The Price Of Freedom Is Eternal Vigilance

The White House is engaged in a massive climate scam, which involves many billions of dollars and has infected the academic community. They are currently planning to attempt to silence whistleblowers, via intimidation and kangaroo court RICO prosecutions.

The last thing they would want would be whistleblowers like me (who would blow their scam wide open) on the witness stand, so it is safe to assume that whatever they are planning will involve gag orders and secret tribunals under the guise of “national security.” It would be the equivalent of the Bush administration prosecuting Iraq war dissenters.

As a preventative measure, I am posting this information now, and it will stay at the top of my blog. I would like to see it spread far and wide.

I have no ties to any energy industry. I do not receive any funding other than small donations on my blog, which work out to much less than minimum wage over the past decade. I have never had any discussion with any skeptic which involved any suggestion of spreading misinformation. Quite the opposite, skeptics work tirelessly to expose the massive big dollar climate fraud being perpetrated by the White House, government agencies, and academia.

I am a life-long environmentalist. I testified at my first Congressional hearing in support of a wilderness area while still in High School. I worked to get the Clean Air Act passed. I volunteered as wilderness ranger for the United States Forest Service for two summers. I do all of my personal transport by bicycle or mass transit, unless it is more than 40 miles or no safe route. I would love to see 95% of cars off the road, but lying about the climate is not an acceptable way to get there. I have a wonderful, full life, enjoy every minute, and want the next generation to have the same opportunities I have.

I have worked on many mission critical projects for government and industry, including The DOE’s nuclear waste disposal site safety analysis report, imaging systems for military drones, and critical spy software used by the US military. I have worked as a contract software developer on climate and weather model development for the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado. I have been a key player on design teams of many of the world’s most complex electronic designs. I am an expert in signal processing.

I have spent thousands of hours analyzing NASA/NOAA climate records using my best engineering, signal processing and science skills. I have done this with no financial motivation, and no motivation other than finding out the truth.

I have concluded that much of their climate data is flagrantly fraudulent. This is the biggest science scam in history. Let’s get this word out to everyone, and shut this unbelievably expensive scam down once and for all.

Not convinced? Look how NASA has tampered with their own sea level and temperature data.

NASASeaLevelRise1983-2015 GISS1982_2002_2014_2015 GISSUS1999-2015

About Tony Heller

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

173 Responses to The Price Of Freedom Is Eternal Vigilance

  1. omanuel says:

    Thank you, Steven aka Tony Heller, for leading that vigilance!

    • omanuel says:

      I salute you! You merit much more than a Nobel Prize for exposing the climate scam. You kept the scientific community from more self-inflicted humiliation.

      [When the cat is finally “out of the bag,” the climate scandal may however pale in comparison to falsehoods inserted in the foundations of nuclear and solar physics after WWII.]

      • omanuel says:

        How long will it take for communities of scientists, scholars and Nobel Prize winners to regain the public respect they had before joining the Nobel Prize-winning, 97%-certain Al Gore and the UN propaganda campaign to deny that the pulsar one astronautical unit (1AU) from Earth has any influence on Earth’s climate?

        In the closing days of this gigantic fraud, the Pope himself joined the campaign to show that the Catholic Church has regained its scientific credibility after denying Copernicus’ discovery in 1543 that Earth orbits the fountain of energy, one astronautical unit (1 AU) from Earth.

      • omanuel says:

        Vigilance, love and tolerance will bring back peace and freedom.

        The final conclusion will be an awakening to the reality that:

        1. Every atom was made in the Sun, and then ejected five billion years (5 Ga) ago in a supernova explosion that birthed the Solar System.

        2. A “conscious and intelligent Mind” that Max Planck realized in 1944 guides invisible force fields from the Sun’s pulsar core to sustain every atom and life in the Solar System now.

        To avoid unnecessary violence and retaliation, it is in the best interest of everyone to find a peaceful resolution to the scientific conflict before the above inevitable conclusion to the drama is reached:

  2. Robertv says:

    I also assume that you’re not suicidal.

  3. Barbara says:

    Please vary your schedule and routes. Watch your back (rear view mirror?). Seriously, so many are not well! to put it mildly, and you are surely a major irritant.

  4. jandlgatlin says:

    Is there a way to “freeze” the graphs? Also, it would be helpful if you would add a caption to illustrate the point you’re trying to make. That’s just a good presentation practice. Finally, you use many abbreviations that are unfamiliar to me. I am a retired, registered engineer with an MS from MIT and if I have trouble understanding your presentations and graphs, I suspect others do, also.
    Full disclosure, I am a full-fledged member of the “flat earth society.”

  5. mtminer says:

    Tony, Barbara is absolutely correct. Please give up your bicycle until we have this war won, One hit and run would take, if not our biggest crusader then surely one of our biggest crusaders in the fight to expose the greatest science fraud of all times. We love you Tony, Please be safe.

    • Eric Simpson says:

      NOT the bicycle. That workout really improves your health and it’s fun. It’s true I like riding off street where there are no cars, if possible. But maybe wear more reflectors or whatnot.

  6. Bravo Tony! I appreciate your tireless work and would like to help in any way I can. Assignments are OK if you need a research assistant… Thanks!

  7. Disillusioned says:

    God Bless you Tony.

    This is the day the tables turned.

  8. ripatheism says:

    They don’t have the guts to do it. And their are still a huge group of honest scientists out their who would beat down the doors of congress to protect the first amendment and expose this hoax- but it is people like you, who diverse to be nominated for the Nobel Peace price, not Al Gore (psycho) nor Obama – possibly the most narcissistic and pathological person I have seen, anywhere.. thank GOD the right controls congress right now (not that they are not corrupt to..but much less than the other side), otherwise I would be very worried for people like you. God bless, and I will donate soon as I use your page daily, to try and pass along the word….Thank YOU!!

  9. amirlach says:

    Here is another whistle blower, this time exposing another Josh Fox movie.

  10. Andy DC says:

    I have nothing close to your kind of credentials or scientific intelligence. What I have done is extensively studied weather history. Studied it enough to know we are being scammed big time with respect to claims of catastrophic warming, which have simply not materialized. It is amazing how many people spout off (actors, Popes, politicians, talking heads) about dire effects of “climate change” without having the slightest knowledge of what has happened in the real world. Thanks for shining the light on this mess for the rest of us.

  11. Alan Poirier says:

    I have to admit that when the topic first came up about data tampering, I didn’t believe it. I spent the better part of a year reading old newspapers (I have access to dozens of newspaper archives) and your blogs. At the end of my quest for truth, I find myself believing it is precisely as you say — massive tampering. I now see that bloggers over at WattsUpWithThat are reaching the same conclusion, as is Paul Homewood and Ole Humlum, to name but a few of the people who have looked into the temperature series. I applaud your efforts Tony.

  12. The good news is that Mother Nature has a wicked sense of humor so she delights in pricking the vanity of pompous asses by creating what we call the “Gore Effect”.

    Unfortunately these charlatans are so shameless that they will still be screaming “The Hottest Year On Record” when Mother Nature plunges us into the next glaciation.

      • ren says:

        This year’s only expedition to the top of Mount Everest fell short of reaching the mountain’s peak due to heavy snow, meaning that no one will step foot on top of the world’s tallest mountain this year.
        Heavy snow has fallen around Mount Everest in Nepal’s Himalaya Mountains over the past weeks and has made some parts of the climb too difficult to navigate, forcing many people to abandon their attempts at climbing Everest.
        More than 2 feet of snow fell at Everest’s base camp around the middle of September, causing the conditions along the climbing routes to deteriorate and Sherpas to work on clearing the routes before climbers could trek up the mountain.

        • DD More says:

          Ren, I am still wondering where all the moisture came from after reading this.

          Monsoon 2015 downgraded to 90%
          The peak of Monsoon season comes to an end with the beginning of September. June had ended with above normal rains to the tune of 16%. But, July consumed all the surplus rainfall left over by June and registered 17% less rains than the long period average (LPA). Thereafter, August followed suit and is likely to end with a rainfall deficiency of over 20% for the month. With two major months of the Monsoon season recording significant rainfall deficiencies, a big recovery in September looks unlikely. Consequently, the revised Monsoon forecast of Skymet stands at 90% of the long period average (LPA). This also means that September will not see copious amounts of rainfall and will possibly end up with a +/- 5% of the monthly average rainfall of 173 mm.
          See more at:

          For people who see geography, normal weather patterns and its effects, stories like this make you wonder about data tampering.

