More On The NOAA Texas Temperature Fraud

Texas has been cooling since 1895, but that doesn’t suit NOAA’s global warming agenda. So they keep cooling the past further and further to create the appearance of a warming trend.


The animation below shows changes to NOAA’s published temperatures over the past five years.


This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

341 Responses to More On The NOAA Texas Temperature Fraud

  1. AndrewS says:

    Drudge ***ALERT***

    • aeroguy48 says:

      Was fixing to say the same thing. That’s how I got here.

    • geoguy says:

      You will not get this from any MSM outlet.

    • Ozzonelayyer says:

      Yeah, all the snowflakes that hang out here better run and hide in their safe spaces.

    • Ignorancecosts says:

      Progressive scientists: Truth is a variable deduced by subtracting ‘what is’ from ‘what ought to be

      • ADStryker says:

        ROFL! That’s about as concise a description of the reality that seems to forever elude “progressives” as I’ve ever seen.

      • Odins Acolyte says:

        good ‘un

      • Outfielder says:

        You can have postmodern literature, philosophy and politics, where truth is a writhing target. There is no postmodern science.

        If you meet with a group of progressives in a tenth floor office to discuss the theory of gravity you will notice that they all leave by the door and not the window.

      • Paul says:

        “Finagle factor”, is an ad hoc multiplicative or additive term in an equation which can only be justified by the fact that it gives more correct results. Also known as Finagle’s variable constant, it is sometimes defined as the right answer divided by your answer.

    • Fisht says:

      Maybe you need to go find a safe space to hide in.

      Projection, deflection then run and hide. The Liberal way.

    • Kitcha says:

      I would take that as a compliment, since with the obama and hillary lap dog media, you can’t get the truth anywhere else.

    • steve johnson says:

      Don’t be so quick. The data comes from what? Thermometry? Thermometer data is numerically hard data but is still soft because of environmental effects. Each site is always sensitive to urbanization, local tree growth etc. Given the increase in CO2, increase tree growth might confuse the thermometers. That brings on the “data manipulators”….well meaning folks I’m sure…all dedicated to the art of “hard science”. I suspect temperatures are changing and I know the isotopic ratios of carbon point to contributions from “old” sources….such as oil, natural gas, coal etc but don’t forget contradictory arguments that it might be “natural”. Sources of “old” carbon come such things as the weathering releases from cement, limestone etc. all of which harbors considerable amounts of “old” carbon in the form of carbonates. There is a lot of bad cement out there…and it is getting worse likely because of recycling and use of bad aggregate. Recycling glass in limestone for instance is iffy. Much cement suffers from cancer…called “Alkali-silicate Reaction”… “”. How much of that concrete releases “isotopically old” CO2? (enquiring minds need to know)

      • Gail Combs says:

        “Thermometer data is numerically hard data….”

        AND the error has been known for a century. The NOAA data is meaningless because of the known error.

        On Thermometer resolution, and ERROR

        People will still want to know why NASA can put a Man on the Moon but can’t manage to read a thermometer correctly.

      • paschrh says:

        The amount of data that has been recorded, by NOAA, in the history of the world makes up for only 4/100,000,000 of one percent. Statistically, not enough data to predict an overall climate change. Additionally, while we hear of ice melting at the north pole, Antarctica is seeing record amounts of ice. We never hear about that.

        • Jack Gallagher says:

          As well, when progressives get hysterical over “melting polar ice” no one bothers to ask how much of the ice is currently on land (and might actually raise the water level on earth via runoff) and how much of the ice is already in water (which, when melted, the additional liquid that might otherwise cause sea levels to rise will be offset by the fact that the displacement of the former ice berg has been proportionately reduced). No one ever talks about the offsetting reduction in displacement, which even a novice can understand by observation of an ice tray in one’s kitchen freezer.

          • Jason says:

            If the ice is on land, then when it runs off it (theoretically) lightens the techtonic plate. Should that also offset the rise in sea level rise?

    • asdfsadfasdf says:

      lies, damn lies, statistics and climate “science”

    • Vendicar Decarian says:

      Once again Tony Heller does not report that the changes are due to time of day observational changes that have occurred over the years.

      He is such a scumbag liar.

    • kgj says:

      Per AP Poll, only 6% of Americans Trust the MSM, the same ones that perform Polls. The (6%) = Dumbass low IQ LIBTARDS not smart enough to figure it out.

      FACT….only (SIX) 6 Corps own 90% of all news media this includes FOX…. ALL 6 back Hillary and now Obama’s FCC has now turned over Internet to the UN starting Tomorrow Oct 1st in order to stop all Alternative Media.

      If people haven’t figured out by now that ALL the MSM, which is filled with 95% Liberal Journalists, is COMPLETELY in the Tank for the WITCH, they are Delusional.

      The Wikileaks Podesta documents proved once and for all that the Democrat Party and mainstream media are one entity. They meet. They plan. They coordinate. They collude. They dine together. They vacation together. They plot narrative together. They share debate questions together. They disseminate the information to the masses.

      FACT…only (SIX) 6 Corps own 90% of all news media this includes FOX and all Printed news. ALL 6 back Hillary. These 6 Corps are the Globalist’s State run Propaganda Machine. This is COLLUSION.

      The collusion is with all people benefiting from a growing government which now has a $20 trillion debt and growing. A short list of examples:
      1) ABC News executive producer Ian Cameron is married to Susan Rice, Obama’s National Security Adviser
      2) CBS President David Rhodes is the brother of Ben Rhodes, Obama’s Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications
      3) ABC News correspondent Claire Shipman is married to former Obama Whitehouse Press Secretary Jay Carney
      4) ABC News and Univision reporter Matthew Jaffe is married to Katie Hogan, Obama’s Deputy Press Secretary
      5) ABC President Ben Sherwood is the brother of Obama’s Special Adviser Elizabeth Sherwood
      6) CNN President Virginia Moseley is married to former Hillary Clinton’s Deputy Secretary Tom Nides
      7) ABC News Chief Anchor and Political Correspondent George Stephanopoulos worked for Clinton Administration and Rahm Emanuel and contributed to Clinton Foundation.
      8) Dan Pfeiffer, former White House senior advisor now works for CNN
      9) Former MSNBC personality Melissa Hart-Perry is married to Obama’s WHITE HOUSE CHEF.
      10) News Corp Watch: A project of Media Matters for America, News Corp Watch was established with the help of a $1 million George Soros grant to Media Matters. It is a 501(C) tax-exempt org.

      Democrats who DENY this COLLUSION are brainwashed by the MSM and also deny that Globalists are running the US. When confronted Democrats cry “Conspiracy Theory”, or “Tin Foil Hat”. Like Parrots.

      FOX, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, BBC, PBS = MSM. The Left/right paradigm was created by Globalists to give us the illusion of choice. FOX is Right side and just has a few conservatives where the others don’t.

      FOX news is owned by Rupert Murdoch. His two sons are Hillary supporters and now run FOX. FOX was created to be the RIGHT side of the LEFT/RIGHT paradigm. Again, giving Us the illusion of Choice.

