Nick Stokes : Busted Part 3

This is part three of my Nick Stokes Busted series.  Here are part 1 and part 2.

Nick Stoke’s final idiotic claim takes us right to the heart of this scam.

The first GISS plot is not the usual land/ocean data; it’s a little used Met Stations only

This was the GISS web page in 2005. Top plot was “Global Temperature (meteorological stations.) No ocean temperatures.

GISS 2005

The 2001 GISS web page had the same thing.

GISS 2001

And this is where the fraud begins.  Gavin has a web page purporting to show the history of GISS land/ocean temperatures back to 1987. But if you look at the fine print at the bottom, NASA didn’t actually use ocean temperatures in 1987. Gavin’s graph is fake.


So what about 1997? If you hover over the 1997 label you can see that they only had ocean data back to 1950. So two thirds of the 1997 graph is fake.

Same thing with the 2000 graph. No pre-1950 data.

NASA didn’t start using pre-1950 ocean data until 2002. And there was good reason for it. The data doesn’t exist. It wasn’t until 15 years ago that they became dishonest enough to use completely fake data.

date: Wed Apr 15 14:29:03 2009
from: Phil Jones <> subject: Re: Fwd: Re: contribution to
to: Thomas Crowley <>


The issue Ray alludes to is that in addition to the issue
of many more drifters providing measurements over the last
5-10 years, the measurements are coming in from places where
we didn’t have much ship data in the past. For much of the SH between 40 and 60S the normals are mostly made up as there is very little ship data there.


But as always, this story gets much worse. Not only don’t they have ocean data from the southern hemisphere, they also have very little land data.

Data from the Southern Hemisphere … are so meager that reliable conclusions are not possible.

TimesMachine: January 5, 1978 –

The red dots below show the location of all NOAA GHCN stations with daily temperatures in the year 1900. NOAA and NASA have no clue what long term temperature trends are outside of the US, because they have almost no verifiable data.

Without the daily temperature data, any claims about historical temperatures are fake. Thermometers measure temperatures one instantaneous reading at a time. There is no such thing as a monthly or yearly thermometer.

And then, to top off their fraud, they massively tamper with the US data to make it match their fake global temperatures.

1999 Version       2017 Version

Make no mistake about it. Global warming is the worst junk science and biggest science scam in history. And Nick Stokes is one of their top propagandists.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to Nick Stokes : Busted Part 3

  1. Douglas Hoyt says:

    Ocean water temperatures are not the same as ocean air temperatures. They should not be combining ocean water and land air temperatures into one temperature plot.

  2. Tom says:


    Can’t hear you.

    • sunsettommy says:

      He won’t come here,too busy writing stupid stuff like he just did:

      ” Nick Stokes
      October 1, 2017 at 12:13 pm Edit

      Well, that’s for sure a red herring. What is the connection here?

      But if you insist, try finding the GISS Met stations only data in the rather extensive WUWT global temperature page. Or even in the GISS 2005 annual temperature report.”

      That was his reaction to my comment showing Tony’s new post about the fallible Nick Stokes part three.

      This is what I wrote.he replied to:

      ” Sunsettommy
      October 1, 2017 at 12:00 pm Edit


      Here you go again, adding something to the article and no one else brought up,don’t you ever get tired of making Red Herring comments?

      When are you going to explain to Tony why you wrote that dishonest comment about the two charts in the other thread?

      His latest in exposing your B.S.

      Nick Stokes : Busted Part 3

      “Nick Stoke’s final idiotic claim takes us right to the heart of this scam.

      The first GISS plot is not the usual land/ocean data; it’s a little used Met Stations only

      This was the GISS web page in 2005. Top plot was “Global Temperature (meteorological stations.) No ocean temperatures.”

      Why write the way you do,Nicky?”

      Then I replied by showing it was EASY to find the data Nick complains is hard to find,by using Tony’s own link of the NASA 2005 web page. He was exposed as shooting from the hip,since it is obvious he never looked at the links.

      I wrote:

      ” Sunsettommy
      October 1, 2017 at 9:20 pm Edit

      You are pathetic,Nick since the link I provided answered your questions. The very chart you whine about is right there on the GISS webpage. Tony showed both 2001 and 2005 webpages in his post with links to them.