        • Ernest Bush says:

          @DD More – this may sound crazy, but think of an ever decreasing magnetic field allowing more cosmic bombardment of our atmosphere causing stimulation of cloud formations beyond the norm. There have been a number of incidents lately such as sudden formation of storm cells with hail in the path of commercial aircraft around the world. They have been forced to fly through them damaging the windshields and radar housings. A couple of the emergency landings have been really hairy with no visibility through the windshields.

          There have also been the historic floods all over the globe, not just in the U.S., caused by huge amounts of rainfall over short periods, along with record snowfalls. Most of this is not being reported in the MSM.

          During the summer of 2014 NASA produced a report on the status of our magnetic shield with data. That data has been restricted ever since. You can’t get access. It did give a fourth data point for what earth’s magnetic field has been doing over the last 200 years. A simple calculation shows that field may be already down to 30 to 35 percent and may reach the 50 percent level by 2018. The drop in strength is definitely accelerating. Meanwhile the process of magnetic field reversal is accelerating as the poles are currently headed toward a point off Africa. The South Magnetic Pole is not even on the Antarctic continent anymore. There really is an uptick in volcanic activity right now, which has caused scientists to suddenly find active volcanoes on the ocean floor where there were none. The earth is getting restless.

          The weather on all the planets of the solar system has gone strange and some processes are speeding up. This is a fact. The sun’s magnetic field is falling toward zero and too many scientists are acting like this will not affect earth’s weather.

          I hope this is at least partly wrong (I am not the originator of the above) and so does the original source. When things are happening that aren’t explained by what we understand about weather and climate then it is time to pay attention to other factors. Most of the fraudulent climate data will not account for this crazy stuff. It involves the temperature record and little else. That, of course, is bad enough.

          Normally, I would list sources, but in this case I invite anybody interested to Google about these things. You can draw your own conclusions that way.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Vukcevic has been following the magnetic field for years. Unfortunately most of his info is in blog comments at WUWT and Tallbloke.

        • ren says:

          Ernest Bush
          Launched in November 2013, Swarm is providing unprecedented insights into the complex workings of Earth’s magnetic field, which safeguards us from the bombarding cosmic radiation and charged particles.

          June 2014 magnetic field
          Measurements made over the past six months confirm the general trend of the field’s weakening, with the most dramatic declines over the Western Hemisphere.

          But in other areas, such as the southern Indian Ocean, the magnetic field has strengthened since January.

          The latest measurements also confirm the movement of magnetic North towards Siberia.

    • ThomasJK says:

      Mother Nature may have a sense of humor but Father Time is a grumpy old reprobate who may just stop the clocks of any of those who have temerity to try to phony up his data.

      The thinking of the true-believer warmistas as well as the scammers seems to me to have become symmetrical in three dimensions: Narrow, shallow and short term.

  13. Lance says:

    Having worked for Environment Canada, gone through their training during the late 70’s and listening to the global cooling for 30 odd years, and to see those temps totally buggered now, I no longer trust the ‘establishment’. Until the IPCC & Gov’t comes out and states that it is 97% natural….well….call me a climate skeptic

  14. sam says:

    i think those scamming rat bastard racists like obama want a war, people, particularly in the rural areas of america who are getting affected by global cooling while rats like algore scam 300mil of taxpayer money into his bank accounts aregetting sik of these yankee elitist courrupt cunts.

  15. sam says:

    whats the government doing to help farmers effected by the global cooling, nothing.. instead they are lining their pockets using the global warming scam, in a few years we’ll have crop failures and the govt knew where the climate was heading and did nothing to help the people prepare!

    • Gail Combs says:

      It is even worse than you think Sam,
      Southeastern Climate Hub to Provide Practical, Science-Based Information to Farmers, Ranchers and Forest Landowners

      On February 5, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced the creation of the first ever Regional Hubs for Risk Adaptation and Mitigation to Climate Change at seven locations around the country. “Climate Hubs” will address increasing risks such as fires, invasive pests, devastating floods, and crippling droughts on a regional basis, aiming to translate science and research into information to farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners on ways to adapt and adjust their resource management.

      In his State of the Union Address, President Obama pledged that his Administration will continue to do everything in its power to act on climate change. The February 5th announcement is part of the President’s Climate Action Plan to responsibly cut carbon pollution, slow the effects of climate change and put America on track to a cleaner environment. In the Southeast, the Hub will play an important role in helping stakeholders address the more frequent and longer periods of drought forecast for the future.

      “For generations, America’s farmers, ranchers and forest landowners have innovated and adapted to challenges. Today, they face a new and more complex threat in the form of a changing and shifting climate, which impacts both our nation’s forests and our farmers’ bottom lines,” said Vilsack. “USDA’s Climate Hubs are part of our broad commitment to developing the next generation of climate solutions, so that our agricultural leaders have the modern technologies and tools they need to adapt and succeed in the face of a changing climate.”….

      I haven’t gotten around to going to the local Climate Hub in Raleigh NC to ask them for recommended farms who breed Cashmire goats and Icelandic Sheep so I can make my herds more cold weather resistant. (I want to see their faces.)

      The good news is over 80% of farmers think the ClimAstrologists are full of pig feces.

      This is the bad news:
      Why is the USDA buying Submacine Guns with 30 round Magazines

      The USDA is trying to collect information on who owns gardens not that it matters since the google earth photos actually allow you to count the number of sheep and goats I have.
      The Utah Department of Agriculture and Food is promoting the Utah Garden Challenge in order to collect information about independent food production for the USDA.

      Comment from another blog about registering “People’s Gardens”

      I worked for USDA when a memo was sent out to all managers asking to compile list all community gardens in their area. My husband just told me two gentlemen he worked with got letters in the mail recently asking if they had a personal garden on their property (they both own a few acres). I personally would NEVER tell the government if I had a garden! My guess is that they know the economy is going to collapse so with a database of all the gardens they can force you to share your food with the community.

      Executive Doomsday Order: Obama Authorizes Gov to Seize Farms, Food, Processing Plants, Energy Resources, Transportation, Skilled Laborers During National Emergency

      Actual Order:

    • AndyG55 says:


      You obviously haven’t gained enough intelligence to know baseless propaganda when you see it.

      Doubt you ever will, either.

    • AndyG55 says:

      Now I would believe that a large proportion of climate scientists were “dumbocrats”

      Its in their very nature to be perpetually wrong and not realise it.

      • AndyG55 says:

        sorry, I meant “climate scientists™”

        totally nothing to do with actual scientists.

        • 97% of government grants for climate studies are granted to Neo-Com’s ™

        • Gail Combs says:

          Koop, one of my favorite commenters @ WUWT is a UK socialist, Richard Courtney. Another ‘Flaming Liberal’ (her own label) is Rosa Koire

          Me I am a GDI, non Christian. (Independent)

          It is not us who made climate a political football. For that you can blame Ex-Senator Tim Wirth.

          An interview with Tim Wirth who organized the 1988 Senate hearing at which James Hansen addressed global warming. Wirth led the U.S. negotiating team at the Kyoto Summit. He is now president of the United Nations Foundation. These are his words about how he scammed Congress:

          …Believe it or not, we called the Weather Bureau and found out what historically was the hottest day of the summer…

          …. Dukakis was trying to get an edge on various things and was looking for spokespeople, and two or three of us became sort of the flacks out on the stump for Dukakis, making the separation between what Democratic policy and Republican policy ought to be. So it played into the presidential campaign in the summer of ’88 as well….

