The Corrupt History Of NASA Temperature History

In 1974, the National Center For Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado showed no net warming from 1870 to 1970, and a 0.5C cooling from 1940 to 1970.

Screen Shot 2016-08-23 at 5.10.41 AM

Climatologists blamed every imaginable form of bad weather on the global cooling that was occurring.

Screen Shot 2016-08-23 at 5.16.30 AM-down

14 Jul 1974, Page 1 – Lincoln Evening Journal at

In 1975, the National Academy of Sciences reported the same thing, and said global cooling is inevitable.

Science News March 1, 1975


Screen Shot 2016-08-23 at 5.37.32 AM-down

3 Mar 1975, Page 10 – The Sedalia Democrat

In 1989 Tom Karl, the Director of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, said Earth had cooled from 1921 to 1979.

Screen Shot 2016-08-23 at 6.57.29 AM-down

7 Dec 1989, Page 14 – Santa Cruz Sentinel at

Screen Shot 2016-08-23 at 7.03.19 AM

NCDC: * National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) * — Welcome

In 1981, NASA reported about 0.2C warming from 1921 to 1979. This was at odds with NOAA, who said that same period was cooling.

Screen Shot 2016-08-23 at 7.31.54 PM


But by 1999, NASA had changed the 1921 to 1979 cooling which Tom Karl reported into almost 0.3C warming, and had erased most of the 1940 to 1970 cooling.

Screen Shot 2016-08-23 at 7.10.59 AM


By 2001, NASA had increased the fake 1921 to 1979 warming to more than 0.3C, had further erased the 1940 to 1970 cooling, and showed about 0.5C warming from 1880 to 1999.

Screen Shot 2016-08-23 at 7.19.13 AM

NASA now shows 0.5C warming from 1921 to 1979, have completely erased the 1940 to 1970 cooling, and show 1.1C warming from 1880 to 1999. They more than doubled 1880 to 1999 warming since their 2001 graph.

Screen Shot 2016-08-23 at 7.33.07 AM

graph.png (1130×600)

The next image overlays the 2016 NASA graph on top of  Hansen’s 1981 NASA graph, at the same scale on both axes. It shows how NASA has cooled the past far outside their own blue error bars. This indicates that they do not understand their own data and are not doing science.


Summarizing : NASA has completely erased the post-1940 cooling. They turned Tom Karl’s 1921-1979 cooling into 0.5C warming, and have more than doubled 1880 to 1999 warming since their own 2001 temperature graph. Malfeasance like this in most professions would have serious consequences for the perpetrators.

The NASA temperature record is wildly unsupportable garbage. Unfortunate that clueless people like Steven Mosher and Brian Cox believe it is gospel truth.

Screen Shot 2016-08-23 at 7.54.22 AM-down

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

35 Responses to The Corrupt History Of NASA Temperature History

  1. Andy DC says:

    Backing a fake hypothesis with fake data. The scientific method at its finest!
    It has gotten so that skeptics need to keep their own data sets, because anything and everything manufactured by the Government is highly suspect.

  2. Mac says:

    I just cannot get over how these shamen who call themselves “scientists” roll their eyes and mock people who adhere to traditional religions. These liars are just medicine men beating the animal skin drum around a bonfire while the rest of the tribe chants in unison.

    I don’t believe this all just about money and getting government grants. That’s surely a very huge part of it, but there’s something else, too. The climate change religion seems to provide these people with a sense of community, purpose, and belonging. They seem like very unhappy churlish infants, who need to be hysterical. It’s just tribalism and cultism, based on a hatred of capitalism, and fear of people and modern technology.

    • Gail Combs says:

      When it Comes to Climate Change we have to Trust our Scientists Because they know lots of big scary words by Sean Thomas

      Unfortunately the Telegraph UK removed the whole article from the web. But thanks to quotes of various pieces of the article at different blogs I put together most of it.

      So here it is. (It seems Mac was correct.)

      Whither the weather? As you may have heard, a conference of national forecasters assembled this week in Exeter: to discuss the future of the British climate, following the spate of harsher than expected winters, and unusually wet summers, since 2007.

      Already, commentators are asking if global warming is to blame. In particular, some are wondering if the direction of the Jet Stream is being altered by Arctic ice melt. Others are speculating that natural variations, such as the “Atlantic multi-decadal oscillation”, might be responsible for recent evolutions.

      However, most of this reportage has been second-hand. Unprecedentedly, I had direct access to the meteorologists concerned, as I was in Exeter in spirit form, and I managed to speak to the principal actors.