      Fact: Saudi Prince who gave Clinton Foundation $25 Million, also owns 2.5% of FOX.

      Globalist created MSM Left/Right Paradigm to Foment Division “Divide and Conquer.”

    • Cornelius Cucharacha says:

      Get your hands off me you damn fthy ape.

    • Sydbloom says:

      an old trolling tactic of the left when they prefer not to have to explain their latest lie. Algorian religious fanatics burning vegan sacrifices and caterwauling their prayers lordess Gaia.

    • Charles Wilkins Jr. says:

      Figures don’t lie; but, liars can sure figure!

    • kim says:

      No thoughts on the manipulation of the ‘scientific’ data?

  2. Pingback: More On The NOAA Texas Temperature Fraud | The Deplorable Climate Science Blog – Pure Hearts International

  3. George Kadlec says:

    “The further a society strays from the truth the more it will hate those who speak it.” – George Orwell

    • Jay Bahora says:

      Obama and Hillary have taught their minions to hate those who speak the truth. We must change the path our country is on.

    • Vendicar Decarian says:

      Once again Tony Heller does not report that the changes are due to time of day observational changes that have occurred over the years.

      He is such a lying scumbag.

      • AndyG55 says:

        Mirror mirror. !

        blog needs some anti-VD-biotic

      • Neal S says:

        So the TOBS needs to be applied again and again and again.

        That makes no sense at all. Project much?

        • AndyG55 says:

          yep, in small increment at each calculation..

          like homogenisation run several times.

          gradually flattening the line into a dead straight fallacy.

          Like GISS is 97% of the way being

      • Billybob9 says:

        Uh, changing the values observed in the past is a no no ~

        Now they’ll usually justify this by nothing that you can look next door (and there’s always a next door when it comes to the standard weather station location) and see that the measurement at 3 PM was higher there (where we measured at 3 PM) than at the station on the University Circle where we are now and made a measurement at 11 AM eh) so we take that higher reading and stick it in this spot and lo and behold everybody has the same 3PM reading.

        That’s called “proxying in” ~ but it doesn’t work that way. It’s still a reading we never took!

        That is, in fact, FORBIDDEN in statistically sound analysis ~ you can’t just invent the numbers no matter what.

        So, what do we do? Well, we do the hard job of trying to compute the AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE using about 500 measurements per day taken mostly in the USA and Western Europe (particularly in England) and if all our sites had but 1 measurement per day, we live with that because the OBJECTIVE is to get the Average Global Temperature, not some hypothetical local temperature that was not actually ever measured.

        It makes the past a thin gruel but that’s life, and as we go further into the past, it becomes thinner and we are down to counting diatom shells in the glop at the bottom of lakes and oceans….. and seeing if IT WAS WARMER or IT WAS COOLER over aeons of time!

        Not at all the stuff we need to come up with a hundred years from now forecast, but there you have it.

        Then there are the satellite measurements. The CIA was doing that stuff quite early as such things go ~ and none of their data is included.

    • Centurion says:

      Here’s another gem:

  4. Ron says:

    Its long past time we started jailing these lying frauds! For those who believe they are above the law the laws of physics need to be applied!

  5. Ngallendou says:

    The logic of faith: I believe what my authorities have told me. Bring a logical being, I deduce that the past must have been cooler. Therefore, earlier measures must have been wrong. So, it truthful to modify the past to fit my authorities’ confident assertions. Thus, both they and I remain mentally comfortable.

  6. Pingback: More and more evidence that the left can’t win without cheating. | Lunacy is contagious

  7. JBnID says:

    People on Earth are like ants on a cruise ship and we have no more control over the weather than we do the steering.

  8. Creed says:

    Just one more example of how the government has rigged the truth.

  9. Eugene says:

    This “science” is a lot like stock market chartists nonsense-you pick some “average”..and then extrapolate all these trend lines from it. About as scientific as phrenology or astrology-and about as accurate. Of course, the main objective is to keep those “research” grant $$ coming!

    • Alan C Kmiecik says:

      Yeah, and given my 401k, that crap about money doubling even seven years is as accurate as global warming data.

      • Ozzonelayyer says:

        Of course you money will keep doubling as long as you keep making your contributions and your employer matches it. Do neither and watch how fast it doesn’t double.

  10. Bud Brigman says:

    And no major news outlet will cover this. Awesome.

  11. Mike S says:

    Science and lying would seem to be incongruent.

    • RLABruce says:

      What Global Warming “scientists” are doing isn’t science.

      • FaceToTheStorm says:

        “Climate psychics” seems more appropriate than “climate scientists”.

        • Jas says:

          Climate Priests is more like it, maybe Carbon Lords, their followers are ignorant snarky zealots so it fits. Even my cat is skeptical of the GW fraudsters. The E-mails from like 5 years ago ended it, they are being paid off by Shell and other big donors as well as our tax dollars, changing a decline into an incline so the elites can use it to convert us onto an energy based currency that is all digital, everything they do is through lies.

  12. Bob says:

    Faith in the Democratic Party is believing what they say is true in spite of facts, feelings and experiences to the contrary!

    • Francois marie says:

      Just return from Alepo,in the midle of the carnage , American keep thinking global warming is real ,we think anything Kerry push is a oaks ,he told Assad he was the future of democratie in Syria ,everything the democrat touch turn to blood ,

  13. MV says:

    In 2014, Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler asked why it was so cold if global warming existed. Washington Post then decided to debunk her by quoting the same database as you have done. In that article, WaPo consciously picked a date range (1975-2015) that indicated that average temperatures had risen. If you took a much broader date range (from 1900), the graph indicates that average temperatures have remained almost unchanged.

    • Rob in Katy says:

      It is like the SJW only claiming the worst slavery ever was between 1492 and 1783, conveniently leaving out 5000 years before and every country in the world and they still fail to admit that it exists today. White Americans were the worst is the only point to the slavery issue.

      • No Name says:

        It happened here, it was wrong, it wasn’t limited to one race, it wasn’t limited to one nation, it wasn’t limited to one century but it was White Americans that abolished it in America. Maybe we should direct more effort to stopping it today rather than being consumed with the past.

    • Andy DC says:

      NOAA’s very own charts showed no US warming whatsoever between 1895 and 1993.

    • garyh845 says:

      Save a copy of that . . they will be back to fix it.

    • Gail Combs says:

      They also ignore the fact that the temperature has been declining over the last 10,000 years in response to the earth’s orbital parameters.

      • JimTx says:

        On that GISP2 Ice Core plot, you need to realize that the top of the core is dated to 1855. This is because the snow does not consolidate into ice until it gets buried about 100 meters deep. Temperatures at the top of the Greenland Ice sheet are estimated to have warmed about 1.4 degrees C since then.

    • Dave Burton says:

      The Washington Post has gone full propaganda mode on environmental issues (among others). They simply cannot be trusted.

