Very High Confidence Of Fraud In The National Climate Assessment

Katharine Hayhoe and her partners in crime have officially released their National climate assessment, which includes this graph, which claims “Record Warm Daily Temperatures Are Occurring More Often”


The first thing I noticed is that the text in the report does not match the graph. They say :

the Dust Bowl era of the 1930s remains the peak period for extreme heat in the United States

Yet the graph right below it does not show the 1930’s as being hot.

Unfortunately for Katharine and her band of climate fraudsters, I have software which does this calculation. The graph below is the correct version. Their graph is more or less correct after 1970 – but the pre–1970 data is completely fraudulent. They removed all of the hot weather from 1930 to 1954.  NOAA does not make adjustments to daily temperatures, so they can’t use that excuse.

The report claims :

Record Warm Daily Temperatures Are Occurring More Often

That is an outright lie.  Record warm daily maximum temperatures have decreased sharply since 1930 – the start date of their graph.

The number of record daily minimums has also decreased.

The US climate is getting milder, with fewer very hot or very cold days.

So why the big spikes in 2012 and 2016?

This is a classic divide by zero error. Ratios become unstable when the denominator becomes small. The numbers are meaningless. No serious scientist would release a wildly flawed and dishonest graph like Katharine Hayhoe does on a consistent basis.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Very High Confidence Of Fraud In The National Climate Assessment

  1. Steve Case says:

    The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel ran this as the top story yesterday:

    Report blames humans for warming
    And this was a subheadline down the column:
    A Global average sea level rise of as much as 8 feet by 2100 cannot be ruled out.

    According to satellites
    sea level rise is around 3 mm/yr. 8 feet by 2100 is ten times that at nearly 30 mm/year for the next 83 years. Any rational person would call that prediction absurd.

    • arn says:

      in 2100 they”ll write an article that
      an 8 foot sea level rise for 2200 can no ne ruled out.

      At least one can not say that these fraudsters haven’t learned their lessons.
      Now their apocalyptic predictions are so far away in time that noone will be alive to see wether they are right or wrong.

    • menicholas says:

      Discovery that Venus is hollow and inhabited by an all female race of ultra-horny Raquel Welch lookalikes cannot be ruled out, either.

  2. Using the raw number of occurrences is not correct either, because the number of stations is decreasing. Shouldn’t the frequency of occurrence be used instead?

    • CFF1776 says:

      It is laughable however these people are somehow allowed to lie to our children via media/academia …….This is what makes it a non-laughing matter!
      This agenda driven “Man Made Hysteria” must be crushed with TRUTH!

  3. An Inquirer says:

    I do not understand the claim that it is a “divide by zero error.” In the Assessment graph that shows increasing hot records, the chart claims to look at 1218 stations. In Tony’s graph of continuously active stations, he is looking at 741 stations. So Tony’s chart would have the smaller denominator???

    Or is the issue that The Assessment Report is dropping stations through time so that there are far fewer than 1218 in later years?

    Can Tony’s approach produce a ratio like the ratio used in the Assessment graph?

    • An Inquirer says:

      I am sorry. Upon further review, I believe I now understand.

      The key question is whether the ratio of record highs to record lows is a legitimate measure of the danger of increasing warmth. In order for the ratio to increase, one does not need increasing warm temperatures; all one needs is decreasing # of record cold.

  4. The key to why the 1930s fails to show up large numbers of record highs on the National Climate Report, is that they have used the much larger GHCN dataset, and not USHCN.

    The problem with GHCN is that most of the stations they use in the US were not in existence in the 1930s, and have only been operational typically since the 1960s.

    Given that the 1960s and 70s were cold decades, it is unsurprising that there are more record highs now than lows.

    This graph shows the growth of GHCN stations, many of which are junk airport sites and so on, thus making matters worse

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.