Also: Jimbo Hansen is denying GISS manipulated anything.

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemans.../40749822.html

January 14, 2010
PRIMARY UNITED STATES CLIMATE CENTERS NOW CAUGHT IN DATA MANIPULATION
NEW REVELATIONS HEADLINED ON TV CLIMATE SPECIAL

It has been revealed that a "sleight of hand" was used in the computer program that rated 2005 as
"THE WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD." Skeptical climate researchers have discovered extensive manipulation
of the data within the U.S. Government's two primary climate centers: the National Climate Data
Center (NCDC) in Asheville, North Carolina and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS)
at Columbia University in New York City. These centers are being accused of creating a strong bias
toward warmer temperatures through a system that dramatically trimmed the number and cherry-picked
the locations of weather observation stations they use to produce the data set on which temperature
record reports are based. The two investigators say the system has been distorted in other ways as
well. They have documented their findings in great detail in a scientific report that has been
posted online. These findings are presented as a part of my television special report "Global
Warming: The Other Side" telecast Thursday night, January 14th at 9 PM here on KUSI TV.

The data manipulation studies are explored in detail during the fourth segment of the one hour
video now available here on our website. Just click on the Global Warming special banner to go to
the page.

NOAA and NASA start with the unadjusted NOAA GHCN (Global Historical Climate Network). NASA
eliminates some stations and adds some in the polar regions. For NASA, the computer program that
manipulates the data is known as GIStemp, Both then add their own adjustments to calculate a global
average temperature and a ranking for each month and year. The two inter-related U.S Government
agencies have so intertwined their programs and data sets that both are being challenged by the
investigating team that has produced this "smoking gun of U.S. Climate-gate." "We suspect each
center will try to hide behind, 'It's them; Not us' and point fingers at each other," says the
Computer Programmer from San Jose behind these new revelations. He and a Certified Consulting
Meteorologist from New Hampshire made their revelations public on January 14th on a prime time
television special report at 9:00PM PST; on KUSI-TV, an independent television station in San Diego
Perhaps that is why Dr. Richard Anthes, President of the University Corporation for Atmospheric
Research in testimony to congress in March 2009 noted "The present federal agency paradigm with
respect to NASA and NOAA is obsolete and nearly dysfunctional in spite of best efforts by both
agencies."

The U.S. Government's National Weather Service uses the NCDC data in its record temperature news
releases put out with much media fanfare on a regular basis as they declare a given month or year
has set a record for warmth, supporting the global warming agenda.

Also, the NCDC/NASA GISS data are regularly used by climate researchers doing studies at various
research centers and within university meteorology centers that are doing studies to support the
United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This data is also shared with other
global centers such as the recently hacked or leaked East Anglia University Hadley Climate Center
in England.

Programmer E. Michael Smith and CCM Joseph D'Aleo, the two men who did the research, also revealed
there are no actual temperatures left in the computer database when it proclaimed "2005 WAS THE
WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD." In the transition to a computer averaging system, the National Data
Climate Center deleted actual temperatures at thousands of locations throughout the world as it
evolved to a system of global grid boxes. The number that goes into each grid box is determined by
averaging the temperatures of two or more weather observation stations nearest that grid box..

D'Aleo puts it this way, "Over 70 percent of the Earth's surface is covered by water and vast areas
of land masses remain unpopulated as well. So it is reasonable to come up with some sort of grid
method to simulate full global coverage. The problem arises because not all of the grid boxes have
continuous temperature measurements from within them. So NCDC averages surrounding or nearby points
and places that number in the box. In some cases those observations are from several hundreds of
miles away. That produces a serious question, 'Does the resulting number represent the average
temperature for that region within meaningful limits?'" D'Aleo says it does not. "A vital issue,"
he says is, "temperatures are not linear over space, but instead vary enormously because of
differences in terrain, elevation, vegetation, water versus land and urbanization."

This problem is only the tip of the iceberg with the data being produced at NDCC. For one thing, it
is clear that comparing data from previous years when the final figure was produced by averaging a
large number of temperatures and those produced from a much smaller temperature set with large data
gaps is comparing apples and oranges. "When the differences between the warmest year in history and
the tenth warmest year is less than three quarters of a degree, it becomes silly to rely on such
comparisons," Smith and D'Aleo say. But that is exactly what has been done in touting the late
1990s and the early 2000s as the warmest ten years in history. "It is clearly a travesty and
agenda- driven by global warming advocates," D'Aleo asserts.

For E. Michael Smith this project was quite a test of his computer programming skills. "Opening,
unraveling and understanding what is happening in a complex FORTRAN computer code, with 20 years of
age and change in it, is a difficult and grueling task," he says, "and the deeper I dug the more
amazing the details revealed. When doing a benchmark test of the program, I found patterns in the
input data from NCDC that looked like dramatic and selective deletions of thermometers from cold
locations." Smith says after awhile, it became clear this was not a random strange pattern he was
finding, but a well designed and orchestrated manipulation process. "The more I looked, the more I
found patterns of deletion that could not be accidental. Thermometers moved from cold mountains to
warm beaches; from Siberian Arctic to more southerly locations and from pristine rural locations to
jet airport tarmacs. The last remaining Arctic thermometer in Canada is in a place called 'The
Garden Spot of the Arctic,' always moving away from the cold and toward the heat. I could not
believe it was so blatant and it clearly looked like it was in support of an agenda," Smith says.

