NASA – Doubling Warming And Hiding The Decline

In the year 2000, NASA showed 0.5C warming from 1880 to 1999. Now they show 1.0C warming during that same period. The animation below was made using images captured directly from the NASA GISS web site.


This change was made via a hockey stick of data tampering.


But it is worse than it seems. Not only did NASA double warming by altering data, but they hid the warmth prior to 1880. In the 2000 version, there was little or no warming from the 1870’s to the 1970’s, and about 0.4C warming after the 1970’s.

As bad as this story is already, it gets worse. The 2016 version shows a very rapid increase in temperature after the year 1998, but satellites show little warming during that period.

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

NASA is hiding pre-1880 warmth, tampering with the 1880-1999 data, and showing a huge amount of imaginary warming since then. Junk science doesn’t get any worse than this.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to NASA – Doubling Warming And Hiding The Decline

  1. Brad says:

    Lets pretend the NASA data tampering is legit, the 1C warming has had zero affect on the world. So the chicken littles screaming about 2C have nothing to worry about.

    • tonyheller says:

      Better idea. Let’s not pretend the warming is legit, and not use arguments which play into their hands.

      • Steve Case says:

        tonyheller – at 3:54 pm
        Better idea. Let’s not pretend the warming is legit, and not use arguments which play into their hands.

        B I N G O !

        Letting the other side set the agenda and define the terms should always be avoided.

    • Arn says:

      If we pretend that this tampering is legit,
      within 5 years they’ll double the pseudowarming from the past century
      from 1 to 2 degrees and than to 4.

      They’d go into full doom&gloom mode within very few years and make every crazy religion look logical and sane if you let them get away with this.

      As long as you expose their lies they don’t dare to go into full apocalyptic mode.

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      Sorry, Brad, it would not work. You are dealing with the Left.

      The lie, cheat and steal. They will take your pretend concession but they will not give an inch. You lose.

      As in any game, you can only win if you understand the rules.

  2. Mickey says:

    I tried but failed to get the WoodForTrees graph above to display data for 2015-2016. Is that somehow possible or is that data not available on that site?

  3. Philip of Taos says:

    If NASA couldn’t read a thermometer in 200o why would I trust them now. If they were that incompetent then, what are they now?

  4. gregole says:

    This I think is pertinent:
    “We also see that the uncertainty together with the smallness of the changes offers ample scope for adjustments that dramatically alter the appearance of the record (note that uncertainty is rarely indicated on such graphs).”

    Yes. And while the warmunists are making small, subtle, well-chosen “adjustments” to the temperature data, data that Dr. Lindzen has shown displays minute delta Ts to begin with, they were outright faking it in other areas.

    From: Tom Wigley
    To: Phil Jones
    Subject: 1940s
    Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
    Cc: Ben Santer

    “It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”.””

  5. Andy Pattullo says:

    I wish my bank did business this way. I could simply adjust my balance progressively over time and insist they accept my numbers.

  6. Robert B says:

    The average of the absolute difference between HadSST3 NH and SH between 1880 and 1895 is 0.13 degrees. This is about what you would expect for a random error (2SD) of 0.13 for each. The difference from adjustments to GISS after 1895 is 0.2 and varies by about 1.3 in that period. And that’s after 5 year smoothing! Surely its beyond doubt that the SST back then are fiction.

    • tonyheller says:

      Total BS. I compared met stations to met stations. The author is lying. The scales are identical and the graph comparison is correct.
      These people simply can’t stop lying.

      Why don’t they confront me directly instead of hiding on reddit? Because they are crooks, frauds and liars.

Leave a Reply

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