          So a number of things came together…

          … What we did it was went in the night before and opened all the windows, I will admit, right? So that the air conditioning wasn?t working inside the room and so when the, when the hearing occurred there was not only bliss, which is television cameras in double figures, but it was really hot. …

          So Hansen’s giving this testimony, you’ve got these television cameras back there heating up the room, and the air conditioning in the room didn’t appear to work. So it was sort of a perfect collection of events that happened that day, with the wonderful Jim Hansen, who was wiping his brow at the witness table and giving this remarkable testimony. …

          This is the SAME Tim Wirth that said: “We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” from his Dossier

          And Al Gore:

          ….“I had the privilege of being fired by Al Gore, since I refused to go along with his alarmism. I did not need the job that badly,” Happer said…

          Happer, who served as the Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy in 1993, says he was fired by Gore in 1993 for not going along with Gore’s scientific views on ozone and climate issues. “I was told that science was not going to intrude on policy,” Happer explained in 1993….

          And Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change:

          “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution… democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming. Communist China is the best model.”

          “In stunning testimony, under oath, before the U.S. House of Representatives Oversight and Government Reform Committee, John Beale, a former executive of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revealed the EPA’s goal is to “modify the DNA of Capitalism.” Put another way, the entire “Global Warming” crusade has been a complete lie from the start — to attack the free market system — and the people telling this lie KNEW it was a lie when they started telling it! This former EPA executive is now on his way to jail.” -Turner Radio Network, Jan. 22, 2014

          In the United States, the cap-and-trade is an approach designed to control carbon emissions and will impose huge costs upon American citizens via a carbon tax on all goods and services produced in the United States. The average family of four can expect to pay an additional $1700, or £1,043, more each year. It is predicted that the United States will lose more than 2 million jobs each year as the result of cap-and-trade schemes.’ -The European Foundation, Dec 15, 2009

      • Koop in VA says:

        This is a prime example of why skeptics harm their cause by infusing so much politics into this issue. Most skeptics on climate science (based on my interactions on the internet, right wing media entertainers, Congress people, etc.) first and foremost come to it based on their political orientation.

        I mean are there any regular commenters here that are liberals and/or Democrats?

        And despite Andy’s best guess, I am actually a registered Republican and have been since I turned 18 in 1989. Historically, I have self-identified as “conservative” although I was really socially libertarian and fiscally conservative. I am still socially libertarian but I will accept that my self identified fiscal conservatism may be more of a relic of the past even though I still call myself that. Since I cheered on the Republicans taking back the House in 1994 it seems “my” party has just gone off the rail. I still think we need to balance the budget, I still think that top marginal income tax rates of 90%, 70% or even 50% are way too high So in some ways I’m still “conservative” but I will freely admit that while I am still technically registered as one, I loathe almost all of the current leadership and all the right wing entertainers (Hannity, Rush, Levin, etc.)

        Anyway, the point is that although I have a strong Republican background, I don’t approach this issue through partisan politics. I accept the science and then I apply my conservative philosophy to the possible solutions. So I don’t want to expand the power of the federal government needlessly but I do realize that, if the science is accurate, that we need to approach this on an individual, local, state, federal government and foreign state level because it is truly global in scope.

        But perhaps I haven’t given the skeptic community a fair hearing. The evidence to date of this massive conspiracy is pretty underwhelming to me but perhaps one day we can walk through your best evidence piece by piece.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “This is a prime example of why skeptics harm their cause by infusing so much politics into this issue.”

          roflmao…… WAKE UP ! Its not the skeptics who do the political infusing.

          The whole CAGW crap is a left-wing socialist totalitarian fabrication….

          … to get “World Governance” and a continued supply of other peoples money.

          You only have to look at the “aims” of the Paris conference etc to know that.

        • Gail Combs says:

          So Correct Andy, see my comment above Koop’s.

          Heck the French socialist Pascal Lamy, 2-X Director-General of the World Trade Organization came right out and said the plans for a world government were made back in the 1930s in the same article he said:

          …climate change negotiations are not just about the global environment but global economics as well — the way that technology, costs and growth are to be distributed and shared….

          Can we balance the need for a sustainable planet with the need to provide billions with decent living standards? Can we do that without questioning radically the Western way of life?

          And he then went on to say:

          …The reality is that, so far, we have largely failed to articulate a clear and compelling vision of why a new global order matters — and where the world should be headed….

          Most chillingly he said:

          ..Mobilizing collective purpose is more difficult when we no longer face one common enemy, but thousands of complex problems. The Cold War was about the clash, not just of geopolitical interests, but of big ideas — democracy against totalitarianism, freedom against state control. But the Cold War “glue” has disappeared. Big ideas risk being eclipsed by technical details. Grand alliances are weakened by petty squabbles and rivalries….

          Given the heating up of relations between the USA and Russia and may be China, these asses might just start World War III. It certainly explains all the idiotic foreign policy moves Obummer has made since Copenhagen blew up in their faces.

          Lamy is no light weight spouting off either. He is a major player on the international scene.Former European Commission President Jacques Delors has backed the former WTO Director General Pascal Lamy to succeed José Manuel Barroso as the head of the EU executive next year.

        • sam says:

          yea im sure your a ‘republican’ and not a paid troll for the global warming lobby, i know those scamming bastards pay people to post shit like this.

        • Jason Calley says:

          My experience has been that the CAGW supporters are much more likely to equate politics with views on climate. When my brother found that I did not believe in CO2 caused climate catastrophe, he said that I was “on the same side as Rush Limbaugh.” Just today I read the most recent comic of “This Modern World” where it was ridiculing Republicans because (so it claimed) they do not believe in climate change.

          I feel perfectly comfortable in criticizing either Dems or Repubs for political ideology. In fact, I don’t see any substantive differences in what they actually do once in power. But it looks to me like the CAGW crowd are more often the ones who conflate climate beliefs with politics.

        • ”This is a prime example of why skeptics harm their cause by infusing so much politics into this issue.”

          Koop in VA, Oct 2, 2015

          Koop, you are a prime example of a puzzling phenomenon I observed repeatedly in various Progressive environments. Everyone who has lived among Progressives knows that they favor certain causes in near complete lockstep. This gleichschaltung is especially strong in their endorsement of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis. In the People’s Republic of Boulder I have yet to meet a self-described Progressive who is skeptical or at least keeps an open mind about it.

          I disagree with them but I do understand: Progressives favor a powerful centralized government—ideally on a planetary scale—and the proponents of the AGW theory proclaim regularly that only a powerful centralized government can prevent a planetary climate catastrophe. It’s a match found in heaven and it’s easy to understand why Progressives flock to the banner.

          Once this becomes clear it’s just as easy to understand that the cause is a political one. The question of the size, control and role of government is fundamental politics. IPCC officials, governmental representatives and climate change activists also openly stress the primacy of politics. One could say that science has as much to do with the politics of “climate change” as it did with the Soviet Union’s “scientific communism” *).

          Now, you inform us that Steven Goddard infuses too much politics into this profoundly political cause. Since you seem to understand yourself as a thinking man grounded in reality, one would expect that such a statement would cause a severe bout of cognitive dissonance in your mind. From a clinical point of view, it would be reasonable to expect that you’d spend days in tremors and convulsions, and if your constitution was strong enough to survive the suffering, for better or worse, you would emerge a changed man after the experience.

          It’s perplexing that none of this seems to be happening. How is it possible? You are a psychological enigma.

          *) Constitution (Fundamental Law) of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, 1977

        • Kozlowsky says:

          Koop: “I mean are there any regular commenters here that are liberals and/or Democrats?”

          Yes, I am a liberal and an atheist too. I became a sceptic after reading one too many alarmist articles on the BBC website. All the hedge words, all the talk about models, all the “could”, “might”, “possibly” presented as if they were, it was a wake up call. And as time went on it became more and more obvious I was being propagandized.

          Then when Climategate happened, that clinched it for me. Have you actually read through the emails yourself, or did you buy the spin that you were fed?

          I don’t think anyone has the true answers on climate. The truth is we simply don’t know. What is the value of TCR/ECS? How much is due to natural cycles? And into that vacuum jumped a lot of very unsavory characters. Shame on all of them. History will judge them harshly.

          And when was the debate? I know the debate is “settled” and all. But did I miss it?

          In fact, had there been a healthy debate, we might actually be closer to some sort of compromise everyone could live with. I doubt putting a lot of CO2 (and other pollutants) into our atmosphere is any good. Why gamble with our only home in the universe? But refusing to debate killed any chances of moving public opinion. And now we have a huge cluster fark that isn’t going to be resolved any time soon.