      They’ve discontinued the WaPo Ombudsman position, and abandoned even the pretense of impartiality. Here’s another example:

  14. RightStuff44 says:

    Climate change/global warming is a leftist scheme to bully and panic an ignorant and compliant human race into forking over its labor to the evil perpetrators of this fraud. They should be ferreted out and disposed of in the most cruel sort of way.

  15. charles says:

    HERE is the gradeschool math that disproves “human caused” global warming.

    45,000 + miles of crust subduction zone
    Times 30 miles average crust depth
    Times 5 cm per year of subduction
    Equals millions of times more hydrocarbons etc. being incinerated and released into the atmosphere per annum than ALL human activity.

    • Lee Shurly says:

      According to the US DoE Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) and the IPCC that natural CO2 has 30 times the global warming potential of natural CO2. Therefore if CO2 warmed the earth by 2C, then the warming by each is as follows:

      If CO2 can warm the earth by 2C, then manmade CO2 would warm the earth by only 0.06C while natural CO2 would warm it by 1.94 C or the rest of the projected 2 C.

      If manmade CO2 warmed the earth the whole 2 C, then natural CO2 would concurrently raise the temperature by 60 C.

      The IPCC estimated the cost at hundreds of trillions.

    • Chris says:

      Subduction zone. Thats one you don’t hear scientists mention, although it is worth mentioning.

      • geoguy says:

        Geologists ignore the gibberish of so-called climate scientists since so-called climate scientists continually ignore the scientific facts of geology. The earth is dynamic and the climate is always changing.

  16. Odins Acolyte says:

    One of the coolest summers and autumns I remember since my childhood in the sixties.
    They say record warmth.
    Liars. Big ‘uns.

    • David says:

      Yeah. I live in Dallas. It’s definitely Bennett cooler in the summer and warmer in the winter than when I was growing up. Proof that God loves Dallas. But he still wants Dak over Tony.

    • AndyG55 says:

      Ignoring GISS fabrications, here is the September UAH map.

      Still some remnants of the El Nino spike sitting over northern Europe.

      You can see the west of USA was cool, slightly warm over the NE.

    • SquirrelCutter says:

      Oh yeah, here in Texas the spring was MUCH cooler than I’ve seen to be the norm, but it was the “hottest spring on record” per the Hysterions.

  17. Mark T. says:

    Can we sue NOAA?

    • mike says:

      Unfortunately these bureaucrats are suppose to be working for us. So even if you would be successful, the taxpayers would foot the bill :-( And besides given the liberal slant of the judges and the ignorance of the jurors what are your odds?
      Better to have congress cut their funding but wait, this gutless congress will not do anything :-(

    • David says:

      We can sit quietly and cry.

  18. From, Nat.snow and ice data center; Sept.10, 2012–2.2 million sq. miles of arctic ice..Sept.10,2016–2.9 million sq. miles of arctic ice..Oct.8,2016 3.3 million sq. miles of arctic ice..

  19. Jon says:

    It looks like real science is taking a back seat to politics once again.

  20. Pepper says:

    If you get the Marxists out of science it will heal. Otherwise sociology will rule all of science because it generates the most money and power through manipulation.

  21. RightStuff44 says:

    Climate change/global warming is a leftist scheme to bully and panic an ignorant and compliant human race into forking over its labor to the evil perpetrators of this fraud. They should be ferreted out and convicted of fraud in the most public way.

  22. Steven says:

    Read Forbidden Science by Richard Milton or watch the 32 minute video on YouTube. The scientific community is fudging.

  23. Freeland_Dave says:

    NOAA has been manufacturing their data on temperatures for decades now. How do I know? I was one of many who built their satellites and maintained their data gathering equipment. As such I was on the inside with the ability to look at their data and see how it was manipulated to fit the computer models they were pushing as fact. Why did they do it? For the money. For the money.

  24. Mac says:

    Fuck Al Fatass Gore

  25. Choirboy says:

    This website seems to be preaching to the choir.

  26. jfhdsiu says:

    Truth? TRUTH?…. They can’t HANDLE no stinkin’ truth. Or rather, ‘they’ can’t afford for YOU to handle the truth so they just don’t give it to you. Because for those invested in the Global warming scam ‘their’ INCOME depends on the OUTCOME of their …..Ahemmm………. Studies………………….. And, (even MORE vehemently), Ahemmmmm….. Your BELIEF in THEIR outcome……………… Who believes a known, proven serial liar, (global warmer scammers)….? I know but I would rather they out themselves…..

  27. Jennifer says:

    The science of global warming is settled: It’s fraudulent.

  28. Richard says:

    Clearly, the Earth is cooling. Last July the temperature was is the 90’s. Today the temperature is in the lower 70’s. At this rate the temperature will be near 0 by January. And I didn’t even have to fudge the stats to make it look credible!

  29. Groty says:

    Just a friendly suggestion. You usually link back to the source data. Since your page views will skyrocket from the Drudge link, you may want to consider adding links to the source data so new visitors to this site can see your data is from cr”official” sources. That makes it harder to dismiss.

    • Rud Istvan says:

      See detailed comments below on why this is sometimes unnecessary and other times very difficult (in the Japanese sense). The first blink is easy to reproduce from NOAA USHCN with a few simple googles. The second is not possible because NOAA disappeared the earlier version when it put the ‘new and improved one up. They are dishonest, but not stupid.

      • DC says:

        As to “unnecessary,” it is necessary if a goal of these posts is to persuade curious, independent-minded folks who want to know where data/charts are coming from.

        As to “difficult,” in your example (where the chart is no longer on the government website) the citation would be something that precisely reveals the origin of the chart. For example, a parenthical identifying what its web address *was*, and when it was screen-captured or otherwise preserved. This happens all the time in my profession (law), to show the authenticity and origin of the thing in question. Nobody questions this practice, since the point is to persuade, and therefore you want to show where data or other evidence came from. To be clear, I am not doubting the authenticity of these charts ar all – I am just mystified at why people on this blog don’t readily agree on the small additional step of providing citations for graphs like this. The benefit is clear; the downside seems tiny.

        I say this not as a critic of this website. To the contrary, I would like to see its posts get more attention — but how could a post like this get traction with, say, a journalist, when the key chart (the 2011 one) isn’t backed up with a citation making it indisputable?

        • David says:

          If you really wanted to ask a deep seated question, you should have just asked “but how could a post like this get traction with, say, a journalist?”

        • Rud Istvan says:

          DC, as explained below, its not so easy. NOAA deliberately disappeared Drd964x when it substituted nClimDiv. Bottom blink comparitor. And NOAA deliberately has hindered Wayback since many years. That is on purpose.
          Understand the fight. It is not Marquis of Queensbury rules like you apparently desire.

          • DP says:

            Here here! Rud Istvan.

            Excellent observation and applicable to a great many dolts refusing to comprehend the very premise of a fraudulent argument.

            I pity none the naive fool who cries over a bloody nose in a street fight, sniveling “It wasn’t a fair fight.”

            If somewhat intelligent, he will soon learn the only rule is – ‘no rules’.

            If not, the bloody nose will be visited upon his beak until he removes himself from the venue.

