NOAA Data Tampering Approaching 2.5 Degrees

NOAA’s US temperature record shows that US was warmest in the 1930’s and has generally cooled as CO2 has increased.  This wrecks greenhouse gas theory, so they “adjust” the data to make it look like the US is warming.

Raw NOAA Data      Adjusted NOAA Data

The NOAA data tampering produces a spectacular hockey stick of scientific fraud, which becomes the basis of vast amounts of downstream junk climate science. Pre-2000 temperatures are progressively cooled, and post-2000 temperatures are warmed. This year has been a particularly spectacular episode of data tampering by NOAA, as they introduce nearly 2.5 degrees of fake warming since 1895.

Most of these adjustments are due to simply making up data.  Every month, a certain percentage of the 1,218 United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) stations fail to report their data, and the temperature gets estimated by NOAA using a computer model. Missing data is marked in the USHCN database with an “E” – meaning “estimated.” In 1970, about 10% of the data was missing, but that number has increased to almost 50%, meaning that almost half of the current adjusted data is fake.

The fabricated temperatures have warmed four degrees since 1970, relative to the adjusted temperatures which were based on actual station data. This shows that the warming trend in the US claimed by NOAA is based on computer models, not actual thermometer data or even adjusted thermometer data.

But here is the real smoking gun of fraud by NOAA. The adjustments being made almost perfectly match atmospheric CO2 levels – showing that the data is being altered precisely to match global warming theory.

Science doesn’t get any worse than how NOAA handles US temperature data. NASA uses the NOAA data as the basis for their temperature graphs, which have also been massively altered to turn cooling into warming.

1999 Version       2017 Version

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

432 Responses to NOAA Data Tampering Approaching 2.5 Degrees

  1. M. X says:

    Hi, I don’t understand the end of the 2nd graph vs the 1st one. I do see the late “correction” warming there, but not as strong as in the 2nd graph. What do I miss?

    • tonyheller says:

      The first graph is a five year mean through 2017. The second graph is annual data including 2018.

      • John Silver says:

        Tip for Tony: the zero line should be thick and red, also the zero should be bold and red.
        You cannot be too clear for these creaps.

      • Neil E Lynch says:

        Revenue Justification
        $CarbonCredit = ($1.62T)*abs(deltaTemperature)

        $EcoActivistGrants = $CarbonCredit*0.0001
        $AlGoreSalary = $EcoActivistGrants*10%
        $DNC= $CarbonCredit*-$AlGoreSalary-$EcoTerroristAllowance

        (shortfall to be funded by lawsuits, fees, and public debt)

        Layman terms:
        Each 1 degree change(either direction) translates to $1.62 trillion in carbon credit revenue, and Al Gore is awarded $1.62 billion for his research allowing 10% ($162 million) for his salary.

        Academic note:
        Please note the fee is based on the absolute value of the change in temperature, so as the temperature is adjusted up and subsequently corrected, Al will be compensated, the “science” is funded, and the Eco-terrorist/activist grants are funded.

        Business case:
        Whereas “global warming” is only funded with increasing temperatures, (original model) “climate change” is funded in both directions.(current model)

    • paul says:

      Why is mass immigration and “diversity” demanded in ALL white populations and ONLY white populations?

      Why is no global place or institution ever “too yellow” and “too black”?

      Why is Open Borders a white ‘privilege’?

      Does “diversity” just mean Chasing Down Whitey?

      That’s why we say #White Geno Cide
      That’s why we say #Anti White

      • dave g says:

        Why is the price of eggs in China, $1.86.

        • Sharin says:

          Each? or per dozen….eggs here in Cali run from $1.49 to $2.80…..hmmmm why is price in China so high?

          • Wade says:

            I just returned from China and in U.S. $’s eggs are about $3.5/ dozen, gas is over $4.20/ gal.

          • Jack says:

            Wade’s prices unexplainable?
            Don’t know where “Wade” lives, but gas in a major city in Arizona is less than $3/gal at retail pump, and “Large AA” eggs sell for about $1.50 at retail chain store.

            Both can be obtained for even less at local membership box store.

          • Jack says:

            Just realized Wade’s “shorthand” use of “$’s” seems to mean he’s saying those are the prices he saw in China, when the prices are converted to US dollars. I originally thought he was shocked by the prices when he returned to the US from a trip to China.

          • Bob says:

            Where is Wade getting his prices? The NOAA? I just bought a two dozen (24 eggs for the mentally impaired) of extra large eggs in NJ this A.M. and paid $3.05. And NJ is a pretty expensive state. So that Wade’s head doesn’t explode that is about 12.7 cents per egg. I think the Chinks done brainwashed good old Wade into stupidity.

          • secateurs says:

            Oh, dear, Wade may be good at comparing prices in China versus the USA, but he is a lousy writer! He should have spelled out that the prices he is quoting were Chinese prices converted to American dollars.

          • saralee says:

            California’s gas and eggs are thru the roof…we are more expensive then China….

        • Bob says:

          Because they’re commies.

        • OneChickenPolicy says:

          I think it is because they kill most of the hens as they are born. They only want roosters.

        • FreeRepublic says:

          I don’t see the connection to AGW or Climate Change.

          BTW, how long does one have to work, at the median wage, to earn a carton of eggs in each country?

      • Cheryl says:

        Racist much?? Obviously you hate white people. What exactly does race have to do with the climate lies?

    • Jimba says:

      Simulated or estimated does not mean fake. You got to be an idiot to not notice something has changed in the environment. 70F in February in the North East????

      • tonyheller says:

        Moron alert

      • DJ says:

        Earth’s rotation has not always been 364 1/4 days. Taking the number of 300 days rotation per year and the Earth is 4.8 billion years old there have been approximately 1.5 trillion days since the Earth has existed. Please tells us on which day out of the 1.5 trillion days there was not some element of “climate change” happening? Quiz time is up. If you answered there has been an element of climate change every day since the existence of the Earth you win a cookie. Now for winning the big prize- What makes the current time on the Earth any different from the previous 1.5 trillion days? Hint it can’t be because there are humans in existence or even mammals currently, remember for 1.5 trillion days there has been climate change. Prize awaits.

        • CaptainNonno says:


        • FutureUser says:

          The operative illustration here is a football field with natural grass.

          By looking very intently at the LAST BLADE of GRASS at one end of the field (today’s temps), Fake Science claims to know the average and the extremes for every blade of grass on the previous 100 yards of field — with precision!!

          Or, 150 years of temperatures tell us everything we need to know about the past few billion years.

        • Bocifus Broadly says:

          Ignoramous Eco Terrorist Alert!
          What you mean the earth is billions a years old? God said the earth is only a few thousand years old. You sound like one of them climate nuts yourself. Are you in the climate cult religion. You prolly think the earth is round and we went to the moon to. You an eco terrorist. You sure talk like one.

        • Climate believer says:

          I’m sorry, please can you lose the condescending tone? You are no more of an expert than anybody. Of course, the climate has changed in the past, but never at the rate we are seeing now, and it is more than obvious that we are the cause of it. Never has an ice age ended in just 150 years, as ours is doing now. The quaternary period (our current ice age) has lasted so far for 2.6 billion years. Even if looking at the shorter glacial and interglacials periods, a glacial will last for 70,000 to 90,000 years and interglacials for 10,000 to 30,000. There has never before been such short term change as is happening right now. And it is obvious, as ratified by 97% of scientists and anyone with two brain cells to rub together, that anthropogenic GHG emissions are to blame.
          We need to stop talking about “believing” in climate change, and start asking if people “understand” it. This is science, not the Easter Bunny.

          • your friend says:

            follow the money. question everything. the establishment wins when you stop questioning and continue to just spew the data they’ve led you to believe. you’ve missed the point of this page. to show you that data you regurgitate is just that, vomit. vomit, they trained you to regurgitate. have you read the kyoto protocol and then the paris agreement? if you have, and you’ve spent any real time reading the documents, it would be obvious to you that climate change is the next iteration of the fear based abrahamic religions. the world is melting! the only way to save it is to vote this way…. just. stop. for the love of your own independence. but you won’t. this will just make you mad and you’ll go petition to cancel a dr. seuss book of something nonesensical…

      • Gator says:

        Yes Ms Jimba, we never had warm weather before Chevy Suburbans were all the rage. And Bernie Madoff was innocent.

      • Sharin says:

        I want to see 100 years of “weather” without any tampering/adjustments for the USA at least…..provable figures….nothing else will satisfy anyone!!!!!

      • Cliff Graham II says:

        If you are not trying to fit the data into your hypothesis why do you need to adjust the data? Scientists are led by the facts to a conclusion. They don’t bend the facts to fit into a conclusion. My Dad has told me the 50’s were hot in western MD. Now he was a kid and only lived at one spot on the earths surface so there’s room for error in his thinking too. I was a Math major. Take it from me: statistics are very hard to keep neutral. The more you monkey around with them trying to get a more realistic or “natural” fit, the more you move them towards confirming your own personal idea of what is natural or what is real. In the 70’s we were told that the coming ice age would kill most of the human race. Al Gore told us that NY city would be underwater by now. Both may become true in the future. If we wait long enough both will become true eventually. Don’t try and use adjusted statistics to convince me. That sample set is so small in the geologic scale as to be flyspeck insignificant. Why make electricity so much more expensive for all the poor of the world. Sure rich Americans in their suburbs can afford the increase easily but to effect worldwide change your going to have to put the price increase on the whole world also.

        • Andy says:

          That is where the climate taxes and the UN as an agent of wealth re-distribution come into play. We greedy/wealthy Americans will subsidize power prices in 3rd world countries, so that they can build factories that spew not only CO2 but other stuff that is actually harmful into the environment.

        • momsaid says:

          Ergo, the people compiling and reporting (and making oodles of money off of) the ‘adjusted’ data are NOT scientists. They rely on confirmation bias and the gullibility of those who believe them and contribute to their cause.

          • FutureUser says:

            Scientists In Name Only.

          • Darth says:

            40 years ago a climatologist had an office the size of a small closet, had to get on a list to get an hour’s time on a university computer system, and only had trips funded for field station visits, today they have suites with staff offices, banks of computers and satellites. And get sent to 3 national a 2 international climate conferences per year in places like London, Genva, Orlando, and San Diego. A little crisis makes work more profitable and fun. ;)

        • Dr. Y. Dino says:

          Some people believe what they see. Others see what they believe. Climate “science” is based upon the adjusted data, not the raw data. How would Gore’s “settled science” argument hold up if all climate scientist’s analyzed the raw data and were allowed to make their own data adjustments?

          • David M. says:

            Brilliant observation and phrasing!!!!

            To emphasize how brilliant: Worthy of a Tony Award. And, I CLAIM your observation as mine. Plagiarism is the sincerest form of flattery:-}

          • Gator says:

            Data is only data once, and that is when it it is collected.

            There is no such thing as “adjusted data”. Once data has been adjusted it becomes an artifact of analysis.

            WAG comes to mind…

        • ag says:

          Generally, I agree with what you said. You can make statistics fit a narrative. The last part I don’t agree with prices of solar and wind are lower and in some cases par with coal and diesel. I also like the idea of having a diversified power source. So even if the global warming is not a hoax why fight the movement to diversify. People talk about renewable energy subsidies, in fact, Oil is subsidies as well. I have a bunch of people asking me to invest oil fields and their main selling point is that there are no taxes on revenue.

      • Joe says:

        You’re about to be hit with your fourth major winter storm. Have you not noticed these?