      First, I asked Stephen Belcher, the head of the Met Office Hadley Centre, whether the recent extended winter was related to global warming. Shaking his famous “ghost stick”, and fingering his trademark necklace of sharks’ teeth and mammoth bones, the loin-clothed Belcher blew smoke into a conch, and replied,

      “Here come de heap big warmy. Bigtime warmy warmy. Is big big hot. Plenty big warm burny hot. Hot! Hot hot! But now not hot. Not hot now. De hot come go, come go. Now Is Coldy Coldy. Is ice. Hot den cold. Frreeeezy ice til hot again. Den de rain. It faaaalllll. Make pasty.”

      Startled by this sobering analysis, I moved on to Professor Rowan Sutton, Climate Director of NCAS at the University of Reading. Professor Sutton said that many scientists are, as of this moment, examining the complex patterns in the North Atlantic, and trying to work out whether the current run of inclement European winters will persist.

      When pressed on the particular outlook for the British Isles. Professor Sutton shook his head, moaned eerily unto the heavens, and stuffed his fingers into the entrails of a recently disembowelled chicken, bought fresh from Waitrose in Teignmouth.

      Hurling the still-beating heart of the chicken into a shallow copper salver, Professor Sutton inhaled the aroma of burning incense, then told the Telegraph: “The seven towers of Agamemnon tremble. Much is the discord in the latitude of Gemini. When, when cry the sirens of doom and love. Speckly showers on Tuesday.”

      It’s a pretty stark analysis, and not without merit. There are plenty of climate change scientists who are equally forthright on the possibilities of change, or no change, and of more hot, or less hot, or of rain, or no rain, or of Britain turning into the Sahara by next weekend, or instead becoming a freezing cold Frostyworld ruled by a strange, glistening ice-queen – crucially, it all depends on the time of day you ask them, and whether or not they had asparagus the day before.

      So who are we to believe? For a final word, I turned to the greatest climate change scientist of all, Dr David Viner, one-time senior research scientist at the climatic research unit of the University of East Anglia, who predicted in 2000 that, within a few years, winter snowfall would become “a very rare and exciting event”.

      However, he was trapped under a glacier in Stockport, so was unable to comment at the time the Telegraph went to press.

  3. Thomas Robbins says:

    Anthony, I wonder if Brain Cox should just keep looking at the stars, as stars don’t tend to fake you out, they stay in the same spot and do not morph like NASA graphs – I wish you could engage this guy rather than a politician.. I agree with the politician, but it’s too easy for the far left wingnuts to champion “incorruptible science” (as this does seem to be the way they think of scientists, all in white coats, diligently searching for the truth, immune from fears of having their funding removed, OR my main point, that scientists are never influenced by their philosophical world views – I think as for the NAS and others, this is the opposite, they view science ONLY as it is cached within their world view..your background on the other hand (I watched your terrific temp record presentation), is one of objective exactness, statistical precision, programming which I personally know is a precision and compactness problem by definition..

  4. Pingback: The Corrupt History Of NASA Temperature History – Climate Collections

  5. Richard Murray says:

    Liars, to better illustrate their lies use these types of graph.
    Using literally the same height to illustrate 1 degree centigrade, (Celsius), as the length to illustrate 100 years, is nothing short of fraud!
    But then, someone once said; “liars figure to make figures lie”.

  6. Rick K says:

    Great summary and series, Tony. This makes it very clear to anyone with eyes to see.

  7. Pingback: The Climate Change Debate Thread - Page 5915

  8. AndyG55 says:


    Just under the NOAA picture of Tom Karl, should that be 1991, rather than 1981?

  9. AndyG55 says:

    Note that the current GISS fabrication has now almost totally completed Tom Wigley’s wish of removing the 1940 peak.

    Next iteration will be basically a straight line.

  10. Timo Soren says:

    Please keep it up.

  11. Rosco says:

    Cox said that the graph was unequivocal because NASA produced it – “the people that put men on the moon”.

    Trouble with this appeal to authority is that a large number of the people that actually did “put men on the moon” wrote a letter to NASA management complaining about the advocacy being practiced by GISS rather than real science.

    Malcolm Roberts was set up by this farce of an advocacy talk fest show – blindsided by group-think.

    Had he been treated fairly he could have produced reputable evidence as a counter – it would have been nice to hit back with the letter from real NASA scientists complaining about GISS advocacy though.

    • Olaf Koenders says:

      Cox wouldn’t have got on the Leftard Q&A show if he didn’t toe the line. He’s been working for the BBC for years. Call it brainwashing.

  12. Rud Istvan says:

    The best riposte to Cox and NASA is:
    Surface temperatures have significant problems, and are regularly chnaged to show more warming. NASA’s satellites temperatures show no meaningful warming since 2000, while the Keeling curve ahows that 35% of the Co2 increase since 1958 happened over that same time period.

    • Douglas Hoyt says:

      The surface temperatures keep changing, but the same climate models correctly “predict”, after the fact, the surface temperatures, whatever they are. This should tell everyone that the models are just elaborate curve fitting procedures with no real future predicting ability.