Here are the numbers behind the startling findings of the new research paper. The number of actual
weather observation points used as a starting point for world average temperatures has been reduced
from about 6,000 in the 1970s to about 1,500 in the most recent years. Still, more stations are
dropped out in related programs and in the final NASA/GIStemp data file, it drops to about 1,000.
That leaves much of the world unaccounted for," says Joseph D'Aleo of ICECAP.us and SPPI.org, who
has released a research study of the global temperature pattern today. "Think of it this way," he
continues, "if Minneapolis and other northern cities suddenly disappeared but Kansas City and St.
Louis were still available, would you think an average of Kansas City and St. Louis would provide
an accurate replacement for Minneapolis and expect to use that to determine how Minneapolis'
temperature has changed with any hope of accuracy?"

E. Michael Smith pointed out that the November 2009 "anomaly map" from GISS shows a very hot
Bolivia, which is covered by high mountains. "One small problem: there have been no temperatures
recorded in the NCDC data set for Bolivia since 1990. NASA/GISS have to fill in or make up the
numbers from up to 1200km away. This is on the beach in Peru or in the Amazon jungle," he said.

He and D'Aleo say it is startling where the temperatures are that have been dropped from the
calculation. "A very high percentage of those dropped are from the more northern locations. Very
few are left north of sixty degrees longitude." "Clearly there is also a bias to leave in locations
with warmer temperatures, i.e. from the arid areas and within the urban warmth of cities," he adds.
In the greatest reduced list of locations, there are very few colder mountain locations retained.

E. Michael Smith and Joe D'Aleo are both interviewed as part of a report on this study on the
television special, "Global Warming: The Other Side" seen at 9 PM on January 14th on KUSI-TV,
channel 9/51, San Diego, California. That program will be available on-demand at KUSI.com at the
conclusion of the broadcast. The detailed report by D'Aleo is available at
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NOAA...limategate.pdf

For more information, contact:

E. Michael Smith at
Smith's climate blog: http://chiefio.wordpress.com/gistemp/
Joseph D'Aleo at , or 603-689-5646
D'Aleo website: http://www.icecap.us



John Coleman
http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner
http://www.kusi.com/home/78477082.html?video=pop&t=a

On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 15:39:45 -0800, "Eric Gisin"
wrote:

Also: Jimbo Hansen is denying GISS manipulated anything.

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemans.../40749822.html

January 14, 2010
PRIMARY UNITED STATES CLIMATE CENTERS NOW CAUGHT IN DATA MANIPULATION
NEW REVELATIONS HEADLINED ON TV CLIMATE SPECIAL

It has been revealed that a "sleight of hand" was used in the computer program that rated 2005 as
"THE WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD." Skeptical climate researchers have discovered extensive manipulation
of the data within the U.S. Government's two primary climate centers: the National Climate Data
Center (NCDC) in Asheville, North Carolina and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS)
at Columbia University in New York City. These centers are being accused of creating a strong bias
toward warmer temperatures through a system that dramatically trimmed the number and cherry-picked
the locations of weather observation stations they use to produce the data set on which temperature
record reports are based. The two investigators say the system has been distorted in other ways as
well. They have documented their findings in great detail in a scientific report that has been
posted online. These findings are presented as a part of my television special report "Global
Warming: The Other Side" telecast Thursday night, January 14th at 9 PM here on KUSI TV.

The data manipulation studies are explored in detail during the fourth segment of the one hour
video now available here on our website. Just click on the Global Warming special banner to go to
the page.

NOAA and NASA start with the unadjusted NOAA GHCN (Global Historical Climate Network). NASA
eliminates some stations and adds some in the polar regions. For NASA, the computer program that
manipulates the data is known as GIStemp, Both then add their own adjustments to calculate a global
average temperature and a ranking for each month and year. The two inter-related U.S Government
agencies have so intertwined their programs and data sets that both are being challenged by the
investigating team that has produced this "smoking gun of U.S. Climate-gate." "We suspect each
center will try to hide behind, 'It's them; Not us' and point fingers at each other," says the
Computer Programmer from San Jose behind these new revelations. He and a Certified Consulting
Meteorologist from New Hampshire made their revelations public on January 14th on a prime time
television special report at 9:00PM PST; on KUSI-TV, an independent television station in San Diego
Perhaps that is why Dr. Richard Anthes, President of the University Corporation for Atmospheric
Research in testimony to congress in March 2009 noted "The present federal agency paradigm with
respect to NASA and NOAA is obsolete and nearly dysfunctional in spite of best efforts by both
agencies."

The U.S. Government's National Weather Service uses the NCDC data in its record temperature news
releases put out with much media fanfare on a regular basis as they declare a given month or year
has set a record for warmth, supporting the global warming agenda.

