How to Fabricate Climate Change Evidence

Edward Spalton

Climate Change IV   – A THUMB (OR TWO) IN THE SCALES? 

        I was sent away to learn the corn trade to a firm called Lamprey & Son  in Banbury. The old office and shop building still stands next to the town hall and looks much the same today although it has long been converted to other uses.

        One day the boss showed me a really beautifully made,  brass, Victorian  balance that fitted into a polished wooden case which would slip into your pocket. On one end of the beam was a small pot about as big as a good-sized egg cup. The other side of the beam was milled with serations  and graduated with a sliding weight which moved along it. If you filled the pot up with a sample of grain and struck it off level, you could slide the weight along until it balanced with the contents of the pot and read off the bushel weight of the grain from  the scale.

        Bushel weight is a good indicator of quality. Plump, full grains weigh heavier than thin ones. A bushel of reasonable quality barley would weigh 4 stones (56 lb or half a hundredweight) and a bushel of good wheat 5 stones (70lb). So the little pot contained a very small part of a bushel. The sample might represent a parcel of grain which could be anything from 5  or 6 tonnes up to over 100.

        The boss let me try this out and in two or three goes I was getting a very consistent reading. He then did the same with the same sample and got a considerably  heavier bushel weight. Eventually he showed me the trick. The strike or straight edge, which was used to level off the contents of the pot, had two sides. One was like a ruler and the other had a piece of dowel along it. If you used the dowel side, it pressed a few more corns into the pot than the straight edge. With the effect of scale, this made the sample look considerably heavier and better quality.  Even with a correctly drawn sample, a small change in procedure or instrumentation could significantly bias the result.  “That’s how they did it in the old days days, boy” he said with a wink “buying or selling, you see, boy”.  I should add that this was shown to me as an antique curiosity and was not any part of the trading practices of the firm in my day!

        The kit which is used to “sample” the temperature of the climate is remarkably unchanged and about the same vintage as that rather splendid little balance. It is called a Stevenson Screen and was actually designed by the father of Robert Louis Stevenson, the author of “Treasure Island”.  It is a standard sized wooden box with louvred sides to allow free circulation of the air around the instruments and keep them out of direct sunlight. Hence the expression “in the shade” when referring to temperature. The thermometer might be a traditional mercury maximum/minimum type or more modern sensors.  Stevenson Screens were traditionally painted with whitewash.

        It is doubtful whether a character like ANTHONY WATTS could exist in state-controlled Britain. He is an American meteorologist and weather forecaster for commercial TV and radio stations. For his living he depends upon his customers’ satisfaction with the accuracy of his forecasts. He also supplies custom-built weather stations, TV graphics systems and video equipment to broadcasters all over the world. So he is an expert who makes his living from weather but is neither a civil servant (who can be made to toe an official line) nor dependent on tax-funded grants (which require applicants to be politically correct). So he has a certain independence of mind and demonstrates that rugged individualism and tenacity of purpose which used to be the stuff of all-American heroes in many films of my youth.

        He noticed that the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Weather Service (NOAA/NWS – roughly equivalent to the UK Meteorological Office) had made a small change to its Stevenson Screens. He wondered whether this change would affect the temperatures recorded. Back in 1979 the NWS had stopped using whitewash and started painting the Stevenson Screens with white, semi gloss,  latex paint. Whitewash essentially gave a coating of calcium carbonate whilst  latex paint used the pigment titanium dioxide which has significantly different infra-red properties.

        In 2007, having a little time on his hands, he set up a trial to see what the  differences might be. He used three Stevenson Screens – one unpainted, one painted with the latex semi gloss  used by the NWS and one painted with historically correct whitewash. He also used a modern stacked plate aspirated thermometer as an additional control. His results showed that the latex paint raised the maximum recorded temperature within the screen by 0.3 degrees  Fahrenheit and the minimum recorded temperature by 0.8 degrees Fahrenheit when compared with the whitewashed Stevenson Screen. So that is an average upward bias of 0.55 degrees Fahrenheit. Not very much, you might think but the whole scare about global warming is based on a claimed, observed temperature rise of only 1.2 degrees Fahrenheit in a century.

        Anthony Watts then decided to have a look at the NWS’s Stevenson Screens in his locality to see if they were being painted to the official specification. What he found was disquieting.  In one case, heat-generating radio equipment had been installed inside the screen, near to the temperature sensors. In other cases the weather stations were near to the outlet vents of air conditioning systems or close to other heat sources – all of which would tend to bias the recorded temperatures upwards.

        So he conducted further investigations, eventually recruiting a team of volunteers to observe and photograph as many of the  1221  weather stations as possible all over the United States. 865 of them were visited. NEARLY NINE OUT OF TEN WEATHER STATIONS PROVED TO BE OUTSIDE THE SPECIFICATIONS LAID DOWN BY THE U.S. AUTHORTIES THEMSELVES.

They were near to artificial heat sources, on top of concrete or tarmac surfaces, close to buildings, in the steamy warmth of sewage farms and so on. ALL OF THE OBSERVED FAULTS WOULD TEND TO RAISE THE RECORDED TEMPERATURES. It is a fascinating story of one man’s determination to get at the truth and can be read in full on . Anthony Watts also has a regularly updated blog  which is one of the most widely read, independent sources of climate information. I particularly like the fact that contrary views are welcomed. Whilst they are vigorously debated, they are treated with respect and normal courtesy – unlike some blogs pushing the official line.

