"Hide the decline"

 Shortest version possible

Fact checking the GISS climate data (updated September 30 2022)

 It's very easy to do, but time consuming to show it, explain it, and get a blog post right to argue the case.  Hell, it's like writing a thesis.

Started a blog that is mostly just posting the data used in this onerous effort

https://whyidonotbelieveyou.blogspot.com

June 11 1986

source

Global Temperature data, the Satellite data matches the surface records

Currently (Jan 18 2016) there are stories that somehow the Satellite data isn't accurate.  It seems this is due to the Satellite record not showing the same global warming that GISS, NOAA and maybe the CRU data analysis show is happening.

Something like this seems easy enough to check, so I did.

Using the NOAA Climate at a Glance data, and the NOAA Satellite data I simply compared the two, and they match up.

Monthly, seasonal, or annual, they all match.

So why would anyone say they don't?

How to know BEST is wrong about how they adjust the past

While all the surface data is adjusted, BEST is an easy target,  Fish in a barrel actually.

Here is the actual data, from GHCN

Location

Dale Enterprises is a quality controlled station with no changes, aside from adding an electronic sensor in 1995, but they kept the old mercury instruments as well.

This is what Watts showed in 2010, about the USHCN adjustments

Here is the current GHCN adjustment, using the BOM tool

Compared to the actual data

And here is what BEST did to the data

Just awful "science" at work there.  Instead of using a quality station to adjust the bad stations, they adjust the good station to match the bad ones.

Here's a nearby bad station moved next to water treatment plant, showing a drastic increase in the trend.

Google maps of water treatment plant where that station rests.

BEST and the rest of the data analysis adjusted the good station, not the bad ones.They are wrong, but they probably don't even know it.

Richard Muller was never skeptical?

Really?

By Richard Muller on December 17, 2003

Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate. I would love to believe that the results of Mann et al. are correct, and that the last few years have been the warmest in a millennium.

Medieval Global Warming – Page 2 | MIT Technology Review

Archived here (the page is excluded from the archive.org)

11/03/11

“It is ironic if some people treat me as a traitor, since I was never a skeptic”

Richard Muller, Climate Researcher, Navigates The Volatile Line Between Science And Skepticism

Archived here

That is strange.

Ancient forest revealed under melting Mendenhall Glacier shows the official story is wrong

2013 article on ancient forest

2002 paper