Also, the NCDC/NASA GISS data are regularly used by climate researchers doing studies at various
research centers and within university meteorology centers that are doing studies to support the
United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This data is also shared with other
global centers such as the recently hacked or leaked East Anglia University Hadley Climate Center
in England.

Programmer E. Michael Smith and CCM Joseph D'Aleo, the two men who did the research, also revealed
there are no actual temperatures left in the computer database when it proclaimed "2005 WAS THE
WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD." In the transition to a computer averaging system, the National Data
Climate Center deleted actual temperatures at thousands of locations throughout the world as it
evolved to a system of global grid boxes. The number that goes into each grid box is determined by
averaging the temperatures of two or more weather observation stations nearest that grid box..

D'Aleo puts it this way, "Over 70 percent of the Earth's surface is covered by water and vast areas
of land masses remain unpopulated as well. So it is reasonable to come up with some sort of grid
method to simulate full global coverage. The problem arises because not all of the grid boxes have
continuous temperature measurements from within them. So NCDC averages surrounding or nearby points
and places that number in the box. In some cases those observations are from several hundreds of
miles away. That produces a serious question, 'Does the resulting number represent the average
temperature for that region within meaningful limits?'" D'Aleo says it does not. "A vital issue,"
he says is, "temperatures are not linear over space, but instead vary enormously because of
differences in terrain, elevation, vegetation, water versus land and urbanization."

This problem is only the tip of the iceberg with the data being produced at NDCC. For one thing, it
is clear that comparing data from previous years when the final figure was produced by averaging a
large number of temperatures and those produced from a much smaller temperature set with large data
gaps is comparing apples and oranges. "When the differences between the warmest year in history and
the tenth warmest year is less than three quarters of a degree, it becomes silly to rely on such
comparisons," Smith and D'Aleo say. But that is exactly what has been done in touting the late
1990s and the early 2000s as the warmest ten years in history. "It is clearly a travesty and
agenda- driven by global warming advocates," D'Aleo asserts.

For E. Michael Smith this project was quite a test of his computer programming skills. "Opening,
unraveling and understanding what is happening in a complex FORTRAN computer code, with 20 years of
age and change in it, is a difficult and grueling task," he says, "and the deeper I dug the more
amazing the details revealed. When doing a benchmark test of the program, I found patterns in the
input data from NCDC that looked like dramatic and selective deletions of thermometers from cold
locations." Smith says after awhile, it became clear this was not a random strange pattern he was
finding, but a well designed and orchestrated manipulation process. "The more I looked, the more I
found patterns of deletion that could not be accidental. Thermometers moved from cold mountains to
warm beaches; from Siberian Arctic to more southerly locations and from pristine rural locations to
jet airport tarmacs. The last remaining Arctic thermometer in Canada is in a place called 'The
Garden Spot of the Arctic,' always moving away from the cold and toward the heat. I could not
believe it was so blatant and it clearly looked like it was in support of an agenda," Smith says.

Here are the numbers behind the startling findings of the new research paper. The number of actual
weather observation points used as a starting point for world average temperatures has been reduced
from about 6,000 in the 1970s to about 1,500 in the most recent years. Still, more stations are
dropped out in related programs and in the final NASA/GIStemp data file, it drops to about 1,000.
That leaves much of the world unaccounted for," says Joseph D'Aleo of ICECAP.us and SPPI.org, who
has released a research study of the global temperature pattern today. "Think of it this way," he
continues, "if Minneapolis and other northern cities suddenly disappeared but Kansas City and St.
Louis were still available, would you think an average of Kansas City and St. Louis would provide
an accurate replacement for Minneapolis and expect to use that to determine how Minneapolis'
temperature has changed with any hope of accuracy?"

E. Michael Smith pointed out that the November 2009 "anomaly map" from GISS shows a very hot
Bolivia, which is covered by high mountains. "One small problem: there have been no temperatures
recorded in the NCDC data set for Bolivia since 1990. NASA/GISS have to fill in or make up the
numbers from up to 1200km away. This is on the beach in Peru or in the Amazon jungle," he said.

He and D'Aleo say it is startling where the temperatures are that have been dropped from the
calculation. "A very high percentage of those dropped are from the more northern locations. Very
few are left north of sixty degrees longitude." "Clearly there is also a bias to leave in locations
with warmer temperatures, i.e. from the arid areas and within the urban warmth of cities," he adds.
In the greatest reduced list of locations, there are very few colder mountain locations retained.

E. Michael Smith and Joe D'Aleo are both interviewed as part of a report on this study on the
television special, "Global Warming: The Other Side" seen at 9 PM on January 14th on KUSI-TV,
channel 9/51, San Diego, California. That program will be available on-demand at KUSI.com at the
conclusion of the broadcast. The detailed report by D'Aleo is available at
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NOAA...limategate.pdf

For more information, contact:

E. Michael Smith at
Smith's climate blog: http://chiefio.wordpress.com/gistemp/
Joseph D'Aleo at , or 603-689-5646
D'Aleo website: http://www.icecap.us



John Coleman
http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner
http://www.kusi.com/home/78477082.html?video=pop&t=a


What am I to think, woger in alt.global-warming
said the averages are from tens of thousands of
measurements from well distributed grids all over
the planet, and the confidence is 99.999999999999999999999999999
or maybe even better than that.