          This ‘climate debacle’ should be exhibit 1 on how NOT to influence the public on critical matters of world interest. Refusing to debate was so stupid I just can’t get my head around it. Healthy and vigourous debate in the marketplace of ideas underpins our democracies. It could have made a difference.

          Thank you Steven Goddard for the work you do. And please, keep it up!

        • ThomasJK says:

          “if the science is accurate,” So…..Just what is the science that is in question? Answers, or “solutions” that have political utility while discounting or just flat out ignoring any “inconvenient” facts and information may be considered science by some, but guess what. It ain’t science — It’s political scammery.

    • Gail Combs says:

      I wouldn’t be bragging about that if I were you.

      US scientists significantly more likely to publish fake research, study finds

      Even the scientific community is starting to realize trashing the good name of science is having repercussions
      A Sharp Rise in Retractions Prompts Calls for Reform

      So why are there so few conservative scientists (and a resulting rise in fake research?) DISCRIMINATION!!! OH THE HORROR!!! The Progressives DISCRIMINATE and they ADMIT IT!!!
      Survey shocker: Liberal profs admit they’d discriminate against conservatives in hiring, advancement. ‘Impossible lack of diversity’ reflects ideological intimidation on campus

      “Peer review is sick and collapsing under its own weight,” ~ science publisher Vitek Tracz, who has made a fortune from journals says.

      Publishers withdraw more than 120 gibberish papers

      SAGE Publications busts “peer review and citation ring,” 60 papers retracted

      Tracz was ahead of the pack now others are agreeing with him.

      Corruption Is Destroying Basic Science

      Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine are the two most prestigious medical journals in the world.

      It is therefore striking that their chief editors have both publicly written that corruption is undermining science.
      The editor in chief of Lancet, Richard Horton, wrote last month:

      Much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness. As one participant put it, “poor methods get results”. The Academy of Medical Sciences, Medical Research Council, and Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council have now put their reputational weight behind an investigation into these questionable research practices….

      Part of the problem is that no-one is incentivised to be right.

      Similarly, the editor in chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Marcia Angell, wrote in 2009:

      It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.

      How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data

      …A pooled weighted average of 1.97%… of scientists admitted to have fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once –a serious form of misconduct by any standard– and up to 33.7% admitted other questionable research practices. In surveys asking about the behaviour of colleagues, admission rates were 14.12%… for falsification, and up to 72% for other questionable research practices….

      Considering that these surveys ask sensitive questions and have other limitations, it appears likely that this is a conservative estimate of the true prevalence of scientific misconduct.

      Research Misconduct Identified by the US Food and Drug Administration
      Out of Sight, Out of Mind, Out of the Peer-Reviewed Literature

      Importance Every year, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) inspects several hundred clinical sites performing biomedical research on human participants and occasionally finds evidence of substantial departures from good clinical practice and research misconduct. However, the FDA has no systematic method of communicating these findings to the scientific community, leaving open the possibility that research misconduct detected by a government agency goes unremarked in the peer-reviewed literature.

      Objectives To identify published clinical trials in which an FDA inspection found significant evidence of objectionable conditions or practices, to describe violations, and to determine whether the violations are mentioned in the peer-reviewed literature….

      Conclusions and Relevance When the FDA finds significant departures from good clinical practice, those findings are seldom reflected in the peer-reviewed literature, even when there is evidence of data fabrication or other forms of research misconduct.….

      • Gail Combs says:

        Now what was that about most of these ‘scientists’ who commit “data fabrication or other forms of research misconduct.” being DEMOCRATS?

      • Eric Simpson says:

        I wouldn’t be bragging about that if I were you.
        (About only 6% of scientists being Republican.)

        That’s what I was going to say, Gail. That shows that the leftists are in charge of the “scientific establishment” that has propagated this global warming scam.

        The fact is if you group scientists by ideology we find that “liberal” scientists report in near unanimity that they believe the climate change scam, while conservative scientists … do not. In fact THERE IS ZERO CONSENSUS ON AGW IF YOU CORRECT FOR IDEOLOGY.

    • DD More says:

      Published study.
      Psych-ops operations have maximum effect with people who:
      – have little education
      – accept information uncritically
      – benefit from the proposed change
      – want to believe the propaganda
      – do not wish to understand their own motivations

      How many effects can you check off?

    • Dave G says:

      Scientists don’t need to make anything work… In fact, quite the opposite, the less better things work, the more reason they have to ask for money… Ask Engineers… they are the people who apply science and actually have to get things right.

    • talldave2 says:

      Like all government employees and dependents, government-funded scientists prefer the party that will give them more money.

      Most engineers (scientists whose results are a matter of life, death, and profit) are Republicans.

      90% of violent criminals are Democrats.

      • D. Self says:

        Agree! An engineer’s livelihood depends on analyzing the data, not manipulating it.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Progressives are parasites. Socialism/Communism/Fabianism/Third Way Fascism are all about getting something for nothing by convince producers they have to be generous to the non-producers and ESPECIALLY to the politicians and bureaucrats that rule their lives.

          That why I like Trump. He has had to put up with all the *&^%$# regulations that are such a headache for producers.

          One failed presidential candidate from several decades ago went into business (Hotels?). He stated that if he had had that business experience before he was in Congress he would never have voted as he did on regulations restricting business.

          That is the problem with career politicians or lawyers. They have never had to live as ordinary citizens under the burden of the laws they pass without even reading them.

    • amirlach says:

      And 100% of Alarmist model predictions are wrong. What facts- and science are we resistant to again?

  16. We have a modified Lysenkoism here. Instead of being sent to the gulag for not believing government mandated science, we have believers being granted huge sums for faking that they believe it. Let’s call it grantism.

  17. resistance says:

    Message received. Thank you for your tireless effort; it hasn’t gone unnoticed. There are others out there that believe in the truth and who reject the current governmental climate.

  18. johnbuk says:

    Whoa, result just in, 19:20 BST Chelsea 1 Southampton 3 !! This Climate Change is causing mayhem!!

  19. Lucky says:

    The flashing charts that are often used in your site are dramatic.
    However, when looking at the numbers the flashings are a distraction.
    It would be easier to get the message, and easier to send on to other people,
    if charts were side by side not flashing over the top of each other.
    Thank you for the excellent work.

  20. Climatism says:

    Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    Thank you for your tireless and largely dollar-less efforts Tony.
    Your work is an inspiration to me and I know, a multitude of truth seekers all around the globe, as evidenced by your site traffic alone.
    Through your reasoned, rational and often humourous analysis of climate issues, you provide a most important and informative voice that is sadly and sorely missing in the largely progressive (regressive) mainstream media.
    And importantly you represent a massive threat to Climate Crisis Inc. who waste billions of dollars of *other people’s hard-earned money* on a daily basis, pushing the greatest scientific scandal in history.
    Well done, keep up the inspirational work and thank you again.
    Jamie (AU expat living in Bali)

  21. craigm350 says:

    Reblogged this on WeatherAction News and commented:
    Well said.

  22. davidswuk says:

    Could they stoop so low as to implement knee-capping ?

  23. omanuel says:

    Thanks, Tony. We are now nearing the end of seventy years of deceit (1945-2015).

    In fact, Sir Fred Hoyle “blew the cover” on Stalin’s BIGGEST LIE in his 1994 autobiography:

  24. ntesdorf says:

    Thank you Steve (Tony) for your tireless and un-remunerated work in rebutting the CAGW nonsense. Your work deserves the large traffic that your site gets. Your often humorous treatment of the CAGW scam is very refreshing. Your work is a big threat to the Warmistas scare campaign. Keep up it coming.

  25. NotAGolfer says:

    Thank you so much for what you do, Steve. You are making a difference. Your diligence is paying off. The lies involved in this so-called “science” are enormous, and you are exposing them.

  26. Mike H says:

    You nailed it Steve. It is the masking of Liberty theft with the veil of faux environmental protection which got me involved. If it was just a bunch of people running around grubbing for grants, no big deal. When they start to influence policy it becomes Liberty theft and it becomes the biggest threat to my and my children’s future opportunities. Unfortunately, far too many people don’t understand Liberty is the key to all the fruits we’ve reaped.

