow- when they adjust, they don’t muck around!”

GISS combines GHCN data from all urban stations applying the same inexplicable two degree temperature increase as shown below to reveal the shocking disparity between ‘raw’ data and the ‘cooked’ GISS data:

Ken proves that the GISS homogenised older data to make the climate appear cooler a hundred years ago and then ramped up modern data to artificially make recent years appear warmer. Thus climate scientists have artificially created a steep trend line to falsely give an impression of a 2 degrees rise in Australian temperatures over a 100 year period. Ken found that if climatologists had stuck to the raw data the trendline would have been as low as 0.2 degrees per 100 years – thus the overall temperature rise has been magnified by a factor of ten for no apparent reason other than to cause alarm.

Ken explains how he undertook his research,

I decided to have a look at the temperature records of the weather stations closest to where I live, near Mackay in North Queensland. The Bureau of Meteorology lists 3 current stations: Mackay MO, Mackay Aero, and Te Kowai Exp Station, plus the closed station Mackay Post Office. GISS has a list of nearby stations… Te Kowai is an experimental farm for developing new varieties of sugar cane, run by scientists and technicians since 1889. It has a temperature record of over 100 years with only a couple of gaps. So in fact it’s an ideal rural station for referencing a nearby urban station, as it should have a similar climate.

Ken found that the “Mackay Sugar Mill Station” was far hotter in the 1920′s and 30′s but GISS “disappeared” this data. However, if we add the warming period back in we find that the warming trend almost disappears to become less then 0.2 degrees per 100 years!

Ken concludes, “How can GISS justify their manipulation of the data, which they claim not to do?”

Upon closer examination of GISS methodology it appears that accidentally on purpose they used a “trick” whereby they turned “Mackay Sugar Mill Station” into a small town rather than a rural station even though it’s been nothing much more than cane fields for the last 130 years. There are different procedures applied to homogenising data between urban and rural weather stations.

I have examined Ken’s findings and can concur with him that there exists inexplicable anomalies that, without exception, appear concocted (homogenized) to create a warming trend when no evidence in changes in the local environmental conditions warrants any such manipulation. Moreover, GISS does not publish any explanations of why they chose to make cooler those temperatures in the first 40 years of their sample and then ramp up the temperatures for recent years. Absent any explanation from them, we may draw our own conclusions that the GISS lowered the older temperature records and raised the temperatures of recent years to create a fictitiously steeper homogenised warming slope to fit a pre-conceived warmist agenda.

Ken says this is fraud, “And it’s happening in my own backyard! I’m furious!”

This finding, when compared to those from other independent observers shows further attempts by government and government-funded agencies to fraudulent create a man made warming signal in Australia from natural events and data.

Ken’s findings tie in really well with the anomaly exposed by WUWT where Willis Eschenbach found similar dodgy data for Darwin, in the Northern Territory ( a vast Aussie state of 1,349,129 square kilometres (520,902 sq mi):

Here is Eschenbach’s comment on the data about Darwin:

YIKES! Before getting homogenized, temperatures in Darwin were falling at 0.7 Celcius per century … but after the homogenization, they were warming at 1.2 Celcius per century. And the adjustment that they made was over two degrees per century … when those guys “adjust”, they don’t mess around. And the adjustment is an odd shape, with the adjustment first going stepwise, then climbing roughly to stop at 2.4C.

The similarities in degree and extent of fakery found separately by Eschenbach and Stewart proves a consistent fraudulent objective: make older temperatures appear artificially cooler and exagerrate recent temperature data.

Climategate.com has built up a close affinity with Australian skeptics who have worked tirelessly to expose the climate scam still being brainlessly plugged by Aussie Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd. Further similar contributions submitted to us for publication are most welcome. We intend to continue to expose such fraud relying on the technical and analytical skills of gifted amateur bloggers to fully expose the greatest scam in the history of science. Our aim is to bring forth criminal and civil proceedings against all those involved.

Sources: Ken’s Kingdom and Watts Up With That

Possibly related posts:

  1. Urban Heat Island Effect proven to corrupt Aussie climate data
  2. Is the NOAA, not CRU, is ground zero for exaggerated warming data?
  3. Czechgate: Climate scientists dump world’s second oldest ‘cold’ climate record
  4. Russian scientists’ say Climategate data rigged
  5. Climate quack’s professional suicide ends lie of man-made climate change

41 Responses to “Australiagate: Now NASA caught in trick over Aussie climate data”

  1. Taruni says:

    Is this meant to repair resurrect COP15?