On Jan 15, 6:39*pm, "Eric Gisin" wrote:
Also: Jimbo Hansen is denying GISS manipulated anything.

Quick! Tell the world before they waste $billions on averting
climate change! Tell the 600 major corporations that they no longer
need to voluntarily reduce GHG emissions!

It must be true. It's in a Press Release! And the press release is
full of allegations but so far hasn't produced any evidence!


This is great! We can finally call off the Witch hunts because we
have a Press Release.

If I was going to convict Eric Gisin of a felony, a Press Release
would be substantial evidence. All the factual information that
anyone needs!


Oh! I'm just delirious with the final glory of our victory! When's
the Victory Parade?

To: Eric Gisin
From Newsgroup: sci.geo.meteorology

PRIMARY UNITED STATES CLIMATE CENTERS NOW CAUGHT IN DATA MANIPULATION
NEW REVELATIONS HEADLINED ON TV CLIMATE SPECIAL

Interesting.
--- Synchronet 3.15a-Linux NewsLink 1.92
Capitol City Online - telnet://cco.ath.cx - 502-875-8938

On 16 Jan, 00:39, "Eric Gisin" wrote:
Also: Jimbo Hansen is denying GISS manipulated anything.

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemans.../40749822.html

January 14, 2010
PRIMARY UNITED STATES CLIMATE CENTERS NOW CAUGHT IN DATA MANIPULATION
NEW REVELATIONS HEADLINED ON TV CLIMATE SPECIAL

It has been revealed that a "sleight of hand" was used in the computer program that rated 2005 as
"THE WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD." Skeptical climate researchers have discovered extensive manipulation
of the data within the U.S. Government's two primary climate centers: the National Climate Data
Center (NCDC) in Asheville, North Carolina and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS)
at Columbia University in New York City. These centers are being accused of creating a strong bias
toward warmer temperatures through a system that dramatically trimmed the number and cherry-picked
the locations of weather observation stations they use to produce the data set on which temperature
record reports are based. The two investigators say the system has been distorted in other ways as
well. They have documented their findings in great detail in a scientific report that has been
posted online. These findings are presented as a part of my television special report "Global
Warming: The Other Side" telecast Thursday night, January 14th at 9 PM here on KUSI TV.

The data manipulation studies are explored in detail during the fourth segment of the one hour
video now available here on our website. Just click on the Global Warming special banner to go to
the page.

NOAA and NASA start with the unadjusted NOAA GHCN (Global Historical Climate Network). NASA
eliminates some stations and adds some in the polar regions. For NASA, the computer program that
manipulates the data is known as GIStemp, Both then add their own adjustments to calculate a global
average temperature and a ranking for each month and year. The two inter-related U.S Government
agencies have so intertwined their programs and data sets that both are being challenged by the
investigating team that has produced this "smoking gun of U.S. Climate-gate." "We suspect each
center will try to hide behind, 'It's them; Not us' and point fingers at each other," says the
Computer Programmer from San Jose behind these new revelations. He and a Certified Consulting
Meteorologist from New Hampshire made their revelations public on January 14th on a prime time
television special report at 9:00PM PST; on KUSI-TV, an independent television station in San Diego
Perhaps that is why Dr. Richard Anthes, President of the University Corporation for Atmospheric
Research in testimony to congress in March 2009 noted "The present federal agency paradigm with
respect to NASA and NOAA is obsolete and nearly dysfunctional in spite of best efforts by both
agencies."

The U.S. Government's National Weather Service uses the NCDC data in its record temperature news
releases put out with much media fanfare on a regular basis as they declare a given month or year
has set a record for warmth, supporting the global warming agenda.

Also, the NCDC/NASA GISS data are regularly used by climate researchers doing studies at various
research centers and within university meteorology centers that are doing studies to support the
United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This data is also shared with other
global centers such as the recently hacked or leaked East Anglia University Hadley Climate Center
in England.

Programmer E. Michael Smith and CCM Joseph D'Aleo, the two men who did the research, also revealed
there are no actual temperatures left in the computer database when it proclaimed "2005 WAS THE
WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD." In the transition to a computer averaging system, the National Data
Climate Center deleted actual temperatures at thousands of locations throughout the world as it
evolved to a system of global grid boxes. The number that goes into each grid box is determined by
averaging the temperatures of two or more weather observation stations nearest that grid box..

D'Aleo puts it this way, "Over 70 percent of the Earth's surface is covered by water and vast areas
of land masses remain unpopulated as well. So it is reasonable to come up with some sort of grid
method to simulate full global coverage. The problem arises because not all of the grid boxes have
continuous temperature measurements from within them. So NCDC averages surrounding or nearby points
and places that number in the box. In some cases those observations are from several hundreds of
miles away. That produces a serious question, 'Does the resulting number represent the average
temperature for that region within meaningful limits?'" D'Aleo says it does not. "A vital issue,"
he says is, "temperatures are not linear over space, but instead vary enormously because of
differences in terrain, elevation, vegetation, water versus land and urbanization."

