The 100% Fraudulent Hockey Stick

In 1999, NASA showed no net global warming from 1876 to 1976. This wrecked their hockey stick plans, so NASA erased all of the inconvenient pre-1880 data and cooled 1880 temperatures by about 0.2C.


NASA 1999     NASA 2016

This abuse of science is atrocious, but it gets worse. The NASA data had already been highly corrupted in 1999. In 1974, the National Center For Atmospheric Research (NCAR) showed 0.4C cooling from 1940 to 1970, and no net warming from 1870 to 1970.


14 Jul 1974

NASA has since erased this cooling, and now shows 1940-1970 as warming.


The 1940 to 1970 global cooling was also reported by CRU, and they blamed droughts, floods, blizzards and tornadoes on it.

14 Jul 1974

But the fraud gets much worse. Briffa’s trees showed the 1970’s as one of the coldest periods in the last 600 years. So Michael Mann completely erased them when he created the hockey stick.


briffa_recon.gif (420×320)

In 1981, NASA still showed about half of the 1940-1970 cooling, which they have since erased.


1981 version    2016 version

The only hockey stick, is the hockey stick of data tampering.


Global warming is indeed Mann-made, by Michael Mann and James Hansen. But it has nothing to do with climate or science.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to The 100% Fraudulent Hockey Stick

  1. AZ1971 says:

    AMEN. Been arguing with a nutter on another website lately about the discrepancies in the temperature record, asking for an explanation on why the 1910-1940 warming is explained as primarily “natural variability” while the 1970-2000 warming was purely man-made—as well as asking how the 1940-1970 cooling could be explained away by government scientists as the result of sulfate emissions from industrial production and Mount Agung in ’63 (when Europe, Russia, and Japan were all decimated after WWII; powerhouse emitters of today like India and China had not become strong growth economies; and how no sustained temp decline exists from larger VEI 5-6+ eruptions like El Chicon, Pinatubo, Mount St Helens, etc. even though they put up far more sulfates than Mount Agung did). The sulfate problem was the result of low-level near-ground air pollution. You need large injections of sulfate aerosols high into the stratosphere and in such locations near the equator as to mix throughout the global atmosphere (per volcanologist and climatologist claims) yet the 1940-1970 period did not have these forcings. It’s incongruous to their theory but is never adequately explained.

    • Jason Calley says:

      Almost every sceptic has experienced the frustration of trying to change a CAGW alarmist by showing him facts and logic. It is difficult to understand how great is the ability of alarmists to discount reason in favor of group-think.

      • Thomas Robbins says:

        OMG – I feel your pain – I tell them – these are THEIR GRAPHS, were they too stupid to get it right before 1990? Or was the funding only available if they changed their graphs – which makes more sense..

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      AZ, the only plausible explanation I found for their incongruous argumentation is that they want it to be so. As to the question why they want it, one only needs to look at the entire system of leftist and progressive thought to see that it is based entirely on such self-deception. It is no coincidence that climate alarmism is almost completely aligned with the progressive world view.

      Beyond that point it remains a mystery to me. I don’t know why as a race we are so susceptible to it. The original sin and pride of the fallen man remain the best explanation.

  2. SFX says:

    You are doing fine work, Orwell would understand what you are showing clearly.

  3. SFX says:

    Dear Mod, (please don’t pots this, it’s private to you)

    I am the same SFX that used to occasionally post on the old blog. I can confirm this if you have doubts, and I never spam or disrupt other bloggers. I guess this is my first time on the new blog.


    Orwell, just in case it’s not clear, was keen on pointing out that the State changed the past all the time

  4. SFX says:

    Oh great.

  5. barry says:

    Steve, you’ve overlaid current global temp plot (land + SSTs) onto old graphs that only used NH land station data, haven’t you?

    To compare with your 3rd graph I plotted 5 year averages (centred on 1902, 1905 etc) from current GISS data NH land-only data. This apples to apples comparison (although NCAR ’74 seems to be 5 yr av centred on 1900, 1905 etc) shows much better agreement between the old chart and current. Eg, cooling mid century.

    There is 10x more data now for the period than they had in 1974 (several hundred weather stations vs about 7000 in current GHCN database). So there will be differences based purely on that.

    Why do people think 40 year old data sets with 10x less information are superior to current? Seems like a kind of Ludditism to me.

  6. barry says:

    Even if you use the current GISS global data from 1940-1970 you still get a cooling trend.

    So what data set did you use to give you the warming trend from 1940 to 1970? Could you supply a link and I’ll replicate.

  7. barry says:

    This is GISS NH land only plus trend to compare with the third figure in the OP.

    Direct link:

    Data directly from GISS website current.

    Dunno what data set you used for “NASA 2016,” Steve, but it clearly isn’t the right one. What did you use?

  8. Frank Mlinar says:

    I examined the first graphic. Interestingly enough, the data for this graphic is apparently included in two following links. Unfortunately, the data does not match the graphic. NASA 1999 is correct, and the data has the expected NASA GISS format.
    NASA 2016 is not correct, and the data does not match the expected NASA GISS format.
    Further, if one downloads the GISS data as it exists today and makes a comparison, the present data nicely agrees with the NASA 1999 data. That is the temperature range of the data from 1880 to 1980 (as used in the graphic) is the same. If one uses the proper data, one gets the proper results.
    Regarding starting the data at 1866 vs. 1880, 1880 has been accepted as the standard starting point as the uncertainties are much less after this time. If you want to look farther back, use HADCRUT data, which extends to 1850.
    The wide peak in the graphic at about 1875 is an artifact of the averaging process. There was a very large temperature spike that lasted for a very short time, after which temperatures reverted to their previous values. That is, it was transient, kind of like an El Nino. Look at the actual data. Check the assertions.

Leave a Reply

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