The Danger Of Data Tampering

Heidi Cullen’s Climate Central released this fraudulent map showing Midwest winters getting hot, which is based on tampered thermometer data.

Here’s Where Winters Are Warming the Most | Climate Central

The actual data shows Midwest winters are getting colder.

And the frequency of cold nights is increasing.

Neither imaginary global warming nor imaginary renewable energy are keeping anybody warm in the record cold today.

I took these pictures over the Midwest on January 6 last year, during another record cold snap. Fossil fuels were keeping  the Midwest running, as the windmills were motionless.

Politicians like Sanders and Cortez want to shut down the fossil fuel supply, based on fraudulent data from agencies like NOAA and people Heidi Cullen.  This fraud directly threatens the lives of hundreds of millions of Americans, and the people responsible should be held to account.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

76 Responses to The Danger Of Data Tampering

  1. Louis Hooffstetter says:

    Why do I have a recurring dream of a mob in yellow vests dragging politician after politician to a guillotine?

    • DCA says:

      Beware the charlatan whose livelihood depends on your fear.

      • Squidly says:

        Lest you forget, those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

        • Rah says:

          Some days the news gets me so down. It seems the whole damned world has gone plum crazy. I just have to start ignoring it. Driving gives one lots of time to think and dwell on things. It makes it easy to lose perspective and it is important to keep a positive attitude when driving or one tends to get too agressive. So sometimes I just have to tune it all out and think about positive things. IOW I retreat to any of several if my personal mental safe spaces.

    • Rah says:

      It appears that there are so many it would take 3 guillotines working 24/7 days to get the Job done. And some of them are wearing uniforms in the US military. Man was Ike’s warning prophetic!

  2. Lasse says:

    Why not select a start year-1979
    So it is comparable with the Arctic ice charts.

    • -B- says:

      Because every data set or adjusted data set and presentation method has its own convenient start point. Time and time again that’s what they do to mislead.

      Why 1970? Probably because this a per-decade chart. To get the mid-late 1970s they have to start in 1970. Starting in 1980, 1960, 1950, 1940, 1930 or anything prior wouldn’t show the dire warming.

    • Louis Hooffstetter says:

      “He who dictates the end points, dictates the trend.”
      Anonymous Climate Scientist

  3. Johansen says:

    Shutting down even one nuclear plant erases perhaps 3,000 MW of baseload power, which is arguably “clean” – at least in terms of the atmosphere.
    The **largest** wind farms in the U.S. generate maybe 100-200 MW of usable power, and take 1,000’s and 1,000’s of acres of land. Examples: Tehachapi and Altamont
    Result: trying to achieve 50% renewables by 2030 is impossible and will screw things up.

    • -B- says:

      Because every data set or adjusted data set and presentation method has its own convenient start point. Time and time again that’s what they do to mislead.

      Why 1970? Probably because this a per-decade chart. To get the mid-late 1970s they have to start in 1970. Starting in 1980, 1960, 1950, 1940, 1930 or anything prior wouldn’t show the dire warming.

  4. Phil. says:

    Perhaps they should have installed some solar panels to supplement the wind, works well on cold sunny days.

    • Spiritus Mundi says:

      With several inches of snow on top of them?

    • Ve2 says:

      And even better on cold moonlit nights.

    • Frank Snyder says:

      And less than 10 hours of Daylight ???

      • Phil. says:

        Well the one near me worked well today generated a fairly steady 3MW, which was 3MW that wasn’t taken from the grid or the equivalent in natural gas.

        • Jason Calley says:

          If it worked well today during daylight hours that is certainly more important than whether it is useful 24/7, or whether its long term energy return is positive.

    • Squidly says:

      Hey Phil, my parents live in Southeastern Washington (in the desert). They have solar panels on their house. Despite the fact they live in the desert with very little snow, their solar panels are virtually useless in the winter. My father is an electrical engineer (schooled at MIT) and spent his career working for the largest research institution in the world on DOE and DOD projects. He knows a thing or two about energy and how to get the most out of his solar panels .. but alas .. they are still virtually useless in the winter, and not a whole lot better in the summer.