This problem is only the tip of the iceberg with the data being produced at NDCC. For one thing, it
is clear that comparing data from previous years when the final figure was produced by averaging a
large number of temperatures and those produced from a much smaller temperature set with large data
gaps is comparing apples and oranges. "When the differences between the warmest year in history and
the tenth warmest year is less than three quarters of a degree, it becomes silly to rely on such
comparisons," Smith and D'Aleo say. But that is exactly what has been done in touting the late
1990s and the early 2000s as the warmest ten years in history. "It is clearly a travesty and
agenda- driven by global warming advocates," D'Aleo asserts.

For E. Michael Smith this project was quite a test of his computer programming skills. "Opening,
unraveling and understanding what is happening in a complex FORTRAN computer code, with 20 years of
age and change in it, is a difficult and grueling task," he says, "and the deeper I dug the more
amazing the details revealed. When doing a benchmark test of the program, I found patterns in the
input data from NCDC that looked like dramatic and selective deletions of thermometers from cold
locations." Smith says after awhile, it became clear this was not a random strange pattern he was
finding, but a well designed and orchestrated manipulation process. "The more I looked, the more I
found patterns of deletion that could not be accidental. Thermometers moved from cold mountains to
warm beaches; from Siberian Arctic to more southerly locations and from pristine rural locations to
jet airport tarmacs. The last remaining Arctic thermometer in Canada is in a place called 'The
Garden Spot of the Arctic,' always moving away from the cold and toward the heat. I could not
believe it was so blatant and it clearly looked like it was in support of an agenda," Smith says.

Here are the numbers behind the startling findings of the new research paper. The number of actual
weather observation points used as a starting point for world average temperatures has been reduced
from about 6,000 in the 1970s to about 1,500 in the most recent years. Still, more stations are
dropped out in related programs and in the final NASA/GIStemp data file, it drops to about 1,000.
That leaves much of the world unaccounted for," says Joseph D'Aleo of ICECAP.us and SPPI.org, who
has released a research study of the global temperature pattern today. "Think of it this way," he
continues, "if Minneapolis and other northern cities suddenly disappeared but Kansas City and St.
Louis were still available, would you think an average of Kansas City and St. Louis would provide
an accurate replacement for Minneapolis and expect to use that to determine how Minneapolis'
temperature has changed with any hope of accuracy?"

E. Michael Smith pointed out that the November 2009 "anomaly map" from GISS shows a very hot
Bolivia, which is covered by high mountains. "One small problem: there have been no temperatures
recorded in the NCDC data set for Bolivia since 1990. NASA/GISS have to fill in or make up the
numbers from up to 1200km away. This is on the beach in Peru or in the Amazon jungle," he said.

He and D'Aleo say it is startling where the temperatures are that have been dropped from the
calculation. "A very high percentage of those dropped are from the more northern locations. Very
few are left north of sixty degrees longitude." "Clearly there is also a bias to leave in locations
with warmer temperatures, i.e. from the arid areas and within the urban warmth of cities," he adds.
In the greatest reduced list of locations, there are very few colder mountain locations retained.

E. Michael Smith and Joe D'Aleo are both interviewed as part of a report on this study on the
television special, "Global Warming: The Other Side" seen at 9 PM on January 14th on KUSI-TV,
channel 9/51, San Diego, California. That program will be available on-demand at KUSI.com at the
conclusion of the broadcast. The detailed report by D'Aleo is available athttp://icecap.us/images/uploads/NOAAroleinclimategate.pdf

For more information, contact:

E. Michael Smith at
Smith's climate blog:http://chiefio.wordpress.com/gistemp/
Joseph D'Aleo at , or 603-689-5646
D'Aleo website:http://www.icecap.us

John Colemanhttp://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscornerhttp://www.kusi.com/home/78477082.html?video=pop&t=a

Its shocking how these people are allowed to get away with this.

On Jan 16, 3:05*am, matt sykes wrote:
On 16 Jan, 00:39, "Eric Gisin" wrote:



Also: Jimbo Hansen is denying GISS manipulated anything.

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemans.../40749822.html

January 14, 2010
PRIMARY UNITED STATES CLIMATE CENTERS NOW CAUGHT IN DATA MANIPULATION
NEW REVELATIONS HEADLINED ON TV CLIMATE SPECIAL

It has been revealed that a "sleight of hand" was used in the computer program that rated 2005 as
"THE WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD." Skeptical climate researchers have discovered extensive manipulation
of the data within the U.S. Government's two primary climate centers: the National Climate Data
Center (NCDC) in Asheville, North Carolina and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS)
at Columbia University in New York City. These centers are being accused of creating a strong bias
toward warmer temperatures through a system that dramatically trimmed the number and cherry-picked
the locations of weather observation stations they use to produce the data set on which temperature
record reports are based. The two investigators say the system has been distorted in other ways as
well. They have documented their findings in great detail in a scientific report that has been
posted online. These findings are presented as a part of my television special report "Global
Warming: The Other Side" telecast Thursday night, January 14th at 9 PM here on KUSI TV.