      • Colby says:

        I disagree with the premise of your argument. However, it’s spring and I’m watching snow fall at a rate of 1 inch/hour minimum today. Estimated 12 plus inches. The high today is 33. I’m in PA.

      • Frank says:

        And 25 degrees F in March? Feb temps were above normal, but March temps were below normal.

        • Kelley says:

          What is “normal”? Who says what is “normal”? All of the “norms” are based on AVERAGES of temperature data that we have only been keeping since about 1850. That is only 168 years of observations on a planet that is 4.5 billion years old. How often is a particulars days or months readings EXACTLY on the average? So at any given time the temp is either above or below the average. Then those temps are averaged in to the total. Since we are clearly still coming out of the last ice age (technically were still in it) the temperature is increasing . What the quack science will have us believe is that this natural temperatuire increase has accelerated due to our CO2 production, which has probably only been significant for the last 100 years.

          • Rex says:

            It is actually worse than you think. The “normals” used are only a 30 year “normal” for example the current “normals” being used are from 1981 to 2011.

      • TP says:

        Convenient you leave out the record cold in the northeast this year. Most people who live in the northeast, including those experiencing this latest storm and cold don’t think much of one or two 70 degree days. Look at REAL data and trends not fabricated or “estimated” data pushed by the left like a drug dealer.

      • Wade says:

        What about today? Predicted 16″ of snow.

      • Bill Stevens says:

        Moron alert, remember your observations are worthless; “oh it rained today, gee the climate changed”.

      • Lee McIntosh says:

        So here then is a question for you: What was the temperature in what we now call the Northeast (all on word there goofy) in 1018 AD? What was it in say 1357 AD? Or 1357 BC? The fact is YOU don’t know and these phony climate “scientists” don’t know with any reasonable amount of accuracy. But we do know for a fact, that this old rock of ours has warmed and cooled hundreds of times over its 4+ billion year existence and will continue to do so. And the main determinant of the weather of ol’ “Sol” up there in the sky aka the Sun. And you do know that there are plenty of written, first-hand accounts from the Romans when they occupied what is now much of Great Britain that the weather was much, much warmer. And we know, again for a fact, that Europe has gone through numerous Ice Ages just as we have here in North America.

        • P wal says:

          FINALLY! YES! Exactly right! We know of the medieval warming periods, Siberian bogs that used to lush and marshy, we know about maunder minimum. And the dark ages This planet is billions of years old and goes through cycles “man” has yet to acknowledge. What has happened in the last 100 years is a “microcycle” within a much larger broader series of cycles that go up and down. We are truly an arrogant species if we believe that our version of “a long time” i.e. 100 years, is anything more than a blip in time for this planet.

        • GrayMare says:

          Yes!!! Just track the activity on the sun… Our temperatures here on our home planet track precisely along with whatever the sun is up to. Solar flares? Less cold winter or a hotter summer. So simple. We just need honesty from scientists. We the people know what’s going on.

      • Al Nonamus says:

        The cure for climate change is money, our money, not the reduction of CO2.

        When I was a student pilot, a long time ago, I began my study of weather. I remember Gila Bend Arizona was the hottest place in the country. Weathermen, working at airports mostly, would, in the old days, submit hourly weather observations that were sent out by Teletype. These observations were to be submitted in the last 10 minutes of each hour. The Gila Bend weather observation was always the last one submitted.

        It seems the Gila Bend weather observer or observers checked out the surrounding temperatures first and then jacked Gila Bend’s temperature up buy a degree or two. Thereby, making Gila Bend the hottest.

        Those “temperature adjustments” were just for fun. I can easily imagine someone doing the same thing today by means of “data adjustments” or “electronic smart cards”. Except today, the temperature is adjusted to deceive gullible citizens and extort from them their money and freedom.

        • AMSilver says:

          There was a huge change in the number of world wide temperature stations ~1990 with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Those stations all abruptly vanished without the government that had set them up in operation. Given that Russia is a far northern country, those are a lot of cold temperatures that suddenly get to be estimated. Additionally, the coal allotments for those small, northern towns would be decided by the central bureaucracy based on their temperature. The colder they reported the temperature to be, the more likely they were to get more coal for heating their town. That’s a significant motivator to report colder than actual temperatures. So to sum up, in the 90s, the temperature record lost a large group of artificially cool recorded temperatures and replaced them with artificially warm ‘estimated’ temperatures. Even if the actual temperature stayed even throughout that time, we’d get global warming simply from the scientists.

        • Minorkle says:

          Remember global cooling in the 1970’s

      • Tanner Boyle says:

        And now it’s snowing. Climate change= JUNK SCIENCE

      • Jumanji says:

        several things have changed in many parts of the world..doesn’t mean it’s warming globally lol.europe is under a deep freeze, Al Gore isn’t talking about that one..Don’t drink the kool aid so fast people..

      • SJC says:

        Uh, four blizzards this month…

      • roddysue says:

        Estimated based on what exactly? Their “knowledge” that globe is warming so they must adjust up? Nonsense. Hope you’re enjoying the koolaid. If you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything…

      • Don says:

        Jimba, everyone says it was hotter in the 1930s. What caused that?

      • NHPatriot says:

        I’m in New Hampshire facing our 4th Nor’Easter this month. It was 17 degrees yesterday, the first day of spring. I have two feel of snow on my lawn. You are a motard.

      • ChrisGC says:

        Yes Jimba I have noticed that “something has changed in the environment”!
        I’ve noticed that the environment has become over populated in the last 30 years with a large number of vociferous ultra left wing liberals who have been plugging fantasy “what if” numbers into computer models that are already known to be faulty, then tweaking those numbers until the models spew out the desired answer(s). They then call this “science” and have the unmitigated gall to act surprised and become insulting when we don’t take that sort of BS as verbatim fact!
        FYI; It has been 70 degrees in February before, even before man was an afterthought to old Mother nature, and it will likely be so again. Now if you’d pull your head out of where you keep it stuffed, maybe you can tell us all why there has been an ongoing trend for the last 15 years or so, of ever increasing and record amounts of cold and snow over the entire northern hemisphere? And all while people like you keep hollering about “Anthropogenic Global Climate Warming Change Disruption”, or whatever your crowd is calling it this week?!
        By the way, have you noticed what the weather is like on the east coast the last couple of days? If a couple more feet of glowBULL warming falls on those folks they may never have a spring!

      • JuniataKid says:

        What’s changed has been coverage of the weather. Every little weather event is hyped to high heaven for dramatic effect, mostly by national weather media outlets that didn’t exist 30 years ago. Satellites spot tropical storms earlier and easier, and if you look at most storm histories, they wouldn’t have been declared storms 30 years ago because they were too far away to care about or so short-lived they didn’t matter.

        Did you grow up in air conditioning? If not, you acclimated to the outside temp better, so it didn’t feel as hot in the summer.

        The left and profiteers are whipping people into a frenzy for money and power. Don’t let them sucker you in.

      • Steve says:

        Are you telling us that the NE has never had a 70 degree day in February in the past? Are you telling us it’s never snowed the first day of spring?

      • Jman says:

        Why chose that one day in February? What about the snow storm occurring right now in that very same area? Or does it not fit your agenda?

      • Jim says:

        You’ve got to be young to think that hasn’t happened before.

        We broke some records, but it’s certainly been warm before in February in my life time.

        Also, while we broke some daily records (and even some monthly in some spots), many record from 1930 still held up, and February in 1930 was apparently warm for longer.

        For the record, that was before “global warming” was a thing. Just in case you didn’t know, being young and all, that “global warming” is a fairly new “scientific” phenomena that is really good at one thing: propping up a trillion dollar international scam.

      • RickD says:

        “…Simulated or estimated does not mean fake” ? Hmmm….You gotta be an idiot not to know that “simulated” data are NOT facts. And Science is about Facts. And since all this “estimated” data about rising temperatures is predicated on the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, it should be understood by ALL except for the densest of idiots that analysis of satellite global temperature and known atmospheric carbon dioxide levels indicate that it is the temperature of the atmosphere that controls CO2 levels, not the reverse.

      • m9777 says:

        It’s name … “weather cycles.” Weather cycles, life cycles etc. “Change” has been made into a permanent situation by alarmists and it is false. Fluctuations, cycles, change are temporary! This I’ve noticed for 72+ years.

      • momsaid says:

        Is the 12″ plus snowfall from the 4th nor’easter this season…normal? It’s the second day of Spring, fella. I’m shovelling a pile of white stuff for the second time in two days. In Virginia. Do go on about your grasp of reality and variations on a theme.

      • Bill says:

        It is March 21, and we have 6″ of snow on the ground here in DC. That proves that the world is getting colder, just like your selected date in February proves it is getting warmer.

      • Jack says:

        However, simulated and estimated data CAN be biased and greatly impact the results. Sometimes the margin of error was larger than the predicted coutput.
        Every model means ASSUMPTIONS. When a scientist creates a model and relies on that model he or she is locked into all those assumptions and artificial limits on variables. When the scientist stimates/interpolates data, there is the potential for significant variance from reality.

      • Pete Bensen says:

        I would fully answer your silly assertion about the warm spell in February, but it’s March 21st and I have to shovel snow off my sidewalk. Someone shoot that damn Groundhog.

      • Turna says:

        Anybody that uses “You got to be an idiot” in a sentence should look in the mirror.

      • Dave Veilleux says:

        Correct and we have set records for the coldest also. Looking at records for BAD climate change possible caused by human beings a way to prove that. You must look at data over the whole time of man. There are records over the whole earth of hotter days in the 1800’s.

        Please have your mind open to the point that the whole universe may also have an affect on our temperature and any adjustments or non-adjustments may not bare the fact of “IS MAN HAVING IMPACT ON THE EARTH TO THE POINT IT IS A IMMEDIATE THREAT!” Sorry I still do not think science has enough known date or information to make that call. BUT we still can be very smart making decisions. BUT not to the point other people like AL GORE does it for profit (and the way he lives is live is the true factor here).

      • Greg says:

        That happens very year. We always get a warm spell in February followed by colder weather. What I don’t get is the methodology behind the adjustment. That it perfectly parallels CO2 is taken as evidence of fraud, but maybe it just works out that way. It is troublesome that 50% of the data are estimated and nit actually measured. I would accept only measured data. The other thing I don’t understand is why there are supposedly ZERO benefits to a warming climate, and only disaster awaits. Why?

        • George Kimball says:

          It doesn’t work out that way, it is forced to. There is no reason to believe that drylabbing the data gives the right data.

          Warmer climates in the past did produce greater growth of vegetation, if that’s a benefit. Disaster monopolizes predictions because to the green religion driving this junk, it is the vision of hell, eco-disaster demanding global piety.

      • H R Miller says:

        How do you like the latest Northeaster in late March?

      • Bjorn says:

        If global warmi… whoops. I forgot they changed it. Climate change is obvious why do they have to keep faking the data ?

      • FreeRepublic says:

        Simulated or estimated are not actual, and should never be presented as such.

        There have always been “extreme” weather events of all sorts, but people didn’t try to put them to political use.

      • tim says:

        North East of what?

      • George Kimball says:

        I grew up near NYC in the sixties. Episodes of warm weather in the middle of winter were common.

      • secateurs says:

        “You got to be an idiot . . . ”

        Wow, that’s some heavy duty analysis!

        And, some amazing conclusions from someone who has NOT studied the weather for the past 100 years, but “makes stuff up” THAT HE BELIEVES to be gospel!

