Fake Data – The Basis Of Climate Science

Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

– Michael Crichton

NASA has a scientific consensus web page showing how closely different agencies’ temperature graphs line up. If all the graphs agree, they must be accurate! What other possible explanation could there be?

Scientific Consensus | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Unfortunately, the current NASA graph doesn’t even agree with their earlier graphs.  Eighteen years ago, NASA showed 0.5C warming prior to the year 2000.  Now they show twice as much warming prior to 2000.

NASA accomplished this by hiding pre-1880 temperatures, progressively cooling older years, and progressively warming more recent years. They added 0.5C to the pre-2000 trend via good old fashioned data tampering.

Spreadsheet    Data

If we go back further to 1974, the National Center for Atmospheric Research showed almost 0.5C cooling from 1940 to 1970.  NASA has complete erased this.

1974      2018

At the time, there was unanimous consensus among scientists that Earth was cooling.

January 30, 1961 – NYTimes

The cooling was indisputable.

Lawrence Journal-World – Google News Archive Search

The US and Soviet Union were worried about “ominously thickening” Arctic ice, and a new ice age.

TimesMachine: July 18, 1970 – NYTimes.com

Glaciers were growing in Norway for the first time in 200 years.

18 Jul 1963 – Glaciers Grow In Norway

Icelandic ports were blocked with ice for the first time in a century.

March 2, 1975 – B-r-r-r-r: New Ice Age on way soon? | Chicago Tribune Archive

29 Jan 1974, 5 – The Guardian at Newspapers.com

Science News March 1, 1975

Forty two top American and European investigators wrote a letter to President Nixon warning of a new ice age.

NOAA Powerpoint  Slide 6

There is also strong historical evidence Earth was very warm prior to the 1960s. From the 1920s through the 1950s, the Arctic was having a meltdown.


2 Nov 1922, Page 1 – Great Bend Tribune at Newspapers.com

17 Dec 1939, Page 15 – Harrisburg Sunday Courier


The Changing Face of the Arctic; The Changing Face of the Arctic – The New York Times

In twelve years, the Arctic went from meltdown “ominously thickening” ice.

Unadjusted NASA shows Iceland very warm around 1940, and then sharply cooling into the late 1970s..

V2 Measured

But after adjustment, Iceland temperatures look very different.  The 1940’s warmth and subsequent cooling has been erased.

V2 Adjusted

Evidence is overwhelming that Earth cooled from 1940 into the 1970’s.  How did NASA erase it?


Let’s take a closer look at that.  Outside of the US, the Global Historical Climatology Network has very little historical daily temperature data.  Thermometers record temperatures one day at a time – and without daily temperature data, any claims made about global temperatures are meaningless. There is no such thing as a monthly thermometer.

station-counts-1891-1920-temp.png (825×638)



Forty years ago, climate scientists didn’t even attempt to claim they knew southern hemisphere temperatures, because there was so little data.

TimesMachine: January 5, 1978 – NYTimes.com

In 1989, NOAA’s top climate expert reported that most global warming occurred before 1919, and that earth cooled from 1921 to 1979.  The scientific consensus has completely erased this inconvenient truth.

07 Dec 1989, Page 14 – Santa Cruz Sentinel at Newspapers.com

Not only is there very little land data available, but there is also very little ocean data too. Climategate E-mails showed that they are simply making much of the data up. Until about fifteen years ago, NASA and NOAA didn’t even attempt to include pre-1950 ocean data in their graphs.


And even now, much of the data is fabricated.  Last month NOAA showed Saudi Arabia record hot, even though they had no thermometer readings there.

September-2018-Global-Temperature-Percentiles-Map.png (993×743)

Much of the land surface is gray, meaning “missing data.”

201809.gif (1052×743)

The only large area on the planet with good long-term temperature data is the US, and NOAA massively tampers with the data to turn cooling into warming.

Spreadsheet   Data

NOAA has accomplished this through a spectacular hockey stick of data tampering.

The adjustment being made correlates almost perfectly with atmospheric CO2. The ultimate example of junk science confirmation bias.