      • Phil. says:

        About 5º further north than here, the installation I’m talking about generated a fairly consistent 3MW today for ~7 hrs compared with ~4MW for longer in June. Average power consumption during the day was ~16MW so it’s a significant contribution. These panels track the sun which accounts for there better contribution.

        • Menicholas says:

          3 MW in February, and only 4 in June?
          That is only possible by tracking the sun or in a low latitude.
          And how much land and how much did it cost?
          Tracking panels requires far more space and are far costlier to install than panels mounted flat.
          Obviously, because to have a panel facing the sun directly all day means that it is intercepting a greater square footage of incident solar radiation, and simply geometry is all you need to know that this will require large spacing to account for all the possible yearly sun angles without shading each other.
          And a separate computerized and motorized mount instead of a simple bracket?
          And how long will the motors and electronics last?
          How reliable are they 2, 5, 10, 15 years out?
          If roof mounted, you will get a lot more weight, a lot more cost, and a lot less panels.
          I was not able to determine if such mounts will even pay for themselves. At some point, panels are cheap enough compared to land and machinery to make it a waste of money to track the sun.
          Also…how much did it produce when it was cloudy for three days in a row?
          I wanted to get solar panels for my roof, and went as far as I could go without ordering them. I concluded that I would be paying for many years of power up front, using money that could otherwise be in the stock market. And any one of numerous problems down the road would end any chance of saving a penny.

          • Phil. says:

            3 MW in February, and only 4 in June?
            That is only possible by tracking the sun or in a low latitude.

            Yes that’s what I said.
            And how much land and how much did it cost?
            27 acres which was waste land and hadn’t been used for anything, cost nothing. Generates about 5.5% of total annual energy consumption.
            How reliable are they 2, 5, 10, 15 years out?
            Been running fine for 6 years so far.
            80% of panels are tracking and the others fixed, basically done that way because of the lay of the land. Complements the generation system and financially worthwhile.

          • Menicholas says:

            I meant how much did the whole setup cost?
            In a typical rooftop fixed mount installation, even if you get the panels at rock bottom price, the labor to install them is half the cost or more.
            I was unable to calculate a savings even if I did it myself and counted my labor as free.
            By the time you add in the electric equipment, including everything you need to convert the DC to 120v AC, and feed it into the mains, it is just too expensive.
            I notice you avoided the questions with no glib happy sounding answers.
            Proponents of wasting money on this crap always talk about some particular day or peak output, and never about the total cost, or the amount of time you get little or no power from them, or any of the many other “details that, when taken into account, make it sound like what it is…way too freakin expensive.
            Even after all these years of trillions of our tax dollars and increases in the national debt have been diverted to increase production and find ways to make panels more efficient.
            The waste of money is obscene, and the obsession to create a fake boogieman out of CO2, and ramp up a doomsday cult mentality to the level of a mass delusion, is criminally insane.

        • Menicholas says:

          And since at sunset, it gets much colder, power demand goes up in places where people heat with electric, and their is zero solar.
          Ditto on cloudy days.
          Which means every watt of that power is backed up by some reliable and dispatchable source.

          And this is true no matter what percent of power comes from wind or sun.

          Summary: Huge waste of money.

          • Phil. says:

            Not a waste of money, actually saves money provides about 5.5% of annual power demand so no need to burn as much natural gas.

          • Gator says:

            Phail, you are discussing this with people who have run the numbers for our own homes, and we have found it to be a waste of money, time, and resources. Solar panel salesmen make claims that are patently false, just like all salesmen.

          • Phil. says:

            Yes they do I get several calls a week from them. However I was not talking about a rooftop system I was talking about a solar farm on 27 acres, a totally different animal. As I pointed out yesterday it was developing 3MW, about 75% of what it develops in June.

            tonyheller says:
            January 31, 2019 at 10:43 pm
            The reason winter is cold is because of a deficiency of solar energy. The sun is at a low angle and doesn’t shine most of the time.