            Then he will surely run for Congress motivated by a misanthropic rage to ‘right all the perceived wrongs of the world’ and he will not stop until we either commit his neck to the guillotine, or he ours.

            Not being a large fan of the 1789 French Revolution, I have to conclude it did have some redeeming qualities- since it specifically went after the ‘system’ rather than the previous instances of Euro regicide.

            That fact alone lends weight to the notion that “Even a stopped clock is right twice a day”as bloody as it was. All governments are killed from within bu bureaucrats. It is their nature. You may ask, “What’s a prime example of this historically repeatable fact I speak of?”

            Visit any DMV for a day to establish why the Frogs were a bit obsessed with the removal of petty bureaucrats from the face of the Earth. They were removing a corrupt system based on quid pro quo (and brain dead humans) simply because they figured out the bureaucrats literally had more power over their everyday lives than the head of state.

            Remind of you anything?

            In other words DC, I don’t need iron clad incontrovertible proof that fraud is fraud and I can see clearly if I look for myself. No lawyers required.

            To think otherwise is to place weight on the Bart Simpson defense; “You can’t prove it, no one saw anything”, which for the most part, is a joke and you know it.

            And that boys and girls is why all lawyers are to be buried twelve ft. deep, not six. Defense and Prosecuting alike.

  30. Richard Kelly says:

    With AlGore and his ilk gunning for our air conditioners this is good news for Texans.

  31. Ben Eaton says:

    I guess what I will never understand is why push a false climate agenda? I mean, what’s to gain? Is it political? Just to keep getting funding or what? Too me it seems just like the kid who keeps telling his parents he’s doing fine in school only to have Ds and Fs on the report card. Sooner or later all the falsifications will be seen in broad daylight. What’s to gain by the false narrative?
    Along those lines, why even fight the false narrative? Who loses if one side or the other is wrong? The climate is going to be what it’s going to be. If the claim man is damaging the environment is false, what does trying to keep it clean hurt? If man is not damaging it, then money has been spent but so what? Is misappropriation of funding the real issue?

    • Walter says:

      yes, only ‘misappropriation’ is a euphemism for ‘grand theft’. And given the GRAND scale of this theft on a global level, it IS a huge issue and should be an issue with everyone with half a brain to think for themselves.

    • JonV says:

      “who loses if one side is wrong?”

      The humans subject to the economic slavery & starvation that will occur when those pursuing the AGW agenda finally gain control.

      You don’t thing the globalists actually care about people – do you?

    • David says:

      It’s very difficult to take people’s rights from them. It’s much easier to convince them that they must discard them for their own survival.

      • Neal S says:

        If we are deprived of guns, then taking away everything else becomes rather easy. This is why it is vital that we do all we can to protect our second amendment rights.

        HRC would put judges on SCOTUS and federal courts, who would ‘re-interpret’ the constitution in such a way as to eliminate or at the lease severely erode our second amendment rights.

        Even if this were the only reason to defeat HRC, by voting for TRUMP, then it would be enough.

    • No Name says:

      Climate change is not about the environment it’s 100% about global authority. The UN (unelected, unaccountable) will be established as the authority who dictates global behavior and extracts funds (carbon tax) from nations to operate and redistribute as they see fit. But you keep believing “they” are looking out for Mother Earth.

  32. Hugh K says:

    Gruber’s ‘stupid voters’ have got to be delighted with NOAA’s “adjustments”.

  33. Pingback: More Lies from NOAA - Intellectual Gumbo

  34. Michael Bol says:

    I remember in science class they called something the ‘ice age’ I walked home that day refusing to get in my parents SUV.

  35. John says:

    If the age of the earth was equal to one year, then the climate change
    Folks are basing their ” facts” on less than two minutes of data
    Hardly a convincing case.

    • David says:

      Come now. You can’t dismiss the fossil record so easily. Clearly dinosaur farts raised the CO2 levels to the point of their own extinction (yeah, I saw it. ..stink). You’re not suggesting we follow suit are you?

  36. M9777 says:

    Numerous “personal weather stations” provided by WeatherUnderground and others do not warn against mounting instruments in direct sunlight or near/over paved surfaces. Temps are therefore skewed and inaccurate. This unscientific data certainly favors claims of “warming.”

  37. James C. Morris says:

    I have, saved right on this computer, data published by NASA in the year 2000, and what is allegedly the very same data, published by NASA at the same web address, except for the last dash number, in 2013. But the 2013 “data” had been very significantly “adjusted.” The “adjustments” were not minor, nor were they random. They were systematic. The alleged data had been increased for all but six years from 1880 to 1910, thus hiding a cooling trend during that period. The alleged data had then been reduced for every year from 1911 to 1964, thus hiding a high temperature period in the 1960’s. Then the temperatures had been increased, by a gradually increasing amount, for all except one year from 1965 to 2000.

    The net effect of this fraud was to change a historical record of temperatures rising and falling, to an alleged historical record of temperatures that had been essentially steady from the beginning of the record until about 1930, and then temperatures steadily rising at a gradually increasing rate from 1930 until the present time. If this had been done in the banking industry, someone would have gone to prison.

    • FaceToTheStorm says:

      You are one of those people who help make the truth a stubborn thing. Thanks and keep it up.

    • Jas says:

      Bankers don’t go to prison these days, they seem to get thrown off of buildings by their bosses muscle. What has it been, like 50 of them in the last year and a half?

  38. mike says:

    One of my favorite stories was when the wife and I were in Florida there was a G.warming scientist on television along with a couple of local professors and politicians.
    Mr. scientist was stating the the reclamation of the Everglades was a good thing and could be used to store a 15 foot raise in ocean levels. A place to park it.
    All the professors and politicians oohed and aahed and not a one gave it any thought. A scientist said it, it must be true.
    I’m not all that smart but storing 15 feet of water off the oceans in the Everglades would be like dumping the water from an Olympic sized swimming pool into a thimble.
    I don’t know if it is real or not but when I see things like that I have to wonder.

  39. Ronnie says:


  40. DC says:

    I agree with Groty above. Thousands of people will see this because of the Drudge link — but its persuasive value is compromised by the absence of links to source data. I respect the mission of this site and the work it does (which is work that journalists ought to do) — but it too often commits the unforced error of not showing where underlying data comes from, when doing so would make posts far more compelling. I have heard people say this additional step will fall on deaf ears but I disagree. The audience for a site like this is largely skeptics — people who like to make up their own minds based on facts. It is those very people who would have an appetite for references/links to source data. All of that said, it is another great post.

    • Rud Istvan says:

      Those of us more into this combat know those links. For example, the first blink comparator is NCEI USHCN raw versus final. The second is simply the previous Drd964x version compared to the ‘new and improved’ nClimDiv implemented in 2014. Essay When Data Isn’t in my ebook Blowing Smoke has three other state examples showing the same thing: California, Michigan, and Maine, as well as a CONUS complete overall analysis. The switch doubled the rate of change per decade. DOUBLED!