In 1989, NOAA reported that there was no trend in the US climate over the prior century.

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

In 1999, NASA’s James Hansen lamented that the US was not warming.

How can the absence of clear climate change in the United States be reconciled with continued reports of record global temperature?

NASA GISS: Science Briefs: Whither U.S. Climate?

So he simply changed his own data, to turn cooling into warming.

NASA 1999    NASA 2018

The frequency of hot afternoons has actually plummeted in the US over the past century.

Climate scientists took the best temperature data set in the world (the US temperature record) and corrupted it to match the generally worthless global temperature record. And sadly, one of the two satellite temperature data sets has become corrupted recently too. Three years ago, Carl Mears at Remote Sensing Systems was coming under tremendous pressure from the climate community to show some troposphere warming.

Note that after 1998, the observations are likely to be below the simulated values, indicating that the simulation as a whole are predicting too much warming.

Climate Analysis | Remote Sensing Systems

I predicted in 2015 that he would give in to the pressure and alter his data.

Look for the satellite data to be adjusted to bring it into compliance with the fully fraudulent surface temperatures. The Guardian is now working to discredit UAH, so it seems likely that RSS will soon be making big changes – to match the needs of the climate mafia. Bookmark this post.


Dr. Roy Spencer also predicted this :

“I expect there will soon be a revised TLT product from RSS which shows enhanced warming, too.

Here’s what I’m predicting:

1) neither John Christy nor I will be asked to review the paper

2) it will quickly sail through peer review (our UAH V6 paper is still not in print nearly 1 year after submission)

3) it will have many authors, including climate model people and the usual model pundits (e.g. Santer), which will supposedly lend legitimacy to the new data adjustments.

Let’s see how many of my 3 predictions come true.


And that is exactly what happened.  Mears altered his own data to make the models look slightly better. The large discrepancy became a small discrepancy.

there is a small discrepancy between the model predictions and the satellite observations

Remote Sensing Systems

The image below overlays Mears’ old graph on his new one. It is clear what he did – he  eliminated the blue error interval, and started using the high side of the interval as his temperature. Science by peer-pressure is not science.

In summary, the close agreement between the temperature sets is a result of collusion, group think, scientific corruption, thuggery and junk science. It has nothing to do with climate. There is no conceivable way that independent groups could have come up with the same graph.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

45 Responses to Fake Data – The Basis Of Climate Science

  1. steve case says:

    Since 1997 there should have been 252 editions of GISSTEMP’s Land Ocean Temperature index (LOTI) which would have been over 330,000 monthly entries and perhaps 20-30% of those have been changed comes to over 80,000 changes. Those changes add up and it looks like this:
    LOTI 1997 vs LOTI 2018
    Links to the data:
    LOTI 1997
    LOTI 2018

    It’s a matter of fact that data has been changed and forms an obvious pattern.
    It’s a matter of opinion as to the reasons and why it forms a pattern.

    I can accept that data needs to be reviewed and that well documented changes need to be done. I have difficulty in accepting the need to change 20-30% nearly every month.

    • Anon says:

      /It’s a matter of opinion as to the reasons and why it forms a pattern./

      Now it fits the climate models. It is easier to adjust a few datasets than have to go and reprogram 30 climate models, in terms of time and expense.

      Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions?
      Richard S. Lindzen, MIT

      This paper will deal with the origin of the cultural changes and with specific examples of the operation and interaction of these factors. In particular, we will show how political bodies act to control scientific institutions, how scientists adjust both data and even theory to accommodate politically correct positions, and how opposition to these positions is disposed of.


  2. Gator says:

    In summary, the close agreement between the temperature sets is a result of collusion, group think, scientific corruption, thuggery and junk science.

    That’s what lefties call a “consensus”. And that’s why we call lefties “fascists”.

  3. Disillusioned says:


    • Hivemind says:

      Don’t bookmark it – take a local copy. Originals can be disappeared – recently several websites were taken down by their hosting companies because they didn’t support the official narrative.