    Energy Summit balances Copenhagen setbacks

    Source : http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle09.asp?xfile=data/business/2010/January/business_January508.xml§ion=business

  2. Denis Ables says:

    Those surface temperatures sites, no matter how many, are NOT going to be useful in coming up with one temperature representing the earth, so all of the “Homogenizing” should just be pitched. The only useful information is to look at variation over time by station, staying strictly with the raw data, and even then only bother including those stations where neither the temp recording site, nor its instrumentation has been changed.

    The sites exposed to UHI will show up with more rapid increases in temp across time. The rural areas which remained that way over time will be the best indicator of how much, if any, warming has happened.

    Those machinations with the raw data serve only to introduce errors (or worse, man-made biases) that overwhelm any chance of an accurate reading.

    Whatever the average warming is, based on rural sites, is the component to subtract out of the warming for urban sites, the remainder being UHI for the urban sites. (It is absolutely ludicrous if not blasphemus to estimate UHI and modify raw data with those rough estimates !) That approach is so blatantly unscientific that one must conclude that fraudulent behavior was intended.

  3. Brian D Finch says:

    I think you will find that it was Willis Eschenbach who wrote: ‘YIKES!…etc’

  4. Tom Roe says:

    As one of the many owners of NASA/GISS I want to encourage Aussies to sue for damages caused. I believe we all know why NASA/NOAA have been hijacked by the climate pirates. American’s despite many let-downs have a fundamental respect for the agencies of our federal government. NASA would be at the top of that list. As a member of The House and Senate algore specialized in the oversight and funding of NASA, NOAA, and other agencies involved in science. On moving up to The Senate he implanted his hand-picked succesor on the House Committee On Science and Technology. That person is now the Chairman of the committee. Between them algore, Bart Gordon, and a few others have used their power to manipulate the funding and staffing of NASA/NOAA. The results are evident to all people of good will. Bust NASA GISS and we will have broken the bank.

    • Denis Ables says:

      Tom: Have a look at this site. You may have seen the supposed “dad & son” video. The study supposedly uses GISS “raw” data (US only) and the website on which it’s published seems (to me) to have perhaps been a plant to avoid tracking back to whoever was attempting to alert the world. Perhaps a discussion with the site owner (looks to be credible, but I don’t know him and haven’t talked with him) will help you out. ??

      http://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com/2009/12/rural-us-sites-show-no-temperature.html

      • Tom Roe says:

        Thanks Dennis. I have been to this site and did read this post. The temp record is the underlying scam which we must break. We know that they have leaned hard into the data to make it prove what it otherwise would not. Once that is done we must have scientists publish the work in peer review journals as is being done in Austrailia. If the papers meet the publishing criteria and are not published we will demolish the journals. That’s the beauty of the emails. They cannot put that genie back into the bottle. We can prove what we long suspected but could not prove. Watergate broke in 1972 and Nixon finally resigned in 1974. We have the crime, we have the smoking gun, and everyday the case grows stronger. Sieman’s and others are wasting allot of Euros sticking their fingers in the dam.

        • Denis Ables says:

          Tom:
          What’s strange about the “dad & son” site, is that (if their calculations were accurate, their urban/rural study showed no warming in rural temp, from 1900 all the way to very recent. (That being the case, one can only conclude that the increase over time in urban areas was therefore all UHI.) They also referred to the NASA GISS data as “raw”. (Somebody with a lot more knowledge indicated that the data “couldn’t be trusted”, but I can’t imagine that if these guys did their usual “homogenizing” – or “pasteurizing” that it would show no warming. It just doesn’t compute.

          • Tom Roe says:

            Denis. Dr. John Christy University Alabama-Huntsville has published two detailed studies of different sections of the surface temperature record which NASA/GISS uses in the US. In both cases he demolished the results which NASA/GISS derived from the same data sets. An attempt was made to refute one of his papers but he successfully defended his work and rebutted the counter-argument. When you look at the masterpiece created by Anthony Watts at watts-up-with-that on the surface temerature stations in the USA it’s all over but the final confession. Frankly Watt and the two Steves should share a prize.