      • Amarit says:

        A brief warm spell is proof of “CLIMATE” change, but a late spring, early fall, or cool summer is simply “WEATHER”. I’m getting it now!
        On a serious note, grapes in California are two weeks late in budding. Last year a frost came and wiped out a lot of buds, driving down production in some areas as much as 90%. That is just a cold weather event that seems to be repeating I guess. In Florida, they used to grow commercial citrus all the way up to Ocala, now you’re hard pressed to find groves much above Lake Okeechobee. It used to be warmer than it is today.

        • Latitude says:

          nonono……warm weather is global warming….cold weather is climate change
          …and there used to be citrus groves as far north as South Carolina

      • Con Fuse says:

        Climate change is not just one anomaly, its a long term analysis.
        Basing anything on how hot or cold one day (or even week) in Feb or for that matter July is not direct evidence of climate change.

      • Latitude says:

        “Simulated or estimated does not mean fake.”

        Jimba, what’s not obvious with these constant “adjustments” to past temps….it that today’s data is fake
        No matter what they claim today’s temp is…in the future it will be adjusted..and not longer what they reported today

      • ben says:

        Jimba, ah, yes…a very suitable name for a total imbecile. I have 8MM film of my aunt, posing in a bathing suit, on Groundhog Day, in Alabama, with 4 inches of about to be rapidly melting snow on the ground. Deep snow, followed by 68 degrees a day later. Jimba think anecdotal evidence good, if’um it back’um libbie narrative. Otherwise, it just weather.

      • BR549 says:

        70F in the Northeast in February?

        When I was in boarding school in the mid ’60s, we were sunning ourselves out behind the dorms in February.

        As a long time dyed-in-the-bark conservative tree-hugger, I resent these current day warmunist lemmings distorting the data to serve their own twisted political agenda.

      • Dave says:

        I’ve noticed lots of changes, every day in fact, that’s what’s called the weather, something that even most scientists struggle to predict accurately more than a few days into the future.

      • Jean says:

        One of my weddings was in 1983 on Feb 18th in Canada. The temperature was 68F. No one had to wear a coat! It was a rare and lovely warm day in the middle of winter, back when they were trying to scare us about the coming ice age!

      • PETER STAPLES says:

        Like in the early seventies when it was very cold and the eastern coast of Australia was hit the worst damaging weather of my life and my grandparents who were born at the end of the 1800s and the Socialist scientists put it down to C02 from burning coal and Oil was causing an Ice Age. So I don’t know what type of idiot you are or want other people to be.

    • FutureUser says:

      Note how the “corrections” match the “CO2 concentration” just about *exactly*. This is the definition of “fudged data” — rig the results to match your preconceived assumptions and hypotheses. Creative Recordkeeping 101.

  2. David M. says:

    Is that the 2.5 degree increase that will:
    a) Cause global starvation, drown the Maldives and cause other catastrophes?
    b) Kill “climate science”?
    If (b), will Mann slaughter charges be filed?

    • KTM says:

      If the facts don’t match the theory, change the facts.

      NOAA has some serious climatesplaining to do.

      • Hawkeye says:

        Wakey wakey people! The data IS adjusted because they are and have been treating GW with chemo like meds for decades and will not admit to this visible fact.
        All life forms are inhaling it. Why do you think everyone is so sick?
        Get educated and sound the alarm. No consent.

        • Bill says:

          I bet you also belong to the flat earth society.

          • Quit living in denial Bill and think your so smart when your dumb as a box of rocks. They are spraying us even if you don’t believe it because it wasn’t on the news. Like you think they tell you anything true on the news. Your just another brainwashed gullible sheep being happily LED to slaughter. Youd rather be a smartass than help. Have you ever done one bit of research? Not the right research, just repeating what these clmate terrorists are saying, lies

          • Factual says:

            This is a VERY well documented, substantiated FACT. The patents, the teams, pilots, the programs for spraying. As well FACT and patents that many State Nations AND Private parties use various forms of weather manipulation/ie warfare. Even Gore on Ellen explained the shiny particle disbursements from planes. Recall the EARLY articles, patents, reports, films of cloud seeding, and also using TESLA tech traveling around to change weather. And how some devices caused injury, DEATH, CANCER. Stop being so ignorant. There is so much going on and gone on in our worlds history that has been scrubbed, and BS fed. Really stupid as even fairly recent historical events of human kind have been altered to fit into some BS control narrative. Yet more was out there and taught in the past. Pretty pathetic, but we learn from our past, and must therefore be given all the facts to know, study and understand mans, societies progression, real truth about WARS (not lies and BS written by the evil “victors”) to hide their crimes.

    • Street says:

      ManN slaughter…… hahahaha

    • mortimer zilch says:

      NO! that is the 2.5degree rise that is supposed to help Democrats get elected…NOAA is a Deep State operative totally criminally complicit in CHEMTRAIL experimentation on the American people…NOAA needs to be prosecuted by international court for crimes against humanity.

  3. RiverDawg says:

    If there were no correction the line in graph 2 would be flat at 0.00 F. This shows they corrected negative up until the 2000s then went positive. Makes the total trend of red line in graph 1 look like greater warming is occuring from beginning of period.

    • Steve says:

      I’ve been telling anyone that will listen that for years they have been adjusting actual temperatures prior to 1998 downwards and increasing actual temperatures after 1998. Voila! We have warming.

  4. fah says:

    I have often seen the claim in back and forth on the “data adjustment” issue that, paraphrasing, goes like this:

    “Data from every station was evaluated for instrumental, siting, or collection changes over the years and in every case the adjustment is/was made to more accurately reflect a consistent temperature measurement time series. The fact that it turns out to increase the trend is simply the reflection of reality due to the increased accuracy.”

    It would be nice to see someone look at some number of actual site records and evaluate the changes made on a site by site, case by case, and reason by reason basis. Identifying the specific changes made in specific site data would help a lot in illuminating the rationale behind the changes. It sounds and probably is a bit tedious, but I recently looked at a specific case in Australia in which it was clear that the station instruments were not suitable for the full range of temperatures occurring, but the downstream processing of the data (apparently, but not necessarily) simple-mindedly threw out low temperatures that fell below the calibrated range of the instrument. I think that case was brought to public scrutiny by Jennifer Morahasy (sp?) down there, and she did not give up until they admitted the problem. The point of that case was that to understand what is going on in the data, one needs to get down in the weeds on the instrumental capabilities and tech specs involved.

    Any chance of someone with time and energy to focus doing that for some of the U.S. data? Maybe it has already been done, but I have not seen it.

    • rho says:

      It is all but impossible, because one of the fraud tactics is to move the measuring stations, eliminate stations, add new stations, and to top it all off, put sensors in places that are unsuitable. Such as on top of hot asphalt roofing, in near proximity to jet aircraft exhaust, over the top of a hot metal roof. The tampering and manipulation of data is so broad and extensive as to make meaningful comparisons impossible.

      • fah says:

        Thanks for the link. I had not seen it before although I have seen the results discussed from time to time. The pdf report was especially helpful. The case is strong for siting, land use change, etc. resulting in higher measurement values as a function of time. But I still did not see a data-point by data-point look at exactly what changes were made to historical data via post hoc homogenization. For example, the data given for the Lampassas station shows the clear effect of the move in 2000. It also shows that the raw data from the middle of the 20th century was somehow adjusted downward via homogenization, but it doesn’t actually show what that process was for each of the data points adjusted downward. I would like to see what was actually done with the individual data points during that time period. By see, I mean I would like to see the specific numbers used for each data point, where they were obtained, and how they were manipulated mathematically.
        Thanks again for the link.

        • dave g says:

          You mean you want to see proof of the revision control? What are you? An engineer?

          • Sam Grimes says:

            He is not an animal, he is a human being!

          • fah says:

            I am a physicist. I simply want to see the calculation that is done for each data point that adjusts the historical data point. Unless one sees the actual calculation one cannot make a judgement as to what phenomena the calculation is taking into account, or not.

    • Jess Sayin says:

      Interesting that in NO CASE has the temperature been adjusted downward. Even in areas that have increased concrete, steel and asphalt since the 1930s. A rational thinker might see this as odd…..

      • John C says:

        A rational thinker is an oddity in these times. Applying rational common sense thinking will drive you insane.

      • FreeRepublic says:

        Good point. With increasing urbanization, one would expect that more sites should be adjusted downward than up.

        Is there any story that can be told to explain why data is only adjusted up in recent years? Any good explanation? If not, the only explanation that remains is that the data was manipulated for political and ideological reasons.

    • Mike Zimbleman says:

      Was more or less done about ten years ago in a program set up by Anthony Watts of Found lots of rural stations were eliminated and lots of urban stations sited on parking lots or with irregular equipment.

    • Stan says:

      I would like to suggest a project. And I will participate.

      Organize us to check the microfilm records of newspapers in our respective cities/towns/areas from the early 1900s to the present. Randomly sample a date each month and have us each check the newspaper’s temperature record for that date each year from, say 1918 to 2018.

      If we are somewhat randomly distributed, we should be able to generate an actual temperature record over the course of 100 years based on a paper record.

      Downside: I would suspect it will show *some* level of warming, if only because as the cities have grown (with the concrete, steel and glass) the temperatures in those cities have likely increased as a result of human construction rather than CO2 or other greenhouse gases.

      • Phil Jones says:

        Total huge Fraud…

        “Cooling the Past While Warming the Present”..

        Lies, BS, Fraud… And TAXES !!

      • Former95B says:

        The earliest high temp for, my home, Phoenix was 118F in 1913, with records going back to 1885.. The population, then, was 14,000.
        The record was broken in 1991 at 120F (population985,000) then again in 1994 at122F (population 1,015,000).

        In short, if this pattern is correct, the recent adjustments should be DOWNWARD, not up.

      • raybbr says:

        What instruments were used to measure temperature over a 100 years ago? How accurate and what was their resolution. They alarmists are claiming rises in the tenths of a degree but how do you read tenths of a degree on a mercury thermometer?

        This “climate” tracking is all so bogus. The “science” of warming can be taken apart piece by piece by simply asking questions like those above.

      • scottybob says:

        Actually that is a very good idea! The records kept on computers and databases have been “corrected” and adjusted so many times, you wonder what data it is that you are seeing. Microfilms from scanned newspapers may just be the best bet yet in finding the closest to actual temperatures. Good call!

      • Tom says:

        I like your idea….But I am a simple-minded person who would struggle to twist the hard cold facts that you are asking for…..Some others may be more clever than I and could twist even the figures you seek to discover.

    • Ian h says:

      I have done the analysis and it shows no warming.

      Also rho is wrong this data is used by insurance actuaries you dont just go move one of these stations

    • chris says:

      My wife runs a weather data collection through a university, the data that she collects becomes “raw” data and the final numbers that are entered are “adjusted” by NOAA. This is happening every day. There will be businesses that call in for a report over a specified time or from a certain weather station and they all know it is happening . They ask for the “raw” data. They are also laying down concrete under the weather stations , which in turn creates a micro climate.

      She can see her data she has entered in its original form and what has been their “official” numbers and see the differences.

      If science has taught us anything it is you cant change data collection methods along the way without creating a new subset. Collecting sea temperatures using buckets now from the surface compared to probes 4′ under the surface like they used to do will create very different results , are buckets more accurate ? Maybe if you are only looking at surface temps, but you cant compare the surface readings that they take now to the 4′ readings they have done in the past. It has to be a new subset.

      Nasa gives NOAA satellite temp. readings of the earths surface , which is the most accurate way to compare the numbers because the collection process hasn’t been changed. They refuse to use them.

      • Joe Frederick says:

        Any change in method of collection is corrupted data if commingled Simple – basic – to have all those involved turn a blind eye is motivated by ……….. follow the money.

