One Of The Most Fraudulent NOAA/EPA Graphs

NOAA, NASA and the EPA specialize in generating fraudulent climate graphs, but few are easier to disprove or more fraudulent than this one, which shows that the area of the US experiencing hot summers is increasing and has reached record highs. It is derived from NOAA’s completely fake Climate Extremes Index.

Climate Change Indicators: High and Low Temperatures | Climate Change Indicators in the United States | US EPA

The graph is wildly inaccurate and shows the exact opposite of what is happening. US summers are getting much cooler. The number of stations to reach 95F during the year has plummeted.

The number of stations to have ten days over 95F in a given year has plummeted.

The number of stations to have twenty days over 95F in a given year has plummeted.

The average percentage of days over 95F are plummeting.

These climate criminals are not very good at covering their tracks however. The same EPA web site has another graph which shows the same thing as my graphs.

Climate Change Indicators: High and Low Temperatures | Climate Change Indicators in the United States | US EPA

Congress needs to shut down this scam, and expose the criminals behind it.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

34 Responses to One Of The Most Fraudulent NOAA/EPA Graphs

  1. Steve Case says:

    Summer daily Max Temperatures are down in most of the United States:

    • tonyheller says:

      The adjusted NOAA data is fake data.

      • Steve Case says:

        I like to use their data even if it’s homogenized spindled folded and otherwise tampered with because it’s what they are claiming as the truth. Using their own stuff fits with Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals
        #4 “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules …”
        In this case their data. Even their own data says what they claim is crap.

        Other people, notably you, point out that they change the data and change it with an obvious bias, which is another issue that shows that what they claim is crap.

    • McLovin' says:

      Not sure when you took this map from that site, but here’s what it is now if you click the link:
      And the maps section:

      • Steve Case says:

        What I’ve done is plot the Summer Time MAX temperatures. Nearly all the palaver over the hottest year month ever claims is for Average temperatures.

        When we think of how hot it was last summer we don’t consider the average temperature. At least I don’t. We want to know, “How hot was it?” Here’s Johnny Carson:
        The average loses information. After all, the average of 49 and 51 is 50 and so is the average of 1 and 99. Two different data sets, same average. That’s what’s going on. The warmer nights are being morphed into blistering summer claims which are complete bullshit.

    • Dave Clancy says:

      Steve, where does your map come from? Do you have a web address for it?

      • Steve Case says:

        It’s my map, I downloaded all the MAX Temps Alabama through Wyoming, June – September, from NOAA’s Climate at a Glance and analyzed how far back a negative trend existed.

        For a very few there wasn’t any, for several, the trend went back only a decade or so. For most it went back at least 80 years and for all the states in the Mississippi and Ohio River valleys it goes back to the 19th century. So I color coded the map as you see. First up was Alabama, see below for what that looks like.

        Climate At a Glance is very nice, it has a download into Excel button where it was easy to use Excel’s slope function to figure out the extent of the negative trends.

  2. Latitude says:

    First thing they did was change the definition of “unusually hot” so more days fit…..

  3. Andy DC says:

    Looking at those charts, why would any sane person even dream that we are getting significant global warming? That is no doubt why the reason that the name of the shell game has been switched from global warming to “climate change”.

    If every year was the warmest year ever, why would alarmists feel the need to make that change? Or the need to smear legitimate, respected skeptics, like Curry and Pelke as”deniers”?

    This “climate change” nonsense is so idiotic on so many levels. First of all, the climate is always changing. Secondly, the effects of climate change over the last decade have been more positive than negative. Fewer major hurricanes, fewer major tornadoes. Milder, wetter summers, with record corn and soybean crops. Also mild, pleasant winters (sometimes!).

    For all those reasons and many more, the Government hand picked alarmist attack dogs like Michael Mann should be immediately defunded!

  4. DM says:

    Thank you Tony & all others exposing climate fraud.

    My complements to Tony & others for making the fraud so easy to understand.

    May I suggest an expose on how wind turbines & solar polar waste social resources while doing little to reduce emissions from generators burning fossil fuels?

  5. Advocatus Diaboli says:

    Tony, if I were to cite your graphs to friends and family who watch CNN and PBS, how should I explain the difference between what you’re showing and what the “experts” approved by their (fake) news outlets are claiming? They would jump on me demanding to know (for example) what your source is for the USHCN data and why they should believe that and not what they’ve been told by Hansen, Bill Nye et al. all along?

    Is it possible to provide links to the USHCN graphs (or to the data behind them), like you did for the EPA graphs?

  6. RAH says:

    Spotless again:
    INFO FROM SIDC – RWC BELGIUM 2017 Apr 08 12:30UTC

    Solar activity was at low levels during the period. Three C-class flares
    were recorded, the strongest being a C4.3 event at 19:49UT. These flares
    originated from NOAA 2645’s trailing portion, which has rotated over the
    west limb. The Sun is currently spotless. A small active region,
    responsible for a B3 flare at 01:48UT, is about to rotate over the east
    limb. No earth-directed coronal mass ejections (CMEs) were observed in
    available coronagraphic imagery. The greater than 10MeV proton flux was at
    nominal levels.