            As I pointed out the panels adjust their angles to be perpendicular to the incoming sunlight so there isn’t a deficiency of solar energy, the Earth is closest to the sun in January.
            9:30am yesterday 3.1MW
            noon ” 2.8MW
            3:00pm ” 2.9MW

          • Gator says:

            Bottom line…

            [W]ind is producing only four percent of electricity in the MISO region, of which Minnesota is a part.

            While that’s not good, what’s worse is wind is only utilizing 24 percent of its installed capacity, and who knows how this will fluctuate throughout the course of the day.

            Coal, on the other hand, is churning out 45 percent of our power, nuclear is providing 13 percent, and natural gas is providing 26 percent of our electricity.

            This is exactly why the renewable energy lobby’s dream of shutting down coal, natural gas, and nuclear plants and “replacing” them with wind and solar is a fairy tale. It simply cannot happen, because we never know if and when the wind will blow or the sun will shine when we need it most.

            “But the wind is always blowing somewhere” ~ a renewable energy lobbyist

            Renewable energy apologists often argue that although the wind may not be blowing in your neighborhood, it’s blowing, somewhere. All we have to do, they argue, is build wind turbines and transmission lines all over the country so we can have renewable energy everywhere. It turns out this old chestnut is also completely wrong.

            For example, the wind isn’t blowing in North Dakota or South Dakota, where more than 1,800 MW (a massive amount) of wind projects are operating or planned, at massive cost, by Minnesota electric companies.

            In fact, the wind isn’t blowing anywhere.

            Just look at California, the state that is consistently the most self-congratulating about how “green” they are. Wind is operating a 3 percent of installed capacity, solar is operating at 12 percent, natural gas is running wide open, and California is importing a whopping 27 percent of its electricity from Nevada and Arizona.


            Unreliable, extremely expensive, and stupid as Hell. No wonder leftists love it! LOL

        • arn says:

          You just have a 33% increase in Sommer,though you have a 60% increase of daylight?(and probably less cloudy days overall)

          • Phil. says:

            What I said was: “3MW today for ~7 hrs compared with ~4MW for longer in June. Peaked at 1.5 MW today because overcast.

          • Gator says:

            Still a losing proposition. Why would we waste money on an extremely inefficient power source when we have infinitely better options?

            Stop hating on plants Phail.

          • Phil. says:

            Not a losing proposition, rather a very well engineered and efficient one as part of a larger energy supply installation. Also the economics of the installation were well researched, this is not the system that you would put on your roof, you don’t understand what we’re talking about.

          • Gator says:

            Yes Phail, I do know what I am talking about. I have acreage, prime real estate for both wind turbines and solar panels. I looked to partner with neighbors, and after we ran the true numbers, it made less than zero sense.

            I learned decades ago that I am much better off letting the zealous suckers pay to work out kinks in budding technologies, and to wait until it makes sense for me to buy in.

            Suck away Phail. Just please not at my teat.

      • sunsettommy says:

        I live right in the middle of the area in Kennewick, with little to NO Sun from November to March, is the normal climate for the Columbia Basin.

        So little Sunshine means very little Solar Power production. It was seriously tried in the Tri-Cities back in the 1970-1980’s, but was an abject failure.

        Not worth the money.

        • Phil. says:

          Well slightly further south than you but we get plenty of sunny weather at this time of year. So far this week it’s been averaging between 2.5MW and 3MW for about 7 hours per day compared with about 4MW for about 10 hours per day. So it works fairly well here.

    • tonyheller says:

      The reason winter is cold is because of a deficiency of solar energy. The sun is at a low angle and doesn’t shine most of the time. If there was enough solar energy being received, it wouldn’t be cold.

      • Colorado Wellington says:

        Tony, you are such a cold-hearted killjoy. Phil thought he’s got the whole thing figured out but you just had to step in.