        • ralph goldwing says:

          All you have to do is go to either of the two, most vulnerable, serial “Choke-points” / “Necks-of-the-Funnels” where data (really noise) is collected and “tweak” it “hot-off-the-press” “hot-off-the-strategically-positioned” collector. Dig? All subsequent “accredited and blessed” and “mass-quoted-data” any conclusions derived there-of (the crux) is now NOT based on original, naive, unprocessed “event-data” (but YOU nor I would ever know it). This (in fact, includes all post gore/obama weather data) is a great illustration of “fact-data” that may or may not even being related to actual “event-data”. This e- should be appended to every other reply to any zombie-moron defending “global-liberal” anything. Have a nice, cool day.

      • Mark Fisher says:

        Not to be crude but in essence they are tracking temperature and have been for 125 years plus. But after using a mouth thermometer for 75 years they switched to an anal thermometer for 25-30 & now are using ear probe electronic thermometer although they still may get data from the older methods in some cases.

        The understandable challenge is reconciling these different techniques while also accounting for externalities such as “heat islands” and other more esoteric variables that not be applicable a certain sites or occur randomly such that no consistent procedure can be employed.

        The intellectual dishonesty, or perhaps more accurate is to say one manifestation of the dishonesty, is presenting the NOAA & NASA data as a single, homogeneous record rather than making it clear it is an aggregation of many types of records each using methodology that varies both within & without, and clearly marking those distinctions to alert the consumer.

        But the “product” that would result would be so viscerally unappetizing because it would useless without much effort they have rendered it into the scientific equivalent of processed cheese.

    • FutureUser says:

      Their explanation is Horse Puckey. You *cannot* retroactively correct measurements taken decades ago. NO WAY. That is *historical revisionism*, not science. “Increased accuracy” may involved *recent* changes, but absolutely cannot change old numbers.

      If the grifters want to claim “old equipment was less accurate”, then what must be done is to provide a +/- range with each data point, from beginning to end. And, they need to explain if the + and the – are not equal in distance from the reported data point, what data they have to *prove* the deviation.

  5. Indiana11 says:

    What is the worry? Al Gore already predicted Armageddon 2 years ago…LOL

  6. Its not just the temps they screw with, at least not in Ca. anyways.
    The rainfall totals get jiggered every time too…

  7. John Smith says:

    Just in case, …. this page is listed on DRUDGE!

  8. Paul says:

    Haul NoAA leadership in front of congress and get them under oath. Othaerwise I will sue (i have standing under their scheme to defeaud the taxpayer, and I will get some answers, either truthful or not

  9. BigJohn9 says:

    It doesn’t matter how much corruption in climate change you find. It won’t change one liberal mind.
    They will accept Bigfoot having President Trump’s baby first.
    Don’t give up, just don’t expect them to change.

  10. Scott Royer says:

    Imagine if a bank made frequent errors in handing out deposits- okay accidents happen nobody’s perfect. Now imagine that the errors were found to always be in the banks favor…

    • Reasoning says:

      But the Federal Reserve Bank makes errors (against society) every time it prints money. Which is theft by deception.

  11. Zippo says:

    They said we’d be out of oil by 2010 and there is only 21 months of coal remaining.

    • Reasoning says:

      There are supposedly over 7 billion people in the world. Could you narrow it down a bit and give us the names of who “they” are?

    • Gator says:

      History of ‘Peak Oil’


      • 1857 — Romania produces 2,000 barrels of oil, marking the beginning of the modern oil industry.

      • 1859, Aug. 25 — Edwin L. Drake strikes oil in Titusville, Pennsylvania

      • 1862 — First commercial oil production in Canada, also 1863 in Russia.

      • 1862 — Most widely used lamp fuel (camphene) taxed in US at aprox. $1 a gallon; kerosene taxed at 10 cent per gallon.(Kovarik, 1997)

      • 1863 — John D. Rockefeller starts the Excelsior Refinery in Cleveland, Ohio.

      • 1879 — US Geological Survey formed in part because of fear of oil shortages.

      • 1882 — Institute of Mining Engineers estimates 95 million barrels of oil remain.With 25 million barrels per year output, “Some day the cheque will come back indorsed no funds, and we are approaching that day very fast,” Samuel Wrigley says. (Pratt, p. 124).

      • 1901 — Spindletop gusher in Texas floods US oil market.

      • 1906 — Fears of an oil shortage are confirmed by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Representatives of the Detroit Board of Commerce attended hearings in Washington and told a Senate hearing that car manufacturers worried “not so much [about] cost as … supply.”

      • 1919, Scientific American notes that the auto industry could no longer ignore the fact that only 20 years worth of U.S. oil was left. “The burden falls upon the engine. It must adapt itself to less volatile fuel, and it must be made to burn the fuel with less waste…. Automotive engineers must turn their thoughts away from questions of speed and weight… and comfort and endurance, to avert what … will turn out to be a calamity, seriously disorganizing an indispensable system of transportation.”

      • 1920 — David White, chief geologist of USGS, estimates total oil remaining in the US at 6.7 billion barrels. “In making this estimate, which included both proved reserves and resources still remaining to be discovered, White conceded that it might well be in error by as much as 25 percent.” (Pratt, p. 125. Emphasis added).

      • 1925 — US Commerce Dept. says that while U.S. oil production doubled between 1914 and 1921, it did not kept pace with fuel demand as the number of cars increased.

      • 1928 — US analyst Ludwell Denny in his book “We Fight for Oil” noted the domestic oil shortage and says international diplomacy had failed to secure any reliable foreign sources of oil for the United States. Fear of oil shortages would become the most important factor in international relations, even so great as to force the U.S. into war with Great Britain to secure access to oil in the Persian Gulf region, Denny said.

      • 1926 — Federal Oil Conservation Board estimates 4.5 billion barrels remain.

      • 1930 — Some 25 million American cars are on the road, up from 3 million in 1918.

      • 1932 — Federal Oil Conservation Board estimates 10 billion barrels of oil remain.

      • 1944 — Petroleum Administrator for War estimates 20 billion barrels of oil remain.

      • 1950 — American Petroleum Institute says world oil reserves are at 100 billion barrels. (See Jean Laherre, Forecast of oil and gas supply)

      • 1956 — M.King Hubbard predicts peak in US oil production by 1970.

      • 1966 – 1977 — 19 billion barrels added to US reserves, most of which was from fields discovered before 1966. (As M.A. Adelman notes: “These fields were no gift of nature. They were a growth of knowledge, paid for by heavy investment.”)

      • 1973 — Oil price spike; supply restrictions due to Middle Eastern politics.

      • 1978 — Petroleos de Venezuela announces estimated unconventional oil reserve figure for Orinoco heavy oil belt at between three and four trillion barrels. (More recent public estimates are in the one trillion range).

      • 1979 — Oil price spike; supply restrictions due to Middle Eastern politics.

      • 1980 — Remaining proven oil reserves put at 648 billion barrels

      • 1993 — Remaining proven oil reserves put at 999 billion barrels

      • 2000 — Remaining proven oil reserves put at 1016 billion barrels.

      • 2005 — Oil price spike; supply restrictions and heavy new demand

      • 2008 — Oil price spike; supply restrictions and heavy new demand, global economies collapse when oil reaches over $140 USD/bbl.

      Oil reserves have declined from 95 million barrels in 1882, to well over a trillion barrels in 2011. We will probably run out in a few centuries at the rate we are consuming the oil. A simple solution for high efficient vehicles is already available – as soon as someone figures out how to install air conditioning and all wheel drive on a motorcycle…. No, it is not an error in numbers or statement – just a little sarcasm.

  12. JRStern says:

    OMG, they’ve already adjusted their 2020 data! LOL
    You do realize that even their *adjusted* data in no way supports their claims that CO2 is causing catastrophic warming, the Co2 increases have been huge and even the adjusted, bogus data does not reflect it in any scary way.
    At this point I just assume any and all “global warming” data has been manipulated, and manipulated by ignorant fools, whatever their titles or backgrounds.

  13. Alan J. Perrick says:

    Asian countries for Asians.

    Black countries for Blacks.

    but White countries for everybody?

    That’s genocide.

    Anti-racist is a codeword for Anti-White

    • RW says:

      How is this even remotely relevant to this site, let alone this post? I smell a false flag plant.

    • Stephen Marsden says:

      Yes, actually when you ponder on this, really think about it.. This totally matches with the Globalist NWO UN’s Agenda 2020, 2030, 2050. Look at the Saudi plans for 2020 they are simply following the Globalist mandates of total control while trying to whore for assets, diversification in a hurry now for reserves to ensure they are part of the cabal/faction aka mafia gang/family fight for who will be on top in this horrible dystopian plan of UN, CFR, etc to enslave or remove vast populations. This IS all in their plans. The fake fraud despot Saudi “royal” family are a false construct by Crown Corporation & Globalists. Given false history/genealogy so Globalists could let them enslave & play in their sand pit while allowing Rothschilds, their UN the DeepState Globalists traitors to all their nations to control oil, energy, water. The truth is the Saudi Royal family are really the very SAME as those ruling Zionist Globalists, as they are DONMEH. It is clearly stated in Globalist plans that they NEED to destroy USA, National States, society, morals, traditions, identity, to create their slave base. That they need to level and bring down 1st world nations to 3rd world levels and create financial collapses, other and any destruction/disasters to force them to go further into debt/ownership to the EVIL cabals.

  14. aeroguy48 says:

    I’m glad Drudge linked this.

  15. matt says:

    it is not statistically possible to adjust the data in one direction for error or uncertainty due to the reasons mentioned above. The adjustment is made to make the temperature history match the models, rather than what normal scientists would do, change the models to match the data.

  16. I could use some cooling.

    • tom says:

      hia im in the mid-atlantic,we need warming,rite now we getting a windy snow storm,its only 90 days till summer,i want my tan

  17. Michael Smith says:

    Of course there is global warming and global cooling. We are currently recovering from the last Ice Age. What do you expect? All tempertures to always remain the same? How would there be any ice ages? Do you deny them too?

    This is a very complex issue that many very simple people claim to have all the answers to. Like AlGore, what a hypocrite. So called “Green House gasses” were much higher well before man’s industrial reviolution. People really need to look at the orbit of the Earth, and the changes in the axial tilt thereof. Otherwise, they are simply ignorant people esposing ignorant dribble.

    • Robertv says:

      Wrong. We are in an Ice Age. It is time people understand that simple fact.

      Earth’s ‘normal’ is much warmer.

      • The msm/ illuminati will NEVER acknowledge this fact.
        We are in the beginning of an ice age and algore says we are going to fry, in a hundred years or so…

        • JonA says:

          No, technically we are in an Ice Age – polar ice caps are
          present. To be precise we are in an interstadial period.