The data manipulation studies are explored in detail during the fourth segment of the one hour
video now available here on our website. Just click on the Global Warming special banner to go to
the page.

NOAA and NASA start with the unadjusted NOAA GHCN (Global Historical Climate Network). NASA
eliminates some stations and adds some in the polar regions. For NASA, the computer program that
manipulates the data is known as GIStemp, Both then add their own adjustments to calculate a global
average temperature and a ranking for each month and year. The two inter-related U.S Government
agencies have so intertwined their programs and data sets that both are being challenged by the
investigating team that has produced this "smoking gun of U.S. Climate-gate." "We suspect each
center will try to hide behind, 'It's them; Not us' and point fingers at each other," says the
Computer Programmer from San Jose behind these new revelations. He and a Certified Consulting
Meteorologist from New Hampshire made their revelations public on January 14th on a prime time
television special report at 9:00PM PST; on KUSI-TV, an independent television station in San Diego
Perhaps that is why Dr. Richard Anthes, President of the University Corporation for Atmospheric
Research in testimony to congress in March 2009 noted "The present federal agency paradigm with
respect to NASA and NOAA is obsolete and nearly dysfunctional in spite of best efforts by both
agencies."

The U.S. Government's National Weather Service uses the NCDC data in its record temperature news
releases put out with much media fanfare on a regular basis as they declare a given month or year
has set a record for warmth, supporting the global warming agenda.

Also, the NCDC/NASA GISS data are regularly used by climate researchers doing studies at various
research centers and within university meteorology centers that are doing studies to support the
United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This data is also shared with other
global centers such as the recently hacked or leaked East Anglia University Hadley Climate Center
in England.

Programmer E. Michael Smith and CCM Joseph D'Aleo, the two men who did the research, also revealed
there are no actual temperatures left in the computer database when it proclaimed "2005 WAS THE
WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD." In the transition to a computer averaging system, the National Data
Climate Center deleted actual temperatures at thousands of locations throughout the world as it
evolved to a system of global grid boxes. The number that goes into each grid box is determined by
averaging the temperatures of two or more weather observation stations nearest that grid box..

D'Aleo puts it this way, "Over 70 percent of the Earth's surface is covered by water and vast areas
of land masses remain unpopulated as well. So it is reasonable to come up with some sort of grid
method to simulate full global coverage. The problem arises because not all of the grid boxes have
continuous temperature measurements from within them. So NCDC averages surrounding or nearby points
and places that number in the box. In some cases those observations are from several hundreds of
miles away. That produces a serious question, 'Does the resulting number represent the average
temperature for that region within meaningful limits?'" D'Aleo says it does not. "A vital issue,"
he says is, "temperatures are not linear over space, but instead vary enormously because of
differences in terrain, elevation, vegetation, water versus land and urbanization."

This problem is only the tip of the iceberg with the data being produced at NDCC. For one thing, it
is clear that comparing data from previous years when the final figure was produced by averaging a
large number of temperatures and those produced from a much smaller temperature set with large data
gaps is comparing apples and oranges. "When the differences between the warmest year in history and
the tenth warmest year is less than three quarters of a degree, it becomes silly to rely on such
comparisons," Smith and D'Aleo say. But that is exactly what has been done in touting the late
1990s and the early 2000s as the warmest ten years in history. "It is clearly a travesty and
agenda- driven by global warming advocates," D'Aleo asserts.

For E. Michael Smith this project was quite a test of his computer programming skills. "Opening,
unraveling and understanding what is happening in a complex FORTRAN computer code, with 20 years of
age and change in it, is a difficult and grueling task," he says, "and the deeper I dug the more
amazing the details revealed. When doing a benchmark test of the program, I found patterns in the
input data from NCDC that looked like dramatic and selective deletions of thermometers from cold
locations." Smith says after awhile, it became clear this was not a random strange pattern he was
finding, but a well designed and orchestrated manipulation process. "The more I looked, the more I
found patterns of deletion that could not be accidental. Thermometers moved from cold mountains to
warm beaches; from Siberian Arctic to more southerly locations and from pristine rural locations to
jet airport tarmacs. The last remaining Arctic thermometer in Canada is in a place called 'The
Garden Spot of the Arctic,' always moving away from the cold and toward the heat. I could not
believe it was so blatant and it clearly looked like it was in support of an agenda," Smith says.

Here are the numbers behind the startling findings of the new research paper. The number of actual
weather observation points used as a starting point for world average temperatures has been reduced
from about 6,000 in the 1970s to about 1,500 in the most recent years. Still, more stations are
dropped out in related programs and in the final NASA/GIStemp data file, it drops to about 1,000.
That leaves much of the world unaccounted for," says Joseph D'Aleo of ICECAP.us and SPPI.org, who
has released a research study of the global temperature pattern today. "Think of it this way," he
continues, "if Minneapolis and other northern cities suddenly disappeared but Kansas City and St.
Louis were still available, would you think an average of Kansas City and St. Louis would provide
an accurate replacement for Minneapolis and expect to use that to determine how Minneapolis'
temperature has changed with any hope of accuracy?"