    An isolated C-class flare remains possible.

    Around 17UT, solar wind speed started a gradual increase from its nominal
    420 km/s to end the period at 570 km/s and still climbing. Bz fluctuated
    between -8 and +6 nT. The interplanetary magnetic field was initially
    directed towards the Sun, but became variable after 17UT to end the period
    in a steady towards direction. The particle stream from a narrow extension
    from the positive polar coronal hole may affect the earth environment on 9
    or 10 April.

    The geomagnetic field was at quiet to unsettled levels, with active
    episodes (Kp=4) during 21UT-03UT and 06-09UT. Dourbes geomagnetic data were
    missing for most of the period, but Wingst and Niemegk showed an active
    episode around midnight too. The geomagnetic field is expected to be at
    quiet to active levels, in response to particle streams from various
    coronal holes.

  7. Backdraft says:

    Just had a debate about this (first graph NOAA daily highs) with a climate proponent.
    I sent a link of your talk to him
    @13:50-14:50 shows the NOAA graph against the heat wave and your own graph (weather stations reaching 100F).
    The guy pointed out that these graphs are measuring different things. NOAA graph shows “unusually hot days”, not heat waves. Under the graph it say: “The term “unusual” in this case is based on the long-term average conditions at each location.”
    So the temperature spikes in the NOAA graph don’t have to be heat waves, just above average to register in the graph.
    In other words you are comparing heat wave data against “above average temperatures”.

    • tonyheller says:

      Total BS

    • AndyG55 says:

      The data clearly shows a TOTAL ABSENCE of “unusually hot summer temperatures”

      The first EPA graph is A LIE !..

      Does that always happen when you try to think? you get a backdraft ?

      • Backdraft says:

        Read what the graphs represent. Honestly it’s not that hard to understand.

        One is about heat waves. Heat wave definition varies a bit, but it’s usually from 90 to 100F or above for 2-3 consecutive days.

        The other graph represents “daily highs”. In order to get a spike there you just need temperatures that are above the long term average in a particular location.

        Can you see the difference? They measure different thing. One is extreme heat and one is just plain ol’ temperature increase for one day.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Its the top graph we are talking about, bozo.

          “Unusually hot summer temperatures.”

          And they are in very short supply in any real data.

          • Backdraft says:

            Try to keep up. This is not that complicated.

            Yes, I’m talking about the top graph also and comparing it to the heat wave index graph, because that’s exactly what Tony was doing in his video. The link to his video is in my previous post.

            I don’t even care if the “Unusually hot summer temperatures.” graph is totally fake data. THAT IS NOT THE POINT HERE. My point is the two charts are not comparable.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Yes, its obvious you don’t care that the top graph is totally FAKE.

            That is the topic of the whole thread.. why try to avoid it ?

    • AndyG55 says:

      “Just had a debate about this ….. with a climate proponent.”

      You just know what comes after that. ! ;-)

  8. Tony, I’m with you most of the way on most of your stuff. However, let’s suppose that 2016 had lots of days (say 150 out of 365) at 90 – 94 degrees Fahrenheit, just under your base of 95 degrees; and the same for 2015 and all the way back to 2007. And let’s suppose those particular years had lots of days UNDER 90 degrees. Then surely, by that measure, last year – and the last decade – could easily be ‘the hottest on record’ and it could be argued that the US is indeed heating up. Yes? No?

    • Damn. I messed up my middle sentence above: “And let’s suppose those particular years had lots of days UNDER 90 degrees.” It SHOULD have read: “And let’s suppose all the preceding years – all the way back to 1900 – had lots of days UNDER 90 degrees.” I hope my question is clear now.

  9. Backdraft says:


    Ok lets focus on this post only. Heres a really exaggerated example to drive home my point.

    Lets say the whole USA had a steady temperature of 90F for the next whole year. Through the summer and through the winter the same exact 90F everywhere for 365 days. Would you say that would constitute as a significant temperature increase? Maybe yes? because there would be no cooling during the winter at all.

    What would happen to the first and to the second graph on this post assuming all data was totally correct?
    Ok, I’ll give you the answer. The first one would sky rocket and the second one would read zero for that time period.

    • AndyG55 says:

      “Lets say the whole USA had a steady temperature of 90F for the next whole year. ”

      Go take another hallucinogenic, I have no time for fantasies. !

      REAL DATA prove the first graph is a TOTAL FABRICATION

      Get over it !!

  10. AndyG55 says:

    OT. Southern Hemisphere has just had its quietest cyclone season on record.

    And not just a little bit low..

    LESS THAN HALF the previous minimum accumulated energy since 1970

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.