      • Portense Valerine says:

        BOTH ARE Correct. Since there are MANY factors that effect things on this planet. yes were are entering a solar minimum FACT. YES cycles of where earth is in it’s cycle of Axial tilt and location in respect to other bodies that move constantly create major changes in magnetic and other forces. Those effect movement of plates, gravity, all sort of things. We are living on a systems that is ALIVE and always changing. As well as it is a part of a MAJOR mass cyclical some short, some VERY long patterns in the many greater other entities/bodies that themselves have their own living cycles and change. Life is not constant. These lies for profit and movement towards enslavement control, Globalist NWO is simply using the most ludicrous fallacies and lies to promote them. Through our defective dumbed down intentionally indoctrination educational systems, complicit controlled indoctrination/programing/manipulation of media etc we are constantly bombarded, intelligence insulted, and each generation vast sectors of population simply act like ignorant slave sheep and then become the pawns of the evil slavemasters to destroy attack those of morals, values, critical thinking, differences that see through it. As well the inherent natural repulsion to our freedoms and liberties we are born with being assaulted and removed in a oppressive slave dynamic. These most basic, vital wonderful human function/qualities are what should be valued, admired, protected and others who lack it to strive for. Only those that are truly FREE, are free to speak their minds, ideas, discoveries, TRUTHS that protect, advance and save themselves and others. You will know your oppressors when to speak against them and their agenda is outlawed, repressed, punished, censored, silenced. When there can’t even be HONEST discussion about our REAL history, let alone the present. Understand that time is now. All it takes for Evil to manifest and destroy is for good men to do nothing. It is time for all good men and women to get in touch with their very nature of truth and to FIGHT, DEMAND, ENSURE their freedom, liberty and all TRUTHS. THAT is the only way to live and the only way to correct things and only way to get justice.

  18. John Boatwright says:

    Al Gore and cronies stood to profit by $15 trillion dollars for basically doing nothing but waiting for the oil and gas to run out over the next 50 years. That’s about 20 years of profit, then people realize they’ve been had, as Al Gore and others make off with nearly the USA national debt of profit for doing basically nothing. Trees love CO2, they EAT IT, the carbon becomes part of the tree itself as they grow, and the Oxygen is released for us to breathe. The earth has has 20 times higher CO2 in the past, and the earth didn’t die off then either, in fact we’re at a relative minimum for CO2 over earth’s history. In a single day, they’ve recorded temperature swings of over 100 degs F in the past, and CO2 did NOTHING to stop that. Typical is 30 deg F, go look at weather data for your area, it’s obvious CO2 isn’t doing anything. Because if your local temperature isn’t being held constant by CO2…. then how is the global being held constant… when it plainly isn’t. Duh….

  19. Aranhas says:

    I’m 77. When I left home to join the military in 1960 my dad gave me some advice that I thought was garbage back then, but turned out to save me money, friends, and a bit of happiness. One of the best was, “When the government build a bandwagon and invites you to climb on, run the other way. It will go over a cliff.” I knew global warming was a farce when the government built that wagon. When they started firing people or not hiring them if they disputed global warming, I knew it was a lie. They are promoting this gimmick to take control. The government is incapable of running anything. If they’re behind it, it is a lost cause. I taught my kids the same thing.

    • John Boatwright says:

      At the peak of it, they were saying anyone not hyping the global warming adgenda was against science and didn’t research facts. Then when facts were presented from scientists, they said those disputing them, should be imprisoned. Right there, you can see is a fraud, they claim they’re right, but you show facts and data, they want you in prison… that’s like the Nazi’s.

      • Robertv says:

        More like Communism

        The nazi’s made a big mistake invading Russia. The general population would have fought on their side against communism if they would not have treated them as ‘untermensch’. They welcomed the german soldiers as liberators from the communist oppression.

    • Mark says:

      Well said and an endangered truism.

    • Cliff Leachman says:

      I love it, sad but true , for the most part.

  20. SantaFeSteve says:

    It is very difficult to get a large number of people to participate in a conspiracy so I say this post is BS.

    People retire from NOAA all the time and would love to write a good book and sell a lot of copies.

    Temperature records are in the public domain so it is really hard to tamper with them and not get pushback.

    • tonyheller says:

      I’m guessing that SantaFeSteve also believes there is a massive big oil conspiracy funding climate deniers, and that Russia controls US elections.

    • Ron says:

      Same as religions then?

      • Bob says:

        Wrong blog. Hater go home!

      • NormB says:

        No. Nobody – except muslims – is using the power and force of government to push a fraudulent belief system on anyone under the threat of being fired, banished, ostracized or killed for being a disbeliever. “Kill global warming deniers” IS a thing among the leftist cognoscenti in universities these days.

    • AndyG55 says:

      “really hard to tamper with them and not get pushback.”

      There IS Pushback from anyone that knows about this FRAUD, (and isn’t in the AGW trough)

    • Former95B says:

      Nobody said it was a conspiracy except you. What does that tell us about you?
      So what do you make of the data, Spanky? Unable to analyze it? Just unwilling?
      Maybe a complete lack of integrity like your alarmist heroes?
      Hell, you’re standing on your head ass deep in it yourself. Your particular case is all you can do is barf back idiotic parrot points.

      If you’re past junior high school (questionable at this point) try reading “The Emperors New Clothes”, “The True Believer” by Erich Fromm, or Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds” Charles Mackay, first published in 1841.
      My million dollar bet: you haven’t the integrity or the intelligence; you’re just a troll.

      • vbn says:

        You are an idiot of immense proportions – go back to his post and have someone with more than two brain cells read it to you. You have the exact same perspective – you just are too reactionary to apply a little bit of comprehension to what his words are actually saying. He never said it was a conspiracy – he’s knocking those that do so feel free to add your own expert analysis of the data since you failed miserably on the editorial to his point… ‘thinking are hard’ eh sporto?

    • Robertv says:

      If they wait until retirement they would have to admit they were part of the conspiracy. We know how whistleblowers are dealt with. That is what you don’t want when you’re 70 or older because it doesn’t only affect you. Would you be so brave ?

    • Florida Prophet says:

      It’s called Bias Confirmation. I suspect you are quite a good soldier in that army.

    • ralph goldwing says:

      All you have to do is go to either of the two, most vulnerable, serial “Choke-points” / “Necks-of-the-Funnels” where data (really noise) is collected and “tweak” it “hot-off-the-press” “hot-off-the-strategically-positioned” collector. Dig? All subsequent “accredited and blessed” and “mass-quoted-data” any conclusions derived there-of (the crux) is now NOT based on original, naive, unprocessed “event-data” (but YOU nor I would ever know it). This (in fact, includes all post gore/obama weather data) is a great illustration of “fact-data” that may or may not even being related to actual “event-data”. This e- should be appended to every other reply to any zombie-moron defending “global-liberal” anything. Enough. Have a nice, cool day.

    • Russell Cherokee says:

      If agreeing with your claim for temperature records, would you value my little research project? While a small sample, I pick 20 east coast NOAA ocean buoys and the historic water temperature. So, while using your public domain records, the conclusion is the gulf stream is NOT getting warmer. I have done similar numbers for weather stations located in world wide areas where NOAA claims to be “record setting warm” and get mostly the same results.

      I suggest you try the method that you yourself ascribe too. It’s impossible to do the laser/satellite Indian ocean data prior to you know when.

    • RW says:


      Tony is using the ‘public records’ (USGHCN and GHCN) .

      Conspiracy? How about plain old fashioned corruption? The green industry is 100’s of billions of dollars globally. You’d have to be severely naive to believe its dependents would not strive to keep it going, and with it their paychecks.

      Senate Steve lives in a fantasy world where all humans are perfectly altruistic.

    • steve says:

      NOAA posted a press release a few years ago ANNOUNCING there were going to “adjust” the data. It has since been taken down and they rarely acknowledge they are doing it anymore.

      That allows them to constantly claim “Warmest year ever!!!!!!” even though we still have ice caps when we have had many years when the arctic caps virtually disappeared

  21. Beto 14 says:

    When it’s too hot, global warming did it. When it’s unusually cold, global warming caused that also. So, based on these scientific facts, I should be able to make ice cubes in my oven.
    And if I may add, if there’s “consensus”, no real scientific data is necessary. Wight!!

    • JonA says:

      Not quite. ‘Global Warming’ was changed to ‘Climate Change’ to
      allow the term to more readily encompass the swings of weather
      we experience.

    • steve says:

      I saw a youtube of a self-described ‘climate scientist’ saying that the increase in the ice at the South Pole was also due to … yes, you guessed it “Global Warming”.
      So ….
      If the polar caps shrink … Global Warming!!!
      If the polar caps increase … Global Warming!!!

  22. George Kitts says:

    I’m shocked, SHOCKED!!! (not)

  23. Bob aborn says:

    I used to believe and follow NOAA/NWS until I noticed [scientific observation] that they’ve succumbed to political influence (read: $$$ and have become political hacks)!
    Shame that a well intentioned [Government/Taxpayer supported] agency has turned from helpful resource into a political-hack, self-serving, grant-money organization (my observations and opinion!).

  24. jerry bouchet says:

    So what’s new it’s the same ol same ol if liberals don’t like facts no problem just make up some fiction.

  25. Bing says:

    There used to be a standard on how and where you mount the weather station, or instruments. The global warming people started mounting the weather stations on concrete and in some cases metal roof and such that the temperature increases like crazy. Then they point at it and say, hey the data says global warming. When you asking how things are done, they don’t respond at all or starting calling names.

  26. Bing says:

    I used to know a researcher at UCI who studied crystal growth using some kind of refracting technology that they planed to use to identify viruses in seconds. The implications were enormous for healthcare. His team was making headway but couldn’t compete with the global warming crowd because they sucked all the available grants dry. When I walked down the hall at the school, every lab had “global warming” crap tacked to its title. From the guy who studied alligators to optical researchers, everyone of them tacked on “global warming” of some sort. It was total fraud. But if you didn’t study global warming, you wouldn’t get any grant. So this guy simply quit because he refused to lie and cheat for grant money, whoring himself out to global warming non-sense. The cost of global warming bullshit is real science research. This global warming hoax has horrible consequences to advances in health and science to our whole world.

  27. Lasse says:

    Wonder if they have any help from my facebookfriends?
    The fake news stories are getting embarrassing for all of us.
    Or should I right all of US?

  28. GwBush says:

    Al Gore is so lucky he lost.

  29. the blame-e says:

    Isn’t this the same chart Al Gore uses to claim the existence of “flying rivers” and “rain bombs?”

    • Former95B says:

      Yeah; the same Al Gore who carried 161 counties where the vote tallies were higher than the number of registered voters and and in many cases, more than the number of people over eighteen.

      See also: SD One Term Senator Tim Johnson who won with an extra 12K such votes from the SD Indian Reservations

  30. Mark says:

    Considering that there are millions of thermometers in the world, and most local news channels give weather reports and highs and lows in temperatures every single day…. there are readings after readings after readings made public all over the world from numerous sources, so “tampering with temperatures” seems ridiculous as it is so easily refuted. Not everyone uses NOAA as their source of information, it is widely available from other sources. Too easily disproven, what’s the point?

  31. Marc Cavallero says:

    I think the most incredible part of that data set is the r^2 of the adjustments to temperature is almost 100. If someone can explain why that fits the narrative that the adjustments are sound science, it would change my mind. I am really open to believing the global warming scientists, I just find it hard when I haven’t heard a good explanation for why there adjustments so perfectly explain the warm up.

    • JonA says:

      Indeed – it’s something I’m curious about too. It’s almost as
      if the raw temperatures are being adjusted with a generated
      temperature field from a climate model. I think McIntyre in
      the past has been broadly sceptical of homogenization methods;
      in fact, I dimly recall an official report suggesting that climate
      scientists might be better served consulting actual statisticians.
      All stats should be independently verified as the persons conducting
      the experiments are not sufficiently disinterested in the data

      • Latitude says:

        Jon, there were a few threads on WUWT where this was discussed.
        They run a algorithm that adjusts past temps every time a new set of temps is entered..based on how many stations are reporting, closest stations to the ones not reporting, any stations reporting whacked out numbers, etc…the end result is obvious…past temps are adjusted down
        What’s less obvious is the fact that no matter what temp they report today…it will never be right…because sometime in the future it will be adjusted

  32. Teacat says:

    Kennedy was WATERSKIING when the skies opened up with a maelstrom. I wonder what magical elixir fueled his ski boat while he entertained his family that day? I suppose that man made activity contributed only sweetness and light to the environment and atmosphere.