      Here is the 2005 webpage of the charts in it:”

      Thank to Tony’s effort,I am making a fool out of this dude at WUWT

  3. RAH says:

    Now is there enough evidence to put these scumbags away for good? When is this administration going to get down to making them fess up for the fabrications and giving them the boot? We’ve been waiting an awfully long time now.

    • Steve Case says:

      If this garbage ever does see the inside of a court room, the charge needs to be caught lying that is to say fraud. I repeated told that is hard to prove. However trying to prove that their models are wrong is even more difficult.

      It all does depend on the weather.

    • Arn says:

      It does not matter how much evidence there is as in scientific terms AGW has failed a thousand times and still noone cares.

      They contradict themselves with their very own&failed global cooling agenda..
      There are hundreds of articles about the coming ice age.Not by anti-mainstream scientists or Conspiracy theorists or tinfoil hats but
      written by themselves.
      And now they simply. pretend that these articles don’t exist.

      They have been promoting AGC throughout the 70ies,
      then realised in the early 80ies that cooling has peaked
      in 1979 ,
      kept completely silence for a few years,
      replaced in their already written agenda books for a world wide (climate) tax AGC with AGW,
      and started bullshitting about global warming .

      And they get away with it,because their most active AGW Zealots
      like Griff&Jim always ignore and circumvent all those global-cooling-scare articles written by their very own priests when they comment
      written by their own priests.
      to paraphrase Schoppenhauer:
      AGW and communism is the masterpiece of the art of animal training,
      for it trains people as how they shall think.

      That’s why we have to deal with the most obscure and absurd phenomen in science in the history of our universe,

      Where the ultimate,unavoidable longterm threat for mankind (global cooling)
      turned into the exact opposite(AGW)
      and by some unexplainable coincidence still remained a threat for mankind caused by the same co2 which was supposed to cause global cooling.
      It absolutely does not matter how the climate is it will always be the threat until we start to pay a world wide tax.
      The only difference-
      while in the seventies every cold anomalie has been considered proof for global cooling and every warm anomalie was ignored,
      now it”s the other way around.
      It does not matter what really is but just how opinion-priests talk about it.

      Even a 100% proof for a climate that is absolutely not changing would be used for a tax.
      In that case they”d simply say:”Climate has always been changing ,now it is not.As this has never happened before it is man made-pay a tax to stop it.”

  4. A C Osborn says:

    Tony, I think that you should add the 1997 and 1998 NOAA Annual Reports to that list.
    They have dropped the 1997 & 1998 temps 2.39 Degrees C since 1999.

  5. CheshireRed says:

    Another bulls eye from our host. Don’t expect a Christmas card from NOAA or NASA Tony.

  6. Latitude says:

    this is excellent!

  7. sunsettommy says:

    I plan to post a Nick Stokes expose,based on the comments in the thread,it is filled with RED HERRINGS in it,always trying to fog it up.

    My own climate forum was shut down by bad people,but have a climate section at this link,it is an existing forum:

    That is where I will put it.

  8. Bob Johnston says:

    Lock them all up.

  9. Anon says:

    The advantage these folks have is that they are publishing for a non-scientific audience, who already have a confirmation bias toward AGW, thanks to Al Gore etal. But a scientific eye can fairly easily spot the problems.

    Example headline from last week:

    Climate Models Run Too Hot: Settled Science Again
    A Nature Geoscience study finds that humanity has more time to avert dangerous man-made warming.

    1] Superficially, to a non- scientifically educated reader, there was a mistake in the models and the predictions were wrong – okay, sh_t happens.

    2However, on a non-superficial level, my question is WHY WERE ALL OF THE MODELS RUNNING HOT? This is no trivial observation. Where was the statistical spread? (think Hurricane tracking spaghetti models here)

    This means:

    1] There were no models that predicted a cooling trend.
    2] There were no models that predict a steady-state temperature.
    3] There were no models that predicted 50% less warming (as the real data, if you are inclined to believe it, tells us)
    4] All the models predicted catastrophic global warming.

    Now, in my mind that is incredibly revealing about the current state of climate science. It is obvious why this occurred.

    Just imagine the financial and scientific fate of a climate research group that developed a model that produced results in categories 1 to 3.

  10. BallBounces says:

    Only small* minds would insist that graphs be based on real data.

    * = grantless.