    • AndyG55 says:

      Whatever their “operational product” is…

      sounds like an un-validated trial fabrication…. like BEST temperature fabrications.. we all have “expectations” I guess. ;-)

      Other sea ice products show 2016 currently equal to 2015

    • Sunsettommy says:


      you can’t even stay on topic to discuss the evidence about data manipulations. You can’t take on Tony on this one,because you know he is right?


      • AndyG55 says:

        Poor Mosh, there he is, a “language guy”, pretending to be a scientist, but stuck in a dead end job, trying to defend the indefensible, bending data into some sort of tortured fabrication.

  13. Michael Spencer says:

    Readers might like to check Senator Malcolm Roberts website to get some insight into the work he has put in to checking out the climate fraud:

    Names are named and, before long, they are going to be named in the Australian Parliament. I suspect a few of the scientific charlatans in Australia will be looking to migrate elsewhere.

    In the meantime, a variety of people are rallying behind Malcolm, including a fried of mine, and this is what he had to say about Professor Brian Cox:

    “I would like to offer my support in helping Malcolm in exposing the scam of anthropogenic global warming. Consequently I admire the work that Malcolm has undertaken and I am in full agreement with his findings.
    Also, I must congratulate him on his polished performance when faced with a biased Q&A, where Professor Brian Cox demonstrated an astonishing lack of knowledge of the science of both climate change and geology. This was amply confirmed when he held up a graph without being aware that it had been produced from data corrupted at the hands of James Hansen. How could he have been unaware that:
    • empirical measurements do not support the hypothesis of AGW
    • total ice on the planet is increasing
    • sea level rise is minimal and slackening off
    • ice core results show warming precedes rise in atmospheric CO2
    • extreme weather events are not increasing
    • the “tipping point” is imaginary
    And further:
    • believe that satellite measurements are not worth considering
    • not recognise that Global Circulation Models have failed badly, and
    • that the “97 % of scientists claim” is invalid.
    Words fail me.”
    And what are my friend’s credentials in saying this?

    A geologist and retired civil engineer with experience in project control, research and professional training.
    Ph.D. (Geology) 1964, University of Birmingham, UK: B.Sc. Hons.1958, Cardiff University, UK: Fellow of the Institution of Engineers Australia (retr’d): Honorary Fellow RMIT University: Certificate Advanced Management, Australian Institute Management.
    Chairman of the Geological Society of Australia Victoria State Branch: Victorian representative on GSA Executive: Chairman and Conference Manager of Coal Geology Group of GSA: Chairman Victorian Seismic Network Committee: Chairman RMIT Review Committee for Graduate Diploma Geology and Geological Engineering:
    Experience covers geological mapping (including glacial deposits relating to past climates, in UK, Norway, Falkland Islands, Antarctica and Tasmania) soil and rock engineering resource investigations, resource regulations. Incorporating appraisals for Government and private consulting projects in Australia, Antarctica, Iraq, Falkland Islands, Indonesia, Thailand, India, Pakistan and China – covering project controls, corporate activities, mining audits, financial evaluations, geological survey and resource evaluations and research as exemplified in some 40 scientific publications.

    So – what would he know? :-(

    • Gail Combs says:

      Geologists and those with some training in geology generally think CAGW is a complete HOAX. Knowledge of Dansgaard–Oeschger events inject a major amount of sanity.

  14. Bart says:

    Every time an alarmist whips out a chart it will likely begin no earlier than 1880. So I just ask what is special about that time period considering that the earth is millions of years old. Then I ask how they know what is a “normal” temperature range. They don’t have answers to those questions.

    • Gail Combs says:

      “..Then I ask how they know what is a “normal” temperature range. They don’t have answers to those questions.”

      I however do have the answer. Warming has not only been beneficial it occurred as a Step-Change around 1850!

      Ice cores from the Freemont Glacier show it went from Little Ice Age cold to Modern Warming warm in the ten years around 1850 — Naturally.

      An ice core removed from the Upper Fremont Glacier in Wyoming provides evidence for abrupt climate change during the mid-1800s….

      At a depth of 152 m the refined age-depth profile shows good agreement (1736±10 A.D.) with the 14C age date (1729±95 A.D.). The δ18O profile of the Upper Fremont Glacier (UFG) ice core indicates a change in climate known as the Little Ice Age (LIA)….

      At this depth, the age-depth profile predicts an age of 1845 A.D. Results indicate the termination of the LIA was abrupt with a major climatic shift to warmer temperatures around 1845 A.D. and continuing to present day. Prediction limits (error bars) calculated for the profile ages are ±10 years (90% confidence level). Thus a conservative estimate for the time taken to complete the LIA climatic shift to present-day climate is about 10 years, suggesting the LIA termination in alpine regions of central North America may have occurred on a relatively short (decadal) timescale.

