Global Warming Is The Biggest Fraud In Science History

“He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.”

― George Orwell, 1984

In 1999, Dr. James Hansen at NASA was troubled that the US wasn’t warming, and his fake global surface temperatures were.

Hansen even complained that the US was cooling.

This was Hansen’s US temperature graph in 1999.

NASA GISS: Science Briefs: Whither U.S. Climate?

So Jim and his buddies at NOAA got together and simply altered the US data, thus creating a fake warming trend. Problem solved!

Adjusted Data   Raw Data

Essentially all US warming is due to data tampering.

However, Hansen still had a serious problem. As of the year 2000, his global temperatures didn’t show enough warming to scare anyone. Hansen only showed about 0.5C warming since the start of records.

So Hansen and his buddy Gavin Schmidt altered the global temperature record too, and turned 0.5C warming into 1.4C warming.

NASA Data Here

Another impressive hockey stick of data tampering.

And what about the hockey stick of warming since 2000?  Satellites show that is also fake.

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

Even Michael Mann admits that Gavin’s hockey stick of warming since 2000 is fake.

Making sense of the early-2000s warming slowdown : Nature Climate Change

Both the US and global surface temperature records are fake. The people behind this need to be shut down.  Their fake data has wrecked science, cost the global economy trillions, and hurt countless poor people.

As was the case 110 years ago, it is up to the independent press (i.e.bloggers) to call out this misuse of meteorological data, which is a “crime against the community.”

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

30 Responses to Global Warming Is The Biggest Fraud In Science History

  1. Steve Case says:

    Sort of looks like what Colorado University has done with Sea Level:

    • Jason Calley says:

      Hey Steve! Just for clarification, let me make sure I understand this…

      Is Colorado University saying that the RAW data for 2000 used to say 2.2 mm/yr and now the RAW data for 2000 says 3.1 mm/yr? I mean, it would be suspicious if the ADJUSTED data for 2000 changed by that much, but how can the RAW data be so different? Is there some way to make RAW mean the same as COOKED?

      • Steve Case says:

        The way this chart was put together was to take a data set from the various years and plot out the rate using Excel’s slope function. So here’s the first couple of lines from the oldest data set 2004 rel1.2 and the most recent 2016 rel4.

        year msl_ib_ns(mm) #version_2004_rel1.2
        1992.928 -4.489
        1992.956 -11.406
        1992.983 -14.296
        1993.011 -18.634

        year msl_ib_ns(mm) #version_2016_rel4
        1992.9595 -5.680
        1992.9866 -7.386
        1993.0138 -9.084
        1993.0409 -11.682

        So you start out with the slope from 1992.928 to 1992.956 and then 1992.928 to 1992.983 and so on. The chart starts with rate from 1992.928 to 2000.014 because the very short sample sizes in the beginning are more noise than signal.

        So, Is Colorado University saying that the RAW data for 2000 used to say 2.2 mm/yr and now the RAW data for 2000 says 3.1 mm/yr?

        The short answer is obviously so. The longer answer observes that the historical data has been rewritten. Why it’s been rewritten in a matter of opinion, but that it has, is a matter of fact.

        So yes, the oldest raw data, 2004 rel1.2, that can be found on the Internet Archives WayBack Machine calculates out to a rate of 2.1 mm/yr by the year 2000 and the latest raw data set, 2016 rel4 calculates out to 3.1 mm/yr. If you look carefully at that chart you can see that the 2010 rel2 raw data says the rate by 2000 was 3.2 mm/yr. So yes, the rate over the last decade or so has been bumped up over a millimeter per year. And it looks like CU is starting to decrease the earlier years as the current data set pegs 2000 at just 3.1 mm/yr.

        By the way, I’m waiting for Colorado University’s Sea Level Research Group to come out with a new release. If you go to their website
        you will find that Jason 3 is probably overdue to come on line, so expect some new adjustments. And if you look at their blog below the charts you find this interesting title:
        “Is the detection of accelerated sea level rise imminent?”
        Are they telegraphing exactly what they intend to do or what?

        • Jason Calley says:

          Hey Steve, thanks for the additional info. I would even question the use of the term “raw data” with respect to the Colorado University’s output of sea level. When one uses a thermometer to measure temperature, or a shore based gauge to measure sea level, the steps between “what does the instrument read” and “what temperature or sea level does that indicate” is straightforward and is based on fundamental, well understood, (and mostly simple) physics. In fact, the transition from “what does the instrument read” to “what is being indicated” is so simple that we actually mark the thermometer scale in degrees and the sea level gauge in millimeters. Our direct readings really are raw data.

