NASA : Doubling Global Warming By Altering The Data

NASA has more than doubled 1870-2000 global warming, by simply altering and hiding data. Eighteen years ago they showed 0,5C warming prior to the year 2000. Now they show more than 1C warming prior to the year 2000.

NASA Source Data

Data tampering by NASA is at the core of Mann’s “nature trick” hockey stick.

 NASA Source Data    Spreadsheet

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

93 Responses to NASA : Doubling Global Warming By Altering The Data

  1. TA says:

    NASA bastardizes the temperature record right before our eyes.

    Thanks for all you do, Tony. You have exposed these people for the frauds they are.

  2. AndyG55 says:

    Latest CORRECT graph of NH temperature since 1900 ish

  3. AndyG55 says:

    One for the USA as well.. seems to match pretty well to Tony’s US graphs.

    • Andy DC says:

      After being lied to so obviously and so often, how could anyone with a mental age over 5 years old ever believe another word they say?

  4. garyh845 says:

    Before Lamar Smith (House Science Technology Committee) retires, can’t we have a hearing focused on this one area? My contact there retired last year, and it was something which was being discussed at the time.

    • tonyheller says:

      I’ve talked about it with his staff several times. They always act interested and then never do anything.

      • garyh845 says:

        My experience exactly. Contact was James D. – I’d expect you knew that.

      • Scott Koontz says:

        Be sure to mention that unadjusted data shows far more warming, as all real scientists know. Cherry picking is a sure sign of political motive.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Poor scottie.. perennially IGNORANT

          Those are “adjustments” on top of adjustments

          Their soulless aim was to flatten out the “inconvenient” peak around 1940.

          You really are a GULLIBLE, zero-own-thought, type of parrot, aren’t you, scottie

  5. David Jay says:

    Forever green: “At the rate that they are cooling the past, pretty soon our ancestors will freeze to death”

  6. GoFigure says:

    It’s tantamount to NASA asking us to believe them rather than our own LYING eyes .

    • Tom Anderson says:

      Right. That was in a Marx Brothers movie. Chico says, “What you gonna believe what you see or what I tell you?”

  7. Tom Anderson says:

    Recently I mailed copies of graphs showing temperature record falsification from this and similar web pages, along with their provenance, to the U.S. Attorney General’s office, House and Senate science committees, and offices of solicitor generals of the pertinent government agencies, recommending investigation, and prosecution if warranted, of the agency heads responsible for manipulating the data. It is a federal crime under 18 U.S. Code Sec. 2071. It is a strict liability crime; no proof of intent or excuses applies. Two recipients of the letter have responded about essentially tabling the matter. At least they responded.

    I urge everyone reading these pages to take a look at that criminal code section, to join in telling the government that this arrogance is a crime that calls for criminal investigation, and punishment if necessary.

    • Kris Johanson says:

      § 2071. Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally
      (a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals,
      removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or
      attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes
      and carries away any record, proceeding, map,
      book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or
      deposited with any clerk or officer of any court
      of the United States, or in any public office, or
      with any judicial or public officer of the United
      States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned
      not more than three years, or both.

      • Kris Johanson says:

        (b) Whoever, having the custody of any such
        record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper,
        or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals,
        removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies,
        or destroys the same, shall be fined under this
        title or imprisoned not more than three years,
        or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified
        from holding any office under the
        United States.

  8. Reasonable Skeptic says:

    Why can’t people simply point to this graph and have NASA explain why the data is different.

    They have to explain why the scientists from before 2000 were so stupid that they couldn’t calculate global temps within the error ranges they claimed.

  9. Gerald Machnee says:

    Griff has a secret explanation.

  10. Joe says:

    They faked their Moon and Mars landings too. Likely even Venus. What else can you expect from these money laundering smoke and mirrors frauds?

    • tonyheller says:

      Apparently they faked your thought process too.

      • Scott Koontz says:

        This site offers mostly science deniers. Not sure what to expect from a Heller blog, but I thought there would be at least one person responding who knew science 101.

        Congratulations on attracting so many people who would fail a simple high school science quiz.

        I hope you sleep well knowing that you are part of Heartland, the “cigarettes are good for you, and we’re serious” people.

        • tonyheller says:

          What an incredibly stupid content free comment.

          • Scott Koontz says:

            “What an incredibly stupid content free comment.” That’s what we come to expect from someone like you. Did you even read your own blog post? Incredibly stupid doesn’t even begin to describe your mangled science.

            I can’t stop laughing at the Google search results I get when I enter your name.