  33. Al D says:

    The Weather Channel and some other science programs are still pushing the global warming BS. I found lots of information here:

    I also enjoyed all these crazy predictions:

  34. Chuck Hellebuyck says:

    “1,218 United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) stations fail to report their data, “. – Why? Isn’t that part of their job? What are they doing then? Can’t that data be collected and the charts corrected using actual data?
    Seems like the reporter only went half way with the story. Real story is why is 50% not submitted.

  35. jimclose says:

    The myth of global warming is nothing more than an elaborate scheme to drain massive amounts of money from taxpayers and dump it into the accounts of grifters like AL Gore.
    In the next few years as the period of solar inactivity takes hold and the high temp in the middle of July in Dallas TX is 35 degrees, the global warming crowd will have changed its scam into Global Cooling.

  36. Teddy Novak says:

    Global warming (aka climate change) is the religion of the stupid.
    Sheep, lemmings, and Leftists are easily manipulated.

  37. NotAGolfer says:

    Thank you, Steven Goddard, for continuing to beat this drum and expose this fraud!

  38. r spreeman says:

    NOAA has been putting temperature sensors in absolutely inappropriate locations to help boost their temp readings. Mounted beside a new asphalt parking lot, or inside a small box with a heat-producing light bulb, or near the exhaust of a window air conditioner.

  39. wade says:

    Our scientific community has been corrupted. Of that there is no doubt.

  40. Red says:

    to Former95B
    My copy of True Believer was by Eric Hofer (sp?)

  41. Peatown Paul says:

    Most people participate in conspiracies unknowingly/unwillingly. As long as the data they see that supports their presupposition of their “fact/conclusion” then they are happy to continue soldiering on. Hell, I’ve done it before. With the advent of spreadsheets/graphing software, you just keep hammering the data until you get the graph you expect (want) then you convince yourself that you just got the “eureka” moment. Most of us are easily deluded.

  42. NormB says:

    Global warming, snowball warning.

    Here it is the second day of Spring and we’re expecting 5 to 8 inches of the stuff.

    While deep-state operatives (i.e. – globalist trolls) in NOAA are lying to us. Well, no different from the rest of them at the other government alphabet agencies.

    Now where did I put those snow shovels?

  43. Kenny Houston says:

    I notice a trend that is not represented on the graph.
    Can we plot Govt funded studies on Man-Made Global
    warming. I would like to see a plot of those who were funded to provide
    proof of warming as opposed to those who werent.

    Its a money grab plain and simple. I would lose my job
    and never work again if I were found to hav “adjusted” data.

  44. Kelly says:

    Who funds your “research,” Tony Heller?

  45. Bobster0 says:

    This link is to a great article about group-think and how the Global Warming crowd is part of it.

  46. David B says:

    Could someone explain to me why 50% of stations aren’t reporting? I understand that, if they are manipulating numbers, they may get on a treadmill of needing an increasing number of data points to manipulate. However someone surely must have asked NOAA why they aren’t collecting 50% of station data and I would be interested what their answer was. Especially in an era when remote monitoring is “off the shelf”.

  47. Kevin says:

    I propose a citizen science / crowdsourcing project to correct the NOAA corrections. See for info. We could start a few statistical models that

    1. Remove estimates
    2. Keep estimates and identify problem locations and eliminate
    3. Remove estimates and problem locations

    I would like to see where the data leads us. Post if interested in participating.

  48. David S says:

    Isn’t there some way to compel NOAA officials to answer for this in a court or in congress?

  49. Odyss says:

    Only NOAA employs PhDs to read thermometers. My child can do it for much cheaper and will give NOAA more accurate readings than the PhDs.

  50. Bobster0 says:

    David B says: “Could someone explain to me why 50% of stations aren’t reporting?…”

    I don’t know why they aren’t reporting. I did find this site though:

    Doesn’t look like 50% are down but that may not mean the same as aren’t reporting.

    • Mother Nature says:

      A station near me they are no longer using in data or even weather reports. What it has shown consistently is that it is getting colder. As well it is easy to see and track sun rise and set points on horizon and times. As well as what parts of the property are and are not getting sun or enough sun. Things that have effected plant growth and even need to change where food gardens have been planted that now had to be moved. Many factors play into this. It is very well known were are heading into a small ice age and solar minimum. While at the same time other celestial movements of of our plants and solar systems interactions with other bodies/forces creates other effects, and tie that in with the axial issues and changes. Many factors but all a living system in which we have to try to live and survive with. Yes climate change, Global warming is all lies and a total false control construct in long run and short run a greed based major massive scale money machine. That money gives all these liars and evil bastards even more power to use against us. That is bad. That is why it must be exposed quickly for our very survival and freedom. Our right to exist and be free. Nature plants love, need and must have CO2. Everything is carbon based. We would die if those plants don’t get enough CO2 to create and give us oxygen. What I see many of the useful idiots who spread all this bullcrap is that they seem to equate CO2 which is VITAL or we all DIE with CARBON-MONOXIDE as if we were all trapped in a garage with a running vehicle and will shortly be asphyxiated and dead. Literally THIS is the crux of the slight of hand all the TARDS on lower levels believe. Yet it is the very opposite of the truth. Since our plants love when we “talk” to them breath our exhaled CO2 and they then thrive and give us more oxygen. The living planted the plant life all feeds us or we die. That plant live MUST have CO2. Nothing in that has changed. When mass sectors of the populations are so pathetic, dependent, useless and unable to even care for themselves in the most basic manner in the very basic requirements for life, AIR, WATER, Food, Shelter, and don’t even understand the basics of their own life-form function need care or understanding we have some major issues. This dumbing down, forced total dependency is all part of the control enslavement construct being used totally on us now. Look at how pathetic and worthless most people are when electricity goes out for very short time. They don’t know how to get water, or be creative, conserve and use resources at all. Let alone understand how and what to feed their own living body. THAT is a SLAVE…. SNAP out of it! These people harm us all and are the useful idiots / front line foot soldiers/ traitors/ the willing conspirators / working with the enemy in the very large concentration camps the evil slave owners have us in. They have been given enough places to find truth, they have been given benefit of the doubt long enough. It is time to right them off and understand and admit they are belligerents and enemy combatants against our collective battle for freedom and truth. Fight Fight Fight +++

  51. Bobster0 says:

    Now that I look at it those are National Weather Radar outages I think. So….nevermind. :)

  52. scottybob says:

    The loonies of fake science also tamper with other weather records, but they all tie back to the AGW cause.

    Remember a few years ago when the AGW alarmists at NOAA changed the damage scale of tornadoes that used the Fujita Scale (F scale) and they changed it to the Enhanced Fujita Scale (EF scale)? I am sure this was done so that tornado damage could be bumped up by a factor. For example, an F3 tornado now becomes an EF4 tornado. Simply let a few years pass and they will combine the F2’s with the EF2’s and so on. Now they can say that tornado severity is increasing due to AGW/climate change.

    Another interesting note is that The Weather Channel (TWC) has chosen to call one of their programs “Weather Underground”. TWC could have chosen any name they wished, but they chose the name of Bill Ayer’s radical left-wing terror organization. Just food for thought…

  53. Mickturn says:

    Regardless of the games by the Climate Scammers, it’s all a fraud to get money to study a ‘nothingburger problem’. Cut them off, take their property to repay their fraud, PUT THEM ALL IN PRISON!

    Next issue…

  54. Fred Rodgers says:

    I love this. So, let me make sure I have this correct.

    Climate scientists, who are being paid to find bad climate data, don’t find any real data, so they make up data to support their hypothesis.

    What does everyone expect? Them to come out and say “hey, what do ya know, looks like there isn’t any climate change!!”

    They are then, out of work. Never trust anyone who has an agenda that is what keeps them employed.


  55. P wal says:

    NOAA and others want us to ignore the big picture and pretends that the last 100 years tells us everything we need to know (and then “normalize” the data to fit their models -confirmation bias anyone? ) We know of the medieval warming periods, Siberian bogs that used to be lush and marshy, we know about the maunder minimum. And the dark ages. This planet is billions of years old and goes through cycles “man” has yet to acknowledge. What has happened in the last 100 years is a “microcycle” within a much larger broader series of cycles that go up and down. We are truly an arrogant species if we believe that our version of “a long time” i.e. 100 years, is anything more than a blip in time for this planet and is actually reflective of any type of lasting trend.

  56. Mark says:

    The main question I have is what is the supposed reasoning for adjusting DOWN the temperatures in the remote past? Is there a reasonable scientific basis to support that? Otherwise it’s just rife for total fraud, which it certianly appears to be, unless there is a REALLY good reason.

  57. Bill Long says:

    I believe a big thank you goes to comrade grand mufti hussein obama and the fascist democRAT-Communist party for their incentivizing and for their encouragement in this matter.

    • Robertv says:

      You still think politicians have any power? They are just useful progressive idiots in both parties . The real power is in the hands of the fake money supplier using it to divide and conquer.

  58. D3F1ANT says:

    Whenever there’s ANY news on Global Warming “science” it’s always a report about the scammers getting busted for cooking the books! LMAO! And yet the Chicken Littles on the Left just keep eating it up!

  59. John says:

    What is a global temperature anyway? One number to represent the temperature of the globe on a single day? It is a bunch of nonsense and means nothing. If instead of being an eclectic collection of readings from whoever has one but a number that represents the average of readings that collected from a grid of fixed size and taken at the exact moment in time then maybe it could represent something the enthalpy of the planet. But the way they measure and normalize the data makes it useless. Doesn’t hot air mass in Dallas move to DC in a couple days? Is that double counting a Dallas high two days later?

    • Gator says:

      The best analogy I have seen is that a global average temperature is about as useful as a global average phone number

  60. George says:

    Hey, AlGore, here’s your escape. Now’s the time to board the Blame-Train and blame NOAA for giving you misleading data. Wouldn’t matter, though, you’re still a buffoon.

  61. CO2isLife says:

    Ground Measurements Don’t Implicate CO2; Climate Scientists are Using the Wrong Data Sets for Their Models
    Ignoring the fact that the system for measuring ground temperatures is a complete and utter joke, there is a far better way to address the conclusions reached using the climate models. All ground measurements are located near the ground, that is why they are called ground measurements. Most, if not all the alarmist climate science … Continue reading

  62. This blog post is very informative and well written. I was shocked to learn that estimate of the heat increment is so closely correlated with increment of CO2. This is improper estimation.

    • Latitude says:

      According to global warming theory….both temperature and sea level rise should be accelerating rapidly….obviously a flat line linear trend is not
      ..that fact alone throws global warming theory out the window

      forget the tropical hot spot that had to be there…and is not

  63. Tin Can Sailor says:

    The only question in my mind is, why aren’t these liars being fired?

  64. Scott Summers says:

    Jesus is God!!

  65. Bob says:

    I always think of Al Gore, as the modern day snake oil salesman, with the covered
    wagon. Also he reminds me of Mr. Haney on the old Green Acres TV Show.
    Follow the $$ ! About $250 million of it is in Al’s covered wagon.

  66. Reuben Handel says:

    The whole thing is silly.
    I made a graph claiming this year the average temp of the earth was 0.01 degrees warmer than last year.
    Give me grant money!