      • DC says:

        I am not doubting that the links exist, or that people like yourself know how to find the underlying data. I am saying: why not include the links, to make the posts more accessible to and persuasive to people who aren’t as knowledgeable in this area as yourself? If the goal is to do more than preach to an already-convinced, expert audience, but instead to influence opinion more broadly, that would really help. I visit this blog because I love its focus on hard data — a welcome relief from vague, unsupported assertions in mainstream media — but I would find its posts way more persuasive if I could see where the data is coming from. And I’m not “in the combat,” so I don’t have your facility with getting to the underlying data. I think there are a lot of people like me and I think the blog is losing an opportunity to persuade and involve that audience. If this post had links, there are people I would send it to — but it doesn’t, so I won’t (friends/colleagues would just ask, fairly, where the data came from, and the exercise of sending it along would be pointless).

        • Rud Istvan says:

          You make a reasonable point. But it isn’t always possible to easily execute. Because in some cases you have to use the Wayback Machine to capture previous versions, and even then in some cases it doesn’t work and the images had to be captured and saved previously. For example, when nClimDiv was introduced by NOAA all the previous state Drd964x charts disappeared from the NOAA website. Permanently.
          NOAA made the shift announcement in 2011, saying the cutover was planned for YE 2013. I started writing Blowing Smoke in 2012, knew one essay would be on altering suface temperatures, and started saving good example stuff to illustrate the text. So did others. Saved all Drd964x CONUS state histories for 2013, making sure the NOAA logo appeared. The actual cutover was 1Q14. So was easy to pick examples and run the stats for the book. Got very lucky. A Maine skeptic meteorologist had prepared a late 2013 talk using Drd964x after NOAA changed the chart format but before the data cutover to nClimDiv. He went back to update the talk and got the new version in the new format for an exact comparison. He posted the difference to meteorologist A. Watts blog. That crystal clear comparison version ended up in the book with footnote credit. We are fighting a guerrilla war against an ‘enemy’ with vastly more resources. Zip bersus $billions annually.
          BTW, there are many other examples in my essay, and many other essays illustrating equivalent misconduct on other climate topics in my ebook Blowing Smoke: Essays on Energy and Climate.

          • DC says:

            Interesting. Thank you. If you have time, see my comment above about how lawyers do citations in situations like this (with a parenthetical concisely describing what the chart is, where it came from, how and when it was obtained/preserved). Lawyers use things from the Wayback Machine all the time — but they do provide a citation designed to reassure the reader about provenance and authenticity. A chart or image in a brief unaccompanied by a citation would be unheard of — and not because of arbitrary evidentiary rules; instead because the goal is to persuade, and thoughtful people aren’t likely to be persuaded by a chart whose origin is not explained. Anyway, thank you for your thoughtful comment.

          • Rud Istvan says:

            DC, I am a licensed lawyer. Thanks for the understanding.

  41. Pingback: CLAIM: More Temperature Fraud... -

  42. Joel says:

    The Pro AGW crowd is AGAIN caught with the their thumbs on the proverbial scale.

    And when you get REPEATEDLY caught conspiring to fudge the data, you are losing the argument.

    To be sure, they should be mad at their own, as the intentional malfeasance leveraged to promote a falsified narrative is mostly responsible for the public largely rejecting the lie that the Pro AGW crowd wants desperately to be true.

  43. D3F1ANT says:

    How shocking…MORE Global Warming “science” fraud! If you want to prove a lie…you need to create more lies to back it up! Just ask Hillary!

  44. Rich says:

    My problem with the warming data is the accuracy of the measurements.
    Our Class A RTD’s have an accuracy of +/- 0.15 deg C at 0 deg C and +/- 0.35deg C at 100 deg C.
    They seem to be measuring 0.01 degrees C. What are they using to read in the .01 degree range?
    What was the accuracy of the readings they are comparing too back in 1895? What were they using to make their measurements? What was the accuracy of their measurements? Accuracy of the calibration standard?
    Same with the sea level rise. NASA says the rise is less than 3mm per year as measured by satellites 830 miles in space. Accuracy is 3cm. Doesn’t say if it’s +/- 3cm. That’s less than 1/8” with accuracy of just under 1-1/8”. Could be going down? If correct, that’s 8 years per inch or 96 years per foot. How was this measured before satellites? Mark on a rock?
    I was taught that accuracy was required in science.
    Got to go. There’s some black SUV’s coming up my drive.

    • Gail Combs says:

      The Time of Observation adjustment is in the wrong direction
      The Climastrologists lower the old readings because of a TOBS (Time of Observation) adjustment.

      Zeke Hausfeather of BEST, a dyed in the wool Climate Alarmist says on Judith Curry’s website:

      “….Observation times have shifted from afternoon to morning at most stations since 1960…”

      A meteorology textbook from 1918 states:

      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….
      …..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…

      …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….

      The author says a thermometer in a Stevenson screen is correct to within a half degree. He also states there are 180 to 200 ‘regular weather stations’ ordinarily in the larger cities that take reading twice daily and a continuous reading too. There were 3600 to 4000 coop stations and 300 to 500 special stations that recorded other aspects of the weather.

      Two thermometers are used an Alcohol for Minimum and a Mercury for Maximum supplied with a manual in 1882 to the coop stations by the US Weather Bureau.

      That is one example where the correction applied by the ClimAstrologists is IN THE WRONG DIRECTION! Tony Heller attacks TOBS directly by looking at the data and also comes up with the conclusion that TOBS adjustments are unjustified.

    • No Name says:

      Exactly! Being a professional land surveyor and mapper I know how critical collection, recording and analyzing of data is to the accuracy of your conclusions. Compiling decades of recordings by others and projecting a result that exceeds the tolerance levels of the data itself is foolish and misleading.

    • Rud Istvan says:

      Neat catalyst, but impractical. The net round trip energy efficiency is at most 28%, which you can calculate from thempaper abstract and simple googlable kmowledge of USC steam thermal efficiency. No way does this ORNL invention solve the renewable intermittency storage problem in a commercially feasible way.

  45. Drhiggins says:

    ADAPT 2030 Alert. Check out ASAPT2030 on YouTube.

  46. Pingback: CLAIM: More Temperature Fraud… | Oblivious Nature

  47. jfhdsiu says:

    Meanwhile the Earth has enjoyed a crop yield of unprecedented proportions……… THIS year. That is if ‘those’ stats are accurate. Anymore, ‘stats’ is just a contraction of the word ‘statistics’ which one can not verify for one’s self…..A contracted word to soothe the nerves of people who DON’T do their own thinking. I have no faith in the veracity of “scientists” as a whole anymore. I’ve caught them in too many lies. I don’t think they are any smarter than I am. Of course there IS a caveat to that one…

  48. Jeremiah Simpson says:

    This is when ABC’s 20/20, CBS 60 Minutes, or NBC Dateline investigates this for us!!