          How is satellite radar output “raw” in any verifiable sense once it is transformed into “sea level measurement”? My suspicion is that there is NO simple system to transform satellite readings into sea level. The physics involved is far from fundamental and has to include a host of assumptions and estimated corrections before the satellite data becomes sea level data. By the time it is charted as sea level, the data is very far from being “raw”. The very fact that the CU charts have changed so much indicates that the data is being heavily massaged and is not, in fact raw. Why the huge changes? It seems to me that either the process of moving from actual raw satellite output to sea level estimates is poorly understood (perhaps not even possible with current technology), or the numbers are being fraudulently changed. Either way, for CU to label the data as “raw” is misleading.

          Satellite measurements of tropospheric temperatures are easy by comparison. The jump from oxygen microwave output to temperature is well understood by comparison to the difficulties of measuring a sea level change of mm/yr.

  2. Mark says:

    Completely unrelated.

    Mark Boslough has another challenge for anyone stating 2017 will be warmist evah! Using the highly adjusted GISS data. On Facebook I linked your recent presentation dismantling this record – here is the conversation:

    • tonyheller says:

      Boslough is a total fraud. We have had the conversation before and he knows perfectly well that we worked as staff members in the same group, he knows what I was working on, and who I was working with.

  3. Latitude says:

    A scientist is a person engaging in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge that describes and predicts the natural world. In a more restricted sense, a scientist may refer to an individual who uses the scientific method. The person may be an expert in one or more areas of science.

    …works for me

    Tony is beyond any doubt, an expert

    • Gail Combs says:

      “A scientist…”

      Yuppers, Progressives AGAIN redefining a word.

      As you say, brother, a scientist is someone who uses the Scientific Method to investigate the natural world. FULL STOP

      Now the Progressives are redefining the word ‘scientists’ as someone who has a degree from a Progressive controlled University AND has published papers in a Progressive controlled Journal.

      WHY? Because Progressives have nasty reputations. — 262,000,000 murders by ‘Progressive forms’of Gov’t in the 20th Century — Therefore they MUST hide behind the reputations earned by others.

      The already stole and trashed the word ‘Liberal’ from the ‘Classic Liberals’ like our Founding Fathers so now they are off to steal another word with an excellent reputation ‘scientist’ and they are well on their way to trashing that word too.

      Politicization of Science in the Public Sphere: A Study of Public Trust in the United States, 1974 to 2010

      …Conservatives began the period with the highest trust in science, relative to liberals and moderates, and ended the period with the lowest

      The patterns for science are also unique when compared to public trust in other secular institutions. Results show enduring differences in trust in science by social class, ethnicity, gender, church attendance, and region. I explore the implications of these findings, specifically, the potential for political divisions to emerge over the cultural authority of science and the social role of experts in the formation of public policy…

      OH, my this study is hillarious. The guy spouts all the Progressive talking points about ‘Conservatives’ Not a surprise since he is from University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. The local saying is: “The best thing out of Chapel Hill is route 15-501”

      The report says:
      “…the new right (NR)—a group skeptical of organized science and the intellectual establishment in colleges and universities. The NR is often closely aligned with the religious right and promotes limited government, strong national defense, and protection of traditional values against what they view as encroachments of a permissive and often chaotic modern society…” GEE, is that Hillary’s Alt-Right?? Or the beginnings of the Tea Party?

      Interesting that the 2010 Blair-Rockefeller poll finds the NR/Tea Party well educated Americans and not the gun-toting, bible thumping, knuckle dragging morons the Progressives try to label them as.
      “Nearly half of Tea Party members (49.9%) are middle class, with an annual household income of 40 to 100K, another 13.9% make over 100K. Tea Party members are less likely to fall below the poverty level than Non-Tea Party members. The majority (65.3%) of Tea Party members have some college training, with 27.5 % having earned a Bachelor’s Degree or higher. Moreover, only 7.2 % of Tea Party members have less than a high school education, as compared to 13.4 % of Non-Tea Party members. “

      Think that education and sucess in life might just mean they are paying attention and have a clue?
      “When asked a battery of “political sophistication” questions—factual questions about the contemporary government—Tea Party members outperformed Non-Tea Party members repeatedly.”
      Sure looks like what distinguishes the NR/Tea party is they are paying attention to what is happening around them and have the intelligence to understand it.

      Notice how the abstract is very misleading compared to the conclusions in the body of the text:

      …The GSS asked respondents the following question: “I am going to name some institutions in this country. As far as the people running these institutions are concerned, would you say you have a great deal of confidence, only some confidence, or hardly any confidence at all in them [the Scientific Community]?” Respondents were then given the choice to respond “a great deal,” “only some,” or “hardly any” (they could also choose “don’t know” or “refuse”). Over the 36 years of the GSS, 40.8 percent expressed a “great deal” of confidence in the scientific community, 46.2 percent responded “only some,” and 6.6 percent expressed “hardly any.” In addition, 6.5 percent of respondents chose “don’t know” or “refuse.” ….