  67. Greg Warneford says:

    Just after the Inquisition forced him to recant the heliocentric theory, Galileo muttered “Eppur si muove” (“And yet, it moves”). The meaning of the statement is clear; the Inquisition could force one man to deny the truth, but it couldn’t actually change the truth. Nature’s truths are always available for someone—anyone—to see. Man caused global warming is a religion based on faith not science. You must have faith in the “science based” man created Global Climate Models that were designed to validate the hypothesis that man is causing global warming through the burning of fossil fuels. If the models predict something at odds with the hypothesis government grant money is quickly cut off for that line of research. The Anthropogenic Global Warming religion has that as its dogma. Ignore the truth e.g. recent empirical data showing global cooling that does not fit the dogma… Send in the inquisition lock them up they blasphemed they dared to deny the faith. “Eppur si muove”

  68. David Appell says:

    “Thorough, not thoroughly fabricated: The truth about global temperature data: How thermometer and satellite data is adjusted and why it *must* be done,” Scott K Johnson, Ars Technica 1/21/16.

    “Understanding Adjustments to Temperature Data,” BEST

    “Understanding Time of Observation Bias,” Zeke Hausfather, 2/22/15.

  69. RC says:

    If only the Anasazi would have paid their carbon taxes, they could still be living large in Mesa Verde.

  70. Al says:

    Unfortunately millennials hear about “violent weather“ beginning in first grade. Because of the egocentric nature of kids these days (and liberals all of the time), they think normal weather variations are “special“, just like they think everything they do is the most important thing ever. They Don’t have the perspective to notice the historical lull in hurricane activity over the past five years, so when activity returns to normal they think it abnormal.

    To summarize, the problem is ignorance.

  71. San Jose Mike says:

    OK… I think I now understand it:

    Global cooling is caused by global warming which has been caused by humans since the industrial revolution.

    Thanks NOAA for explaining this to us.

    Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)

  72. Jason says:

    You young pups need to Google the “Dust Bowl”. The hottest driest decade in US history. Temps in the DC Area hitting triple digits during the Summer. Mid-West turned into a “dust bowl”. Most of the US continental highs were set during the 1930s.

  73. Marie Donno says:

    The left has infiltrated and manipulated the DOJ, the FBI, and the IRS. Do you think it is a stretch to infiltrate and manipulate a bunch of naive scientist?

  74. The Dude says:

    Long ago in the medieval period, the Catholic church and the Pope were really successful at convincing everyone that they were going to suffer eternal damnation in the depths of hell if they committed certain sins, like adultery for example. However, lets say you were a wealthy lord and you really practiced a lot of adultery, but felt guilty about it and really did not want to go to hell? No problem, pay the Catholic church and the Pope an “indulgence” and the Pope would work it out with God and make sure you did not go to hell.

    Al Gore makes Bernie Madoff look like bumbling amateur. Al Gore is more on par with what the Vatican had going for them several hundred years ago. Carbon Credits are “indulgences” that guilty wealthy people like Leonardo DiCaprio pay so that they do not “go to hell” for having a 200 ft. yacht, two private jets, a 20,000 sq. ft. mansion, and 20 cars, all because he is gullible enough to believe in the faith based religion of Anthropogenic Global Climate Change.

    Now that the EPA has got on board with this racket, the government is going to start extracting money out of the wallets of non church members also. This seems to be O.K. with most sheeple, because they have been convinced that this racket is “science” and not simply a sect of a pagan earth worshiping religion.

    Al Gore found out a way to exploit simple minded wealthy people and make himself filthy rich. Not a big deal I suppose.

    The federal government found out a way to completely bypass that pesky 1st amendment in our Constitution by adopting Anthropogenic Global Climate Change as the official state religion. THIS IS A MAJORLY BIG DEAL

  75. paperpushermj says:

    What a box Believers have put themselves in…Temps MUST always go up to support Man Caused Global Warming… That all falls apart when the news comes out that last year was the Second hottest year on Record…

  76. Rick says:

    We are so fortunate to live in an inter-glacial period. Could you imagine what would happen if the temperature dropped a few degrees like it’s done many times in the past? Starvation on a scale we’ve never seen.

  77. Richard Clark says:

    I’m gonna go out on a limb here and dip my toes into this controversy. Mixed metaphors aside, I have followed this issue since about the time the “hockey stick” controversy popped up. I’m not a climate scientist, nor have I personally delved to deeply beyond reading a few articles. I do have a technical background and worked in a profession which required skills in gathering and analyzing data, forming conclusions, and documenting those conclusions in formal reports. I have a few questions I’ve never seen addressed in these reports.
    1. Most of the charts I have seen start around 1900. Has any study addressed the possibility that the apparent warming trend depicted in these charts may be an artifact of the evolution of the data collection, measuring and evaluation process. Could it be that the data collected by modern digital equipment which are probably measuring to the nearest fraction of a degree, plus presumably more sophisticated data analysis methodology since around the late 20th century compared with the less precise measuring devices (nearest degree) & collection and analysis methods of the early 20th century? It seems to me that when error bands are put around the presumably less precise data, they would consume the measurement range of the data collected in modern times to the point of making it look like noise. How can this data be pooled and trend lines be drawn when the magnitude of the question at hand approaches the magnitude of the measurement error of a significant portion of the data.
    2. This question is an extension of the logic of Question 1. With respect to times before the 20th Century. How can indirect derivation of temperatures in ancient times derived by analysis of ice core samples and tree ring data be pooled and compared with modern data collection and analysis methods. The error band alone in the derived temperatures should be huge compared to the magnitude temperature trends being predicted.

    • Robertv says:

      It has NEVER been about climate. Climate is just 1 of the MANY tools they use to enslave you in a way you accept it voluntary.

    • Golddigger says:

      Any reader of the bible should know that places on the southern shore of the Mediterranean back 2000 years ago were vibrant, verdant lands that are now covered by sand–climate change is shown by the book you love.

      • AndyG55 says:

        The changes happened then because it got COLD.

        The period called the LIA north Africa into desert.

        There are some indications that plants etc may be starting to claw some of that back, but more CO2 and a wetter climate in the region is needed.

  78. Heaterman says:

    This pretty much tells you everything you need to know about anthropogenic warming/climate change

  79. Osamas Pajamas says:


    “If an age is imbued with an error, some always derive advantage from the error, while the rest have to suffer from it.”
    — Max Stirner

    The sky is falling! The sky is falling! Women and orphans hardest hit!

    The planet has been “cooling” for at least the past 18 years, or so — the recent cook-the-books massage job by NOAA notwithstanding. And the so-called “experts” have never “once” demonstrated, recorded, or proven human causation for “any” global warming — it’s all been projections based on computer models subject to bad historical data, divergent / incompatible or inconsistent instrumentation, exaggeration and the-sky-is-falling alarmism, and manipulation-for-profit — for taxpayer-paid government grants, carbon-credits schemes, and studies required by environmentalist wacko government regulations. Climate change occurs — this is “old news” — and human action has never been proven the cause of climate change.

    The anthropogenic [“man-made”] global warming religion has proven very profitable for those who own the religion and who drag around by the rings in their noses the useful idiots, airheads, and drooling, googley-eyed, bobble-headed sycophants who have an intense itch to be followers, “a part of a cause bigger than themselves” — who project an arrogant condescension onto ignorant, unbrainwashed dissidents.

    Contemplate Gaseous Al Gore — that lying sack of nevermind and doomsday cult Chairman Of The Apocalypse — who sold his failed global-warming alarmist TV station to Al Jazeera — a propaganda arm of some murderous oil dictatorship, somewhere out there in Kaboomistan.

    Now, didn’t Al Gore buy a 6,500 square-foot, $9 million, very-high carbon-footprint mansion in Montecito — “only” 480 feet above sea level where it is sure to be inundated by the HUGELY TOWERING WAVES of polar ice cap melt celebrated in scare-em-silly fictional environmentalist quack movies — if his bullfeathers theory of man-made global warming actually proves true to reality? And this is in addition to his 10,000 square-foot mansion in Tennessee, another huge carbon footprint! And hasn’t OhBummer already bought the ocean-front Magnum-PI property in Hawaii? His bloody “rising seas” ought to swamp and drown him — else he is a lying hypocrite.

    I have no problem with people becoming fabulously rich in the capitalist system, but the stink of hypocrisy of Gaseous Al Gore — that lying fascist skunk — is annoying. He must be laughing up his sleeve at all the idiots who have enriched him through his scam, his hoax, his fraudulent religion — man-made global warming.

    So desperate now are the profiteers of his nutty religion that they are resorting once again to Hollyweird for scary big-screen movies and TV shows to carry their lunatic propaganda.

    They turn scientific method on its head, demanding that skeptics prove “that there is not” any man-made global warming, but no one is obliged to prove any such thing — for the same reason that we are not obliged to prove that the moon “is not” made of green cheese.

    It tells me something useful about opposing the former OhBummer dictatorship when my reference to the moon and the green cheese was hijacked for an OhBummer speech. Possibly his speech was written by Biden The Magnificent, that lobotomized serial plagiarist who served as OhBummer’s principal criminal accessory.

    The ecofreaks and enviromaniacs? Destroy them. Let’s just focus on ensuring clean air and clean water.


    Replace asterisks with periods, below. ~:<)









  80. Osamas Pajamas says:


    “The Law” [Frederic Bastiat]

    “More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws” [John R Lott Jr]

    “LYING AS A WAY OF LIFE: Corruption and Collectivism Come of Age in America” [Alexandra York]

    “Secret Empires” [Peter Schweizer]

    “No Compromise with the Evil of Slavery” [William Lloyd Garrison]

    “The Intimidation Game: How The Left Is Silencing Free Speech” [Kimberley Strassel]

    “The Ominous Parallels: The End Of Freedom In America” [Leonard Peikoff]

    “The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left” [Dinesh D’Souza]

    “All Out War: The Plot to Destroy Trump” [Edward Klein]

    “Narrative of The Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave” [Frederick Douglass]

    “The Housing Boom and Bust” [Thomas Sowell]

    “Killing The Deep State: The Fight to Save President Trump” [Jerome Corsi]

    “The Fountainhead” [Ayn Rand]

    “Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal” [Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden].

    ~:<) ~:<) ~:<) ~:<) ~:<) ~:<) ~:<) ~:<) ~:<)

  81. Golddigger says:

    So a worldwide conspiracy must be involved here. I just checked the Australian Bureau of Meteorology and found that they show a similar chenge in temperatures over the 20th century and early 21st.

    Or just maybe the world is getting warmer as indicated by flowering dates of say cherry trees in Washington DC (home of all great conspiracies) or grape harvests in Italy, or insect pupations in England–all occurring earlier by weeks or months than they occurred in the middle to late 20th century.

    To paraphrase Bob Dylan, “you don’t need a thermometer to know it’s getting hotter”.

    • tonyheller says:

      Climate alarmists can’t discuss data, so they blabber mindlessly about black helicopters.

    • AndyG55 says:

      You want the Little Ice Age?

      You think that is what the global temperature SHOULD be?????

      Then move to Siberia.

      But I bet you won’t.

      You will stay in your nice warm , fossil-fuel heated basement in your mindless inner-city ghetto, like all pseudo greenies and AGW stall-warts do-do.

      HYPOCRISY — thy name is AGW apologist !!

    • AndyG55 says:

      And yes, BOM has been MANIC in their UNWARRANTED adjustments..

      …. and guess which way 97% of those adjustments go ;-)

      The number of Australian stations “homogenised” from cooling trend in the raw to warming trends for BOM fabrications, is quite ridiculous.

  82. josetoyou says:

    NOAA has been cooking the climate books for years!

  83. Noodle says:

    Site conditions, instrumentation, whatever, change over time.

