Unambiguous Fraud In The National Climate Assessment

The National Climate Assessment claims unambiguous warming globally and in the US since 1880.


They show a very detailed graph and map which expresses the claimed warming.

All that red looks pretty scary. Red is the color of fire, and it isn’t hard to convince some people that their carbon sins will lead to hell fire.

What they aren’t telling is that their graph and map are fake. They have no idea what global temperatures were in 1880, 1900, 1920, 1940, or in fact the present,  because outside of the US there is very little verifiable data.


As late as 1940, there was almost no daily coverage of South America or Africa.


NOAA’s current data in Africa and much of the rest of the world is still fake. They make up record temperatures in countries where they have no thermometer data.

 Real temperatures       Reported temperatures

By their own admission, the ocean data is also fake.

date: Wed Apr 15 14:29:03 2009
from: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk> subject: Re: Fwd: Re: contribution to RealClimate.org
to: Thomas Crowley <thomas.crowley@ed.ac.uk>


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.



The only location on Earth with good long term daily temperature data in the US.


Before NOAA tampers with their data, the US shows no warming over the past century.

The lack of US warming wrecks global warming theory, so NOAA and NASA tamper with their own data to create fake warming.


1999 Version       2017 Version

The frequency and coverage of hot weather has plummeted in the US over the past century. The US isn’t getting hotter – afternoons are getting cooler.

The US temperature data is tampered with by NOAA in a massive hockey stick.

Which is designed to bring the data precisely in line with CO2 theory.

NOAA knows perfectly well that the US is not warming.

U.S. Data Since 1895 Fail To Show Warming Trend – NYTimes.com

US and global temperatures are constantly being tampered with to cool the past and warm the present.

US tampering :

Global tampering :

1981: Challenge_chapter2.pdf         2001: Fig.A.ps     current: Fig.A.gif 

2001 version : Fig.A.ps   2015 version: Fig.A.gif 

All of the claims in the National Climate Assessment about global warming are unsupportable junk science, made largely with fraudulent or imaginary data. Global warming is the biggest scam in science history. It has been thoroughly corrupted by tens of billions of dollars of government money – which fake climate scientists refuse to let go of.

The only thing global and unambiguous in the National Climate Assessment, is the level of junk science and fraud it represents.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

32 Responses to Unambiguous Fraud In The National Climate Assessment

  1. Steve Case says:

    For anyone who doesn’t usually follow Tony’s links, this one …
    U.S. Data Since 1895 Fail To Show Warming Trend
    … is pretty much gold plated.

    Wow! The only criticism I can think of is it’s from 1989 and the usual suspects will say, “Maybe so but it’s warmed up since then … blah … blah … blah …”

  2. gator69 says:

    New and Improved! The National Climate Assessment, now made with 100% real fudge!

    Hayhoe, Hayhoe! Actual data has go to go! Hayhoe, Hayhoe! Actual data has go to go!

  3. arn says:

    who would have thought that the survival of the two main modern ideologies
    (pushed by the very same globalistic people with the very same rhetorics and the very same results of =poverty,death,centralisation,absense of culture)
    is solely based on the color red.

  4. Oars says:

    When is Scott Pruitt going to start cleaning house and stop contracting out our National Climate Assessments to the fraudsters? Seriously, is it even possible to find enough qualified professionals in the US to conduct an honest, politically neutral climate assessment in 2017?

    • tonyheller says:

      I got an E-mail this morning from a Trump team member who said everything is being held up by Congress blocking approvals of key positions.

      • Oars says:

        We are 11 months in, how much holding up can a minority party do?

        I’m envisioning the 2018 report where you Tony are a central author. Imagine what the MSM would say when the official assessment from the USG is a complete contradiction to the last 25 years.

        • cdquarles says:

          Not all of the blocking is due to Democrats. The leftist, statist (redundant) Uniparty establishment loves the status quo ante-Trump. They hate Trump more than they hated Reagan, and they hated Reagan a lot.

  5. A C Osborn says:

    I take offense at “The only location on Earth with good long term daily temperature data in the US.”.
    Western Europe has just as good data, and the UK’s goes back even further than the US.

    • tonyheller says:

      I meant exactly what I said. The UK record and most of Europe is garbage. Very little long term daily temperature data, and what is available is inconsistent and largely incoherent. I don’t know if this is because Phil Jones threw out the data?

      • richard verney says:

        I am somewhat skeptical of your comment, but one has to bear in mind, how small western Europe is, and how heavily populated it is.

        For example CET has the longest and oldest record, but it covers a very small area and is essentially one large urban island, such that it is no doubt severley impacted upon by urbanisation and UHI.

        • menicholas says:

          Plus Phil Jones altered that record and threw out the original data.

          • richard verney says:

            It does appear that he (carelessly???) got rid of a lot of data.

            Whether the Met Office still have the genuine unadjusted RAW data, I do not know.