    Call their producers! Here’s how it will work.
    1. Interview a geeky college grad student/intern who manipulates the data by a “set formula” to correct the old datasets
    2. Explain how the “original data” has “systemic errors” that must be adjusted.
    3. Now show him doing something that alters a different type of error… (not a systemic one)
    4. Pretend that the error he showed on screen is what climatologists “adjust” or “correct” … so where the data said there was a 91 degree day in January, and the nearby stations reported 19 degrees, this data manipulation is all about fixing real problems. Of course this never happened, so show a fake data book and a fake “fix” of this using editing tricks.
    5. Blame the adjustments on pen and paper logs, which of course was old skool. And of course new technology is “Better” as it *never* reports false readings for a broken thermometer wire. And there’s *never* human error in modern times.
    6. Conclude the report with the “facts”: Scientists are just gonna be scientists. Geeks love correcting these old records. Nostalgia is for old fogeys. We must embrace the new, clean data.
    7. End the piece by interviewing Michael Mann on how bad, evil people are causing the planet to warm.

  49. Xter Wheeler says:

    Oh no

  50. John says:

    This is not about climate change, but about controlling the masses. The rich in this world want to make sure they are comfortable with all the heating and air they can get and do not want natural resources to run out on them, so they want the middle class to live like the poor and are getting ready to cut back our A/C, but they will not have to by paying a carbon credit tax.

    • JohnS says:

      Marxists ALWAYS hated the midle class. Too much time on your hands so as to see how you’re being screwed by the elite. They need everyone but their cronies to be living at a subsistence level. The globe has been cooling and it will CONTINUE to cool for the next couple decades at least as the sun goes into another minimum period as it has done in the past. Look up coming solar minimum.

      • David Appell says:

        John: Why do you think addressing climate change requires you to live at “subsistence level?”

        Renewable energy will actually SAVE you money.

        • AndyG55 says:


          Which is why every country with a sizable proportion of renewables has the most expensive electricity

          DOH. !!

        • AndyG55 says:

          “Renewable energy will actually SAVE you money.”

          If you can get enough subsidy.. maybe.

          If you really believe that, then argue for subsidies and feed-in mandates to be removed.

          Renewables would die within a very sort time.. and you know it.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Tell me, do you use renewable energy? (not from the grid, that is still nearly all fossil fuel, hydro or nuclear)

          If yes, did you pay for all the installation yourself?

  51. David Appell says:

    You all need to read this well-written article:

    “Thorough, not thoroughly fabricated: The truth about global temperature data: How thermometer and satellite data is adjusted and why it *must* be done,” Scott K Johnson, 1/21/16

    • Rud Istvan says:

      And then read essay When Data Isn’t in ebook Blowing Smoke. All examples are referenced with linked footnotes. David Appell misleads. Its not that adjustments aren’t necessary. They are. But what’s done is the opposite of what is said. The essay uses NASA GISS example of Tokyo from their website to explain what should be done. And then gives literally dozens of examples where reality is the opposite. US states. Iceland. Australia. Europe. Link to paper proving statistical bias in ALL long record GHCN. And not just done by NASA or NOAA. Aus BoM. MeteoSchweiz. NZ NIWA. HadCrut p3 in UK (using Frank Lanser’s illustration of US New England captured 2011).

      • David Appell says:

        Not a single link among any of your wild claims. Typical.

        • Rud Istvan says:

          Appell, I said all the links were in the ebook essay. They still are. You can buynthe whole book as a Kindle for $7, or as an ibook for $9 (Amazon cut themprice because it was selling well). Are you reading challenged, or did you think I would post the entire multipage essay here as a comment violating publisher’s copyright agreement? Don’t bring your rubber knife to a technical gunfight. You continue to embarass yourself when you do, frequently, over at Climate Etc. Remember your challenge to my Greenland ice comment maybe 18 months ago, and your nonresponse when I said my data came from NSIDC’s annual summaries? Fond memory.

        • AndyG55 says:

          David still has pictures of some surface station to give us to prove how good they are.

          Any luck yet , David???

          • David Appell says:

            BEST was formed specifically to look at the integrity of the temperature records.

            They found the same results as everyone else, and concluded warming was due to CO2.

            “Call me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.

            “My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful and objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which I founded with my daughter Elizabeth. Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.”

            – Richard Muller, New York Times, 7/28/12

          • AndyG55 says:

            Run and Hide, David

            You are doing a great job of exposing just how bad YOU KNOW that the surface data is.

          • AndyG55 says:

            And do you seriously buy into the LIE that Muller was ever a skeptic !!!!!

            You really are one of the most GULLIBLE people on the planet. !!!

          • David Appell says:

            “Call me a converted skeptic….

            “Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.”

            – Richard Muller, NY Times, 7/28/12

          • AndyG55 says:

            That’s called LYING .

            You of all people should recognise it from the mirror.

    • No Mo Dupe says:

      I’ve read your linked article and don’t buy any of it. Too many generalizations and rationalizations that don’t hold up to simple scrutiny and logical questioning by a skeptical mind…sure, it’s an argument but not a good one and by no means definitive.

      • Rud Istvan says:

        NMD, if you read Tony’s blog here, or meteorologist Watt’s blog WUWT, or especially real climate scientist Dr. Judith Curry’s Climate Etc, your would not have had to check out Appell’s Ars Technica citation to know not tomwaste your time. See our joust just above in the comment thread.

      • Gail Combs says:


        What you do is increase the error bars or discard the data point with notations on why.

        This is an example of the correct way to deal with data:

      • David Appell says:

        Gail Combs says:


        ALL raw data must be adjusted, to correct for biases. Not just in climate science — in ALL sciences. It’s done every day in every scientific lab in the world.

        • aeroguy48 says:

          I see your point, for if rocket science wasn’t adjusted we would have fewer failures.

          • David Appell says:

            Do you really think the data used for space travel isn’t adjusted??

            Simple example: GPS satellite data must be adjusted to correct for general relativistic effects.

          • AndyG55 says:

            KNOWN issues..

            Not fabricated like nearly half of GISS and then mal-adjusted for highly dubious reasons

          • AndyG55 says:

            “Do you really think the data used for space travel isn’t adjusted??”

            If you tried the sort of adjustment in space travel that GISS do to the missing surface data, you would probably end up crashing into the Sun or some other random object

            But whatever you do .. don’t try to hit the side of a barn.. you would be guaranteed to miss.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Again, you prove you know absolutely NOTHING about science.

          Climate science most adjusts it to create bias, not to remove it.

        • R. Shearer says:

          To state that “All raw data must be adjusted…” is idiotic. Temperature measurement devices are among the most accurate and precise measurements that can be made. Yes, in all sciences we have to deal with error, and sometimes biases but a fundamental problem with global warming is that the error is larger than the signal.

        • cdquarles says:

          If you tried that in my chemistry class 40 years ago, you’d get an F. What you got is what you got. You reported it as is. If there were questions about errors, you did the requisite error analysis and then, if further analysis was going to be done, show the results and the error analysis.

        • Gail Combs says:

          That is shear BULLSHIT!

          Try telling that to the FDA or the FAA and you would find yourself in a jail cell.

          Unlike you David I have worked in laboratories all my working life and those labs had to adhere to government guidelines.

