Home What is Real Science Climate Facts Our Best Data Trillion Dollar Industry Big Money Scaring green money Paid by fossil fuel Warming Stopped Extreme Weather? CO2 didn't warm arctic CO2 & Rate of warming CO2 Innocent! 1/2 of Warming Wrong Its Warming,But Acidification IPCC_Flawed Harming People misconduct Data Adjustments Cooling since 1945? Drought, hurricanes etc. Arctic Antarctic Selected Emails Selected Quotes Fraud Of Century? 97 percent of scientists 25% of AMS / 50% JonesInterview An OK Prediction Data Sources False Deadlines Real Cause of Climate Record Temperature Climate Change Truths Its OK to Lie! Energy Facts GridStorage CostlyEnergy Mann's Book Wegman styn_vs_mann Peer Review Error Statistical Errors The Sun Solar OceanHeat Ocean Heat Polar Bears OK AlGore's Errors IPCC_Disproved IPCC_PeerReview Ask Questions Climate Models Local Food IPCC&CLouds Threats Why I'm a Skeptic GreenhouseMoon Alternative Energy 450 realist papers Conflict of Interest? Muzzeled Scientists How To Argue Common Ground Hurricane No Proof NW Snow Pack James Hansen Consensus The Hockey Stick 650 Dissenters Easy Solution IPCC Scientists DataQuality Heat Island Is Science Settled? Ocean Level Sea Level Glaciers Ice Sheets Greenland Gore's Mentor OGWC Articles Summary FinancialPapers OtherMotivations PeakOil Ozone Hole Fracking Acid Rain No Limits Videos Printables Links Briffa et al (1998) data

Debunking the Climate Scam

Billions of Dollars -  Fudged Data  -  Corrupt Scientists

Greedy Green Corporations - Trillion Dollar Prize

No Warming For Two decades - Illiterate Media

Bought and Paid For Organizations


Email WebMaster

How Good Is Our Climate Data?

Surfacestations project reaches 70% of the network surveyed.  854 of 1221 stations have been examined in the USHCN network. The Google Earth map below shows current coverage.

Notice the generally low quality of the stations. From: http://surfacestations.org/

Only 11% of stations surveyed met the required Class I or Class II requirement of likely measurement error under 1C.

Quantifying the influence of anthropogenic surface processes and inhomogeneities on gridded global climate data, JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 112, D24S09, doi:10.1029/2007JD008465, 2007


Local land surface modification and variations in data quality affect temperature trends in surface-measured data. Such effects are considered extraneous for the purpose of measuring climate change, and providers of climate data must develop adjustments to filter them out. If done correctly, temperature trends in climate data should be uncorrelated with socioeconomic variables that determine these extraneous factors. This hypothesis can be tested, which is the main aim of this paper. Using a new database for all available land-based grid cells around the world we test the null hypothesis that the spatial pattern of temperature trends in a widely used gridded climate data set is independent of socioeconomic determinants of surface processes and data inhomogeneities. The hypothesis is strongly rejected (P = 7.1  1014), indicating that extraneous (nonclimatic) signals contaminate gridded climate data. The patterns of contamination are detectable in both rich and poor countries and are relatively stronger in countries where real income is growing. We apply a battery of model specification tests to rule out spurious correlations and endogeneity bias. We conclude that the data contamination likely leads to an overstatement of actual trends over land. Using the regression model to filter the extraneous, nonclimatic effects reduces the estimated 1980–2002 global average temperature trend over land by about half.



Peer Reviewed Paper concludes half of reported warming is due to data contamination

Small California counties show less warming than large counties

From  LaDochy:


See:  Recent California climate variability: spatial and temporal patterns in temperature trends, LaDochy, Steve | Medina, Richard | Patzert, William. Climate Research [Clim. Res.]. Vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 159-169. 2007.

Graph from Goodridge 1996

EPA chart of Heat Island Effect shows over 3 degrees of warming

Much of China’s warming due to heat island effect

“Urban-related warming over China is shown to be about 0.1°C decade−1 over the period 1951–2004, with true climatic warming accounting for 0.81°C over this period. “   Jones, P. D., D. H. Lister, and Q. Li (2008), Urbanization effects in large-scale temperature records, with an emphasis on China, J. Geophys. Res., 113, D16122, doi:10.1029/2008JD009916.


Phil Jones and the Great Leap Forward

by Steve McIntyre on February 26th, 2007


The other key network in the seminal Jones et al 1990 on urbanization (relied upon in AR4) is their Chinese network. The idea that China between 1954 and 1983 - the age of Chairman Mao and the Great Leap Forward - could have achieved consistency in temperature measurement that eluded the U.S. observing system (with changing times of observation, instruments etc) is a conceit that seems absurd on its face. However Peterson 2003 in a recent literature review held the Jones Chinese network as one of only a few "homogeneous" networks. Jones et al 1990 described their QC procedures as follows:



Douglas J. Keenan

The Limehouse Cut, London E14 6N, UK; doug.keenan@informath.org


Wei-Chyung Wang has been a respected researcher in global warming studies for

decades. I have formally alleged that he committed fraud in some of his research,

including research cited by the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC (2007) on

“urban heat islands” (a critical issue). Herein, the allegation is reviewed, and some

of its implications are explicated.

. . .


Two conclusions are manifest. First, there is a serious lack of integrity in some of

Wang’s research. Second, the insignificance of urbanization effects on temperature

measurements has not been established as reliably as the IPCC (2007) assumes.