    Sounds plausible.

    But WHY are ALL of the changes in ONE direction.

    NO site changes that made old data need to be adjusted up, or new data down?

    That is not correcting for changing conditions, that is altering data to create the curve you want to see.

    They decided that temperatures “must” be rising, (based on no evidence) and alter the data to fit.

    I want to see Glo-Bull Warming, the data from this station doesn’t show that, so the data must be “wrong” so we”adjust” it to fit.

    One example is the weather station at Washington National Airport. The temperature sensor was found to be defective, and produced erroneously warm readings for a couple of years. They refused to adjust that one.

  84. David M. says:


    Congratulations:-)!! You really hit the jackpot with this post.

    The remarks vary between the seriously substantive & the hilariously substantive. Informative & entertaining reading:-)

    Damn glad you have the IQ needed to identify what part of your observation struck a nerve. I REALLY look forward to MORE interplay between you & your followers.

    Many thanks for informing minds & stimulating thought!!

  85. Nk says:

    Good to know that the NOAA was able to manage temperatures decades before they were formed in 1970.

    In seriousness, what kind of pseudo-science BS is this?

  86. R E Jennings says:

    Global warming science, in an algoreithmic society residing at +/- ambient vestal samplings, shows weather-born absolutes. Decades of materials, some of which were overlooked in the 1406 issue of Mad Magazine, and the 1604 issue of Inside Amy Shumer, show with not a scintilla of prefunctory cronyism, absolute zer0 is an absolute. That, of course, is if randomless skewing of shish kabobs is unfactored, and taking into account alarmists of the Edison Corporation’s home alarm branch findings.
    At 32 degrees F, water will freeze in spite of the temperature unless of course the temperature given is 0 degrees C. In that case water will likely freeze regardless.
    Further discourse of my findings are available in any of my unpublished publishings.
    As a note I hold no degrees in water vapor from eons of study in Clownology Science.

  87. Scott Koontz says:

    There has been much discussion of temperature adjustment of late in both climate blogs and in the media, but not much background on what specific adjustments are being made, why they are being made, and what effects they have. Adjustments have a big effect on temperature trends in the U.S., and a modest effect on global land trends. The large contribution of adjustments to century-scale U.S. temperature trends lends itself to an unfortunate narrative that “government bureaucrats are cooking the books”.

    Judith Curry, explaining why the science should be done by scientists and not science aliterates like “Heller.”

    • Gator says:

      Right! Only the priests are allowed to interpret the holy scripture. That worked out great for everyone in the Middle Ages.

      What is the UHI adjustment Scott? And why do all adjustments end up cooling the past and warming the present?

    • AndyG55 says:

      “aliterates” WTH ?????

      Poor scott. Pull your donkey hoof out of your mindless gob , jackass. !

  88. steve says:

    Anyone concerned about carbon dioxide emissions should immediately cease producing it

  89. Randy says:

    “Missing data is marked in the USHCN database with an “E” – meaning ‘estimated.'”

    Incorrect. Missing data is indicated by -9999, as stated by NOAA. An E means the processed data is an estimate. I analyzed both data sets you presented. There are no E entries in the raw data, but there are quite a number of -9999 entries, for which the data is truly missing.

    “In 1970, about 10% of the data was missing…”

    No. After processing, about 10% of the processed data was estimated. Some estimates were because the data was missing (-9999) and other estimates arose because the stations’ data had localized anomalies. Estimates are made by binomial filtering of valid data from nearby stations.

    “…meaning that almost half of the current adjusted data is fake.”

    Very dramatic, but completely wrong and misleading. Less than 100 if 1218 stations have more post-2000 data estimated than pre-2000, even after scaling for the longer time span. Furthermore, it is not “fake” data, it is estimated using valid statistical analysis when (a) an error or (b) truly missing data is found.

    “…they introduce nearly 2.5 degrees of fake warming since 1895.”

    And you introduce fake statistics. If a field is marked -9999 (missing data) and replaced with a reasonable estimate from surrounding locations, there is no way for you to determine how much “change” was introduced. There is no original data to which the estimates can be compared.

    Pseudo-science on either side of this debate does a great disservice to the public, who in general is not going to download your data and analyze it to see if you’re telling the truth. Quit trying to make a buck or a name for yourself by mishandling the data.

    We know oceans are rising, Greenland is melting, the north pole seas are navigable more than ever before, the Maldives are being inundated… and pseudo-scientists spend their time blaming the US or other studies. All that matters is finding a way to deal with a warming trend that is quite worrisome, but almost certainly just part of the overall ice age cycle. It’s stunning that you state so causally that NOAA is producing invalid data as part of a political agenda in a world where countries cross-correlate their findings from thousands of sources on land, sea and air. Are you next going to tell us all the world’s mean sea level measurements from all countries are being “faked” in a grand conspiracy?

  90. Randy says:

    I see. You claim to be a citizen-scientist yet feel free to cry “moron” rather than refute the assertions with data. This is fact: if a recorded value is missing (-9999), no one can claim an estimated value is high, low or anything relative to missing data. Your conclusion is groundless.

    • AndyG55 says:


      The data is FABRICATED. You have admitted as much yourself.

      GET OVER IT !!!

      And there is EVERY reason and one heck of a lot of that they are fabricated in such a ways as to increase the claim to CO2 base “gullible warming”

  91. Ian Macdonald says:

    Thought that came into my mind on seeing this is of the old Hawkwind album, In Search of Space. Specifically, the tracks Adjust Me and You Shouldn’t Do That. ;)

    The anomalous thing about this, is that the median of all adjustments ought to be downwards to compensate for the urban heat island effect. There cannot, after all, be many stations where urban effects have reduced. Yet, it is upwards. Why?

    It would be interesting to see of other world regions’ data have been similarly adjusted. In fact, finding out could be seen as a high priority. The discovery that it has, could have policy implications running into multiple trillions of dollars worldwide.

  92. Ian Macdonald says:

    Thinking a bit more about this, there are substantial gaps in the raw data. In the adjusted files, not only have these gaps been estimated but even date ranges when the station didn’t exist(!) have been estimated too. The latter seems like incredibly bad science, but there may nevertheless be justification for interpolating any missing months in a given year.

    The problem I see with leaving the missing months blank, as in the raw data, is that you’d need to ensure that the gaps have an equal occurrence across hot and cold months. it wouldn’t take too many missing Decembers with no missing Junes, for example, to create a substantial drop in the average reported temperature. Or, the reverse.

    Interpolating the missing data is not ideal, but it does avoid having the average skewed by unevenly distributed blanks, and maybe this is why they do so.

    -Any thoughts on how best to handle this?

    I guess it wouldn’t be too difficult to do an analysis of whether there is any skew in the missing data. A skew towards cold months being missing seems distinctly possible owing to difficulties of visiting the stations.

  93. Byron Trackwell says:

    Politics behind IPCC/COP21 want immediate action threatening more weather scare tactics to scare the world into acting in a hurry to save our planet. If we mathematically do this in a hurry, that alone shows how ridiculous the AGW scare is, besides the fact that NOAA are politically fudging their data. See Attached jpg file.

  94. Nick Austin says:

    Hello all… I am looking at the data downloaded from NOAA… can someone please assist me in understanding the data format?

    Here are the first 8 lines from the file…

    USHxxxxxxx is probably the station identifier, correct? Next is the year. Next are 12 columns with 4 digits which should represent temperature, but I don’t recognize the units.

    Some have a curious value… -9999, which means?
    Others have data BETWEEN the columns, 3 or S3 is common.
    Next, some data points have a SUFFIX, like I, e, a, g, b, etc. What do these suffixes mean? Tony says “e” means “estimated”. What do the others mean?

    Thanks for your assistance!

    USH00011084 1891 -9999 -9999 -9999 -9999 -9999 -9999 -9999 -9999 -9999 -9999 -9999 1089 3
    USH00011084 1892 647 3 1406 3 1381 3 2017 3 2058 3 2573 3 2592 3 2745 3 2445 3 2233 3 1336 3 -9999
    USH00011084 1893 659 3 1359 3 1323 3 1936 3 2195 3 2658 3 2748 3 2656 3 2486 3 1800 3 1306 3 1286 3
    USH00011084 1894 1275 3 1084 3 1620 3 1914 3 2200 3 2436 S3 -9999 -9999 -9999 1873 3 1275 3 1181 3
    USH00011084 1895 825 3 589 3 1392 3 1767 3 2164 3 2606 3 2736 3 2720 3 2589 3 1628 3 -9999 -9999
    USH00011084 1896 867 3 1072 3 1264 3 -9999 2478 3 2595 3 2678 3 2747 3 2356 3 1806 3 1431 3 753 3
    USH00011084 1897 734 3 1292 3 1972 3 1786 3 2084 3 2761 3 2753 3 2547 3 2406 3 1878 3 -9999 -9999
    USH00011084 1900 -9999 -9999 1337a 3 1936 3 2378 3 2589 3 2770 3 2872 3 2700 3 2320 3 1486 3 1100 3
    USH00011084 1926 -9999 1245 1251a 1781 2240 2654 2712 2763c 2770 2110 1256a 1421
    USH00011084 1927 1209 1821 1651 2183 2467 2707 2730 2594a 2579 2081 1907 871f 3
    USH00011084 1928 800b 1135 1614 1711 2218 2596 2829 2817 -9999 -9999 -9999 -9999
    USH00011084 1930 916 1294 1241 1762e 2295 2543 2818 2651 2470 -9999 1316a -9999
    USH00011084 1931 750 943 990 1535 1966 2458 2642 2471 2480 1910 1562 1466
    USH00011084 1932 1208 1508 1094 1705 2002 2585I 1 2875 2767 2480 1724 1070 1281
    USH00011084 1933 1237 1102 1383 1841 2533 2566 2670f 2695 2651 1979 1392a 1452
    USH00011084 1934 1101a 970 1422 1989 2300 2721 2792 2741 2428 2048 1501 1035e
    USH00011084 1935 -9999 1110 1801 1976 2409 2571 2759 2781 2411 2035 1442 646
    USH00011084 1936 981a 1019 1581 1824a 2268 2706 2698 2654a 2615 2056 1267 983

  95. Eric Green says:

    I have really enjoyed your videos which layout clearly with not just data but news clippings as proof the data is real or not real you are presenting. I have been able to reproduce the statistics you show using NOAA temperature data for individual stations in California, finding the number of days above 90F and so on to show exactly what you present. But also see the TMin data is also rising in recent decades. Because we have more plant growth from extra rain and maybe CO2. Your rule of thumb, that the late 30’s is a major high point for temperature and hot days to quickly validate my NOAA data, is extremely useful. I won’t use a data set not showing the 30’s as I need to validate.
    In short, your videos clearly lays out how anyone can See for themselves what’s going on, considering the experts that are supposed to be doing this are not doing their jobs and instead are trapped in a political agenda.

  96. John says:

    Thank you for publishing this information.

    I am shocked that these organisations are manipulating historical temperature records in such an opaque manner, and in a manner that supports their political narrative.

    If there is good reason to adjust the data then tell us what you did, and why you did it.

  97. like this says:

    It’s nearly impossible to find educated people on this subject, however, you seem like you know what you’re talking about!

  98. Mike West says:

    Any website or article that calls themselves “The Real… etc.” is usually the farthest from “getting real” about science (which requires measurements and adherence to the laws of physics) from my experience while researching scientific information on the internet.

  99. Very interesting information and thanks for sharing. I came across your post when I was searching for something else. Can’t wait to go home and check it out more closely. I’ll share your work with my colleagues.

Leave a Reply

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