Smoking Gun Of Fraud At NOAA

It took about one second with my new software to identify fraud in the handling of the US temperature record. The very first record I looked at showed it..

In NOAA’s adjusted USHCN data set, they mark months which they fabricated data with an “E”. They say that inadequate or no data was available from the station that month.

The station at Brewton, Alabama (USC00011084 or USH00011084) is marked (3203EQ) as missing data for August, 1991 with a temperature of 32.93C.

The data is not missing however. The station averaged 29.84C that month, as seen in both the daily and monthly raw data for that month.  In fact, the station reported daily temperatures on every single day that month.  Scroll the window below to the right to see the eighth month (August.)  Links to the NOAA source data are included in the window below.

USH00011084.FLs.52j.tmax   (Adjusted monthly)
USH0001108411991  1607c    1961     2330e    2690     2895a    3140a    3262e    3203EQ   3130EX   2704EX   1951EX   1849EX
USH00011084.raw.tmax    (Raw monthly)
USH00011084 1991  1558c    1909     2278e    2641     2847a    3096a    3224e    2984 S   2828     2505     1730c    1637
USC00011084.dly  (Daily - all 31 days recorded)
USC00011084199108TMAX 300 0 311 0 317 0 317 0 322 0 317 0 317 0 311 0 311 0 306 0 311 0 300 0 306 0 300 0 261 0 278 0 283 0 300 0 311 0 300 0 294 0 294 0 294 0 283 0 272 0 283 0 294 0 261 0 300 0 306 0 289 0 

NOAA increased the August, 1991 temperature at Brewton, Alabama by more than 2C, based on a fake claim that the data was missing – when both of their other data sets (raw monthly and daily) agreed with each other and showed complete sets of data.  A quick scan of the data shows that this is not an isolated incident, as 1992 was even worse.

This replacement of good cool data with warm fake data is being done to almost every single station in the US.

NOAA says their algorithm is working “as designed.”  There is no wiggle room here. NOAA has been caught red-handed. How do think they can get away with this?

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

33 Responses to Smoking Gun Of Fraud At NOAA

  1. Rah says:

    Who is going to stop them?

    • gator69 says:

      Hopefully WE THE PEOPLE (some believe this was an accidental use of the wrong font). That is, if we have any true representation at all anymore.

      I for one refuse to give in to the wailing churlish childish minority of the far left.

      • Rah says:


        We the people are not being represented. We are not seeing the results the majority voted for.

        Obama care still stands, the wall doesn’t. Meaningful tax cuts are not going to happen and the national debt and Federal budget will grow. I’m afraid that the only way we the people can stop them is through armed revolt.

        • gator69 says:

          Thankfully that is not the only way. Most people want the same things, a future for their kids and grand kids. We can win this without firing a shot, but only if WE THE PEOPLE “speak truth to power”. I hate that phrase, but it fits our current situation concisely.

          I have put my career and my relationships with friends and family on the table, and I am winning. Truth is a powerful thing.

          • Rah says:

            It doesn’t matter what most the people want if the system ignores them. That is just what they’ve been doing and continue to do. I am beginning to believe that it will continue that way. The recent attacks on free speech being just one of many moves to facilitate the ever increasing power of the government over our lives.

          • gator69 says:

            Actually, we are the problem. We keep sending then same people back to DC. So again, if we start speaking the truth and putting our votes where our hearts are, we win. If we keep doing what we are doing now, they win.

        • rw says:

          A war isn’t won in a day – or with one vote. There’s a very big swamp out there; no one knows its full dimensions or its limits, not even the denizens.

    • alessandro demontis says:


    • old44 says:

      You send a letter containing this information to the
      1. Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere

      2. Wilbur Ross United States Secretary of Commerce

      3. Donald Trump POTUS

      With a C.C.C. to ensure each recipient is aware of who else is has recieved this case of suspected fraud against the government and the illegal alteration of official government data.

  2. George Orwell’s territory. NOAA fully expects to keep on lying not only because they can but because it generates massive cognitive dissonance. One more method to separate the sheeple from the thinkers.
    The 1984 theme appears as an impressive edifice as the facade of lies faded.

  3. Greg San Diego says:

    How is this not part of an overarching fraud between the government employees, the universities, the “climate scientists”, characters like Al Gore and others? When does it stop – how can it be stopped? Maybe it is time for someone to sue them all for fraud in grant applications, grant use, and other causes of action.

  4. gator69 says:

    Great find Tony! I don’t know how this can be viewed as anything other than fraud. After all, we are constantly assured that all of this undergoes thorough peer review, and is the gold standard of science.

    Keep digging!

    • Anon says:

      The premise of Peer Review is that the review is done by scientists, working in the same field, with comparable expertise, who are thus able to make a sound make judgement, and who are trying to get at the “truth”. And in many cases these scientists are often competitors.

      But with Climate Science peer review, you have a situation in which the groups are not competing in the traditional sense to get at the truth, but groups that are competing to see who can best extract the best CO2 – warming correlation that is invisible (obfuscated they would say) in the raw data to prove a desired /created/ preordained truth that CO2 = warming.

      The result is that anything that supports AGW will get through this kind of Peer Review process. Because peer review relies on only the scientists within the climate field (those that have the expertise) there is no outside referee and all are playing the same game: how to best manipulate the raw data to support AGW.