      Approximately 34 percent of respondents identify as conservative, 39 percent identify as moderate, and 27 percent identify as liberal over this period…

      Liberals ended the period with the highest levels of trust among ideological groups, due to consistently low levels of trust among moderates and a decline among conservatives. In summary, moderates show the lowest levels of trust among ideological groups for most of the period, conservatives close the gap with moderates around the millennium, and a large gap opens up between conservatives and liberals after the 1980s.

      The chart on page 9 showed moderates were the first to lose confidence, dropping fast from 1974 to 1982, the conservative decline in confidence was more gradual and the ‘liberals’ stated brainwashed throughout. Notice that the moderates are the biggest group (39%) and the first to lose confidence but the report zeroes in on conservatives (34%) instead of moderates.

      And this guy, writing such a slanted report, wonders why people might lose confidence???

      • Shooter says:

        Gail, I’d like to point out that the link you include states that over 50 million Congolese died during the Belgian occupation, yet the claimant never proved how he got to those statistics. He has admitted that he made up most of those ‘powerkills’.

        • Shooter says:

          Correction – the site states that 50 million were killed during the Colonial era, which is a bit of a stretch as most communities, even the largest ones, did not expand beyond 1 million.

          And the bit about Nazi persecution of homosexuals – many of them weren’t kill at all. There were quite a few that got off without a scratch – and enjoyed extended privileges IN the Nazi community. Long posts no doubt, but there’s always a contradictory view.

          • Shooter says:


          • Gail Combs says:

            Dr. Rummel is very up front about the problems of estimating the deaths and make no secret of the fact they are estimates. I have also seen him change an estimate over time.

            That is all one can ask of someone doing research.


          • Gail Combs says:

            I would also like to point out that I do try to link to where I got information so people can see it for themselves.

            I am long winded enough without having to get into even more branches.

            The major fact is totalitarian socialist/communist governments kill and they kill in the hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands and millions.

            For example, the student-led pro democracy demonstrations in Beijing in 1989 ended with estimates of the death toll range from several hundred to seven thousand.

            Worse Bill Clinton, needed a quick infusion of cash to pay for campaign ads for his re-election so Clinton turned to his Chinese connection and got millions from a China still dripping with blood.

            …In return for campaign contributions, the President shifted regulation of technology exports from the State Department to the free-wheeling Commerce department. The administration also relaxed export controls and allowed corporations to decide if their technology transfers were legal or not. When easing restrictions wasn’t enough, Clinton signed waivers that simply circumvented the law. The President’s waivers allowed the export of machine tools, defense electronics, and even a communications system for the Chinese Air Force.

            Clinton even involved the Department of Energy, caretaker of our nuclear weapons, in his fundraising schemes. In 1994 and ’95 then Energy Secretary Hazel O’Leary accompanied Johnny Chung, John Huang, Charlie Trie, and Bernard Schwartz on trade missions to China. Shortly afterward the DOE relaxed security at US weapons labs. Wen Ho Lee, an ethnic Chinese physicist assigned to Los Alamos, illegally transferred data on nuclear warheads to his private computer files.

            In June of 1995, the CIA learned that China had stolen the crown jewels of our nuclear arsenal, including the neutron bomb and the W-88 miniaturized warhead. Later that year National Security Advisor Anthony Lake is briefed on the thefts. He is replaced on the Security Council by Sandy Berger, a former lobbyist for the Chinese government. In June of 1996, before Bill Clinton’s re-election, the FBI opens a formal investigation into the theft of US nuclear weapon designs.

            Proof of China’s military intentions came in March of 1996, on the eve of Taiwan’s first democratic elections. China used the threat of force to intimidate the island nation into electing a pro-Beijing candidate. Military maneuvers included bombing runs and launching ballistic missiles that impacted within twenty miles of Taiwan. When the US sent an aircraft carrier into the Taiwan Straits, a Chinese general threatened to “rain down nukes upon Los Angeles”…. link

            I really do not care if it was hundred or a billion killed. Using the military to gun down people you KNOW are unarmed is unacceptable. However Progressives, like the Clintons, have no problem with it. And after this election it would seem that 1/2 of the voters in the USA don’t care how bloody the Clintons are they will vote for them.

            Is that clear enough?

  4. bleakhouses says:

    Its much better, for you and us, the reader, when you say it: we know, we’re not scared, its “fraud.

  5. Colorado Wellington says:

    Mid-level Aztec priest Boslough says:

    I don’t remember this Heller who brags he worked with me at the temple. I think he was a cartography guy. He writes there is no proof that ripping out someone’s heart makes Ehecatl and Tlaloc happy. He pisses everyone off and I’m not going to read it.