        To return to my analogy of that corn merchant’s balance – the few cubic feet of air inside a Stevenson Screen stand proxy for a huge amount of the earth’s atmosphere. Weather stations  are often hundreds of miles apart. So those few cubic feet are proportionately much smaller than that egg cupful of grain representing a parcel of some tons. Any change ,  such as a different coat of paint, a heat-radiating transformer inside the screen or a nearby heat source can have a disproportionate effect on a tiny sample which is claimed as representative of hundreds of cubic miles of atmosphere.  Probably unintentionally, the official methods  seem to have had an effect not unlike a thumb or two being pressed on the side of the scales indicating a warming, rather than a stable or cooling climate.  Yet the taxpayer-funded “climate community” was not at all grateful to Anthony Watts for looking in to the basic data and the  methods used to measure it. For them “the science is settled” is the whole of their faith. Forget accurate measurement. They have computer programs  to adjust things in ways which only they can understand.  Watts is a heretic and that’s that.


        When the US authorities began monitoring surface temperatures of the earth’s surface, the 1,221 US weather stations were part of a worldwide total of some 6,000. But something strange happened in the last few years. The number of stations used to record temperature  dropped dramatically. Figures were still shown for all areas of the world but they were calculated by reference to far fewer  actual observations. They were “adjusted” and “homogenised” .  The Canadian blog, “Small Dead Animals” reported as follows on January 16 2010 under the heading

“The Sound of Settled Science”.

“In Canada, the number of stations dropped from 600 to 35 in 2009. The percentage of stations in the lower elevations (below 300 feet) tripled and those at higher elevations above three thousand feet were reduced in half. Canada’s semi-permanent depicted warmth comes from interpolating (don’t you love the word!) from more southerly locations to fill northerly vacant grid boxes, even as a pure average of the available stations shows a COOLING.

        JUST 1 THERMOMETER REMAINS for everything north of latitude 65N – that station is Eureka. Eureka according to Wikipedia has been described as “The Garden Spot of the Arctic” due to the flora and fauna around the Eureka area, mopre so than anywhere elese in the high Arctic. Winters are frigid but summers are slightly warmer than other places in the Canadian Arctic”.

        The same has happened to US thermometers, South of the Border. The computer expert E. Michael Smith joined forces with the Certified Consulting Meteorologist Joseph D’Aleo and  appeared in a TV programme on on 16 January 2010.  They reported that the number of weather stations used as a starting point for the world’s average temperature calculations had been reduced from around 6,000 in the Seventies to about 1,500 now . “That leaves much of the world unaccounted for. The greatest losses were in areas where NOAA and other data centers claim the warming was greatest like Siberia and Canada”. D’Aleo added that “In these regions NOAA “estimates” temperatures based on stations that may be 700 miles away”.

        Smith noted “When doing a benchmark test of the program, I found patterns in them input data… that looked like dramatic and selective deletions of thermometers from cold locations…….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….”

        Even as a very new, trainee corn merchant I knew better than to draw a sample from only the best part of the bulk. It would lead to the actual delivery being rejected and to great extra expense to my boss. He never liked that sort of thing. There seems to be no similar sanction for scientists drawing bad samples of climate and temperature with  equipment known to be faulty. If the results are what the politicians want to hear, they are fine. The enormous bill for remediating “climate change” will simply be passed to the taxpayer – even if it isn’t actually happening.

4 responses to “How to Fabricate Climate Change Evidence

  1. I would say it is even simpler than you have described. At least in your corn example you actually measured something.

    From scouring the internet I found no instance – yet – where the “warmers” actually publish actual data. They simply present charts with no indication / description of any kind as to the actual source from which it is drawn. We’re just expected to accept their “results”.

  2. If the thermometers were systematically biased, for instance if they were near heat-generating equipment or coated in heat-insulating paint, they would indeed report higher temperatures than they would otherwise. This would call measurements of absolute temperature into question. It would not explain away a warming trend, however, unless the bias were for some reason getting gradually worse over time – for instance, if climate scientists had for some reason been placing an exponentially increasing number of thermometers next to heat vents ever the past 80 years or so.

    In short: the bias you claim would elevate the temperature, but the amount by which the temperature was elevated would not increase over time. So, such biases cannot account for observed warming, even if they exist, and leaving alone the data from measurements of tree rings and ice cores which show the same trends as the thermometers.

  3. “the bias you claim would elevate the temperature, but the amount by which the temperature was elevated would not increase over time. ” Sure it would. Not all vents are actively putting out vents at all times. For example, if you place a thermometer next to my dryer vent, it would only register higher temperatures when I’m actually running my dryer. It would also register higher temperatures when the sun is hitting it, etc. So the temperature increase on any thermometer would never be uniformly the same increase because conditions vary on it.

  4. I’m a long time watcher and I just imagined I’d drop by and say hello there for your 1st time. I seriously enjoy your posts. Thanks