At http://notrickszone.com/2015/05/02/151-degrees-of-fudging-energy-physici… .. which is all about cooling the heels of climate data – the oldest parts of the climate records. Mike Brakey is described as an engineering physicist and energy expert, and has a lot of experience. He hails from New England, or more properly, the State of Maine, and he forwarded to Pierre Gosselin a summary analysis of NOAA past temperature 'adjustments' for the region. He discovered that between 2013 and 2015 Maine climate history had been re-written (and the US as a whole). This statement, he says, is not based on his opinion but on facts drawn from NOAA 2013 climate data versus NOAA 2015 climate data (which had clearly been adjusted). He provides a print out from NOAA to show the adjustments – having done a screen save of the 2013 NOAA data (which itself was subject to adjustment form earlier versions but which he had not saved as a screen shot). He is fairly blunt when he accuses them of cooking their own books. Others might say they fiddled the message to promote the song sheet.
The last 4 months have seen some of the coldest weather in the NE region of the United States than for a long time – going back over a 125 year weather and temperature archive. Due to NOAA tampering of the data record they are no longer among the coldest months in the database – and the change occurred between the 2013 and 2015 NOAA listings. The last 4 months have effectively warmed up – and this possibly has something to do with the upcoming Paris meeting on climate change (the Met Office have been accused of doing something similar to the 2014 figures, claiming it was one of the warmest years ever when it was no such thing). This is achieved by adjusting downwards , on a regular and recurring basis, earlier decades in the record – so that the recent years appear to be warmer than they really are. A neat trick you might say – but surely they must know they would be caught out. Apparently, they think that because only a minority of people worry about these things they can blatantly criminalise the data and nobody will cry wolf. To achieve this they call their opponents deniers and demonise them so that ordinary law abiding citizens are put off from looking at the problem themselves – and they get away with it, over and over again. Not only that, the adjustments are not seen as a criminal offence by the climate science community. This point came across at a Watts Up With That post last year where they openly admitted an algorithm was involved that automatically made the adjustments in the background. They could not see the problem, as pointed out by Steve Goddard, that although some adjustments were fine, to compensate for various factors in the equipment used in the past and that used nowadays, but the fact they were adjusting adjusted figures, and adjusting adjusted adjusted figures (and so on as this has been taking place for quite a few years) was making a mockery of the official database, just didn't seem to sink in. They thought it was perfectly legal and straightforward. It's a bit like a thief sneaking into a church and breaking open the box with the donations and filling his or her pockets with the copper and silver coins – and claiming it was there for the taking and if they didn't want it stolen they shouldn't put it on show (ignoring the fact that if there was no money box there would be no donations). I suppose you can rationalise anything in your mind – if you have the inclination.
Brakey accuses NOAA of making 2015 warmer by lowering the temperatures in the past – or cooling the heels of the climate record. He has gone further than just writing about it to a minority of people who are bothered to visit sceptic blogs – he has put it all together on a Power Point presentation and posted it on You Tube with the title 'Black Swan Climate Theory' – and all you need to do is put that into your search engine. However, he does provide a link for those wishing to have a closer look at the visuals, which is www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HwmO14KuyQ&list=PLDXMwo2SyaRre3GWujVHJGTL19nvGA…
Maine temperatures for the first 4 months of 2015 are running neck and neck with the cold years of 1904, 1918, and 1925 – taken from NOAAs 2013 data set. Why would NOAA alter the data? According to Brakey global warming has become a 27 billion dollar business on an annual basis and that is just in the US. The air you breathe is providing a bounty for the unsavoury elements in our societies.
All this follows on the heels of a Swiss 'weekly' calling recent temperature rise a propaganda trick (not trend) and … 'we are making a warming.' See http://notrickszone.com/2015/05/01/swiss-weekly-calles-temperature-rise-…
The Australians have also uncovered the fact state meteorologists adjusted an 80 year temperature series, turning a cooling phase into a warming period. This follows something similar in New Zealand the year before – which was hastily covered up. It did a bit of political damage over there so we may assume the politicos will be keen to keep all this under wraps (with the connivance of their friends in Fleet Street).
We also have our own Christopher Booker writing in the Sunday Telegraph (to a small readership) banging on the drum each week. He calls it 'the biggest science scandal ever' and he showed the so called record warming of 2014 came about because NASA GISS had flipped the data trend from rural measurement stations in Brazil and Paraguay. He is especially critical of Met Office modelling and temperature trends. The Icelandic weather people have also accused NOAA and GISS of misrepresenting weather station data – without informing them of what they were doing.
At http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/05/02/settled-science-means-a-40… … there has been a constant stream of blog posts on data manipulation. However, his blog is so anti-Obama he comes across as a crank (and that is being kind). His politics get mixed up with his science – which should not be so.