James Hansen’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies has once again been caught changing its past climate temperature data without explanation.

Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right or below. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

James Hansen’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies has once again been caught changing its past climate temperature data without explanation.

Surprise of surprise, the change had the effect of making the long-term temperature record support conclusions of faster warming. The biggest changes were mostly pre-1963 temperatures; they were generally adjusted down. That would make the warming trend steeper, since post-1963 temperatures were adjusted slightly upward, on average. Generally, the older the data, the more adjustment.

Hat tip to reader jwing who alerted me to this story. As I commented to him, this “also is old news, to my mind, even though this is a new discovery of corruption. This kind of fraud has now been on-going for the past decade, with no signs of any effort to fix it. Worse, the climate science field even denies that it has a problem. Thus, I don’t trust anything they tell me. I check everything twice, and then have doubts besides. Which is why I remain entirely skeptical of any claims these climate scientists make.”

And in this case, the climate scientist in question is James Hansen.



  • Jim

    Its not true that they give no explanation, and the article is wrong that the last change noted is in February. This is from NASA website:
    “September 26, 2012: NOAA/NCDC replaced GHCN v3.1 by GHCN v3.2. Hence the GISS analysis is based on that product starting 9/14/2012. Version v3.2 differs from v3.1 by minor changes in the homogenization of the unadjusted data. A description of the modifications in the adjustment scheme and their effects are available here.”

    GHCN v3 replaced v1. If interested in why, here is a pdf put out by NOAA (not NASA) on those changes:

    Even the author of the article admits that anyone using data takes advantage of improvements in the analysis of that data. NASA should not?
    And it simply is not true that they make these kinds of changes willy-nilly and at any time. The author says:
    “But I find the idea of constantly changing data troublesome.” They do not.
    They make one change and the author assumes they must have done that in the past and will do so next month as well.
    But he did get one thing correct:
    “So maybe this isn’t that big of a deal.”

  • jwing

    It is a big deal…these are the same scientific experts and government officials who knowingly placed temperature monitoring stations next to asphalt parking lots, air conditioning vents while removing monitoring stations that would have given non-biased temperature readings. Do you still remember the incrimminating climategate emails? If you can rationalize the need for a scientist to arbitrarily change even one data point, you forever compromise the integrity of your arguement of that of a truly objective scientific analysis to subjective bias. Let’s face it; your arguement then becomes rhetoric to support a political environmentalist ideology/agenda. You can’t have it both ways…at least not anymore. The global warming hypothysis has been exposed.

  • David

    Except, NASA only published this update/explanation after the American Thinker piece was posted the day before, 09/25/12. Thus, when written, the post was correct.

  • jwing

    Simply put…it’s not rocket science. There should be no need for such confusion over longitudinal temperature recordings. If climate science is “good science,” it should be completely transparent in its methodologies. After all, we’re not dealing with top secret data pertaining to national security. We’re talking about the weather, and yet somehow, even the weather has become politicized and irrational. It used to be said that the only safe convesation was the weather and never about religion or politics.

  • Jwing,

    I understand all this. All I was asking for was an explanation for David’s cryptic post.

    Thanks anyway. We are in agreement on this.

  • David

    Just 2nding Jwing’s earlier post.

  • David

    BTW, Bob, found your blog through your great segments on The John Batchelor Show last night. I’m located in the greater Huntsville, AL area where NASA is a big deal. It’s my great honor to know some of the pioneering NASA folks from the early days. Thus, I was reached by last night’s discussion by the “NASA thinks it owns space” discussion. Still, it was “NASA, or at least James Hansen, has officially joined the climate change (or should we call it the climate data change) fraud” which engaged me.

Leave a Reply

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