            Way to go, Tony. You’re even the laughing stock of other non-scientists like Watts. I could beat you in a debate, and I’m not a climate scientist. Your list of crazy climate “facts” are amazing.

            I tried informing some of your followers below, included links, and they seem to be sold on your snake oil. Good luck.

          • AndyG55 says:

            “I could beat you in a debate,”

            You wouldn’t last one second, even with your mindless brain-hosed arrogant yapping.

            You have ZERO facts and ZERO proof of anything.

            You are a scientific NON-ENTITY, Koon !!

            And yes, you have made it patently clear you know very little about climate science….. only what you have been brain-washed with in an Al Gore climate propaganda 1 week course.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Tell what PROVABLE science we deny, Koon?

          Prove, with empirical science that enhanced atmospheric CO2 does anything other than enhance plant growth.

          Do you even know what empirical science is ???????

      • Scott Koontz says:

        Insults are what “Tony Heller” has to offer. But I admit it’s red meat for the less intelligent. Do you read the comments from your followers? Absolutely no way they ever took a science class.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Poor koon, zero-science, just mindless brain-hosed AGW yabber.

          You wouldn’t even know what science was, you nil-educated trollette.

          Just copy paste an erroneous propaganda link… that’ll do the trick !!

          Still waiting for empirical proof that CO2 causes any warming.

          The very basis of AGW cultism. and you remain EMPTY.

          Such a sad brain-hose Koon.

  11. Scott Koontz says:

    If only we could get a few skeptic scientists, funded by some skeptic organizations, to gather all raw data and create their own math models, we could put this to rest. Maybe use the Watts ultra-best stations and see what happens.

    But since we all know that BEST results are exactly the same as what all other organizations found, why all the crying?

    The problem is that no matter how many times the “skeptics” are shown that there is nothing nefarious going on with the graphs, they still get a few nutters to say people need to lose their jobs over proper adjustments. People are no in jail because proper adjustments are what scientists do. Maybe you’d want to ask Curry about this.

    There’s a simple explanation as to why ocean temps are never included on these sites: adjustments are primarily up for older records, and greatly lessen the warming curve. It simply does not fit the skeptic narrative and so you see US or northern hemisphere land only comparisons, and even then you overlay adjustments that may not start or end on the same years and do not offer the explanation from the source.

    Where are your ocean comparisons?

    • Gator says:

      Funny how little you know about BEST. But then you are not skeptical, only gullible.

      • Scott Koontz says:

        I know a lot about BEST. What is it you are missing? I’m here to help, even though you offered no science and only insults.

        Need a link?

        • Gator says:

          BEST suffers from the same issues as all other surface stations, and is no BETTER than the rest.

          91% of surface station show a 1-5C warm bias…

          http://www.surfacestations.org/

          But, the Japan Meteorological Office’s (originally) 55-year “reanalysis” data shows no such warming, and does not suffer from surface and grantology issues…

          there’s no white box to get dirty, and the launch sites are largely in the same place. They aren’t subject to hokey homogenizations. And the reanalysis data has no gaps, using the laws of physics and a high-resolution numerical weather prediction model that generates physically realistic Arctic temperatures, rather than the statistical machinations used in the land-based histories that inflate warming over the Arctic Ocean.

          https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11/23/besting-the-best-surface-temperature-record/

          • Scott Koontz says:

            “91% of surface station show a 1-5C warm bias…”

            I see. So you don’t want adjustments, then learn that adjustments lessen the rate because of ocean temps, but then pretend that a reading is the same thing as a trend.

            Are there any readers of this site who understand how these things are done? You use satellite data as your proof, which happens to be, by far, the most adjusted and readjusted and monkeyed-with, then adjusted again reading we have because they don’t measure heat directly. They are very prone to drift.

          • Scott Koontz says:

            And specifically, in response to your Watts Grade-A super-duper stations:

            Do you know what trend you get when you use ONLY those Watts approved stations? Do they show more warming? Less warming? Same warming trend?

            Take your time, because this one is going to cause you to reconsider your assumptions about how the math and trends work, and maybe keep you from linking to what you feel in your heart shows a warming bias.

          • Gator says:

            Scott, I was a climatology student right after the ice age scare, and right before the great global warming swindle. I have a Remote Sensing degree, and have followed every study for the past 40 years. Where are the 5C downward adjustments?

            Enough insults from the peanut gallery Scott.

    • AndyG55 says:

      Reality.