    Anyway, tell him he can bring his scrolls to the temple but he has to get permission from the high priests first. I’m not getting my science from non-priests. He doesn’t even have the proper hat and earrings.

    • Gail Combs says:

      That is a classic Gator.

      Thanks for starting my day off with a laugh.

    • Gail Combs says:

      OOPs, sorry Colorado, got the comments mixed.
      I need my cupa to wake-up!

    • Jason Calley says:

      Hey Colorado! Ha! I needed a good belly laugh! Thanks!

      Yeah, the heck with that Heller guy… he refuses to rub blue mud into his belly button! How can you believe someone who refuses to rub blue mud into his belly button? Doesn’t he understand the rituals?

      • annieoakley says:

        This Boslough is awfully arrogant. He won’t read an opposing view? Afraid to see he has wasted his life promoting nonsense IMO.

      • Colorado Wellington says:

        I’m sorry, Annie, but it is all Tony Heller’s fault.

        Why can’t he memorize the ritual chants and come to the temple like everyone else? The high priests have shown great patience with him. All he has to do is acknowledge that making automobile fuel from corn and 21,000 child starvation sacrifices per day are well worth it when the wise priests are saving the entire civilization from the wrath of Tlaloc, Ehecatl and Dióxido de Carbono.

        Oh, and he has to get a feathered hat, ear piercings and rub blue mud into his belly button.

        Is it too much to ask?

  6. Eric Simpson says:

    Essentially all US global warming is due to data tampering.

    The argument is that the 1930s were hotter, globally.

    To begin, we know that by the far in the 1930s the US had the most extensive and reliable set of thermometer stations in the world, so greater weighting should be given to the US. Further, a 1975 National Academy of Sciences chart shows the Northern Hemisphere (64% of land) in the 1930s to be way hotter than 1975, and no way could the mild warming since the 1970s have overtaken the extensive cooling from 1940-75. Indeed, the data manipulators have erased the mid-20th century cooling, and done extensive manipulations to *supplement* the warming effect of the urban heat island and of the vanishing rural stations (especially from the old USSR).

    What we got is parking lot warming, and spreadsheet warming. But not warming in reality.

    What’s more, if we had actually had a century of runaway global warming then of course it would follow that the record for the hottest days in the world and on the various continents would have been set very recently (every year is “the hottest year ever” so…), and the coldest days should be a distant memory. Well, the reality is the opposite: in 6 out of the 7 continents the record for the hottest day was set before the record for the coldest day. That’s inexplicable, unless it was hotter in the past than now:

    Years Hottest & Coldest Day Record Were Set:
    The World : : Hot 1913 Cold 1983
    Europe : : Hot 1977 Cold 1978
    Asia : : Hot 1942 Cold 1933
    Africa : : Hot 1931 Cold 1935
    Australia : : Hot 1960 Cold 1974
    South America : : Hot 19o5 Cold 1907
    North America : : Hot 1913 Cold 1947
    Antarctica : : Hot 1974 Cold 1983

  7. Bob Grise says:

    Of course it is all made up. Or is simply the – growing with population – urban heat island. Australia’s late John Daly showed that over ten years ago, that the rural reporting stations worldwide were essentially unchanged in average temp from 100 years ago.

  8. RAH says:

    And the thermostat of our solar furnace continues to be set very low. Still spotless.

  9. RAH says:

    And if Delingpole is correct then Trump is going to destroy the scam.
    “DELINGPOLE: Trump Versus the Green Blob—Here’s How We Know He Means Business”

    “Here is my 100-day action plan:
    We’re going to rescind all the job-destroying Obama executive actions including the Climate Action Plan and the Waters of the U.S. rule.
    We’re going to save the coal industry and other industries threatened by Hillary Clinton’s extremist agenda.
    I’m going to ask Trans Canada to renew its permit application for the Keystone Pipeline.
    We’re going to lift moratoriums on energy production in federal areas
    We’re going to revoke policies that impose unwarranted restrictions on new drilling technologies. These technologies create millions of jobs with a smaller footprint than ever before.
    We’re going to cancel the Paris Climate Agreement and stop all payments of U.S. tax dollars to U.N. global warming programs.
    Any regulation that is outdated, unnecessary, bad for workers, or contrary to the national interest will be scrapped. We will also eliminate duplication, provide regulatory certainty, and trust local officials and local residents.
    Any future regulation will go through a simple test: is this regulation good for the American worker? If it doesn’t pass this test, the rule will not be approved.”

    Gotta make sure the gravy train for Academia is cut off to because that is the key support for the Green Blob and a huge part of it.

  10. There is definately a great deal to find out about this topic.

    I really like all the points you’ve made.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.