      The only way to solve this is to have scientists outside the Climate Science community referee these publications. And this has sometimes occurred, like with Roger Pielke Jr. , who found no statistical increase in the number of droughts and hurricanes in the United States. He was viciously attacked (by John Podesta himself) because his results did not support what Al Gore have been claiming. Pielke was also discredited because he was not a climate scientist. He is now working in the field of sports anti-doping and stated publicly that if the tenure system did not exist he would be out of a job.

      • gator69 says:

        “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
        -Phil Jones, to Michael Mann

  5. pmc47025 says:

    1991 Feb is adjusted +0.52C from raw, Sept is adjusted +3.02C from raw, and both months have complete raw records. WTH?

  6. scott allen says:

    Actually it is doing exactly what they designed the “Al Gore rhythm” to do, increase the temperature readings to match their hypothesis.

  7. Timo Soren says:

    I take a little issue with your presentation when you state: ” The data is not missing, however.” Which seems to imply the EQ means only missing data, but it appears by NOAA’s definition that E and Q are disjoint from one another. No original data can’t be QC’d out data. Unless they mean all data for the month was QC’d away THEN they say no original data….

    So Q implies E or perhaps it should be Q alone. BUT it is clearly malfeasance or incompetency not much room for anything else.

    Millions of dollars and they can’t report on a single station the cause of QC? They can’t include metadata with a reference? Idiots they are.

  8. McLovin' says:

    It’s late and I’m tired, but I don’t see the averages your trying to point out in that image, so do I have to download and review those data sets (at the links) to see what you mean?

    • AndyG55 says:

      Blue is original.. most of it is below zero.. ie average negative trend

      Red is corrupted data, most of it is above zero, ie warming trends.

      Hope that helps.

  9. David Parsons says:

    The “science” is to eliminate annoyingly cool temperature data, to ensure the data “quality” matches the theory of global climate doom.

  10. CheshireRed says:

    Could this be the crack that breaks the dam? If NOAA are knowingly replacing valid and complete data with entirely bogus ‘estimates’ to further their own ends then never mind Karlisation, they’re about to discover some really hot water.

    It means they’re completely fabricating large tranches of data in sufficient quantities to have a material impact on final temperatures. Worst of all this isn’t accidental but deliberate, proven by multiple incidents of replacing complete and valid data with estimates. (This cannot easily be put down to error.) If Tony’s assertion is correct then that surely proves their deliberate intention to mislead and therefore that NOAA are committing data fraud.

    Oh to be a fly on NOAA’s wall today. Great work, Tony. Possibly your biggest breakthrough yet. Hope this gets the recognition – and government action, that it deserves.

  11. Ktm says:

    Never fear, the warmists insist that adjustments cool the temperature record, so this must be a unique case.

    I’m sure the Warmists will take up this challenge and will soon find hundreds if not thousands of EQ station readings where the raw data being replaced was much warmer than the reported value.

  12. KTM says:

    Visualizing the temperature infilling, imputing, and anomaly gridding in picture form.

  13. pmc47025 says:

    Hey Tony, it looks like the FLAG description is from USHCN v2 but the data files are from USHCN v2.5. According to the v2.5 readme.txt, there are 3 quality control flags, where “X” and “Q” are not documented in the adjusted data set QCFLAG description (?).

    The DMFLAG (first letter after the number):
    E = The value is estimated using values from surrounding
    stations because a monthly value could not be computed
    from daily data; or,
    the pairwise homogenization algorithm removed the value
    because of too many apparent inhomogeneities occuring
    close together in time.

    I’d guess the “apparent inhomogeneities” (lol) detection algorithm finds false positives.

    • A C Osborn says:

      Similar algorithm to Australian BOM where they cut out Low temperatures.
      They don’t fit the Computer model so get rid and replace with data that does.
      Tony pointed this out and I verified it for myself about 2 or 3 years ago.
      And still it goes on.

  14. Patrick says:

    BIG CITY Liberals need money to support their BIG BUDGETS. The 20 most expensive cities voted “democrat” by a 2 to 1 margin (11 million more votes) in the 2016 Presidential Election even though they knew Hillary was CROOKED and democrats despised people (thanks to WikiLeaks).

    Let’s see if we can get through to these people : Houston, Cleveland, Dallas, St. Louis, Atlanta, Charlotte, Portland, Miami, Sacramento, Denver, Chicago, Seattle, Los Angeles, San Diego, Baltimore, Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, Boston, San Francisco, and New York). These combined cities gave Hillary over 11 million more votes in the election(22,700,000 to 11,099,000) and she seems to think that she is still popular. Makes one wonder where pollsters survey their clientele.

    If we can’t get through to these people who have been duped by the far left, then they will certainly keep breeding within these BIG and EXPENSIVE CITIES and continue to grow.

  15. TA says:

    Tony, whistleblowers get paid a certain percentage of the amount of government fraud they expose.

    Considering you are exposing the fraud of CAGW, that has defrauded hundreds of billions of dollars from taxpayers, it looks to me like you should be in line for a very big payday one of these days. Ten percent of all the money spent on CAGW is better than hitting the lottery.

  16. TA says:

    So is this automated fraud, or does a human being have to go in and bastardize each weather station’s record personally?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.