No Pause In NASA Climate Science Corruption

Gavin thinks he can massively tamper with data, and no one will notice.


He has doubled global warming by simply altering his own data over the past 15 years.


2016: Fig.A.gif          2001:

He also ignores satellite data which shows that his temperature data is complete garbage, and that temperatures have not risen this century.


Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

The fact that the US space agency is ignoring satellite data, is a pretty strong indication that the agency has collapsed into a hopelessly corrupt and decadent state.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to No Pause In NASA Climate Science Corruption

  1. PetterT says:

    In a local debate in Norway, I have linked to your post
    History Of NASA/NOAA Temperature Corruption
    Alarmist have responded that comparing 1975 Northern Hemisphere with 1981 is not correct.
    What is your comment to this?
    Also they counter with info that temperature justifications have been given here:
    Berkeley: Understanding Adjustments to Temperature Data
    I appreciate your responce.

    • Denis Ables says:

      The fact that both NASA and NOAA ignore weather satellite (and balloon) data, says it ALL. No scientific outfit would do that without justifying why they feel surface station data is more accurate than satellite data.

      That organization is OBLIGATED to present all the facts, particularly since there is a well know controversey about their conclusions. They refuse to do so. Neither do ANY alarmists EVER admit that there is no empirical data (NONE) showing that co2 has ever had any impact on global temperature, even over geologic periods.

      • JEFFERY TOPPS says:

        The AP, in the name of Seth Borenstein, states satellite data is not as reliable. We all know the ground stations are arbitrary and of less number than in past years. Less data collection points leads to less accuracy. But, they know the average newspaper will just reprint their articles without any interest in “fact checking,” which they love to do with politicians and their comments.

      • Duke Silver says:

        Even if you do use only surface data (as should be done because it’s consistent with the past) why not use the USCRN system for USAs contribution?

        More accurate, automated, calibrated, well sited……

        We paid a lot of $Bs for it. Why is it left out?

        • tonyheller says:

          There is little or no difference

          • Duke Silver says:

            If by no difference you mean a slight decrease (USCRN) instead of a very slight increase (USHCS) then I would agree. The truth is there has been no appreciable change either way – so why not state it as such.

            It is as some say – a hiatus from the predicted spectre of global warming catastrophe.

            Back to my assertion – for the USA, why not report your accurate data in place of known inaccuracy with a boatload of adjustment?

  2. Bill says:

    NASA: National Adjustment of Statistical Anomalies.

  3. frederik wisse says:

    Idiots are stupid ! Right ? No mistake possible , i guess .
    Suggest you and your readers to take a look at the Unysis map of sea-surface temperatures , almost certainly originating from NOAA , as water will be beyond NASAs scope . Being a layman i cannot judge the correctness of their watertemperatures , but it is easy to compare their registrations with a sea-ice map . What touches the eye immediately ?
    1. the temperature of the Botnic Gulf is indicated in light red , an anomaly of at least 2 degrees Celsius whilst it is completely frozen at this moment .
    2. Above Russia the arctic sea is indicated with a lot of yellow , an anomaly of at least 1 to 2 degrees Celsius , whilst it is completely frozen right now.
    3. Next to Greenland , where there is really mainly ice , you will notice areas in dark red at the same place of the ice , this reuires a bit more careful look .

    It is clear that they are cheating on instructions from the top of the US government .
    But how stupid are they guessing that the public is ? They do not even mind to camouflage their manipulations . Or is somebody from within the US administration playing a double game ?

    Anyway i am expecting that some client scientist will explain that ice may have different temperatures and that the maps are reflecting this . Al Gore may find an explanation for his forecasts here . Hot snow and hot ice are the proof of a hotter climate . At least some body is honest when he tells the world these are my facts .
    How stupid can you be ?

    • Sam Pyeatte says:

      The left controls the Government so all information is going to reflect the Administration’s desires. Their prime directive is from Saul Alinsky – say what you have to in order to push the far-left agenda forward. It is completely justified to lie whenever necessary to forward the agenda. Very evil people are these.

  4. Ben Vorlich says:

    I was under the impression that satellite and radiosonde balloon data closely matched each other. However I can find nothing to confirm this which is a bit frustrating.

    • Denis Ables says:

      Dr. Fred Singer was quoted on this. Try contacting him. (But, in the meantime, if you suspect the weather satellite data you MUST be open to investigating the surface area data. Practically all of the raw data is gathered from within UHIs, so has to revised (that involves GUESSwork !). Why was the raw data not kept and made available? Then there is the investigation by various folks at WUWT which showed that MOST surface stations did not even satisfy the minimum government established requirements.

      There should be very serious questions about further revisions to old data, also very fishy. And recently our government “scientists” introduced bogus sea surface temperature data which has a known warming bias, in order to offset data from more accurate ARGO buoy (3,600 of them).

      There has been an 18+year pause in temperature increase, but no pause in NOAA and NASA fiddling.

  5. charles nelson says:

    Please tell me how I can get my hands on those GIFS. They are devastating tools in the battle against the Warmists, I just can’t seem to post the damn things!

  6. charles nelson says:

    Could somebody, please tell me how I can get my hands on those GIFS? They are devastating tools in the battle against the Warmists, I just can’t seem to post the damn things!

  7. Non Partisan says:

    Fairly long read that explains the challenges of and reasons for data adjustment. Also, the raw data actually adds .4 degrees Celsius to the estimate, their data adjustments lower the reported temperature changes.

  8. The most appropriate term I’ve seen for the environ-MENTAL extremist frauds is “watermelons”, because they’re green outside/ red inside.

  9. Owen Thomson says:

    I am amazed at the simple science that is being ignored! C)2 does not warm.. it is heavier than air too.. further, Plants need CO2 in order to survive.. even plankton depends on it..
    Not to mention.. SEA levels rising? where? a few atolls in the ocean but not on the coast of major continents… I am persuaded that the Atolls are collapsing rather than sea levels rising.
    How is it when I get a drink with ice in it, that the water level goes down when the ice melts rather than the liquid overflowing onto the table.. Why is it so??
    riddle me that Professor..

  10. James Rust says:

    On October 5, 2009, President Obama issued an executive order, FEDERAL LEADERSHIP IN ENVIRONMENTAL, ENERGY, AND ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE, that showed policies toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions for the rest of his term in office. The executive order is 15 pages, divided into 20 sections that provide strict guidance for all agencies in the executive branch and their interactions with outside organizations.

    Gavin Schmidt is following President Obama’s Executive Order by tampering with his temperature data to produce record global warming for 2015. He will be given a Gold Star

    James H. Rust, professor of nuclear engineering

  11. Mack says:

    NASA ? After watching their moon landing video and now their AGW agenda ???

Leave a Reply

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