  27. Phil Kearney, CSU Physics Dept, emeritus says:

    Just signed on for the blog. Looks good! A personal recommendation from Bill Gray

  28. wolsten says:

    Tony, like many I applaud your efforts. One suggestion, though it depends on who you think the audience is. I would redraw those graphs without the animation, making it easier to compare. A wider audience would be better able to appreciate your points in this post.

  29. avr says:

    one more thing from the same series:
    Although his audience, Sands said, would agree that the scientific evidence for man-made climate change was “overwhelming”, there were still “scientifically qualified, knowledgeable and influential individuals” continuing to deny “the warming of the atmosphere, the melting of the ice and the rising of the seas”, and that this is all due to our emissions of CO2. The world’s courts, led by the International Court of Justice, said Sands, could play a vital role “in finally scotching these claims”.

  30. iammonicarae says:

    Thank you for sharing this with the world. You are a brave, freedom-fighting patriot.

  31. timg56 says:


    I’m of the personal opinion that guys like Lewandowski and Cook are third raters who have no problem with swerving into unethical behavior in pursuit of ideology driven goals. However there are some commentors here who should never get close to those two, as they would support the conspiracy ideation concept.

    That the USDA may be interested in cateloging all gardens is worrisome by itself. Most likely because it would allow them to extend their oversight – i.e. tell people what they can and can’t do. Thinking that the reason is because they want to know who is growing food so they can seize it if an apocalypse happens is thinking on the fringe.

    That agencies such as EPA and USDA and seemingly every other federal department is creating their own military style enforcement body is just as worrisome. Does it make me think there is a government plan to establish a federal dictatorship? Not exactly. However as a taxpayer I am curious why my tax dollars are being spent on stuff like this. If I had to hazard a guess, it might be due to the government making a large amount of surplus military equipment available to law enforcement agencies, from small town PD’s all the way up to federal agencies. Typical beaurucratic thinking would say “We have an enforcement function within our agency, so why don’t we apply for all the neat goodies being handed out.” A far more likely cause than a secret plot.

  32. Robertv says:

    Schiff was serving a 13-plus year sentence for tax crimes at the time of his death.

    This is what happens when you are brave enough to fight the Mafia government. You die in prison (if you are lucky).

  33. Bruce Love says:

    I enjoy your blog and would like to get involved. But I can’t seem to get past “moderation.” It’s getting frustrating. Hello?

  34. hskiprob says:

    You are writing a book, aren’t you Steven? You better be.

  35. theguvnor says:

    How prescient was this? God speed good man!

  36. CHECK OUT MAINE SUNDAY TELEGRAM FIRST OF 6 PART propognda blurt for DC to take over New England Coast….A8-9 graphic…&

  37. You need to get the graphs on the same scale. Preferably the lines on the same graph. Flipping is too weird. The graph that shows the change in anomalies between the graph is the actual data display you are trying to get people to see with flipping the graphs.

  38. sword_of_truth says:

    Never have I read a madder set of comments on a blog post…

    If I believed any of this I’d also believe the US Army hides out under Walmarts…

    • hskiprob says:

      Are you one of those folks who believes that a 37 story steel framed building can come down it’s own foot print in 6.6 seconds from an office fire despite over 2,000 architects and engineers saying that the U.S. Government’s report on the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 is incorrect and therefore need to be reinvestigated and a correct report made? Interesting blog name. Sounds like you a gamer; one who plays childish war games for entertainment.

      • All buildings come down in their own footprint. Do you think they fall over to the side like a tree?

        • hskiprob says:

          Nice use of a logical fallacy Morgan – Are you a paid troll are just stupid?
          Actually all building do not come down in their own footprints from an office fire unless they’re professional demolished. There are no none incidents of a 37 story building or similar sized steel framed structure totally collapsing “ever” from any fire unless professionally demolished and all partial collapses were not in their own foot prints. The damage to the Oklahoma City bombing building as an example was more significant than WTC 7 and most of the building did not collapse as did the WTC 7.

          You have to also understand what footprint means. That one portion of the building does not fall into the areas of other portions of the building. After building 7 was professionally demolished that afternoon, it looked like a pancake with each and every floor on top of one another just as professional demolished buildings look after their charges are set off and the building collapses. Each steel beam must be cut or severed by a preset charge. G.W. Bush’s brother was in charge of security prior to the demolition so you may what to speak with him. LOL.

          I’m not the ones saying all this, they are professional engineers and architects so challenging me is admittedly like picking on an amateur. Go to and have it out with the various physicists, engineers and architects if you need or want to understand what actually happened that day. Or you can stay in your la la land.

  39. omanuel says:

    Our government is pushing federal research agencies to find convincing evidence of AGW before the Paris meeting next month.

    But there is NO convincing evidence!

    To demonstrate that, the question was posted on ResearchGate: “Is there convincing evidence of AGW?”

    After a lengthy discussion, and many unsuccessful attempts to avoid the obvious answer, NOT ONE of the thousands of scientists on ResearchGate, claimed convincing evidence of AGW.

    Heads may roll, but the claimed 97% consensus support for the AGW tale completely bogus.

    Perhaps out of embarrassment for the USSR’s role in deceiving the public after 1945, today Putin himself has admitted the AGW claim is fraud:

  40. rcassidyusa says:

    Check out
    TABLE 3-3 Emergency and Continuous Exposure Guidance Levels for Carbon Dioxide
    The NRC CO2 recommendation limit, USN nuclear submarines, is 8000ppm for 90 days.
    Keep up the great work.

  41. RoberT says:

    Hello Steve
    This comment has nothing to do with this post but…
    I just read an article on PressTV which says
    “The United Nations’ World Meteorological Organization (WMO) has assured that there is no need to be concerned about a record-size seasonal hole this month in Earth’s ozone layer.
    On Thursday, the UN’s weather and climate agency said this year, a colder-than-usual stratosphere widened the hole to a peak of …..”
    If the statosphere is cooler , isn’t it also that the lower layers are cooler too?
    If so , how can 2015 be the hottest year since a long time as scientists have claimed (again)?
    I enjoy your posts ,keep it up.

  42. Robertv says:

    Freedom soon a thing of the past.

    The United Nations Biometric Project

  43. Martin Smith says:

    “I have concluded that much of their climate data is flagrantly fraudulent.”

    Steven, your conclusion appears to be based on one fact: NASA adjusts its datasets to correct for biases when biases are discovered. You haven’t shown any evidence that any adjustment to any dataset is even incorrect, let alone fraudulent. Fraud is harder to prove than error. Post your evidence that some adjustment is incorrect.

    • gator69 says:

      NOAA quietly revises website after getting caught in global warming lie, admitting 1936 was hotter than 2012

      ‘You can’t get any clearer proof’ of fraud

      “The previous warmest July for the nation was July 1936, when the average U.S. temperature was 77.4°F,” NOAA said in 2012.

      When checked by The Daily Caller, that claim by the NOAA was still available on the agency’s website. However:

      [W]hen meteorologist and climate blogger Anthony Watts went to check the NOAA data [June 29] he found that the science agency had quietly reinstated July 1936 as the hottest month on record in the U.S.

      Watts wrote: “Two years ago during the scorching summer of 2012, July 1936 lost its place on the leaderboard and July 2012 became the hottest month on record in the United States. Now, as if by magic, and according to NOAA’s own data, July 1936 is now the hottest month on record again. The past, present, and future all seems to be ‘adjustable’ in NOAA’s world.” [See his blog post here:

      Watts had used data from NOAA’s “Climate at a Glance” plots from 2012, a graphic showing that July 2012 was the hottest month on record at 77.6°F. July 1936 — which was during the infamous Dust Bowl years — is listed at only 77.4°F.

      He ran the same data plot again on June 29 and discovered that NOAA inserted a new number in for July 1936; the average temperature for July 1936 was made slightly higher than July 2012, meaning, again, that July 1936 is the hottest year on record.

      “You can’t get any clearer proof of NOAA adjusting past temperatures,” Watts wrote. “This isn’t just some issue with gridding, or anomalies, or method, it is about NOAA not being able to present historical climate information of the United States accurately.”

      He went on to note that in “one report they give one number, and in another they give a different one with no explanation to the public as to why.
      “This is not acceptable. It is not being honest with the public. It is not scientific. It violates the Data Quality Act.”