  4. frederik wisse says:

    Soviet style statistics ! Always forward and upward , only the message counts .
    No rocket-science here ,Tony . BTW who postulated : I have my facts …..and What difference does it make ?

  5. roaddog says:

    If we like your data, you can keep your data.

  6. GeologyJim says:

    The lies and adjustments to measured data have all been programmed into the temperature-history algorithms

    The departures (misleadingly described to give the appearance of “independence”) are more than likely just rounding errors

    Yes, this is “collusion” and just as dangerous/expensive as what the Russkies, Fusion GPS, FBI, DOJ, Obama, and the Hillary Kamp were fabricating

    Thank God Trump won!

    Now for another “Blue-Wave Smack-Down” on Tuesday!!

  7. spike55 says:

    In UAH satellite data, there is no warming in UAH land from 1980-1997

    Totally unrealistic warming from the GISS tribe of farcical LIES

  8. spike55 says:

    Also no warming from 2000-2015 in UAH Land

  9. spike55 says:

    And a bit OT, but in the last fortnight, according to NSIDC…

    … Arctic sea ice has had its fastest growth since 1988 at least.

  10. spike55 says:

    Notice on the data/fabrication gif animation

    Look at Australia.. several blue data rectangles.. just become pink

    Same with several other blue rectangles.

    I reckon they are wilfully colour-blind.

    Or just plain, flat-out LYING !!!

  11. DCA says:

    A comprehensive summary, Tony. Nice work.

    I am hopeful that no way will be found to adjust other kinds of data, such as northern hemisphere snow cover, which shows essentially no trend in the last 30 years.

  12. Basit says:

    Future climate predictions are not accurate but estimates. There is no doubt that Earth is warming. This article is just baseless.

    • tonyheller says:

      Religious cult member checks in

    • sunsettommy says:


      IPCC’s prediction/projection are not accurate, they are colossal failures. They are based on AGW climate models that have NEVER improved after 30 years, why continue to be dumb over it?

      Skeptics acknowledge it has been warming for over 200 years now, so why the do warmist/alarmists feel the need to lie continually about the data, why do they feel the need to change it continually as shown by Tony and Steve Case?

      Why do YOU ignore the main point of this post completely?

      You didn’t even try to support your claim that the blog post is baseless, I think that is because you another typical drive by warmist moron.

      I dare you to try convincing us this article is baseless, DARE you!

      You won’t because you have NOTHING, but bullcrap to offer.

      • Abdul Basit says:

        I am also knowledge seeker. Google scholar is full of research articles supporting climate change but not a single research article against it. We also witness climate induced natural disasters. No doubt there are political differences on the issue and different articles supporting different political views (supporting and rejecting climate change science).
        If you have any authentic data (only which can be referred in research) rejecting climate change and global warming, please share (cadetbasit@yahoo.co.uk) because only this one article can’t be relied upon.

        • David A says:

          Abdul – go to the NPICC – hundreds of peer reviewed publications; read the ” Oregon Petion” hundreds more.

          This site primarily deals with historical records and evidence refuting the current records of temperature – SLR and demonstrating no increase in extreme weather – fires and other NATURAL events not related to your SUV. ALSO this site demonstrates the historic bias of so called scientists making fake adjustments for political reasons.

        • Gator says:

          If you have any authentic data (only which can be referred in research) rejecting climate change and global warming, please share…

          Abby, that is a ridiculous and insulting request. Nobody denies climate change, half of which is warming. If you seek the truth, we would love to assist you, but I am guessing that you are not interested in truth.

        • spike55 says:

          “Google scholar is full of research articles supporting climate change “

          OK, then find a paper that empirically shows warming by atmospheric CO2

          We can wait. ;-)

        • Cannon Cocker says:

          Google scholar…is full of self-published, non-reviewed material. IOW totally worthless.

          To say it’s all “one way” should tell you something. it tells us you’re an amateur at best, and non scientific in the least.

    • Gator says:

      There is no doubt that Earth is warming.

      There is doubt that the Earth is warming, if you start your trend during the MWP or the RWP. The Earth has definitely cooled since the Eocene.

