Zeke Hasufather – The Climate Fraud Plausible Deniability Guy

Zeke Hausfather is the go to guy for climate fraud plausible deniability. Every time a story comes up about NASA/NOAA temperature adjustments cooling the past, he tells the press that NOAA adjustments actually warm the past. An example would be the urban heat island of Buenos Aires, where NOAA has indeed warmed the past.

Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis

A closer look shows how Zeke is misleading the public.  In 1950 there were only about ten GHCN stations in South America with daily temperature data.

Two of those stations were located near Buenos Aires. One was in Buenos Aires and the other was a rural location 35 miles away in Uruguay, which stopped recording in 1996.

Buenos Aires had a strong warming trend from 1930 to 1995.

The rural station cooled by an equal amount.  

Both stations showed a decrease in the number of hot days.

NOAA did warm the past in Buenos Aires, but not enough to account for UHI. They show warming around Buenos Aires, where they should show cooling. NOAA then homogenized the UHI infected Buenos Aires data into the nearby rural data, and turned a cooling trend into a warming trend.  They also filled in South America with imaginary warming data in countries where they didn’t have any thermometers.

Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Global Maps from GHCN v3 Data

NOAA shows warming from 1930 to 1995 near Buenos Aires, where they should show cooling. Zeke tells a tiny percentage of the story, in order to justify the unjustifiable.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Zeke Hasufather – The Climate Fraud Plausible Deniability Guy

  1. AndyG55 says:

    People need to realise that Zeke, (*and his puppy, Mosh) work for one of the most DECEITFUL, LYING climate alarmist groups going..

    That being Berkley Inc

    Bought and paid for by the joint socialist totalitarian globalists

    1/4 million from “anonymous”, almost certainly a Soros front.

  2. Steve case says:

    So how many stations does NOAA warm the past and how many does it cool the past?

    In other words, how much of a cherry pick was Zeke’s claim?

  3. frederik wisse says:

    Zeke is apparently of German origin . Hausvater is 100% germanic ,translated in english
    father of the house . Nothing special here , but please note Zeke in english will be spoken as ziek , meaning krank in modern germanic or ill in modern english . Shakespeare said it already : What is in a …. ?

    • gator69 says:

      Zeke is short for Ezekiel, who incessantly prophesied the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple. Thank God his parents did not name him Adolph.

  4. gator69 says:

    Zeke tells a tiny percentage of the story, in order to justify the unjustifiable.
    -Tony Heller

    <i 'There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.'
    -Mark Twain

  5. Edmonton Al says:

    I understand that a new head of NASA is being chosen.
    Will this person get these Warmist people up on the carpet to justify their claims?
    Or, does the world have to continue to put up with these fraudsters?

    • TA says:

      “I understand that a new head of NASA is being chosen.
      Will this person get these Warmist people up on the carpet to justify their claims?”

      The person chosen is Rep. Jim Bridenstine of Oklahoma. Bridenstine seems to be focused a lot on developing the private industry side of space development. In other words, he is for promoting private industry to do much of the space development in the future.

      This is his take on CAGW:


      Rep. Jim Bridenstine

      “Mr. Speaker, global temperatures stopped rising 10 years ago. Global temperature changes, when they exist, correlate with Sun output and ocean cycles. During the Medieval Warm Period from 800 to 1300 A.D.—long before cars, power plants, or the Industrial Revolution—temperatures were warmer than today. During the Little Ice Age from 1300 to 1900 A.D., temperatures were cooler. Neither of these periods were caused by any human activity.”

      end excerpt

      From that statement, I would think Bridenstein will challenge the NASA CAGW orthodoxy.

      I found this quote from the same article interesting. The quote is an attempt at a rebuttal to Bridenstein’s comment denying CAGW:

      “2011 was the hottest summer for Oklahoma since record-keeping began in 1895, with 63 days over 100°F. The summer was also the second driest on record. The heat and drought depleted water resources and contributed to more than $12 billion in direct losses to agriculture alone and 95 deaths.”

      end excerpt

      I’ll agree that 2011 was hot. It was the hottest summer I have personally experienced in Oklahoma and I have lived here a long time. But 2011 was not as hot as 1998, and 1998 was not as hot as 1934 or 1936, so even though we have very hot summers in Oklahoma, it is not a sign of CAGW. Rather, it’s a sign that a high-pressure system has decided to sit on top of us for a long time, and the longer it sits there, the hotter and drier it gets.

      So when you can connect CAGW and the movement of high-pressure/low-pressure systems around the world, then come back and see us. Until then, don’t bother us with this useless speculation about CAGW and hot local temperatures.

    • AndyG55 says:

      I hope that Tony can get this new NASA head to look at the facts of NOAA’s CORRUPT treatment of data. !!

      • R2Dtoo says:

        This is a great opportunity for climate science. The new head of NASA should appoint the group of former NASA employees that have expressed dismay about the climate science being practiced by NASA/NOAA as the red team to investigate the agencies. There should be no problems with the qualifications of the members. Coming up with a single red team to cover all aspects of climate science is not realistic. Other teams could address other issues (CO2, sensitivity, models etc).

  6. kyle_fouro says:

    He and Mosher also use the new climate reference network as proof that adjustments are correct. I assume there’s more to that story than is being told?

    • neal s says:

      All that means is that the same tricks are being done with the new network as were done with the others. Just because you can put your thumb on the scale every time someone goes to measure something, does not mean that your measurements are accurate.

    • AndyG55 says:

      Up until the beginning of the 2016 El Nino, USHCN was an exact zero-trend match UAH and RSS.

      Before they dropped USHCN and now with the current ClimDiv, it is obvious that USHCN and ClimDiv are being adjusted to match USCRN.

      They use this matching to USCRN to say, “its correct now, so it must have been correct before”

      But they are FRAUDSTERS who have been caught by their own scam.

      There is NO possible way that different systems of measurement can match as closely as USCRN, USHCN and ClimDiv. without two of those series, USHCN and ClimDiv, being intentionally matched to the other one.

  7. rw says:

    I don’t get this “warming the past” maneuver. Why are they doing anything with the past? If there’s a growing UHI effect, why aren’t they cooling the present?

  8. AndyG55 says:

    When someone mentions Zeke or Mosh, I am always reminded of these guys.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.