        • Phil. says:

          Sorry but Tony got it wrong, more solar energy in January, just at a shallower angle at the surface, with a smart installation you can make use of it.

          • Gator says:

            And you can use a potato to make a battery. So what? We have far better alternatives that have the added benefit of greening the planet.

          • rah says:

            Phil the periods of day light are much shorter in the winter the further you go north! Tell you what. Go off the grid and live off solar and wind alone with a battery back up. Don’t just talk the talk, walk the walk. It will have the added benefit of you not having the power to post so much stupid shit!

          • Colorado Wellington says:


            Stop interrupting Phil’s emotional outbursts with appeals to facts and reason.

          • Phil. says:

            You are confusing my unemotional posts of data concerning an actual installation with the emotional outbursts by rah, Gator etc.
            Benefitting from 2.5MW from the solar farm on a nice sunny winter’s afternoon.

          • Disillusioned says:

            I disagree with CW on this one. You do not seem overly emotional. You usually type like potholer speaks. You both seem measured and are convincing – to the abjectly ignorant, that is – and I disagree with your faith-based assessments.

            I also disagree with your assessments of Gator and rah being overly-emotional. It more appears they’re just tired of you ignoring the facts laid before you as you robotically advocate your AGW religion. The measured monotone unemotional text, with irrelevant data, doesn’t fool them.

          • rah says:

            No confusion here. Without fossil fuel or nuc back up, solar and wind don’t work over a grid.

          • Phil. says:

            I disagree with your faith-based assessments.

            Nothing ‘faith based’ about posting the data from a solar installation. The ‘faith based’ posts are the assertions by Gator and Menicholas about a system they know nothing about.

          • Gator says:

            I guess I crossed a line when I told Phail to stop hating plants. Sorry for my emotional outburst.

          • Disillusioned says:

            AGW is about faith. In the unproven, yet monied and tragically delicious supposed superpowers of CO2.

          • Colorado Wellington says:


            Take a deep breath. Saying that nothing out of the ordinary is happening with the weather is not an emotional outburst.

            Personally, I think it is not healthy to keep obsessing about imaginary threats but it’s not my business to tell you what to believe. I would not even pay attention to it if members of your cult didn’t insist that we adopt their faith, pay heavy dues and do as they say.

    • Cynthia says:

      1816 the year without a summer –
      Solar panels wouldn’t have worked so well then.
      1815 eruption of Mount Tambora in the Dutch East Indies generated a “stratospheric sulfate aerosol veil”, which caused a persistent “dry fog” in parts of the eastern United States. The fog reddened and dimmed the sunlight.

  5. Gummans Gubbe says:

    I’m just hoping this is a fluke from nature. If this is the GSM kicking in we are in for a really long haul.

  6. billtoo says:

    “Xcel Energy says residents’ cooperation is critical to prevent widespread natural gas outages. The company also suggests using electric space heaters. ”


    or you could just turn on some 100 watt lights bulbs. oh wait…

  7. Spiritus Mundi says:

    Judging from you graphs Tony, it does look like there might be some slight warming if you start the trend line in 1970 the way they do. However, that would be cherry picking and given the greater tread over the long term, not really accurate. But I’m sure they were not concerned with reality when they put their “winter is warming” propaganda out.

    • jackson1 says:

      I agree– it all depends on when you start the analysis.
      For that reason I support using ‘blinded’ data researchers– that way they wouldn’t know what they were looking at and we might get a more objective take on these things.
      “It looks like a ‘squiggly line’ to me– what do you want it to say?”

      (I studied data analysis at the university– seems to me most the data sets associated with this subject are ‘squiggly lines’…)

  8. Cam says:

    What’s the actual trend just from 1970 which is where she cherry-picked her start date?

  9. Ve2 says:

    According to the map Minnesota has warmed 1.4F per decade since 1970.

    Right now I am willing to bet the locals would take another 7F if it was on offer.

    • Richard M says:

      I can tell you it hasn’t warmed 7F since the 1970s since I’ve lived through it. It has probably warmed 2-3F though. The 1970s were cold.

