Global Temperature Record Is A Smoking Gun Of Collusion And Fraud

NASA claims that the blade of the hockey stick is settled science, which four different independent agencies (NASA, NOAA, CRU and JMA) agree upon very closely. The agreement is claimed to be within a few hundredths of a degree.

Screenshot 2016-04-08 at 04.59.54 AM-down

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Consensus

The graph above is utter nonsense. NASA temperature data doesn’t even agree with NASA temperature data from 15 years ago.


2016 version : Fig.A.gif       2001 version :

NASA has altered their own data by 0.5C since 2001, yet claims that everyone agrees within about 0.05C.


The Japan Meteorological Agency has altered their own data by a similar amount. In 1975 they showed no net warming in the Northern Hemisphere from 1900 to 1970.

Screenshot 2016-04-08 at 05.24.44 AM-down


But the story gets much worse. Phil Jones from CRU said that much of the Southern Hemisphere data is “mostly made up.”



In 1978, experts said there was no end in sight to the 30 year cooling trend, and that data from the southern hemisphere was too meager to be reliable.

Screenshot 2016-04-08 at 06.21.59 AM-down

TimesMachine: January 5, 1978 –

The 1990 IPCC report showed that there is insufficient data over much of the earth to determine temperature anomalies.

Screenshot 2016-04-08 at 06.08.29 AM-down


All of the agencies in the NASA graph at top use the same NOAA GHCN data for most of their database, and that data has 80% loss of stations over the past 30 years.


The only reliable long term data is from the US (which shows no warming in the raw temperature data over the past 80 years) and a few other isolated locations.

Screenshot 2016-04-08 at 06.44.39 AM

Long Record GHCN Analysis « the Air Vent

NASA has massively altered their US temperature data since 1999, to make a 1930-2000 cooling trend disappear.


The published NOAA US temperature graph doesn’t even vaguely resemble their own underlying data.


The claimed agreement in temperature data is simply not legitimate. The people involved know that their data is inadequate, tampered and largely made up. They all use basically the same GHCN data set from NOAA (which has lost more than 80% of their stations over the past few decades) and E-mails show that they discussed with each other ways to alter the data to make it agree with their theory.

Screenshot 2016-04-08 at 06.33.43 AM

The reason that the data sets agree is due to collusion, not independent research as they claim. It is the biggest scientific fraud in history.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Global Temperature Record Is A Smoking Gun Of Collusion And Fraud

  1. Streetcred says:


  2. Philip Shehan says:

    The first graph merely shows that 4 data sets are in good agreement. That is evidence of neither collusion nor fraud.

    The second graph is presumably the smoking gun, but the comparison of the 2001 and 2016 data in that graph is itself fraudulent.

    Firstly Goddard does not tell people that the data is for met stations only. That is it is land based data neglecting ocean temperatures.

    More serious is that the obvious way to do a legitimate comparison is to put the two data sets on a graph with a common temperature anomaly scale as is done on Figs 3 and 4 here which show the five year and annual means respectively. (The different years can be highlighted by placing the cursor on the dates in the box.)

    The difference between the particular year and the 2016 data is given on the lower line, offset by 1.5 C for clarity.

    The maximum difference between the 2000 data and the 2016 data is approximately 0.3 C, not the 0.5 C Goddard claims, and that is for data between 1880 and 1890, which being the oldest is the most unreliable with the largest uncertainty bars.

    There is very little difference in the overall appearance of the graphs for 2000 and 2016 when shown on a common scale.

    Goddard’s graph looks quite different because he has not presented the data on the same temperature scale. Notice the lack of numbers on the vertical axis.

    He has “normalized” the data to the 1990s.

    That is he has superimposed the data for the 90s for the two graphs directly on top of one another. Making them equal in slope and magnitude.

    Never mind that this means that any errors for that decade (and being only a decade means that the 2 sigma confidence limits will be large) will be extrapolated over the entire graph.

    And “luckily” for a “skeptic”, this leads to the graphs diverging significantly the further back in time you go. Allowing him to claim a difference of 0.5 C at the far end from the normalization, and give the false impression of a difference of about 0.2 C from 1990 to 1970.

    Again compare that with Figs 3 and 4 where this distortion is avoided by using a common scale.

    But if you wish to see the difference between the real global land and ocean and temperature data, look at Figs 1 and 2. The tricks used here would not work so well on that data, which is why I assume it was not used.

    • AndyG55 says:

      WRONG. Links are to graphs are clearly marked meteorological station

      Here is another one from around 2001.

      Ocean warming before ARGO is PURELY model driven, because they basically didn’t have anywhere near enough points to do even a rough guess.

      You have been caught out LYING, yet again, Dr Brainless.

      • Philip Shehan says:

        Andy, and where on the graphs above is it stated that the global temperature data is from measurements at meteorological data?

        And the link to the 2001 data does not work.

        You have to chase up the data to get the real story.

        If you wish to dispute the global sea and land data sets, go ahead but don’t accuse me of lying.

        You have not addressed the issue of why Mr Goddard decided to compare the graphs after “normalising” to the 90’s which carries a distortion back in time rather than do a straight out comparison of the data as shown in Figs 3 and 4 of the link.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “do a straight out comparison of the data”

          He has done a straight out comparison.

          • Philip Shehan says:

            You are avoiding discussing what I stated as the major concern. The presentation of data in the second figure, which is misleading.

            Now try and concentrate.

            No I would not normalise to 1880. I would not normalise at all.

            If you normalise to any particular decade you spread the errors in that decade across the whole timeline. Looking at the whole timeline helps to average out the “noise” or short term variations any such decadel errors.

            It’s like the error margins in the slope for the Giss data for 1990 to 2000;

            Trend: 0.168 ±0.318 °C/decade

            compared with those from 1880 to the present;

            Trend: 0.070 ±0.008 °C/decade

            The legitimate comparison is as done in Figs 3 and 4 of the link. As I wrote:

            ‘And “luckily” for a “skeptic”, this leads to the graphs diverging significantly the further back in time you go. Allowing him to claim a difference of 0.5 C at the far end from the normalization, and give the false impression of a difference of about 0.2 C from 1990 to 1970.

            Again compare that with Figs 3 and 4 where this distortion is avoided by using a common scale.’

            If the link for the second graph works for you, well lucky old you then. It does not work on my ccomputer. I get a windows error message.

            But it does not matter because i was able to track down it down from an alternate source.

            Which also gave a direct comparison with the 2016 data.

            That is what a skeptic does. A skeptic does not merely accept what is served up to him.

            Your repetitious hysterical capitalized abuse as a substitute for answering my objection to Goddard’s treatment of the data is typical of a denier, not a skeptic.

            Over at Bolt they have taken to swapping recipes as a substitute for discussion of data and analysis. “My Kindergarten Rules.” Along with the personal abuse.

            You and they must embarrass the hell out of genuine skeptics capable of dealing with scientific debate like grown ups. Thank God you are not on my side.

      • AndyG55 says:

        Yawn.. both links still work.

        Just how INCOMPETENT ARE YOU. !!!

        You are a LIAR.. always have been.

      • AndyG55 says:

        So, Dr Brainless, you would normalise to 1880.

        It would still show the same thing


        The real thing is….

        … that you ACCEPT this data corruption.

        Is that a remnant from your PhD days?

        I seriously hope that nothing important rests on your work.

      • AndyG55 says:

        “You have to chase up the data to get the real story”

        Again.. are you really that INCOMPETENT ?

  3. Pingback: Changes to the GISS Land Surface Air Temperature-Based Dataset Have Increased Reported Long-Term Global Warming | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations

Leave a Reply

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