A Consistent Pattern Of Data Tampering Across The Planet

NASA has corrupted the temperature record across the entire planet, in order to create the appearance of warming. The graph below shows US temperatures – Hansen 1999 in blue, and GISS in red. The graphs are normalized to the 1997 five year mean lines.

ScreenHunter_205 Feb. 20 06.49

NASA GISS: Science Briefs: Whither U.S. Climate?

Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Analysis Graphs and Plots

The next four graphs show how GISS has cooled the past globally, and at all three latitude bands since Hansen 1981.

ScreenHunter_203 Feb. 20 06.35 ScreenHunter_202 Feb. 20 06.32 ScreenHunter_195 Feb. 20 06.14 ScreenHunter_192 Feb. 20 06.04


Similarly, NOAA (red) has cooled the US past since their 1990 report (black)



The most damning graph of all though is the one below, showing how NOAA (red) is cooling the past relative to their own thermometer data (blue)


About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to A Consistent Pattern Of Data Tampering Across The Planet

  1. Morgan says:

    You would think, in the interest of accuracy, they would tamper the data the other way, due to the UHI effect, which is bigger than any of the other effects they adjust the data for. But they don’t. Instead, they write peer reviewed papers saying there is no UHI:


    They should adjust the data the other way in the interest of accuracy, but NOAA has no interest in accuracy.

  2. omanuel says:

    Steven, relax and enjoy the show!

    These wannabe “scientists-for-hire” [Have lie, will travel] could not comprehend the incredibly talented engineering that allowed the whole universe to have life and breath:

    1. The strong, short-range force of neutron repulsion is opposed by

    2. The weak, long-range gravitational force of attraction.

    Engineering completely beyond the comprehension of wannabe scientists.

    What an engineering feat !

  3. gator69 says:

    mo·dus ope·ran·di
    Pronunciation: \?m?-d?s-?ä-p?-?ran-d?, -?d?\
    Function: noun
    Inflected Form(s): plural mo·di operandi \?m?-?d?-, ?m?-?d?-\
    Etymology: New Latin
    Date: 1654
    : a method of procedure ; especially : a distinct pattern or method of operation that indicates or suggests the work of a single criminal in more than one crime

    • omanuel says:

      The correct pronunciation for the best is “No Bel Lar Re At.”

      Now you know why so many leaders of the scientific community remained silent after Al Gore was outted.

      • Shazaam says:

        So, a Nobel Peace prize must actually be awarded for exceptional ability in the art of prevarication!!!

        In which case, the Liar-in-chief and Al Bore have indeed earned those awards “honestly” !!!

        /sarc 😉

  4. Richard Mallett says:

    Have you told NOAA / NAASA ? It would be interesting to hear their reply.

  5. Global warming is a public safety issue. The colder it is, more criminals stay inside. Lol


  6. omanuel says:


    As you get closer to revealing the truth about sixty-eight years (2014 – 1946 = 68 yrs), the more intense will be the personal attacks.

    But relax and enjoy the show. The ending to this drama was written in the oldest scriptures of almost every religion:

    “Truth is victorious, never untruth!”

  7. Anto says:

    They really murdered the Southern Hemisphere, didn’t they? Damned antipodeans – couldn’t read a thermometer if their lives depended on it!

  8. Brian H says:

    I wonder what the GCMs do when fed the unfudged data.

  9. Ken says:

    We always KNEW we couldn’t trust politicians. That is par for the course. Ditto for used car salesmen, although they are rank amateurs compared to politicians. But serious scientists lying? I guess I am just too gullible. I can hardly read these reports of changing actual data without getting sick.

    If they want to adjust the data for some justifiable reason, by all means adjust it, but they should leave the raw data alone (and available to the citizens, because we own the data), publish their reasoning behind the adjustments and the methods used to adjust it, and then always label it as adjusted. If they do that, it isn’t lying. They will have to defend it, of course, but if they don’t have a defensible reason for adjusting it, why bother adjusting it? To keep their job? What kind of reason is that? To advance a political agenda? Do they call themselves American? I call them self-serving; arrogant; traitorous.

  10. I’m with Ken: seeing the changes from the 1981 Hansen paper to the current graph on the GISS page, for instance, is disturbing.

    What is their justification for… well… changing the past? I see nothing in the way the data is presented to indicate that the adjustments have been done because of the consideration of proxies, or the incorporation of new hypotheses, or for any good reason at all: no reasons whatsoever are provided, nor even a hint that anything other than contemporary measurement of temperature by devices has been employed. Indeed, that is the implication, isn’t it? — that the graphs indicate actual temperature measurements at the time by devices at the time.

    Do they provide some sort of justification somewhere?

  11. Ah. I see that your Feb. 12th post “Locating The Missing Cold” is very helpful in answering my question.

Leave a Reply

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