      Slightly cooler now than in the 1930s, 40,

      And a LOT cooler than the first 9000 year of the current interglacial.

    • AndyG55 says:

      Best drag up all the ugliest data they can find then adjust the crap INTO it !!

      They can “create” just about any fake temperature trend they want.

      But is all total fantasy BS. !!

  12. Scott Koontz says:

    If you don’t know where the adjustments are, then you haven’t even started to read Curry. People pretending to know this subject have never had to perform proper science adjustments.

    The consensus on this site seems to be “We don’t like adjustments, and here’s two over-layed graphs (both of which have been adjusted, of course) that oddly are for land only and have different endpoints.”

    But then when you point out the obvious, that without adjustments the global average would show a steeper warming trend, they resort to some other Gish Gallop like Watts’ take on station quality, forgetting that you get the same warming graph when you use them because… proper adjustments.

    When all your links are to Watts and anything related to Heartland, don’t you think it’s time to give it up?

    • Gator says:

      Scott, numerous studies have shown that skeptics actually understand the science better than the faithful. That is exactly why we are skeptical, because we know how the sausage is made.

      I was a climatology student right after the ice age scare, and right before the great global warming swindle. I have a Remote Sensing degree, and have followed every study for the past 40 years. Where are the 5C downward adjustments Scott?

      Enough insults from the peanut gallery Scott.

      • Scott Koontz says:

        “Where are the 5C downward adjustments Scott?”

        How can a response not be considered an insult from you? Would it hurt your feelings if I asked you to look up how the math works?

        Hint: doesn’t;t matter what the temps are, just what the changes are.

        And why are you ignoring the facts that I posted? Did you know that if you used only the stations that are reporting low that you get the very same graph? Based on your avoidance of this fact, I think you already knew.

        And since you don’t trust skeptics paid by skeptics using Watts’ best stations, then what about sea level rise? What about migration trends? What about blooms? Permafrost thaw?

        We’re warming, and to avoid actual science and claim you know more simply because you call yourself a skeptic is absurd.

        • Gator says:

          What part of natural variability do you not understand?

          Let’s cut to the chase Scott.

          1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

          2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

          There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

          • Scott Koontz says:

            Gish Gallop. And you can look up forcings like other people can, so why are you asking me such a simple question that even a middle school student can Google? CO2 is the primary forcing, and it’s fingerprint is all over the place.

            Q: Why is the stratosphere cooling?

            You spent all your time avoiding my facts, and I answered yours. Enough evasion of facts from the peanut gallery, Gator.

          • Gator says:

            Scott, you guys always want to avoid the hard questions, but this is climate change 101. Let’s try again…

            1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

            2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

          • AndyG55 says:

            “CO2 is the primary forcing, and it’s fingerprint is all over the place. ”

            WHERE?

            Show us when enhanced atmospheric CO2 has been empirically shown to cause warming, anywhere.

            It is a NON-science. A MYTH !!

          • AndyG55 says:

            “Q: Why is the stratosphere cooling?”

            roflmao.

            scottie falls for one of the most cynical memes of the AGW cult.

            NATURAL surface warming , out of the COLD ANOMALY of the LIA and as part of the NATURAL AMO cycle and drop in cloud cover since the late 1970’s, will push the tropopause up slightly, thus making measurements at a set height appear colder.

            And brain-hosed clowns like you fall for it.

          • AndyG55 says:

            “CO2 is the primary forcing,”

            Utter and complete anti-science BS. !!

          • RAH says:

            You can list the KNOWN forcings but it is obvious that all are not known. But you didn’t know that basic fact did you?
            There are not only unknowns but almost certainly unknown unknowns.
            Ranking the known ones is also problematic because so many of them vary in amplitude constantly due to the ever changing conditions and the complex and not well understood relationships between them.

            BTW the claim from the beginning was that CO2 would alter the forcings causing an endless chain of positive feed backs and NOT that CO2 all by it’s lonesome would cause run away warming because that’s physically impossible. And you obviously didn’t know that either.

            Now this truck driver has to head out and drive all night to Harrisonburg, VA. Nice drive and at least I’m heading away from the heavy weather forecast to come in here in Indiana.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “And why are you ignoring the facts that I posted?”

          You haven’t posted any facts,

          … just empty mind-hosed garbage non-science parrot-like rhetoric.

          I suspect that is all you have.

          • Scott Koontz says:

            Using Watts’ best stations and getting the same results as using all stations is a fact.

            You post nothing but hand-waving and insults.

          • Scott Koontz says:

            “And brain-hosed clowns like you fall for it.”