          You calibrate your equipment to standards on the required time basis to make sure the data is good and that includes temperature measuring devices. If the equipment is out it gets adjusted or it gets replaced.

          IF a mistake is made you put a single line through it date and initial and then make an explanation.

          Where I come from changing data is a FIRING OFFENCE and I have done so on three occasions.

          There is no way I would have equipment so badly out of calibration where a lab tech or even worse a union line worker had to take the raw data and make adjustments to it. That is asking for millions of dollars worth of out of spec material and an irate customer.

          — Do you REALLY want someone with a GED adjusting the data on the tests run on the medication you are taking? —-

    • Neal S says:

      Even if there were any truth to any of those excuses for tampering, why are the older reading adjusted more and more as time goes on? You would think that it would be adjusted at most just once for each applicable excuse.

      So basically those doing the adjustments are some combination of lying and/or incompetent either now and/or then. And when the adjustments wind up being outside of their own error bars … well, anyone with half a brain knows what that means.

      It takes a special type of a person to be that blind or that stupid, as to believe that there is nothing wrong with the continual re-adjustment of an historical record.

      • Rud Istvan says:

        Well said. But the warmunist watermelons are impervious to such logical conclusions.

      • AndyG55 says:

        It is the nearly constant small “adjustments” over time that allows them to get away with it..

        …until someone starts comparing charts published a few years apart.

        The scam is now old enough that there are many older charts archived.. so the mal-adjustments are starting to become obvious to everybody.

      • David Appell says:

        Neal S says:
        “Even if there were any truth to any of those excuses for tampering, why are the older reading adjusted more and more as time goes on?”

        To accound and correct for ever longer periods where raw data must be correlated from system to the next — to account for new thermometers, changes in the time of reading thermometers, changes in thermometer locations, etc.

        For God’s sake, read this — it explains it all very well!

        “Thorough, not thoroughly fabricated: The truth about global temperature data: How thermometer and satellite data is adjusted and why it *must* be done,” Scott K Johnson, 1/21/16

        • AndyG55 says:

          DENY that nearly half the surface data is FABRICATED.

          Show us those high quality sites.. just from the few areas I have circled.

          Come on.. show that you or anyone knows where the data is coming from and knows its quality.

          No side-stepping.

          no running and hiding.

        • No Mo Dupe says:

          As I said previously: I read it. It is a flimsy argument that doesn’t stand up to even a cursory critical reading. If the provided facts are the rationale for the adjustments, it makes me doubt even more the results. I’m not even a scientist–just a critical and analytical thinker–and I can poke holes in this article like a narwhal through arctic ice. Try again. It seems like you’re making a grant pitch for your “research,” and “conversion” rather than expositing truth.

        • Neal S says:

          I did read it, and I call incompetence, or BS or both.

          We are not as dumb to believe such fairy tales and ‘just so’ stories, as you seem to be.

          There are too many people here who know too much, for you to get away with such crap.

  52. Hillary says:

    The UN IPCC TFE.8 states “there is no objective study to show when dangerous interference occurs”, meaning that even if temperatures rise 2-3 degrees on average by 2100, no one has anything more than speculation that the change will hurt anything. If anything, warming is good, as it will bring about longer growing seasons, extended growing regions, north and south, and even more rainfall due to more evaporation. Those that cool the planet could starve billions if it gets too cool.

  53. Beeno says:

    Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany – both socialist enterprises.

  54. Middletown says:

    You know you hit the nail on the head when all someone can do is post insults without refuting the claim.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Especially when the guy descending to the ad homs and insults has a degree in physics.

      The only thing David can do is toss out word salads.

  55. klbhen says:

    I think we need to sit them all down and read them the Story of Chicken Little..

  56. Odins Acolyte says:

    There is no such thing as an environmental expert. Climate is only one part of said knowledge. It in itself is more complicated than a human being can fathom. The beating of butterfly wings et al….

    The whole deal is nothing more than a wealth stealing racket.

  57. Rick says:

    We should accept their assertion. A majority of “climate scientists” believe climate change is valid. That makes it true, unassailable, and absolute. It is a done deal!

    Since the facts are in and there is nothing new to learn, defund all future “research”. Clearly, there is nothing left to learn. It is settled science.

  58. AndyG55 says:

    Slight OT, but still to do with station data.

    Here is the map that NOAA/GISS base their “Global average temperature” on

    As you can see, nearly half of it is grey, and thus has to be FABRICATED.

    Then they add in extremely sparse and dubious ocean data…

    They can basically INVENT any sort of warming trend they want to.

    I have given the surface data scammers a simple task.

    They are to show the surface stations that contribute to each of the squares circled in yellow.

    So far.. nada, zip, nothing… so essentially, they are using data and have absolutely no idea if it is good data or horrendous data. (I actually managed to find one of them, and it is UHI central !)

    Thus is the “science” of AGW. !!

    • Rud Istvan says:

      Yup. Tony has made this point several times here. As have others for specific regions. Homewood on Paraguay and Greenland comes readily to mind. Hope new visitors follow up some of these leads.

      • AndyG55 says:

        And this is the effect… especially since Tom and Gavin started their shenanigans.

        • David Appell says:

          There’s no reason why GISTEMP and RSS should be equal.

          Or UAH.

          Actually UAH adjusts their data about 3x more than does GISS.

          • AndyG55 says:

            You still don’t understand the difference between known engineering adjustment vs the manic fabrication of the GISS data.

            Your lack of basic scientific understanding picks you every time.

          • AndyG55 says:

            You still have the task above to do..

            are you going to continue to run and hide?

          • AndyG55 says:

            Do you really DENY with all that grey area, that nearly half of the land temperature is FABRICATED.


            Are you really that DISHONEST !

            (as if anyone needs to ask)

  59. Pingback: Daily Links | Waiting for the Barbarians

  60. Chuck Purcell says:

    I believe some actually claimed by 2016, we would see flooding and coastal areas would be under water. Of course these dates have been pushed back, then again, we , in America, have the strongest pollution controls than any other country. It is the small, third world countries that have taken most of the money ever made in the country and placed it in their own coffers and the countries are now so poor than can not afford to apply some of these laws and it is using the UN to get money from America and give it to these countries in order to move money and get them the ability to implement these controls. We pay for everything, Obama’s law.

  61. junior_kai says:

    I think the only thing we can say is that temperatures arent rising or falling in any significant way that can be determined with honest scientific methods of measurement. It needs to be monitored but the hysteria is a joke.

    Scientists need that grant money, and politics plays a big part. If they have an agenda, you better believe scientists are going to echo that – I saw it first hand, scientists “torturing” data to get the result desired by the funding agency (NASA MTPE – mission to planet earth). I wouldnt go along, and they tried to fire me – with no cause. The principal investigator retired and shut down the entire laboratory rather than have to continue to pay me as he knew I was a whistle blower already and he wouldnt be able to do any shenanigans around me – while still having to pay my salary, lol!