      • Disillusioned says:

        All people searching for truth about temperature records, begin their climate records/maps in the 1970s. Because there were no actual temperature records before 1970… uh…

        … that fit the narrative.

  10. AndyDC says:

    The alarmists thought they were on to something and many of us were taken in when temperatures actually did rise from 1980-1999. But what most people didn’t realize is that temperature rise took place after 40 years of cooling between and 1940 and 1980. Thus all the 1980-1999 warming did was to recover from much of the 1940-1979 cooling. From 1999-2018, it we have cooled again , so it is now cooler than it was in 1940. Seems hardly the foundation for the kind of attention that global warming has received.

    Without cherry picks and data manipulation, the alarmists have nothing.

  11. Steve Niemiec says:

    So little wind and the solar panels covered in snow. – How are renewables supposed to cope exactly?

  12. Bill says:

    In case there is any doubt about what happens when fossil fuels are reduced, here’s what happened in Michigan yesterday. An explosion at a major natural gas substation forced its closure, and as a result, last night at 10:00 Michigan’s governor sent an alert to the cell phones of everyone in Michigan’s Lower Penninsula to turn their thermostat down to 65 degrees immediately.

    Fortunately, natural gas supplies were not interrupted, although major auto plants were closed to help make up the shortfall.

    It was -18 degrees Fahrenheit last night; daily low temperature records were set across Michigan. Where I live, this is the seventh lowest temperature recorded here in the past 130 years.

  13. Bob G says:

    the temperature this morning in Cotton Minnesota which is just North of Duluth was 56 below zero which is only four degrees off the state record

  14. Matthew says:

    Thanks for doing all this work, Tony. It is very frustrating that Climate Change ™ has become a religion, impervious to reality.

  15. Cynthia says:

    Question 1) Why do most climate discussions stick within the last t0-100-200-250 years?
    Question 2) Why is the discussion so obscure to ordinary people, fouled up with hypotheses and fear.
    Suggestion 1) Skip hypotheses. People can understand patterns and trends from graphs.
    Suggestion 2) Simplify in every way possible, with simple graphs, simple explanations, showing patterns from the past.
    Suggestion 3) 5 Graphs can accomplish it all.
    For example:
    1) Over last 65-600 million years, temperature appears to have been driven by some causes much stronger than CO2, although we cannot say that CO2 had zero effect. We don’t know for sure what all those causes are, and they are probably still out there (plotting to act again). We should expect the temperature trends to continue. I think that indicates we will stay in this glacial period for another 20K years approximately.
    2) Over last 5.5 million years, temperature started gradually dropping, and it doesn’t seem to have recovered to the relatively high temperature that it was then. We are not positive about why it is dropping. Whatever the causes, they are probably still out there. We should expect the trend of dropping temperatures to continue.
    3) Over last million years, temperature began dropping into deepening glacial periods. We think we know why, and the causes we blame have not disappeared, so we should expect deepening glacial periods to continue.
    4) Over the last 11.5K years, temperatures have risen and fallen. I’m not sure whether they have been warmer than now, but they have been colder. I’m also not sure how fast the temperatures have changed. It seems pretty important to find out about this because it will indicate if anything happening now is actually unusual. If it happened before, we should expect it to continue.
    5) Over last 250-275 years ……

    • Menicholas says:

      There is nothing critically important about any of this.
      It is a completely fake emergency.
      The money spent is wasted.
      In fact, worse than wasted, because a lot of the effort has been to actually obscure what we did know to be true, and the data that had been collected, and the history that is known by various means and methods.
      In the meantime, actual problems that could be solved with a tiny fraction of this wasted money have been entirely neglected.
      And there is a long list of those actual problems with available solutions.

  16. GCSquared says:

    Everybody’s right!

    Tony’s graphs indeed show that midwest temperatures are cooler now than in 1918.