            There is no obvious reason why the US should be an outlier for the Northern Hemisphere over the relevant latitude bands, and that why Tony’s analysis is so important. I suspect that if we could do the same task for the rest of the Northern hemisphere, it would show something similar, namely that there has been no, or little, warming since the highs of the late 1930s/early 1040s.

        • richard verney says:

          November 7, 2017 at 10:45 am

          For example CET has the longest and oldest record, but it covers a very small area and is essentially one large urban island, such that it is no doubt severley impacted upon by urbanisation and UHI.

          The CET is an average of several stations. The number and the location of the stations has changed over time. While it is interesting, it’s not much use for serious analysis of long-term trends. The Armagh record is much better.


    • menicholas says:

      Tony has maps and graphs included in every one of his thousands of postings on this topic.
      You want to counter that with a sentence or two or unsupported assertion?

      • richard verney says:

        No one has done a similar analysis on UK and European data. This is why AC does not link to such, but that does not necessarily undermine the thrust of his comment.

        I envisage that if RAW data was analysed from rural locations (in the UK and in Europe) then it too would show that there has not been any significant warming since the highs of the late 1930s/1940, and that the so called warming is a product of temperature adjustments and homogenisation etc.

        England has an area of about 130,292 sq Km (one fifth the size of Texas) and probably has a population of around 65 million (more than double that of Texas), whereas the US has an area of about 9.834 million sq Km.

        England is now one huge urban island and its temp data is no doubt significantly affected by UHI.

  6. Brandon says:

    Technical questions: Has NASA ever retrospectively “adjusted” (increased) historical temperature records within the baseline range 1951-80, and if so have they increased the baseline value against which anomalies are subsequently calculated?

    Presumably that would mean the absolute value of the baseline for gistemp would be different from say UAH, and therefore the temp anomalies of the two can’t be compared on a like for like basis?

    Is there any way to compare gistemp / hadcrut / uah etc with reference to absolute rather than relative values?

  7. sunsettommy says:

    I remember well that 1999 NASA chart well,since it showed 1998 being cooler than year 1934.

    • richard verney says:

      People forget that the IPCC First Assessment Report showed NH temps cooler than 1940, and global temperatures about the same as 1940.

      Of course Briffa/Mann’s tree rings also showed that as at 1995, the NH was no warmer than 1940. This was the real reason behind the truncating and splicing on of the adjusted thermometer record (and at that stage the adjustments were not as stark, but were still needed in order to show any warming at all !!!).

    • richard verney says:

      Perhaps I should have noted that in essence the only warming since the IPCC FAR is coincident with ENSO events. In particular the 1997/98 Super El Nino, and perhaps any further warming coincident upon the recent strong 2015/16 El Nino (which ENSO cycle has yet to complete with a La Nina)

  8. Keith Van Ausdal says:

    I don’t disagree with your conclusion that data is being misused. However, your graphical comparisons would be much more persuasive if your vertical axis were the same on the “before” and “after” graphs so the slopes of the graphs are comparable. Keep up the good work!

    • tonyheller says:

      The vertical axes are identical on the before and after plots. Look closer.

    • AndyG55 says:


      Put your cursor right next to -0.5 on the left hand axis. It doesn’t move more than a tiny amount

      Then do the same with +1.0 . Doesn’t move either.

      Axis is stable.

      Tony, any chance of horizontals on the second graph?

    • menicholas says:

      Keith, what you are missing in your cursory perusal is that the more recent graphs extend beyond the bounds of the earlier ones, and so the later graphs have been made bigger, not by changing the scale, but by extending the range.

  9. agathon says:

    To the Warmies….

  10. “The only location on Earth with good long term daily temperature data in the US.”
    I believe ´in´ should have been ´is´ ?

  11. Svend Ferdinandsen says:

    Hi Tony
    You have shown that most measurements of temperature in US seems to be stable or even falling.
    Anyway the US and global temperatures are rising in any official statistic. And old measurements are falling, making the present anomaly warmer.
    I wonder if you could figure out how that happens?
    What is the methods they use to make the past colder and present warmer?
    Ole Humlum shows it: http://climate4you.com/images/NCDC%20Jan1915%20and%20Jan2000.gif
    I believe anomaly and the way it is used/calculated is part of the symptom.

    • menicholas says:

      It is done the old fashion way…with an eraser.

    • menicholas says:

      There is no mystery once one understands that the same people who are responsible for compiling the data and maintaining the historical records re the ones touting the alarmist agenda.
      They simply alter the historical data to suit their agenda.
      It is extensively documented here and elsewhere.

  12. John Fonteine says:

    Is there any “warmer” out there who is willing to explain this?

  13. Van Snyder says:

    If the alarmists believed their story, and really wanted to “correct” the climate (CO2) problem, they would be demanding nuclear power, because nothing else would work. It’s clear they have a political, not technical, agenda. Read “Burden of Proof: A Comprehensive Review of the Feasibility of 100% Renewable-Electricity Systems” by Ben Heard et al in “Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,” volume 76, Elsevier (2017) pp 1122-1133.

Leave a Reply

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