            I thought his was a science forum. Where do you children come from? And none of you respond to the facts, but do offer childish insults.

            Care to try again? Why is the stratosphere cooling? Why is the earth warming when solar irradiance is low? What happens if you use Watts’ best quality stations?

          • AndyG55 says:

            Natural warming, from the sun.

            You do know the 1970s was the COLDEST period since the slight rise out of the LIA, don’t you.???

            You seem to be a FACT-FREE zone

          • AndyG55 says:

            “Why is the earth warming when solar irradiance is low?”

            Hasn’t warmed since 2001, except for the 2015 El Nino release of energy from the oceans.

            Do try to keep up with FACTS, and try to get a basic comprehension of physics for the energy stored in the oceans, put there mostly by the sun, (but possibly with some volcanic activity added)

            Still waiting for these “facts” (ie scientifically provable), gullible little scottie.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “You spent all your time avoiding my facts”

          What facts.. you haven’t posted any scientifically provable facts. !

          Totally EMPTY.

          • Scott Koontz says:

            I see you don’t know what fingerprints are.

            Did you forget to respond to the facts? All you guys seem to have are Gish Gallops.

          • AndyG55 says:

            ROFLMAO

            ZERO-science then , scottie. !

            You haven’t posted any facts, just brain-hose gibberish.

            Fingerprints of natural variations of the climate.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Let’s have a list of your CO2 warming “fingerprints”, then scottie.

            This will be HILARIOUS. !!

            Every fallacy of the AGW-cult-meme. !!

    • AndyG55 says:

      Remain wilfully BRAIN-HOSED, little scottie.. !!

      It is noted you don’t link to anything.

      All you have is your own mindless yabbering.

      • Scott Koontz says:

        Why are you calling me scottie? Are you 6?

        Why did you not respond to any of the facts? You can’t even post a link.

        Try to remain civil.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Try to stop regurgitating mindless brain-washed mantra.

          • Gator says:

            Andy, you are asking the impossible from Scott. He thinks he can fingerprint man made CO2 warming without first…

            Listing all climate forcings, ordering them from most to least effectual, and then quantifying them all. Scott does not understand that natural variability has never been refuted.

          • Scott Koontz says:

            Did you find a list of forcings like my 10-yr-old daughter just did?

            Not too hard. I can give you a link to Google if you want.

          • Scott Koontz says:

            So you and Gator can’t find a list of forcings. HILARIOUS!!

            Continued fallacy of the denier-cult-meme. !!

          • AndyG55 says:

            Poor scottie can’t even list the “forcings”

            Squirming like an eel, and using his 10 year old daugter as a crutch.. so sad !!

            So PATHETIC !!

            So FACT-FREE. !!

          • AndyG55 says:

            oh look the mindless parrot just learnt some new words, and regurgitates them on demand.

            polly wanna cracka?

          • Gator says:

            Wow, now Little Scotty has his daughter drinking the Koolaid. How does a child have a child?

            Nobody can list all forcings, idiot.

  13. Scott Koontz says:

    For the Google impaired, here is a list of radiative forcing components.

    http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/radiative-climate-forcing

    • AndyG55 says:

      roflmao.

      That has been shown to be a load of codswallop ages ago.

      No H2O, seriously ?

      No solar.. roflmao..

      And from a RABID AGW site to boot. !!

      The list is a JOKE, aimed at the GULLIBLE non-scientist “believer”

      I repeat.

      Show us empirical evidence of CO2 warming anything, anywhere, anytime

      Or remain an empty sack of parrot regurgitations.

      • Scott Koontz says:

        Solar is there. ROFLMAO OMFG LOL LOL OMG OMFG.

        H2O is a feedback. LOL LOL OMFG LOL ROFLMAO OMG!

        The charts come from NASA, a “RABID AGW site to boot.” LOL LOL LOL OMG!

        You seem to lack base science skills.

        • AndyG55 says:

          WRONG on every count

          NASA most definitely is a rabid AGW site..

          Only thing you got correct. !!

          Poor Gullible little ZERO-SCIENCE scottie. !!

      • Scott Koontz says:

        I think you can just admit defeat right here. you asked for a list, I have you a list and now you reply that NASA can’t be trusted.

        And yet, you don’t trust skeptic scientists working for the Koch brothers. Who do you trust? Electrical engineers?

        • AndyG55 says:

          Poor scottie, now trying to pull the Consensus meme.

          PATHETIC

          You are acting more any more like a MINDLESS AGW TROLL every post.