      Are you referring to the meaningless trend alarmists use that starts in 1979?

    • spike55 says:

      Look at the data just above, bozo.

      Only warming is from El Nino events, which are NOTHING to do with human anything

      Yes there has been some highly beneficial warming in the last 150 or so years, out of the COLDEST period in 10,0000 years ( the Little Ice Age)..

      If you want to live in those desperate cold time.. move to Siberia.

    • spike55 says:

      “There is no doubt that Earth is warming. ”

      Actually, it is currently probably around the same temperature as in the 1930s, 40s… +/- a fraction of a degree Celcius.

      No warming in around 90 years

    • DCA says:


      One has to be willing to go where the data takes you. Can you provide data to show warming that has NOT been “adjusted?”

    • Trent says:

      writing that there is “no doubt” about almost anything is not the hallmark of a scientific process.

      So let’s be scientific – restore your sovereignty over your own opinions. There are 2 theses :

      1. AWG hypothesis : current warming is mainly due to man especially CO2 emissions, and has happened in this magnitude & speed since 1875 only.

      2. Cycle hypothesis : Earth is warming and cooling along natural cycles. The global warming since 1875 is itself a larger cycle. Industries only contributes a tiny bit to the climate changes.

      I would say this article provides ample data evidence. Whatever your liking of its conclusion, you should not reject the data provided unless you have specific evidence that they are bogus.

      You can say different – draw your own conclusions. You can even choose to trust an international body of scientists. But please don’t call contradictory arguments ‘baseless’ unless you can demonstrate your claim.

  13. stpaulchuck says:

    I keep challenging warmist ravers to subtract the final temperatures from the raw temperatures and then explain why the “adjustments” slope upwards steeply in concert with the partial pressure of CO2.

    For some reason they never do that. Instead they usually rant on about someone’s research report (usually debunked). In many years I have never had one person do the analysis and then support the adjustments.

  14. William P. says:

    Thank you for your extensive research and compiling of data in this critical field!

    I think we all would agree that world pollution and habitat destruction needs to be addressed and even the better direction of moving to a more viable form of energy production is of keen value, especially for space travel, but the deception which the world economic powers are doing is totally unnecessary…unless we are so much like couch potatoes that this kind of trickery is the only way “they” believe we can get anything done. ;-) Cheers, William

    P.S. Of course the chemical spraying is an other matter altogether! That’s just evil!

  15. Nicholas says:

    Commenters, unless you are scientists who have published in climate science, you are not prepared to address this. I am a physicist with additional degrees in mathematics, and engineering. I’ve also worked on theoretical and experimental biochemistry. Even though I have 4 – and soon 5 – scientific degrees up to PhD and have published in a few fields, I haven’t published in climate science. While my girlfriend is an atmospheric scientist, I am not – so I’m not highly opposed to either view, but I have a cautionary tale.

    One thing a scientific education teaches you is how complicated things are, and how you cannot draw conclusions you think superior to experts’ simply from a web article. For example, it is not often the case that the RAW DATA you measure is meaningful without doing more math to turn it into a quantity of interest that may well be what you here are calling “ADJUSTED.” Adjustment to turn for example an absorbance measurement into a concentration of something in water is not wrong or a lie. Often, raw data is not even meaningful until you have accounted for other factors. Refinement of the technique for turning raw data into a meaningful number to be reported may well occur and lead to slight discrepancies between NASA data from 2000 and NASA data from 2017 – the goal of science is to refine techniques for turning measurements into meaningful numbers, after all.

    Think twice before any perceived “adjustments” – especially those attempting to deal with what elsewhere in the article you have highlighted are using very limited raw data . It could just mean scientists have refined their technique, rather than that they have nothing better to do than somehow fitting tens of thousands of their colleagues in a single room to figure out how to cheat you.

    • tonyheller says:

      I apologize for impacting your girlfriend’s funding, and plan to continue doing so. I find corrupt, Orwellian junk science abhorrent.