  5. Stimulus jobs go to China says:

    The courts are going to be tied up for years with the whole global warming hoax.

    Seriously, is there any data left that climate auditors can work with? It’s a weird predicament we are in, NASA calls it the warmest decade in history, while on the ground there is data that suggests we have been cooling. The whole climate change debacle is a farce and a disgrace.

  6. cbullitt says:

    Good to see “The Smoking Gun at Darwin Zero” catch fire.

  7. karl golledge says:

    did ya see the official weather station for la paz,bolivia was shut down and all U N weather reports are over 1200 km away now. Its funny how that works la paz is over 10,000 ft high and now they can show the weather for la paz is actually 40 degrees fahrenheit hotter then ever. scam, scam scam lies lies lies

  8. Denis Ables says:

    This only works if you let those idiots pretend to estimate the earth’s temperature. The best they could have ever been able to accomplish would have been to pick up raw temps from rural stations, and only those which can provide data over some duration w/o any changes to site, locality, etc.

    All you have to do is look into the process these guys were using with surface temperatures. No rocket science necessary.

  9. Paul Fazey says:

    I conducted my own analysis on a local weather station’s(Beerburrum, Qld) raw daily and monthly temperature data. The weather station started recording temperature readings in 1957 and has an almost continuous record to the present day. I came to the conclusion that there is no warming trend at all for at lease for our region.

  10. val majkus says:

    I suggest readers might like to check out Warwick Hughes’ site http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/
    in particular this article NASA GISS data does not back BoM hottest decade claim January 20th, 2010 by Warwick Hughes
    the BOM he’s talking about is the Australian one
    check out the comments as well particularly that one by Chris Gillham and his calculations of averages in WA
    check out his website as well; he’s done extensive research
    http://www.waclimate.net/

  11. John Blake says:

    Congratulations on taking on Hansen’s notorious GISS propaganda machine in serious detail. As ongoing scandals date back at least to 1988, polluting everything they touch unto the very core, we have to wonder whether any Green Gang publications over the past generation have any validity at all.

    The fact that Briffa, Hansen, Jones, Mann, Trenberth et al. deceitfully hid base data and manipulative techniques for years provides prima facie rationale for asserting that Climate Cultists from Pachauri’s IPCC on down have long since forfeited any claims to credibility. “Science” be hanged– Warmists are in fact a pack of cheats and liars, peculating Luddite sociopaths intent on dragging post-Enlightenment industrial/technological civilization post-haste to Abyss.

    We hope you act not just as plaintiffs but as prosecutors. Go to it, and God Speed.

  12. [...] This issue was also recently covered on the Climategate blog here [...]

  13. Truthbringsfreedom says:

    ‘Climategate scandal where scientists were proven to have unlawfully used a “trick” to fake climate data and then destroyed their calculations rendering it impossible for independent auditors to examine and justify the methodologies used.’

    That is a false statement by you. They were found to have unlawfully failed to release raw climate data under Britain’s freedom of information laws. They did not ‘fake’ any data and there was no ruling about the so called ‘trick’ being illegal and certainly nothing about ‘destroying their calculations’. The entirely lawful ‘trick’ was to adjust tree ring based temperature data.

    I assume you were merely uninformed. Please correct your statement.

    • Denis Ables says:

      Read Costella’s ClimateGate !

    • In the first instance, I defer to Dr. J Costella’s expert analysis – if you care to debunk his work then perhaps I may ponder some revision of my statement for a millisecond. However, absent any such debunk I tend to follow the accepted legal principle that if a suspect is proven to have broken the law by covering up, withholding or destroying data then the courts shall apply the ‘adverse inference principle’ so that “he who spoliates pays.” Sadly, it appears it may be you who is uninformed – about the law.

      • Truthbringsfreedom says:

        John – I defer to your knowledge of the law. For my records, would you please cite the case for which the court invoked the ‘adverse inference principle’ to make its decision concerning the use of the ‘trick’ in the so-called climategate? Also, exactly what was the case/question before the court?

        Or, perhaps, were you just speaking for the courts of Great Britain? …I like that, it’ll save all of us a lot of time.

        Or, perhaps, you are still not acknowledging that *no where was it ever found* that the “scientists were proven to have unlawfully used a “trick’.”

        Or maybe it was just that I was wrong in thinking that you were merely uninformed. Again, please correct you statement.