      Incorrect adjustment right there! They have been shown to make adjustments that are at the very least wrongheaded. This is the second time you have been shown this, it is time for you to acknowledge that NOAA has a problem with their data adjustments, and time for you to stop badgering Tony.

      • Martin Smith says:

        That isn’t fraud, gator, and it has nothing to do with the discussion, which is about NASA datasets. If you have evidence that supports Steven Goddard’s claim that NASA has fraudulently changed its data, or even evidence that it has incorrectly changed its data, I certainly want to see your evidence. As far as I can tell no one has done that. Everything I have read by Steven Goddard simply shows evidence that the data has been adjusted, which, of course, NASA does do, when it discovers a bias in the data and has a way to correct the bias. Steven reports these changes as if they are evidence of something nefarious, when, in reality, each change is publicised and explained.

        • gator69 says:

          It is an example of (at the very least) wrongheaded data adjustment by NOAA as I stated in my comment, and should be cause for anyone to question other adjustments, unless you are a useful idiot. How much does NASA and NOAA adjust for UHI?

          Your refusal to acknowledge these issues speaks volumes about your character. Plus there is the fact you could not even comprehend the first sentence of a press release! 😆

        • Martin Smith says:

          No, gator, it doesn’t mean wrongheaded data adjustment. It means data adjustment. Here is the explanation again. Read it this time. See item 4. The year you are talking about, 1936, is one of the years where the data was adjusted upward:

          You have attacked my character repeatedly. You gain nothing by that. Your attacks say nothing about me. They say a lot about you.

        • gator69 says:

          I have repeatedly attacked your ignorance, and that is part of your character.

          The adjustments were erroneous, period.

        • Martin, the reason why it’s fraud is because every time they adjust the data it’s to make the past cooler and the modern temps warmer. If they adjust the data 10 times it should be 50/50 in either direction, but every single time it makes the present warmer and the past cooler, so it has to be fraud. Try to argue your way around THAT one, pinko

        • Martin Smith says:

          That’s false, Morgan. The link I posted proves it. See item 4:

          The data prove you wrong. Your attack on me proves you foolish.

      • mittenshonda says:

        Gator you are correct. When the actual recorded temperatures through 1999 were analyzed they showed that the earth was actually cooling. This didn’t set well with the global warming crowd. A climatologist with NASA, a big global warming supporter, didn’t like that and developed a computer program to apply what he called “climate factors”. When the program was ran against the actual temperatures through 1999, SURPRISE, the new computer generated temperatures showed the earth had been getting warmer not cooling.
        All this amounts to is a computer program written to manipulate the actual temperatures to support the predetermined position of global warming/climate change.
        Having been a programmer for 37 years, give me the sets of temperatures and tell me which set you want hotter the other sets and I can write a program giving you what you want every time. No basis in science or fact.
        Martin Smith, I read “climate crock” article you referred to and found it to be more of the same government application of computer manipulated data to support global warming/climate change. Didn’t see anything showing any facts, just NOAA showing manipulated data as scientific fact when it’s neither.

  44. omanuel says:

    The price of freedom is eternal vigilance; that is why tyrants provide drugs, alcohol, gladiator sports, reality TV, gambling, pornography, video games, etc. to those they want to control.

  45. ren says:

    “From the Seine’s cold quays to the Ganges’ burning shores,
    The human troupe skips and swoons with delight, sees not
    In a hole in the ceiling the Angel’s trumpet
    Gaping ominously like a black blunderbuss.
    Charles Baudelaire: La Danse Macabre (The Dance of Death),
    in Les Fleurs du Mal (The Flowers of Evil)”

      • gator69 says:

        How is refusing information “bending over backwards to be cooperative”?

        Your inability to process facts is astounding.

        • rah says:

          And how is asking for the electronic correspondence of government employees on government computers used to create a paper funded by the taxpayer “abusive”?

        • Martin Smith says:

          Thanks! You both made Michael’s point! Bravo!

          But seriously, I hope Lamar prosecutes. What better way to publicize the science?

        • gator69 says:

          Michael had no point, but you are too obtuse to realize it Martin. If these alarmists were truly seeking truth and trying to save the planet, they would want us to see all of their work, and have no doubts.

          But they aren’t and they don’t. Just like you, they can’t handle the truth.

        • Martin Smith says:

          Gator, all of their work is already available. That you can’t see Michael’s point is the point.

        • gator69 says:

          That is a lie Martin. They have not provided the requested info.

        • Martin Smith says:

          Gator, I hope Lamar Smith prosecutes. I hope you get what you wish for.

        • gator69 says:

          I just want people to tell the truth.

          The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has refused to comply with lawmakers’ attempts to subpoena internal communications relating to a recent climate-change study by its scientists.

        • Martin Smith says:

          Yes, they have, gator. Those private communications aren’t relevant. But I’ll say it again: I HOPE LAMAR SMITH PROSECUTES.

        • gator69 says:

          No they haven’t, those communications have been requested, and NOAA has refused.

          Now I will join Tony in identifying you as a liar.

        • Martin Smith says:

          Gator, I hope Lamar Smith prosecutes.

        • gator69 says:

          And I hope you stop lying.

        • Martin Smith says:

          Stop the personal attacks, gator.

        • gator69 says:

          Stop lying.

        • Martin Smith says:

          Stop the personal attacks, gator. I’m sure your behavior is against the rules.

        • gator69 says:

          Pointing out that you are lying is not a personal attack, you moron. 😆

        • Martin Smith says:

          I told no lie, gator. You are simply repeating yourself. So, again, in the interest of advancing the science, I will withdraw.

        • gator69 says:

          Bullcrap Martin.

          You posted a propaganda piece that claimed that NOAA had “bent over backwards” to cooperate with the Smith’s requests, which is a lie. Then you continued to defend this lie, even after you had been shown it was a lie. And finally you now lie about not lying.

        • Trollsmith TM lies, calls others liars and demands not being called a liar.

        • rah says:

          Hey dumb dumb, the same correspondence is supposed to be available through FOIA also. But your applause and support of a US agency illegally withholding subpoenaed information is noted and shows exactly how much contempt you have for the REPUBLIC. .

        • Martin Smith says:

          You guys are still missing the point. The point is: Lamar Smith has no interest in the science behind the NOAA study. It is all publicly available. All the scientists have offered to answer any and al l questions about the NOAA study. “Smith’s committee has been demanding defenses of the rather mundane and straightforward measurements and calculations going into NCDC’s global temperature estimate, and in particular, some minute recent corrections to that record.”

          Smith lied about that. I want to hear you say it. Lamar Smith, and now you guys, have no interest in the science. That’s the point you are missing. Caught out again. I would be embarrassed, but I know you guys aren’t, just like Lamar Smith isn’t. But Lamar Smith isn’t fooling anybody, except you guys. I really hope he prosecutes.

        • gator69 says:

          NOAA is refusing all the info requested. Period.

          What part of that do you not get?

        • Martin Smith says:

          Gator, all their work is already publicly available. That you can’t see Michael’s point is the point.

        • gator69 says:

          That is a lie Martin. NOAA is refusing all the info requested. Period.

          What part of that do you not get?

        • Martin Smith says:

          I hope you get your wish, Colorado. How many times do I have to say it? I hope Lamar Smith prosecutes. Why are you all so afraid of that?

        • rah says:

          Lamar Smiths motivations, no matter what they are, are IRRELEVANT! The committee he chairs suspended NOAA for information that NOAA REFUSES to supply. End of legal story.

          “Agency won’t give GOP internal docs on climate research”

          The federal government’s chief climate research agency is refusing to give House Republicans the detailed information they want on a controversial study on climate change.

          Citing confidentiality concerns and the integrity of the scientific process, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said it won’t give Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) the research documents he subpoenaed.

          At the center of the controversy is a study that concluded there has not been a 15-year “pause” in global warming. Some NOAA scientists contributed to the report.

          Skeptics of climate change, including Smith, have cited the pause to insist that increased greenhouse gas emissions, mostly from burning fossil fuels, are not heating up the globe.

          Smith, the chairman of the House Science Committee, vehemently disagreed with the study’s findings. He issued a subpoena for communications among the scientists and some data, leading to charges from Democrats that he was trying to intimidate the researchers.