  11. Andy DC says:

    There is a friend of mine that has worked at NASA/Goddard for a long time. We meet for lunch once in awhile at restaurant across the street. We have known each other for decades, based on our mutual interest in weather and climate.

    I was shocked when last time he agreed with every word I had to say about global warming and data embellishment. If anything, he was more gung ho that I was!

  12. ossqss says:

    Nick, I have always respected your opinions. What do you have to say?

    I know you have read this.

    • tonyheller says:

      I will never understand why people keep going back to drink from the same poisoned wells.

    • sunsettommy says:


      Nick is not an honest debtor,and vanished when he knows he has been exposed as he was by me,Richard Verney,MattG,willy pete,Lars P who wrote this nice rebuttal to David Middleton, who was trying to support Nick,

      I got a big thank you from,Atheok who sees through Nick very well:

      ” ATheoK
      September 26, 2017 at 4:47 pm Edit

      Thank you Sunsettommy!

      N.B.: Nick played fast and very loose with his baseless claims while insidiously slinging ad hominems.”

      There is a growing number of people seeing through Nick, who is a known debater fogger.

      He has since vanished from the thread,never came here at all since he must know he has nothing to counter Tony with.

      Why are you sticking around for this dishonest person,ossqss?

    • gator69 says:

      Nick is an insane liar, what part of his opinions do you respect?

  13. sunsettommy says:

    Tony, Nick is saying that it is wrong to claim that GISS playing with the data,

    You seem to have a lot of trouble following simple arguments. I didn’t say I couldn’t find the GISS met stations only data. In fact, it’s one of the ones I monitor every month , as GISS Ts. And it is one of the ones I show in the interactive comparison of indices with Hansen’s 1988 projections. I argue that it is specially appropriate for that, because it is the index he used in his original comparison, and represents what he was projecting. That tends to get howled down, because it actually follows a bit on the high side of scenario B, currently touching A.

    What I am saying here is that the index is little used, not that it is hard to find if you really try. For that I note that since 2005, and somewhat before, GISS has based its annual reports entirely on Land/Ocean (with SST). The Ts (Met stations only) index is not mentioned. And I noted that it isn’t shown in the WUWT collection.

    That’s why I think it is dishonest to wave these plots about as evidence of GISS “data torture”, without explanaton of what it is. You obviously and persistently fail to distinguish between that and the well-known GISS Land/Ocean index, and I suspect most of Tony Heller’s audience doesn’t care about the difference either. If you want to complain about GISS adjustments, you should show the effect on the GISS plot that people actually use.

    And for this thread, it’s still a red herring.”

    He lies now,since you Tony,clearly show the changes over the years,that erases the once obvious 1940’s to 1970’s cooling, to no cooling at all in the latest adjustments.

    He was replying to what I said,

    October 1, 2017 at 9:41 pm Edit

    The great Nick, couldn’t find the data for the 2005 chart,which was given to him in Tony’s link I provided:

    “Global Surface Air Temperature Anomaly (C) (Base: 1951-1980)”

    ALL the data from 1880-2004, in the link Tony provided that you didn’t bother looking.

    Nick writes,

    “But if you insist, try finding the GISS Met stations only data in the rather extensive WUWT global temperature page. Or even in the GISS 2005 annual temperature report.”

    The answer was in the link you never visited. You appear dumber every time you do this……”

  14. richard says:

    “And your evidence is that something I said has pushed Tony Heller into his usual incoherent ranting. Just look at two items in that. I said that people circulate these graphs with no attempt at fact-checking. So his response is that he posts code, and so I am ignorant. But the point would then be, do those who circulate the graphs ever run Heller’s code? I’m betting no-one does.

    And as for this
    ” They are a simple numerical average of the USHCN monthly final minus the numerical average of the monthly raw temperatures, per year. Math doesn’t get any simpler than that. A third grader should be able to understand”
    It’s simple, and just wrong. There were (USHCN has been obsolete for years) 1218 stations in the final set. There were a varying number, usually somewhere around 900, in the raw set. He subtracts the average absolute temperatures, and says the result is due to adjustment. But they are different sets. The 900 raw stations may just, on average, be warmer or cooler places than the 1218 final. If there is inhomogeneity (lat, altitude etc) you either have to use the same set, or carefully correct for the difference. Else you get things like the Goddard spike”

    If you feel the need to reply-

    Nick Stokes October 4, 2017 at 3:36 am

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.