        • I fear you are being disingenuous in your failure to concede the legal principle and its application to the facts as known in this case. Please read Prof Jones’s admissions on this issue – his confession to the crime is absolute. I fail to see where you intend to take this argument as Jones gives us both the mens rea and actus reus. The ICO confirm the crime was committed but refuse to prosecute on a ‘technicality’ ( which is bogus as there is no time limit as per the Fraud Act [2005]). There is no legal precedent I can find where a party has escaped the loss of a civil or criminal case after they willfully destroyed evidence – in either the courts of England nor in the United States. But I’ll happily let you go find a precedent and bring one for us. But I warn you, your search will be fruitless.

    • Brer Wolf says:

      Dear Brer Rabbit,

      I couldn’t agree with you more. And based on your superiorly informed intellect, I wish to share some exciting ‘tricks’ we have developed and made available only to a few special people such as yourself who have gone on to become widely eulogized members of our ‘team’.

      As you can easily imagine, we have taken more than a few personal risks in our development of these confidential tricks. Naturally there are many significant costs associated with keeping these tricks hidden from those that ‘deny’ our discovery is valid. However, don’t let that discourage you. All material costs are fully taxpayer subsidized limiting your financial risk. We have the full backing of academic leadership at the Institute limiting all personal costs. And we have developed a crack public relations media promoting our discovery. So what could go wrong?

      While still free to make this offer and based on your recent interest we invite you to become an official member of The Team. Time is short, so please join us to discuss tricks over dinner at the Briar Patch Grill at your earliest convenience.

      Sincerely,
      Brer Wolf
      The Team

      • Tom Roe says:

        Hilarious and on the money. That idiot is probably just pissed that his check from the King Of Nigeria has been hung up by technical difficulties.

      • Truthbringsfreedom says:

        Just so you are clear, my position is all climate data should be made public and easily available for everyone to access. It’s only data and the cost of posting it for download on the internet is trivial. For the most part, citizens pay for its collection with taxes, so they should have access to it. Those who fear the free competition of ideas and those who fear that people will “misuse” (according to them) the data are the ones that support limiting access to the data. That’s damn elitist and I don’t like what they did one bit.

        However, making unsubstantiated claims about what has been found unlawful is just plain propaganda, and then following up with spurious claims about how some hypothecial court would rule in a hypothetical case just turns this discussion into a farce, and John should be ashamed. I tried to get him to correct his false statement, but he seems determined to foolishly deny he was wrong rather than retract it. That behavior doesn’t contribute to finding the truth.

        We have enough of that kind on behavior on both sides of this issue. An issue that clearly deserves study because failure to study it may have dire consequences for all of us. I believe that there is enough evidence and enough concensus in the scientific communitiy, that we would be fools to ignore it. We must respond to the possibility of climate change as a real threat and not bury our heads in the sand talking about what a hypothetical court would say, when what a court says will not have one whit of impact on the global climate. (Hmm, how much hot air is generated by courts? I may be on to something…)

        We need good science based on good information. Making all data public will help meet that goal regardless of what “side” you are on.

        • Denis Ables says:

          I don’t think there’s anything close to “an equivalence” between the two sides. Neither do I think the CRU folks withheld and evidently destroyed data because they’re elitist, but because they have played games with the data which cannot be justified. And that’s without getting into their other activities, in regard to controlling “peer group”review.

          These people were vicious to the innocent, puzzled, and frustrated real scientists who were trying to figure out what the h— was going on. And there’s trillions of government dollars at stake and the possibility of radical lifestyle changes all because of what they’ve done.

  14. [...] Climategate: Australiagate: Now NASA caught in trick over Aussie climate data [...]

  15. wayne says:

    Found you via WUWT. Either these unwarranted adjustments are caused by system programs and therefore should be found in all similar cases worldwide or they are being applied on a one by one case which points directly to human interference. Both cases can be by either mistake or purpose and I will be curious which flavor these elevations of temperatures by GISS fall into and whether they will be forced to correct their mistakes. If never corrected, it is intentional and is at the governmental level and should therefore be illegal. Wish we still had honest investigative journalists around that carried some weight.

    • Wayne, yes we do need far more old school investigative journalists who can sniff out all the facts and expose to the fullest extent what to me, is the biggest scientific fraud of all time. From a legal perspective what we are currently witnessing is govt. inaction or fudging (nonfeasance or malfeasance) because they won’t let go of their pot of climate tax gold.