    • Gator says:

      Isn’t it cute when these little know-it-alls believe we can…

      List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

      And

      Come up with even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

      The ignorance is deep and wide in Scottland.

  14. Scott Koontz says:

    This isn’t a site for skeptics, but one for complete deniers. There’s a difference, and I hope that someday some of you get to take a science class to begin to understand why you’re been duped by Heartland.

    • AndyG55 says:

      Poor EMPTY, FACT-FREE scottie.

      Do you need a tissue. ???

      Nothing to do with Heartland.

      ALL TO DO WITH SCIENCE..

      Tell them to turn off the AGW brain-hose, little parrot. !!

      • Scott Koontz says:

        I posted links, you have posted nothing so far. Is there a reason?

      • Scott Koontz says:

        Is there a reason you write like a child?

        • AndyG55 says:

          “Is there a reason you write like a child?”

          Trying to get down to your level.

          Maybe you understand “goo” and “gaa”

          Let me guess, from your manic brain-hosed gullibility…

          … failed junior high , being an unemployable desk troll is all you have in your life.

      • AndyG55 says:

        Still waiting for the empirical evidence of CO2 warming, scottie.

        Live the fairy-tale, little mind.

        Forget about any actual REAL science. It doesn’t belong in your meme.

  15. Scott Koontz says:

    I think Heller should make rounds and speak at high schools. The schools get to pick one good science student to debate him, and see how long Goddard lasts before he has to admit that his ideas about temperature and ice (have you seen those writings?) are nothing short of looney.

    You know you’re batting 000 when Watts kicks you out as a guest blogger. And what’s with the birther thing? I think if you distrust the science coming from scientists you may as well distrust the government when they told Heller that Hawaii really was part of the US in 1961.

    If you think NASA, NOAA and all major science organizations in the world are in on a conspiracy, and that people with no degree (Watts) a literature degree (Monckton) and an engineer (Heller/Goddard) know better because they write a blog, then you really do deserve ridicule.

    • Gator says:

      Still nothing? Care to try and kick the football again Charlie Brown?

      List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

      2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

      Come on tiger, you can do it this LOL

      • Scott Koontz says:

        Already did. Need a magnifying glass?

        re you a skeptic or a denier? Skeptics post links and read other’s links. Deniers post the same childish taints, don’t read links, and refuse to post links of their own.

        Come on tiger. You can do this. LOL LOL OMG LOL LOL and an assortment of other childish acronyms.

        Still think NASA and NOAA are right-wing sites? I’m beginning to wonder if you’re a Russian troll.

        See if you can get Heller-Goddard to debate a high school student!

        • Gator says:

          It’s really telling that you think you did. Sad.

          • Scott Koontz says:

            Links are hard. You have to click them before you can read the content.

            You can do it!

          • Gator says:

            Scott, I have seen your “link” before. It does not answer my query.

            Let’s try again.

            List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

            2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            Do you even have a clue what I am asking? Think hard!

    • AndyG55 says:

      ” Why is it AGW cultist ALWAYS come up with the word conspiracy.

      Inside knowledge, I guess. !!

      Nothing more than money for delivery of a set meme.

  16. Scott Koontz says:

    This is clearly a denier site. Heller/Heartland should be so proud that they duped the dumbest people.

    • Gator says:

      Scott, the only thing abundantly clear on this thread is that you have absolutely no clue as to what you are barking on about.

      Charlie Brown again?

      List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

      2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

      Keep burnishing your science denier credentials, if you must.

      • Scott Koontz says:

        Why are you still asking after I posted a like answering your easy question.

        Any prof would have failed you by now. Go away, denier.

      • Scott Koontz says:

        I see above that you could not even be bothered to read what was in the link.

        Read it, denier. Learn something.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Only an abject NIL-educated fool thinks that TSi is the only solar variable.

          The discounting of solar variables and ocean cycles as THE MAJOR DRIVERS of climate variability is one of the biggest fallacies and most egregious piece of scientific FARCE ever perpetrated by the AGW cultists.

        • Gator says:

          Scott, please do educate us alarmism deniers. Please, in your own words, explain how alarmists…

          List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

          2- Provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

          Your sausage link does not do this, so again, please explain how you know more about climate science than anyone else in the universe.

  17. DR says:

    Scott Koontz,
    You asked why the stratosphere is cooling. It isn’t. It hasn’t since 1994, and prior to that the “cooling” (step changes) that did take place were obviously a result of volcanic eruptions.

Leave a Reply

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