Hot Cinco de Mayo

“Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.”
― George Orwell, 1984

On this date in 1940, there were 100 degree temperatures in Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas. About 25 degrees warmer than today’s forecasts.

On this date in 1952, it was 90 degrees in Michigan, Minnesota and Montana, about 30 degrees warmer than today’s forecast.

People believe fake news about global warming, because they don’t know how hot it was in the past. And the reason people don’t know how hot the past was, is because government agencies erase the hot past. Just like Orwell predicted.

NASA not only hides the past heat, but they regularly alter data far outside their own 95% confidence error bars – shown in blue.

2001 Version  2017 Version

Catastrophic global warming is the biggest scam in science history.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Hot Cinco de Mayo

  1. Stewart Pid says:

    Excellent Tony and again many thanks for doing this.
    Your illustration of the altering of data outside the error bars is the perfect illustration of the degree that science and standard math and statistics has been abandoned by the promoters of the GLO-BULL warming scam.
    Warming that is so real that they must make up stuff and violate all standard practices of accuracy to make it scary.

  2. gator69 says:

    NASA: Boldly going where no scientist has gone before, outside the error bars…

    May the fifth be with you! (hic!)

  3. Rud Istvan says:

    The last chart really says it all.

  4. Dave Clancy says:

    The last chart is intriguing. A few followups:
    1. The origin of the “2001 version” is unclear. Where did it come from? How do we know it is in fact the official version from 2001? Is there a way to cite that so even a skeptical person would lose all doubt that indeed this was the official 2001 version? I would like to use this with interested friends but many/most would say: “Interesting comparison but how do you know the 2001 version is for real? Where did you get it?” etc.
    2. Are the baseline periods for each plot the same? Presumably the anomaly is calculated off a baseline period, and the comparison is only logical and persuasive if it is shown that the two are using that same period. Here too, I would love to use this with friends to show the uncertainties in the government data, but in its current form (not showing that the baselines are the same) I would get good questions I cannot answer.

    • neal s says:

      Presumably you failed to notice the two links beneath that chart, one of which goes to the or the internet time machine. Of course at some point in the future, NASA may ask the webarchive to no longer allow such access.

      • Dave Clancy says:

        Hi Neal — No, I did notice the links.

        The “2001 version” link takes you to a chart, with nothing on it indicating where it came from, much less that it is an official NASA plot from 2001. (Nor does the website address itself, which signifies that it’s an “archive,” but doesn’t say anything about the origin of the archived data.) Unless I am missing something, which is possible!

        The “2017 Version” link takes you to a spot which makes very clear that you’re looking at official NASA data. That is great. But it doesn’t indicate (I don’t think) the baseline period for the anomaly calculation — as with the 2001 chart.

        (On the 2001 plot, I note that a convention in the legal business, for what it is worth, is a citation with a name/title for the thing in question, and a statement as to where and when it was obtained (e.g., “Image of [precise website address, here presumably NASA], as of ___, obtained utilizing [Wayback Machine or similar] on [date].”) The particular form of the cite doesn’t matter — but the point of the convention is to communicate to the reader precisely where the thing in question came from, how it was obtained, and how to get it (reproduce it, in a sense), if it is still accessible.

        I’m not trying to be the citation police, and this site is obviously the result of incredibly hard and excellent work. So I hope I am not coming across as an annoyance. I’m making the points here only because I do find that last chart to be so interesting, and potentially a powerful tool for persuading open minded people that temperature data is not as precise and definitive as is often believed.

  5. Griff says:

    Here’s the reality…

    It is all very well picking out some single year/area which was hotter in the past and claiming what’s happening now is nothing new, but when you look at the record for the whole US for the last century, you can see where things are really going… hotter.

    • gator69 says:

      If one fails to adjust for UHI, then one can claim it is getting hotter.

      And yet nobody died.

      Ms Griff, why do you hate poor brown people?

    • AndyG55 says:


      Griff is SUCKED in by the NOAA scam of MASSIVE data adjustment

      Also fails to realise that even if the data were true,..

      it would STILL be WAY BELOW the MWP, RWP, and Holocene optimum.

      griff is a massive Climate Change DENIER..

      It DENIES that climate changes NATURALL, and that we have had HIGHLY BENEFICIAL warming since the LIA, which was the COLDEST period in 10,000 years.

      Poor griff, an empty mind, with no possible home.

    • AndyG55 says:

      Griff, the ZERO-SCIENCE, fly-by trollette… .. yaps again.

      yapping , like an adhd Chihuahua is all he is capable of.

    • AndyG55 says:

      poor mindless SAP has never been able to sustain an argument for more than a single fantasy RANT.

      ….. probably because its handlers only let it have 2 minutes at a computer at a time.

    • RAH says:

      I guess you missed the point that both NASA and NOAA have repeatedly adjusted the temperatures to make the past temperature records show cooler temps. So the reality is the record as presented is of no value when compared to present times. Then there is UHI and the fact that the temps from USCRN stations don’t show near the warming in the US that is being presented.
      There are other realities you ignore also.

      That being said there has been some warming in the US but where is a evidence that man has caused it?

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.