          Late Tuesday, NOAA provided Smith with some more information about its methods and data but refused to give Smith everything he wanted.

          NOAA spokeswoman Ciaran Clayton said the internal communications are confidential and not related to what Smith is trying to find out.

          “We have provided data, all of which is publicly available online, supporting scientific research, and multiple in-person briefings,” she said.

          “We stand behind our scientists who conduct their work in an objective manner. It is the end product of exchanges between scientists — the detailed publication of scientific work and the data that underpins the authors’ findings — that are key to understanding the conclusions reached.

          Clayton also refuted Smith’s implication that the study was political.

          “There is no truth to the claim that the study was politically motivated or conducted to advance an agenda,” she said. “The published findings are the result of scientists simply doing their job, ensuring the best possible representation of historical global temperature trends is available to inform decision makers, including the U.S. Congress.”

          Smith defended his investigation, saying NOAA’s work is clearly political.

          “It was inconvenient for this administration that climate data has clearly showed no warming for the past two decades,” he said in a statement. “The American people have every right to be suspicious when NOAA alters data to get the politically correct results they want and then refuses to reveal how those decisions were made.”

          Smith also said NOAA’s assertion of confidentiality is incorrect.

          “The agency has yet to identify any legal basis for withholding these documents,” he said, adding that his panel would use “all tools at its disposal” to continue investigating.

          Smith has been communicating with NOAA about the research since it was published in the summer, and their exchanges have grown increasingly hostile.”

          So the e-mails suspended by Congress are not in a public forum and are NOT privileged or confidential by any legal definition of the terms.
          And the claim of democrats and NOAA being concerned about “the scientific process” won’t hold water since they have gone after such information from other scientists that aren’t even employed by the federal government when it suits them. Such as:


        • Martin Smith says:

          You are repeating talking points that are irrelevant to the subject under discussion. So, again, in the interest of advancing the science that is the subject of the discussion, I will withdraw.

        • Bob123 says:

          MS “Those private communications aren’t relevant”

          They are NOT private conversations. Every government computer has a warning banner. The specific language is different from agency to agency, but it puts emploees on notice that 1) evrything they create on their system is considered govt property, and 2) they have NO expectation of privacy.

      • Gail Combs says:

        The actions of NOAA are not only contemptible and unethical they are also illegal.

        Ethics Material for Government Employees
        has this PDF:


        1. Public Service is a public trust, requiring employees to place loyalty to the Constitution, the laws and ethical principles above private gain.

        …8. Employees shall act impartially and not give preferential treatment to any private organization or individual.

        9. Employees shall protect and conserve Federal property and shall not use it for other than authorized activities.

        10. Employees shall not engage in outside employment or activities, including seeking or negotiating for employment, that conflict with official Government duties and responsibilities.

        11. Employees shall disclose waste, fraud, abuse, and corruption to appropriate authorities.

        12. Employees shall satisfy in good faith their obligations as citizens, including all just financial obligations, especially those–such as Federal, State, or local taxes–that are imposed by law.

        14. Employees shall endeavor to avoid any actions creating the appearance that they are violating the law or ethical standards. Whether particular circumstances create an appearance that the law or these standards have been violated shall be determined from the perspective or a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts.

        The government OWNS anything on the government computers:

        Government employees are subject to various statutes and regulations that create a comprehensive ethics regime governing, among other things,</b. their financial interests, use of government resources, outside activities, and activities in which they may engage after leaving government.3

        18 U.S.C. § 641; Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 272 (1952). In addition, agencies often stipulate by contract that government property may not be used for personal benefit (e.g., a contractor employee’s using government computers for personal use). Glynn, supra note 18, at 1437.

        THE PUBLIC has a RIGHT to government information unless it is withheld for security purposes.

        5 U.S. Code § 552 – Public information; agency rules, opinions, orders, records, and proceedings

        (E) a general index of the records referred to under subparagraph (D);

        unless the materials are promptly published and copies offered for sale. For records created on or after November 1, 1996, within one year after such date, each agency shall make such records available, including by computer telecommunications or, if computer telecommunications means have not been established by the agency, by other electronic means. To the extent required to prevent a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, an agency may delete identifying details when it makes available or publishes an opinion, statement of policy, interpretation, staff manual, instruction, or copies of records referred to in subparagraph (D). However, in each case the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing, and the extent of such deletion shall be indicated on the portion of the record which is made available or published, unless including that indication would harm an interest protected by the exemption in subsection (b) under which the deletion is made. If technically feasible, the extent of the deletion shall be indicated at the place in the record where the deletion was made. Each agency shall also maintain and make available for public inspection and copying current indexes providing identifying information for the public as to any matter issued, adopted, or promulgated after July 4, 1967, and required by this paragraph to be made available or published. Each agency shall promptly publish, quarterly or more frequently, and distribute (by sale or otherwise) copies of each index or supplements thereto unless it determines by order published in the Federal Register that the publication would be unnecessary and impracticable, in which case the agency shall nonetheless provide copies of such index on request at a cost not to exceed the direct cost of duplication. Each agency shall make the index referred to in subparagraph (E) available by computer telecommunications by December 31, 1999. A final order, opinion, statement of policy, interpretation, or staff manual or instruction that affects a member of the public may be relied on, used, or cited as precedent by an agency against a party other than an agency only if—

        This goes on and on for pages and pages BTW.

        The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552, is a federal freedom of information law that allows for the full or partial disclosure of previously unreleased information and documents controlled by the United States government.

    • omanuel says:

      I regret to report ResearchGate locked my account. Fortunately I had saved elsewhere the information world leaders tried to hide from the public:

      The Paris Climate Conference is the last scene of an intriguing international mystery that began during a news black-out of events at Konan, Korea that changed the course of world history and the foundations of nuclear and solar physics. See: “Stalin’s science:”

      The worldwide web of deceit is even beyond anything I had imagined earlier . The eventual outcome was already recorded in the oldest literature:


  46. Martin Smith says:

    Well, that was quick, Steven. Showing your true colors, I mean.

  47. Gail Combs says:

    Martin Smith says: “…You guys are still missing the point. The point is: Lamar Smith has no interest in the science behind the NOAA study….”

    What Lamar Smith has is interest in the collusion to produce a graph that gets rid of the 18 year pause that makes the Paris Conference a laughing stock. The Climategate e-mails SHOWED the type of collusion and fraud that Lamar Smith is looking for. The NOAA data set is the odd man out and has become increasingly out of sinc since Gavin Schmidt an Englishman from Oxford, University College London took over. WHY THE HELL DO WE HAVE A FOREIGNER IN THAT POSITION!?! He has ZERO loyalty to the US Constitution and that alone makes him suspect. (See Principles of Ethical Conduct above.)

    The actions of the US government and academia fill me with nothing but disgust because the fraud and corruption has become so prevasive and blatant. I will not even recommend my University anymore to the students I meet in the course of my work.

  48. eliza says:

    SG MS needs to be banned from this site he is obviously a NOAA troll sent and paid to destroy your site.

  49. eliza says:
    Time for letters talking ect is OVER the head of NOAA needs to be arrested and all Computers seized immediately the law of the USA has been broken if they congress does not anybody in the US can commit a crime legally.

  50. ren says:

    In 2015 Sun magnetic activity was highest in the cycle 24, in analogy to the 2003 (cycle 23). The scale is much lower.

  51. Timawells says:

    Reblogged this on TimAWells Blog and commented:
    I worked for a Carbon management company back in 2006, then I believed in AGW. I left after a year of working for the Carbon Management company, as I found out it was a scam.

  52. manicbeancounter says:

    The reason that folks get very uppity when you call them out is because they believe the figures. Earlier this year I spent a long time trying to understand temperature homogenisation. Start with a quote from a blogger.

    What one has to do is look at the data for each site and see if there’s anything that doesn’t look right. We don’t expect the typical/average temperature at a given location at a given time of day to suddenly change. There’s no climatic reason why this should happen.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Actually that is a fallacy.

      Here is an example from the weather station near me. It is state of the art and went on line in April of 2001.