Something else, more general, might also be argued: the failure of the scientific

community to require data to be made available constitutes a serious departure from

the transparency that is widely accepted to be a prerequisite for integrity in human


. . .


Regarding station movements over time, the papers of Jones et al. and Wang et al.

make the following statements.

The stations were selected on the basis of station history: we

chose those with few, if any, changes in instrumentation, location

or observation times. [Jones et al.]


They were chosen based on station histories: selected stations

have relatively few, if any, changes in instrumentation, location,

or observation times…. [Wang et al.]

. . .

The essential point here is that the quoted statements from Jones et al. and Wang et al. cannot be true and could not be in error by accident. The statements are fabricated.

Chuine et al. had the data; so they must have known that their conclusions were unfounded. In other words, there is prima facie evidence of scientific fraud.

To study the paper properly, I needed to have the authors' data. So I e-mailed Dr. Chuine, asking for this. The authors, though, were very reluctant to let me have the data. It took me eight months, tens of e-mails exchanged with the authors, and two formal complaints to Nature, to get the data. (Some data was purchased from Météo France.) It is obviously inappropriate that such a large effort was necessary.


Looking at the data made it manifest that there are serious problems with the work of Chuine et al. In particular, the authors' estimate for the summer temperature of 2003 was higher than the actual temperature by 2.4 °C (about 4.3 °F). This is the primary reason that 2003 seemed, according to the authors, to be so tremendously warm.


There is also another reason. The three warmest years on record, prior to 2003, were 1945, 1947, and 1952. (The instrumental record goes back to 1922, or even 1883 if we accept some inaccuracies.) The estimate of Chuine et al. for the summer temperature in each of those years was much lower than the actual temperature.

Full Article

Resultant paper:

Theor. Appl. Climatol. 87, 255–256 (2007)

DOI 10.1007/s00704-006-0197-9



It has recently been claimed that the April–August

temperature in France, in any given year, can be estimated

from the harvest date of grapes grown there. Based on this

claim, it was asserted that 2003 was the warmest year in the

last six centuries. Herein, it is shown that the grape-derived

temperature estimates are highly unreliable, and thus that

the assertion is unfounded.


Douglas J. Keenan

: either the peer reviewers did not have an appropriate background in mathematical data analysis—upon which the paper heavily relied—or they did not honestly check the paper.


What is important here is not the truth or falsity of the assertion of Chuine et al. about Burgundy temperatures. Rather, what is important is that a paper on what is arguably the world's most important scientific topic (global warming) was published in the world's most prestigious scientific journal with essentially no checking of the work prior to publication.


Moreover—and crucially—this lack of checking is not the result of some fluke failures in the publication process. Rather, it is common for researchers to submit papers without supporting data, and it is frequent that peer reviewers do not have the requisite mathematical or statistical skills needed to check the work (medical sciences largely excepted). In other words, the publication of the work of Chuine et al. was due to systemic problems in the scientific publication process.


The systemic nature of the problems indicates that there might be many other scientific papers that, like the paper of Chuine et al., were inappropriately published. Indeed, that is true and I could list numerous examples. The only thing really unusual about the paper of Chuine et al. is that the main problem with it is understandable for people without specialist scientific training.

Another Failure of Peer Review

One of the biggest cases of academic fraud in medical history

From: Junkfood Science


One of the largest known cases of academic fraud and misconduct made the news this week when Anesthesiology News reported that a leading medical researcher was found to have fabricated much, if not all, of the data in his research.


Scott S. Reuben, M.D., of Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Massachusetts, is said to have made up and falsified data in at least 21, and perhaps many more, studies published at least since 1996, according to the results of a year-long investigation by Baystate Medical Center. Jane Albert, a spokeswoman for Baystate, said that the fraud was spotted after questions were raised about two studies for which Dr. Reuben had not even received approval to conduct human research.

Here’s Why The Quality Is Low

NOAA Standards for weather station siting

Examples of Non Conforming Sites

Here is a USHCN station in a parking lot   

(remember they are supposed to be in the middel of a grassy field)

From: surfacestations.org

Report on the stations:

Is The U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable?” By Anthony Watts

Respomse to NCDC criticism:

Papers on Uncertainty

Recent Papers On The Uncertainty and Biases In the Long Term Assessment Of The Global Average Surface Temperature Trend


The  multi-decadal global surface temperature trend is used (inappropriately; e.g. see) as the primary metric to diagnose the magnitude of global warming and cooling. This post lists major unresolved issues with the use of this surface temperature trend metric, along with examples of recent papers and weblog posts that build on the set of problems identified in our paper


Pielke Sr., R.A., C. Davey, D. Niyogi, S. Fall, J. Steinweg-Woods, K. Hubbard, X. Lin, M. Cai, Y.-K. Lim, H. Li, J. Nielsen-Gammon, K. Gallo, R. Hale, R. Mahmood, S. Foster, R.T. McNider, and P. Blanken, 2007: Unresolved issues with the assessment of multi-decadal global land surface temperature trends. J. Geophys. Res., 112, D24S08, doi:10.1029/2006JD008229.


Issues with the global average surface temperature trend assessment [the sections are from the Pielke et al 2007 paper]:


   * The use of one average temperature trend, which neglects that long wave cooling is proportional to the 4th power of temperature. This is a warm bias if the predominance of temperature increases are at cold absolute temperatures and a cool bias if at warm absolute temperatures [Section 2].


Read many more at Roger A. Pielke’s blog