    • David Appell says:

      junior_kai says:
      “I think the only thing we can say is that temperatures arent rising or falling in any significant way that can be determined with honest scientific methods of measurement.”


      Is this your expert opinion?

  62. Mary Jane says:

    Ignorance is bliss, apocalypse is scary. Relieved to read that 600 tons of missing (blob) of nuclear fuel isn’t heating up our planet.

  63. dieter says:

    Old Joe Stalin once said that it’s not what the thermometer reading is that matters, it’s who reads the thermometer that matters.

    • David Appell says:

      dieter: have you heard of the BEST project, at U Cal Berkeley? Led by Richard Muller.

      They formed several years to specifically address the integrity of the results coming from the network of temperature sensors. Partly funded by the Kochs.

      Do you know what they found?

      If not, you should look it up.

      • AndyG55 says:

        Led by the rabid alarmist Muller and is even more rabid alarmist daughter.

        Result fore-ordained.

      • Clif Walters says:

        Berkley took Exxon money, so the climate cult should disregard Muller. That’s the only argument the warmists had against many scientists who consider man made global warming a very expensive fraud.

  64. TheMadKing59 says:

    Remember real science, when experts in their fields just measured data and reported the truth no matter what it was, because science was sacrosanct and not politicized? Now it’s Winston Smith math, whatever Big Brother deems it to be. This is Commie propaganda crap that has no place in America or any free Western nation. How can the truth prevail if the truth-tellers are lying to us for political reasons? Sickening.

  65. No Mo Dupe says:

    Let me debunk the “intake inlet” theory cited in the article linked by David Appel. This theory was the rationale for downward adjustments to sea surface temperature readings in the past. The rationale for the adjustments is that the sensors for detecting the water temperature were in the engine intake inlet, which brought cool seawater to the engine cooling system on the vessels that recorded the temperatures. The article says that the temperatures were warmer for the engine intake readings and says it may have been due to the warmish warmth wending its way down the intake pipe, against the flow of the inrushing cold water and affecting the reading at the sensor. Okay…even if that sounded remotely plausible, one would have to know the exact coordinates, dates, times, latitudes and longitudes of each reading to determine if there are any biases, phenomena or anomalies that may have led to clustering of warmer readings. Vessels during the era of the readings did not roam the oceans in an evenly distributed grid patter either. They probably gathered most of the data in sea-lanes where military and commercial vessels travel and tend to cluster, which may have by chance been ocean areas that have observable warmer or colder currents, such as the Gulf Stream or the Labrador current, for instance. Or perhaps through the sub-equatorial waters, West of the Galapagos during warm El Nino years or cooler La Nina years. So, I (not a scientist…just a critical thinker) would say you’d have to throw out the ocean temperature readings entirely as any sort of reliable readings for determining a “CLIMATE RECORD” by which we should mandate stopping the world so the alarmists can get off.

    • AndyG55 says:

      Bod Tisdale had a nice little animation showing the ocean data sources over time.

      Before 2003, they were so sparse, and so clustered into specific but changing areas that they couldn’t possibly be used for anything to do with determining ocean temperatures.

      Unfortunately, I can’t find that animation any more.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Not to mention the fact the temperatures were used to determine whether or not the ship was in the Gulf Stream or not. The sailor tossing the bucket over the side didn’t give a hoot whether the temperature was accurate since the Gulf water is 8 degrees C or more warmer than the surrounding waters. He is going to yank the thermometer out of the bucket as soon as he gets confirmation that the ship is in the Gulf Stream and not worry about the absolute temperature. link

  66. Julia Sherrill says:

    Pissed me off when FS1 announcer for Dodger vs Cubs game today stayed the weather in LA during the game today said “the heat was creepy.” If that isn’t a iberal for ya I don’t know what is.

  67. Jpeg says:

    Now THAT’S an inconvenient TRUTH right there in front of our eyes.

  68. Pingback: Past Breaking News Headlines For October 2016 – (TCP)CHICAGO « The Critical Post - Chicago

  69. MichMike says:

    The personal behavior of 1% of the U. S. population results in their CO2 footprint being 50 TIMES that of the other 99%. Not surprising to anyone. It does surprise people when they realize this means this small group is responsible for more than 33% of ALL U. S. CO2 emissions (all emissions being attributable to people) and were this small group to only emit, via their personal behavior, 25 TIMES the average of everyone else OVERALL U. S. CO2 emissions would immediately (not over decades) decline 17%. Maybe one of you AGW folks can explain why all the plans being implemented and proposed will do nothing to curtail the CO2 emissions of this small group but will financially hammer the lower income and middle classes, just for being alive? Please hurry, it is an emergency (we are told).

  70. AndyG55 says:

    “this small group is responsible for more than 33% of ALL U. S. CO2 emissions ”

    And I bet nearly every one of them is an AGW proponent.

  71. Karbon Kenny says:

    Go get some free carbon offsets! All you want, for free!

  72. ImaHippyBurning says:

    To say our Society is being manipulated on every level is a vast understatement! The Media is a Bastion of Perverted Liberal Ideology to be consumed by Vacuous Brainwashed Ideologues incapable of “The Critical Thought Process” they always accuse others of not having.

    We are now living The Truman Show, Minority Report and Animal Farm simultaneously! And it is going to get very Third World like very very quickly. I said 8 years ago “HUSSEIN” would be The Biggest Failed Social Experiment ever perpetuated on an unsuspecting society and the pending CivilWar or WWIII is living proof! But please continue to keep your priorities in alignment and worry about all those air conditioners and which bathroom to use like good little uninformed sheople, Your Master’s Need You To Be Complacent and Totally Ignorant….

    • Gail Combs says:

      GEE, I heard they were complaining because while they managed to make kids ignorant it did not make good little sheople. Seems the survival instincts and B.S. detectors kicked in.

      Bill Ivey of Global Cultural Strategies complains to Hillary’s campaign manager John Podesta

      I’m certain the poll-directed insiders are sure things will default to policy as soon as the conventions are over, but I think not. And as I’ve mentioned, we’ve all been quite content to demean government, drop civics and in general conspire to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry. The unawareness remains strong but compliance is obviously fading rapidly. This problem demands some serious, serious thinking – and not just poll driven, demographically-inspired messaging.

      …I fear we are all now trying to navigate a set of forces that cannot be simply explained or fully understood, so it is and will reamin interesting!

      Bill Ivey is a trustee of the Center for American Progress, and was a Team Leader in the Barack Obama presidential transition.

  73. Pingback: Hillary Clinton Destroys America’s Free Energy Hopes Forever |

  74. Pingback: Garbage | Shot in the Dark

  75. Pingback: ‘Global warming’ in Texas a farce – Southern Nation News

  76. Pingback: 'Global warming' in Texas a farce - WewUnik

  77. Pingback: Inconvenient Truths About the Man-made Global Warming Scam - Capitol Hill Outsider - CHO

  78. Pingback: Inconvenient Truths About the Man-Made Global Warming Scam – American Clarion

  79. Pingback: Inconvenient Truths About the Man-made Global Warming Scam | Tough News

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.