  16. gene stevens says:

    Truthbringsfreedom:

    When surface data is substituted for uncooperative tree ring data, that constitutes a helluva “trick”, and that is precisely what Mann and his associates did.

    • Truthbringsfreedom says:

      You may be right, I’m not trained in climatology. However, there are trained scientists that disagree with you and you can read what they have to say…
      http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/09/02/0805721105.full.pdf

      My (limited) understanding is there is a discrepancy between modern surface temperature readings and what is indicated by recent tree ring growth (which AFAIK grow at surface level). Tree ring data is useful, because it gives you a record going back to times before good surface temperature readings were taken. To model whats happening, you want to use that data. However, modern surface temperature readings are pretty good, so how do you use both series of data? You must resolve that discrepancy…thus ‘tricks’ (i.e. techniques) are created to merge data into a single coherent series. The paper linked above addresses issues related to that.

      • Harpo says:

        You wrote

        “My (limited) understanding is there is a discrepancy between modern surface temperature readings and what is indicated by recent tree ring growth”

        then you wrote

        “Tree ring data is useful, because it gives you a record going back to times before good surface temperature readings were taken.”

        How can the tree ring data be useful in determining temperatures in the past when the tree ring data doesn’t agree with the temperatrure in the present?

        Tree Rings, Tarrot Cards, Astrology….. its all the same

  17. Denis Ables says:

    to: TruthBringsFreedom:

    Neither am I a climatologist, but there are a number of websites, other than this one, such as “WattsUpWithThat”, or “joannenova” which instead may focus a bit more on technical areas. (After all, the name “ClimateGate” means something !)

    In fact, you can read the liberated emails in context by going to Costella’s downloadable “ClimateGate”. You can find references to it somewhere else on this and various other sites.

    On the quote you mentioned, there’s more to those activities than just the quote. Howsabout a graph with several lines, where one disappears at a certain point, only to continue as another line right at a point where several of the lines converge, so difficult to notice. You have to look hard to pick that up, as it shifts between tree rings to temperature data, each being displayed for the duration where it makes the best argument for the CRU agenda. If it had been mentioned, the argument would immediately crop up that if tree rings are not accurate now, why should they be accurate on earlier data? That sort of thing may be a cute trick by a kid, but really grim for anyone claiming to be a scientist.

    Then there is Mann quietly trying to do away with the Medieval Warming Period plus subsequent cooling periods, (with his “hockey stick graph”) without mention. All this made the current period of increasing temperature look quite dramatic. You might expect some accompanying justification as to why the work of many to establish temperature estimates in these earlier periods was suddenly no longer valid. Just a quiet rewrite of history. And, of course his email discussions admit that it would be helpful to get rid of the warming period because – as we all know – it was embarassing for the AGW believers to deal with the queston that the MWP was warmer than now and surely had nothing to do with anthropogenic warming.

    Their actions and their emails confirm, without doubt, that these guys were anything but objective.

  18. [...] deal with and survive the cold, Whitewashgate, Inconvenient truths – the NZ perspective, Inconvenient truths in Australia, Inconvenient truths in [...]

  19. [...] From John O’Sullivan — Australiagate: “Ken proves that the GISS homogenised older data to make the climate [...]

  20. [...] Face $1.4 Trillion Commercial Property Crisis ] [ Climategate - The Official Coverup Continues ] [ NASA & Columbia Caught Tweaking Australia Climate Data ] [ Scientist - Ice Age Could Start In Five Years ] [ PDF: Shocking Comparison - Fluoride, Arsenic [...]

  21. azflyboy says:

    Why all the fuss? There is a simple explanation. Everyone keeps talking about the raw data being homogenized. What they meant to say is the data was Pasteurized which requires increasing the temperature.

  22. [...] do I believe NASA or a youtube video? Yeah, that's a hard one but I think I will go with NASA. Australiagate: Now NASA caught in trick over Aussie climate data | CLIMATEGATE In this article we look at the findings of two independent climate researchers who analyse [...]

  23. [...] Special | SpaceRef – Your Space Reference http://www.prnewswire.com/news-relea…-81507392.html Australiagate: Now NASA caught in trick over Aussie climate data | CLIMATEGATE __________________ "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong [...]

This website is for sale for $10,000. Contact us if interested.