    • Gator says:

      The High Priests are not happy that us mensch have learned to read, write, and do our own math.

      Skippy, may I call you Skippy? Many of us here were trained in hard science before you and your girlfriend were born. I myself was a Climatology student after spending years as a Geology student, and climate change is what drove me into the Earth Sciences department. I have spent decades reading every paper on the subject, in order to get a broad view of the science, Instead of focusing on one narrow cabal’s opinion. Skippy. you have no clue what you are speaking of, and obviously went to a lousy school full of post modern professors of a neo-religion disguised as science.

      Nice try at bullshitting Skippy, but next time try a dumber crowd.

    • David A says:

      Nicholas, your pedantic condescending prose ( using to many words to broadly generalise that there may be scientific reasons to adjust data)
      betrays that you did not even read the post, let alone study the subject.

    • pmc47025 says:

      Your girlfriend should post a real rebuttal. Maybe she will use actual evidence instead of condescending bull$hit.

    • I would also like to chime on the issue of data adjustments in scientific research. I am not a climate scientist or any type of scientist. I’m a statistician who builds statistical models for a living, and spent a lot of years working in pharmaceutical research. As modelers, we sometimes see researchers make adjustments to their data that we have to incorporate into our models. There are some legitimate reasons for adjusting data, like finding out that your instruments were miscalibrated, for example. And there are plenty of illegitimate reasons for adjusting data–like trying to get the results your study sponsors want to see. From my experience, the latter are much more common than the former.

      Thank you, Mr. Heller, for an excellent and informative review of the systematic bastardization of real data to support an agenda.

  16. Disillusioned says:

    Tony is being effective. This one brought the grantologists out of the woodwork.

  17. Dan Balint says:

    Hi, it’s too bad there is so much bs in the climate study, “correct” all for money or political gain, and now with social media, we are getting way more crap than good,
    I do believe the earth can take care of its self, and what’s going to happen will happen, just ask the dinosaurs, and I do believe the earth thrives on CO2 or there would not ve volcanos, and methane gas comes from everything that decays not just a cows ass.
    sorry for commenting, not being educated in this field, just my thoughts follow the money.

  18. The last Angel says:

    1. How did you get to the 0,5° C number in your first statement? Shouldn’t it rather be around 0.2 ° or am I missing something?
    2. The myth that a “global cooling” was scientific consensus 30 or more years ago has been debunked: http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/11584/1/2008bams2370%252E1.pdf
    This study analyzes Papers and Articles and finds that even then global warming was more of a consensus than global cooling
    3. I recommend some reading on this website: http://berkeleyearth.org/about/
    It’s about a group of scientists who did in fact not believe in the scientific consensus and challenged the idea by reanalyzing the findings, ultimately changing their view based on the results.
    4. I like the fact that many people here are skeptic of what’s mainstream these days, though some forget that you even have to be skeptic of this. By blindly following this guy you are doing nothing else than confirming your beliefs, the very thing you are accusing other people of. Keep that in mind.

    • tonyheller says:

      Orwellians rewriting history love the word “debunked”

    • spike55 says:

      “It’s about a group of scientists who did in fact not believe in the scientific consensus”

      ROFLMAO.. You have been CONNED.. you poor gullible little twerp.

      Muller was a warmist, no realist whatsoever, had said he was a “believer” a couple of years earlier.

      And for his daughter, she was an absolutely RABID alarmist, of the top order. As were Zeke and his mate. Mosh is also following the anti-science of the Berkeley scam.

      Goodness, you really haven’t got a mind of your own, have you !!

      As for the “nora” “debunking” pdf.. if you totally IGNORE all the articles about the global cooling period, and cherry-pick those that didn’t mention it,… then of course you can FOOL PEOPLE into thinking it didn’t exist.

      Let’s see if you can actually counter anything Tony says with actual REAL EVIDENCE. !!!

      Most of the alarmist trolls that come here FAIL MISERABLY.

      Let’s start with the very basics, some empirical evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.

  19. Geoff Thomas says:

    Could I please have the above emailed to me?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.