      Also A text-book on the Weather from 1918 mentions

      The observations of temperature taken at a regular station are the real air temperature at 8am and 8pm, the highest and lowest temperatures of the preceding 12 hours, and a continuous thermograph record…. (Richard Freres thermograph) ….these instruments are located in a thermometer shelter which is ordinarily placed 6 to 10 feet above the roof of some high building in the city. At a Cooperative station the highest and lowest temperatures during a day are determined, and also the reading of the maximum thermometer just after it has been set. The purpose of taking this observation is to make sure that the maximum thermometer has been set and also to give the real air temperature at the time of observation.

      If a good continuous thermograph record for at least twenty years is available, the normal hourly temperatures for the various days of the year can be computed….

      “the average temperature for a day is found by averaging the 24 values of hourly temperature observed during that day”

      If the normals are based on twenty years of observations, it will be found that there is not an even transition from day to day, but jumps of even two or three degrees occur….

      I thought it quite interesting that the author was talking about 20 years of hourly data in 1918.

      He also says a thermometer in a Stevenson screen is correct to within a half degree. It is most in error on still days, hot or cold. “In both cases the indications of the sheltered thermometers are two conservative.”

      “The Ventilated thermometer which is the best instrument for determining the real air temperature, was invented by Assman at Berlin in 1887…will determine the real air temperature correctly to a tenth of a degree.”

      Instructions were written and given out to the Co-op observers in the USA in 1882. (There were two thermometers, one max and one min.)
      So there are a couple of reasons for starting in ~1880.

      And while I am at it.

      For the maximum thermometer they state:
      “…When a maximum thermometer is not read for several hours after the highest temperature has occurred and the air in the meantime has cooled down 15° or 20°, the highest temperature indicated by the top of the detached thread of mercury may be too low by half a degree from the contraction of the thread….”

      That would indicate the max thermometer should be read just after the heat of the day and any adjustment for reading at the wrong time of day should RAISE the maximum temperature not lower it This is the exact opposite of the adjustments applied by the ClimAstrologists

  15. OrganicFool says:

    Slaves are not allowed to think. Nor soldiers.

    • RAH says:

      Both are allowed to think but slaves are never allowed to act on those thoughts. However soldiers can and do often times. Many a medal for valor has been presented to service members and officers which acted against orders because they saw what needed to be done and did it or died trying.

  16. Walter Dnes says:

    I am altering the data. Pray I do not alter it any further.

  17. Kevin B says:

    Steven, I’d be interested to know the history of the temperatures during the 97/98 El Nino spike as reported by GISS over the years. At the time they were the hottest hottest ever ever but now the spike has largely disappeared as it has been gradually erased by the workings of GISS models.

    We could then point out that there is no need to worry about the warmest year ever in 2016 as in ten years time the temp for this year will have dropped half a degree.

  18. Robert B says:

    Have you seen this. An article from Patrick Hughes in the NOAA magazine in 1974

    Annual average temperatures over the Northern Hemisphere increased rather dramatically from about 1890 through 1940, but have been falling ever since. The total change has averaged about one-half degree Centigrade, with the greatest cooling in higher latitudes. A drop of only one or two degrees Centigrade in the annual average temperature at higher latitudes can shorten the growing season so that some crops have to be abandoned. […]

    …the average growing season in England is already two weeks shorter than it was before 1950. Since the late 1950’s, Iceland’s hay crop yield has dropped about 25 percent, while pack ice in waters around Iceland and Greenland ports is becoming the hazard to navigation it was during the 17th and 18th centuries. […]

    From PT

    • Gail Combs says:

      That goes with the 1974 CIA report. “A Study of Climatological Research as it Pertains to Intelligence Problems”

      Pg 7
      In 1972 the Intelligence Community was faced with two issues concerning climatology:

      * No methodologies available to alert policymakers of adverse climatic change

      * No tools to assess the economic and political impact of such a change.

      “… Since 1972 the grain crisis has intensified…. Since 1969 the storage of grain has decreased from 600 million metric tons to less than 100 million metric tons – a 30 day supply… many governments have gone to great lengths to hide their agricultural predicaments from other countries as well as from their own people…

      pg 9
      The archaeologists and climatotologists document a rather grim history… There is considerable evidence that these empires may not have been undone by barbarian invaders but by climatic change…. has tied several of these declines to specific global cool periods, major and minor, that affected global atmospheric circulation and brought wave upon wave of drought to formerly rich agricultural lands.

      Refugees from these collapsing civilizations were often able to migrate to better lands… This would be of little comfort however,… The world is too densely populated and politically divided to accommodate mass migration….

Leave a Reply

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