    OTOH, because the ’70’s were a time when scientists thought a new ice age was imminent, you might suspect that temperatures might have risen since the ’70’s. And they have: Tony’s graphs indicate this also. What a close call! Something has saved us from descending into another ice age, and this can only be the extra anthropogenic CO2. Make more!

    If you believe this, I have a climate policy I’d like to sell you.

  17. William Hunt says:

    When I wrote Global Warming, Challenged, the trends even then were downward for temperatures. I couldn’t write the book today because the data sources I used in 2008 became tampered with under Obama. (And some trends were not clear when I wrote the book, such as the 70% requirement for windmills to even operate.) One of the evils that Obama did was to make the government untrusted because of the people he put in charge that made lying by government agencies mandatory. Government data used to be the gold standard.

    No more.

    At some point the lies by the left have to stop. It’s reached the point where no lie can help them. They have been proven wrong. When a group even mentions “climate change”, it immediately throws up a red flag to even most Democrats that the group is not to be trusted. (I wish they’d stop supporting groups they don’t trust. Makes no sense to me.) The ordinary person treats a speaker with contempt if they mention this or that about how climate change will do this or that.

    It’s become a hot potato to even mention it in recent years and most of the clueless fools who cite global warming/climate change as causing this or that problem still don’t get that almost no one believes them anymore.

    The various interests like to change their statements to avoid responsibility for lying. For example, Al Gore plagiarized part of my 2008 book and reversed his claim that we’d have droughts with global warming.

    I was the only one at the time pointing this out:

    In the negative: “In terms of climate, shorter-term droughts of a decade or two do not indicate warming or cooling, as they appear to be cyclical. However, a worldwide, prolonged drought that lasts several decades would indicate a reduction in global temperatures. With global cooling, the oceans’ temperatures are reduced and with them, the evaporation rates and resulting rainfall. In a nutshell, cooler ocean water would mean less rainfall globally.” Page 22.

    And in the positive: “With more heat, the oceans would warm somewhat. With that comes more evaporation and more rainfall— planet-wide— not just a few areas like the Global Warming crowd claims. Prolonged worldwide drought is actually a sign of cooling. Increasing humidity tends to limit a given land’s temperature extremes, both
    hot and cold, as well. With warming and more moisture, desert becomes steppe, steppe becomes forest, boreal forest moves into areas that are now taiga and taiga into tundra. Hardwood forest moves northward into areas that are now boreal forests. Imagine the Sahara becoming grassy steppe, as it has been when the world has been
    warmer. Or imagine Alaska becoming more temperate. With faster conifer growth, like it had around 1000 A.D. or so.” Page 60

  18. rod says:

    I don’t know what the number and locations of USHCN stations entails. I lived north of Minneapolis from 1992 to 2016, 24 years. My experience with nighttime lows there doesn’t allow me to agree that from 45% to 65% of the days of the year had lows of 20 F or lower. If the graph were describing my experience, I would have suffered 5.5 to 7.9 months of sub 20 F mostly nightly temps each year, rather than the approximately 1 to 2 months that I guesstimate.

  19. Rah says:

    BTW. As many here know, the environmental system on the big truck I drive is powered by a bank of batteries when I’m parked. When the voltage output of those batteries drops below a certain level the truck starts it’s self to recharge then shuts off. When I was parked in the -17 deg temps last week the truck was idling almost all the time. Glad I wasn’t in an EV.

    • Disillusioned says:

      Thanks for sharing that. O didn’t know that. That is the way my Prius works. The engine starts on its own when the battery bank gets low, recharging the battery bank until it is topped then shuts off again.

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      But that’s why experts like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) tell us that the environmental system of your big truck is bad for the environment. And racist, too.

  20. Disillusioned says:

    Thanks for sharing that. I didn’t know that. That is the way my Prius works. The engine starts on its own when the battery bank gets low, recharging the battery bank until it is topped then shuts off again.

    I don’t think EVa are practical, but I enjoy the complimentary dual technologies in my hybrid.

  21. I understand this, but I do have questions. Do you mind answering?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.