E. Michael Smith pointed out that the November 2009 "anomaly map" from GISS shows a very hot
Bolivia, which is covered by high mountains. "One small problem: there have been no temperatures
recorded in the NCDC data set for Bolivia since 1990. NASA/GISS have to fill in or make up the
numbers from up to 1200km away. This is on the beach in Peru or in the Amazon jungle," he said.

He and D'Aleo say it is startling where the temperatures are that have been dropped from the
calculation. "A very high percentage of those dropped are from the more northern locations. Very
few are left north of sixty degrees longitude." "Clearly there is also a bias to leave in locations
with warmer temperatures, i.e. from the arid areas and within the urban warmth of cities," he adds.
In the greatest reduced list of locations, there are very few colder mountain locations retained.

E. Michael Smith and Joe D'Aleo are both interviewed as part of a report on this study on the
television special, "Global Warming: The Other Side" seen at 9 PM on January 14th on KUSI-TV,
channel 9/51, San Diego, California. That program will be available on-demand at KUSI.com at the
conclusion of the broadcast. The detailed report by D'Aleo is available athttp://icecap.us/images/uploads/NOAAroleinclimategate.pdf

For more information, contact:

E. Michael Smith at
Smith's climate blog:http://chiefio.wordpress.com/gistemp/
Joseph D'Aleo at , or 603-689-5646
D'Aleo website:http://www.icecap.us

John Colemanhttp://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscornerhttp://www.kusi.com/home/78...

Its shocking how these people are allowed to get away with this.

It's shocking that a weatherman from a San Diego TV show can expose
science as a fraud! Using a bloody Press Release!

Next? They'll be telling me There's a guy works down the chip shop
swears he's Elvis!

On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 00:35:45 -0800 (PST), "C. P."
wrote:

On Jan 16, 3:05Â*am, matt sykes wrote:
On 16 Jan, 00:39, "Eric Gisin" wrote:



Also: Jimbo Hansen is denying GISS manipulated anything.

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemans.../40749822.html

January 14, 2010
PRIMARY UNITED STATES CLIMATE CENTERS NOW CAUGHT IN DATA MANIPULATION
NEW REVELATIONS HEADLINED ON TV CLIMATE SPECIAL

It has been revealed that a "sleight of hand" was used in the computer program that rated 2005 as
"THE WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD." Skeptical climate researchers have discovered extensive manipulation
of the data within the U.S. Government's two primary climate centers: the National Climate Data
Center (NCDC) in Asheville, North Carolina and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS)
at Columbia University in New York City. These centers are being accused of creating a strong bias
toward warmer temperatures through a system that dramatically trimmed the number and cherry-picked
the locations of weather observation stations they use to produce the data set on which temperature
record reports are based. The two investigators say the system has been distorted in other ways as
well. They have documented their findings in great detail in a scientific report that has been
posted online. These findings are presented as a part of my television special report "Global
Warming: The Other Side" telecast Thursday night, January 14th at 9 PM here on KUSI TV.

The data manipulation studies are explored in detail during the fourth segment of the one hour
video now available here on our website. Just click on the Global Warming special banner to go to
the page.

NOAA and NASA start with the unadjusted NOAA GHCN (Global Historical Climate Network). NASA
eliminates some stations and adds some in the polar regions. For NASA, the computer program that
manipulates the data is known as GIStemp, Both then add their own adjustments to calculate a global
average temperature and a ranking for each month and year. The two inter-related U.S Government
agencies have so intertwined their programs and data sets that both are being challenged by the
investigating team that has produced this "smoking gun of U.S. Climate-gate." "We suspect each
center will try to hide behind, 'It's them; Not us' and point fingers at each other," says the
Computer Programmer from San Jose behind these new revelations. He and a Certified Consulting
Meteorologist from New Hampshire made their revelations public on January 14th on a prime time
television special report at 9:00PM PST; on KUSI-TV, an independent television station in San Diego
Perhaps that is why Dr. Richard Anthes, President of the University Corporation for Atmospheric
Research in testimony to congress in March 2009 noted "The present federal agency paradigm with
respect to NASA and NOAA is obsolete and nearly dysfunctional in spite of best efforts by both
agencies."

The U.S. Government's National Weather Service uses the NCDC data in its record temperature news
releases put out with much media fanfare on a regular basis as they declare a given month or year
has set a record for warmth, supporting the global warming agenda.

Also, the NCDC/NASA GISS data are regularly used by climate researchers doing studies at various
research centers and within university meteorology centers that are doing studies to support the
United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This data is also shared with other
global centers such as the recently hacked or leaked East Anglia University Hadley Climate Center
in England.