      April 28 2014 5:35 AM
      ORIGINAL Min Temperature : 54.5 °F
      Changed to
      Min Temperature 57 °F
      ORIGINAL Max Temperature was 68 °F
      Changed to
      Max Temperature 81 °F

      Problem is the 68 °F WAS the true temperature! Why? A Cold front with rainy weather came through.

      In North Carolina in the summer we get ‘measles’ Small thunderstorms that can be only a few miles across and last only 15 minutes but they can really cool off the temperature. This means kriging and other computerized techniques are going to really muck up the record and give higher averages for the state compared to the actual temperature calculated from the true measured data.

  53. ren says:

    Hillier & Watts (2007) surveyed 201,055 submarine volcanoes estimating that a total of 3,477,403 submarine volcanoes exist worldwide. According to the observations of Batiza (1982), we may infer that at least 4% of seamounts are active volcanoes. We can expect a higher percentage in the case of the count taken by Hillier & Watts (2007) because it includes smaller, younger seamounts; a higher proportion of which will be active. Nevertheless, in the spirit of caution and based on our minimum inference of 4% seamount activity from Batiza’s observations, I estimate 139,096 active submarine volcanoes worldwide. If we are to assume, in the absence of other emission figures for mid oceanic plate volcanoes, that Kilauea is a typical mid oceanic plate volcano with a typical mid oceanic emission of 870 KtCpa (Kerrick, 2001), then we might estimate a total submarine volcanogenic CO2 output of 121 GtCpa. Even if we assume, as Kerrick (2001) and Gerlach (1991) did, that we’ve only noticed the most significant outgassing and curb our estimate accordingly, we still have 24.2 GtCpa of submarine volcanic origin.

  54. ren says:


    As anthropogenic CO2 emissions acidify the oceans, calcifiers generally are expected to be negatively affected. However, using data from the Continuous Plankton Recorder, we show that coccolithophore occurrence in the North Atlantic increased from ~2 to over 20% from 1965 through 2010. We used Random Forest models to examine >20 possible environmental drivers of this change, finding that CO2 and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation were the best predictors, leading us to hypothesize that higher CO2 levels might be encouraging growth. A compilation of 41 independent laboratory studies supports our hypothesis. Our study shows a long-term basin-scale increase in coccolithophores and suggests that increasing CO2 and temperature have accelerated the growth of a phytoplankton group that is important for carbon cycling.

  55. ren says:


    Tropical Pacific Ocean dynamics during the Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA) and Little Ice Age (LIA) are poorly characterized due to lack of evidence from the eastern equatorial Pacific. We reconstructed sea surface temperature, El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) activity, and the tropical Pacific zonal gradient for the past millennium from Galápagos ocean sediments. We document a “Mid-Millennium Shift” (MMS) in ocean-atmosphere circulation ~1500-1650 CE, from a state with strong zonal gradient and dampened ENSO to one with weak gradient and amplified ENSO. The MMS coincided with deepest LIA cooling and was likely caused by southward shift of the Intertropical Convergence Zone. Peak MCA (900-1150 CE) was a warm period in the eastern Pacific, contradicting the paradigm of a persistent La Niña pattern.
    The team reports that the sediment samples showed that the eastern part of the Pacific Ocean warmed during the period 900 to 1150 CE (the Medieval Climate Anomaly), but then cooled from 1150 to 1500 CE (during the Little Ice Age)—that would have led to increased volatility, more El Niño events and a change to the surface temperature gradient, because of cooling occurring more rapidly in the east. After that, things quieted, but, the team notes, the changes in surface temperatures would have caused the Pacific Intertropical Convergence Zones to shift at the point where the trade winds run into each other.

    Read more at:

  56. ren says:


    CO2 is the strongest anthropogenic forcing agent for climate change since pre-industrial times. Like other greenhouse gases, CO2 absorbs terrestrial surface radiation and causes emission from the atmosphere to space. As the surface is generally warmer than the atmosphere, the total long-wave emission to space is commonly less than the surface emission. However, this does not hold true for the high elevated areas of central Antarctica. For this region, the emission to space is higher than the surface emission; and the greenhouse effect of CO2 is around zero or even negative, which has not been discussed so far. We investigated this in detail and show that for central Antarctica an increase in CO2 concentration leads to an increased long-wave energy loss to space, which cools the Earth-atmosphere system. These findings for central Antarctica are in contrast to the general warming effect of increasing CO2.

  57. Thon Brocket says:

    Awful, awful presentation. Completely missing the point, the utility, the punching-power of blink-comparing graphs.

    Go back and do it again. This time, same scales, same axes. Properly annotated. And slow it down.

  58. AndyG55 says:

    First one is a bit difficult.

    The whole idea is to show the original graphs, compared at the same scale, which is what SG does.
    (he does blink the graphs a bit quickly sometimes though, which makes it difficult to see that the scale are actually the same. 😉 )

    What I’ve done is combine the two images with the lower red circles aligned. ( I forgot to mark the lower line as 1983, but I’m not fixing it now.)

    Note the 1983 grey line starts at -4cm, so the +10cm mark was actually scaled very well by SG, to +140mm from zero.

    Anyway.. the “adjustments™” are definitely MANIC !!!

  59. Thon, as Andy points out it’s not entirely trivial. SG has to fit various original versions of Hansen, NASA and GISS graphs, published over 3 decades apart and overlay them with correct scale and coordinates (as he did). Having done similar work myself, I know it’s a piddly and unpleasant task. Even if you do everything right, the artifacts you must retain to show the graphs’ origin will jump around and distract the viewer.

    I agree that the presentation could be improved by redigitizing the graphs and then displaying the progression of the “adjustments” and the manufactured “warming” in a brand new graph. Now, you may not know it but the Gore groupies here get a conniption fit even if they only imagine an original graph has been touched. If Goddard displayed his own redigitized versions of these graphs they would expire with foam at the mouth. They would become ex-groupies, their estates would sue Goddard and you’d be called on the stand, too. 🙂

    A good example of a fellow having a fit *) is documented here:

    Martin Smith wrote:

    “Steven, you are still using the wrong graph. By now you know that the wrong graph is deceptive. This is the correct graph.”

    “The Danish Meteorological Institute says this is the correct graph and the one Steven doctored and then posted is incorrect.”

    “Read the comment at the bottom of the correct graph. Then follow the link to the graph Steven used, and read the comment at the bottom of that graph, which Steven removed.

    “Steven used the wrong graph, and he doctored it. …”

    “Oh, come on. If you use the link to the graph Steven used, instead of the doctored copy he posted, …”

    “Steven doctored it by removing the qualifying comment at the bottom, written by DMI …”

    “I have never accused Steven of altering graphics.”

    *) You may also notice that Martin Smith first lied about Goddard “doctoring” graphs and then he lied about his own lying! 😀

  60. ren says:

    From the publicly available data, Ewert made an unbelievable discovery: Between the years 2010 and 2012 the data measured since 1881 were altered so that they showed a significant warming, especially after 1950. […] A comparison of the data from 2010 with the data of 2012 shows that NASA-GISS had altered its own datasets so that especially after WWII a clear warming appears – although it never existed.”
    “There were 120 stations in 2010 archived NASA GISS temperature data with the 2012
    compared from NASA GISS data offered. In all cases, they were changed retroactively
    been. When changes 10 different methods were used. Two of these
    Methods are illustrated with the examples Darwin and Palma de Mallorca:
    • The March 2010 indicated by Darwin cooling is to March 2012 in a warming
    converted by the data from 1880 to 1960 and eliminates the data from 1980
    were increased. Between March and December 2012 there was a further change: now
    have been added back, but significantly lowered the previously deleted data. By
    these retroactive changes have been made to the 2010 exposure of cooling –
    0.0068 ° C / a warming of first + 0.0038 ° C / a and then + 0.0104 ° C / a.
    • In the case of Palma de Mallorca has been registered from the cooling of 0.0076 ° C / a
    by inversion of the data until a warming of 0.0074 ° C / a, then by lowering the
    the early data ‘was increased to 0.0102 ° C / a.”

  61. eliza says:

    Two pieces of good news:
    2. Ted Cruz will be elected next president of the USA
    AGW is finished. Unfortunately SG, WUWT ect will no longer be needed after,maybe historically yes. LOL but sorry its better.

Leave a Reply

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