Biggest Fraud In Science History – The NASA/NOAA Surface Temperature Record

Over the last ten years, satellites show that the Earth is cooling. But that doesn’t suit the needs of the climate criminal community ahead of their convention in Paris this year, so NASA/NOAA created a completely fake surface temperature record – which is diverging from satellite temperatures at a rate of two degrees per century

ScreenHunter_243 Jul. 24 19.38

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

There isn’t one smidgen of legitimacy to the NASA/NOAA temperature record, but current their job is to create propaganda for the White House.

This fraud is nothing new for them, as they have been altering their own data for decades to create the impression of imaginary global warming. They have doubled 1880-1980 warming since Hansen 1981.

giss-1981-2002-2014-global

And their fraudulent temperature record looks nothing like the 1975 National Academy of Sciences graph.

screenhunter_9457-may-24-06-49

They are able to get away with this, because they have many criminals in government and the press backing them up in this fraud, and believe they can do whatever they want and get away with it.

If they weren’t crooks, they would be very concerned about the discrepancy versus satellite data. But they don’t even mention it. A dead giveaway of their mindset..

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Biggest Fraud In Science History – The NASA/NOAA Surface Temperature Record

  1. Jeffk says:

    Another thing: why are we seeing a cold front moving south to Georgia in late July?? That along with downpours in Norway and California is more evidence of cooling. A mini ice age ushered in by geologic and solar activity looks more and more likely.

  2. cheshirered says:

    “If they weren’t crooks, they would be very concerned about the discrepancy versus satellite data. But they don’t even mention it. A dead giveaway of their mindset.”

    Literally this is the bottom line.

  3. Eliza says:

    Wonder if anyone is keeping tabs on England’s atrocious summer. It appears to be way below normal (daily temps as reported by SKy News anyway)

  4. chris y says:

    It’s worse than we thought.

    The RSS troposphere data should be warming faster than the GISTEMP surface data.
    Because models.

    Puzzling.

  5. Hugh K says:

    Far past time for someone (Heartland?) to file a class action suit against NASA/NOAA. Reflecting on the non-action by Justice of admitted fraudster Peter Gleick, a suit doesn’t have to be a criminal complaint although this reeks of fraud. 2017?
    Any legal-beagles out there with suggestions?

  6. MyersKL says:

    Congress should hold hearings and subpeona the fraudsters. Make them answer questions under oath, under penalty of perjury.

    • Do you think that would make any difference?
      “A subpoena is a writ issued by a government agency, most often a court, to compel testimony by a witness or production of evidence under a penalty for failure.” (ref. Wikipedia)

      The main problem, as I see it, is a serious lack of robust scientific method.
      They can provide all kinds of weak, inductive, evidence for their actions.
      The problem, however, is the lack of a robust scientific method.

      Or – as phrased by Karl Popper, the master mind behind a modern scientific method – the empirical method:
      What characterizes the empirical method is its manner of exposing to falsification, in every conceivable way, the system to be tested. It´s aim is not to save the life of untenable systems but, on the contrary, to expose them all to the fiercest struggle for survival.

      Do you think congress has the competence which is required to expose these adjustments, in every conceivable way, to falsification?

      If you add to it the following, still with Poppers words:
      For it is always possible to find some way of evading falsification, for example by introducing ad hoc an auxiliary hypothesis, or by changing ad hoc a definition. It is even possible without logical inconsistency to adopt the position of simply refusing to acknowledge any falsifying experience whatsoever. Admittedly, scientists do not usually proceed in this way, but logically such procedure is possible.

      That is why it is so incredible difficult to prove them wrong. They are probably in good faith. All players within science need to adhere to the empirical method – else it will not work. Tony Heller is giving it a really good shot though. I wish more people would open their eyes.

      Enjoy some soothing writings by Popper. First part is easy reading:
      http://strangebeautiful.com/other-texts/popper-logic-scientific-discovery.pdf

  7. Pingback: Climate Fanatics Run Into Public Relations Snag |

  8. Peter Davis says:

    Go Green, add C02!

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.