Programmer E. Michael Smith and CCM Joseph D'Aleo, the two men who did the research, also revealed
there are no actual temperatures left in the computer database when it proclaimed "2005 WAS THE
WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD." In the transition to a computer averaging system, the National Data
Climate Center deleted actual temperatures at thousands of locations throughout the world as it
evolved to a system of global grid boxes. The number that goes into each grid box is determined by
averaging the temperatures of two or more weather observation stations nearest that grid box..

D'Aleo puts it this way, "Over 70 percent of the Earth's surface is covered by water and vast areas
of land masses remain unpopulated as well. So it is reasonable to come up with some sort of grid
method to simulate full global coverage. The problem arises because not all of the grid boxes have
continuous temperature measurements from within them. So NCDC averages surrounding or nearby points
and places that number in the box. In some cases those observations are from several hundreds of
miles away. That produces a serious question, 'Does the resulting number represent the average
temperature for that region within meaningful limits?'" D'Aleo says it does not. "A vital issue,"
he says is, "temperatures are not linear over space, but instead vary enormously because of
differences in terrain, elevation, vegetation, water versus land and urbanization."

This problem is only the tip of the iceberg with the data being produced at NDCC. For one thing, it
is clear that comparing data from previous years when the final figure was produced by averaging a
large number of temperatures and those produced from a much smaller temperature set with large data
gaps is comparing apples and oranges. "When the differences between the warmest year in history and
the tenth warmest year is less than three quarters of a degree, it becomes silly to rely on such
comparisons," Smith and D'Aleo say. But that is exactly what has been done in touting the late
1990s and the early 2000s as the warmest ten years in history. "It is clearly a travesty and
agenda- driven by global warming advocates," D'Aleo asserts.

For E. Michael Smith this project was quite a test of his computer programming skills. "Opening,
unraveling and understanding what is happening in a complex FORTRAN computer code, with 20 years of
age and change in it, is a difficult and grueling task," he says, "and the deeper I dug the more
amazing the details revealed. When doing a benchmark test of the program, I found patterns in the
input data from NCDC that looked like dramatic and selective deletions of thermometers from cold
locations." Smith says after awhile, it became clear this was not a random strange pattern he was
finding, but a well designed and orchestrated manipulation process. "The more I looked, the more I
found patterns of deletion that could not be accidental. Thermometers moved from cold mountains to
warm beaches; from Siberian Arctic to more southerly locations and from pristine rural locations to
jet airport tarmacs. The last remaining Arctic thermometer in Canada is in a place called 'The
Garden Spot of the Arctic,' always moving away from the cold and toward the heat. I could not
believe it was so blatant and it clearly looked like it was in support of an agenda," Smith says.

Here are the numbers behind the startling findings of the new research paper. The number of actual
weather observation points used as a starting point for world average temperatures has been reduced
from about 6,000 in the 1970s to about 1,500 in the most recent years. Still, more stations are
dropped out in related programs and in the final NASA/GIStemp data file, it drops to about 1,000.
That leaves much of the world unaccounted for," says Joseph D'Aleo of ICECAP.us and SPPI.org, who
has released a research study of the global temperature pattern today. "Think of it this way," he
continues, "if Minneapolis and other northern cities suddenly disappeared but Kansas City and St.
Louis were still available, would you think an average of Kansas City and St. Louis would provide
an accurate replacement for Minneapolis and expect to use that to determine how Minneapolis'
temperature has changed with any hope of accuracy?"

E. Michael Smith pointed out that the November 2009 "anomaly map" from GISS shows a very hot
Bolivia, which is covered by high mountains. "One small problem: there have been no temperatures
recorded in the NCDC data set for Bolivia since 1990. NASA/GISS have to fill in or make up the
numbers from up to 1200km away. This is on the beach in Peru or in the Amazon jungle," he said.

He and D'Aleo say it is startling where the temperatures are that have been dropped from the
calculation. "A very high percentage of those dropped are from the more northern locations. Very
few are left north of sixty degrees longitude." "Clearly there is also a bias to leave in locations
with warmer temperatures, i.e. from the arid areas and within the urban warmth of cities," he adds.
In the greatest reduced list of locations, there are very few colder mountain locations retained.

E. Michael Smith and Joe D'Aleo are both interviewed as part of a report on this study on the
television special, "Global Warming: The Other Side" seen at 9 PM on January 14th on KUSI-TV,
channel 9/51, San Diego, California. That program will be available on-demand at KUSI.com at the
conclusion of the broadcast. The detailed report by D'Aleo is available athttp://icecap.us/images/uploads/NOAAroleinclimategate.pdf

For more information, contact:

E. Michael Smith at
Smith's climate blog:http://chiefio.wordpress.com/gistemp/
Joseph D'Aleo at , or 603-689-5646
D'Aleo website:http://www.icecap.us

John Colemanhttp://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscornerhttp://www.kusi.com/home/78...

Its shocking how these people are allowed to get away with this.

It's shocking that a weatherman from a San Diego TV show can expose
science as a fraud! Using a bloody Press Release!

Next? They'll be telling me There's a guy works down the chip shop
swears he's Elvis!


Really convincing rebuttal of video and literature
showing actual NASA and NOAA graphs.