Hiding The Heat At Wagga Wagga

Wagga Wagga, NSW has had 83 days over 110F (43C) since 1878. Almost two-thirds of those days occurred before 1910, so BOM makes them magically disappear.

Climate change and variability: Tracker: Australian timeseries graphs

BOM throws out temperature readings of 117 degrees, because they have a theory the readings might be off by half a degree. One of the most pathetic excuses for data tampering.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to Hiding The Heat At Wagga Wagga

  1. Robert Austin says:

    Not even Griff would venture to defend such egregious data torture by the BOM. Griff sticks to Arctic ice where conditions prior to 1979 are “unknown”. Thank you Tony for your diligence and your fine video presentations. Take care of yourself though. We don’t want you to burn out.

  2. Jeff L. says:


    Could you produce a set of charts that represent the same data? The data represented in your charts is “Number Of Days Over 100F (38C) vs. Year”, but the data represented in the BOM charts is “Annual mean temperature anomaly”. I do not believe that these are the same thing.

    Thank you,


    • tonyheller says:

      The BOM graphs hide the hot weather before 1910. The weather was hot before 1910.

      • Jeff L. says:


        I recognize that the BOM graphs are probably hiding the hot weather, but the BOM graphs are showing mean temperature variation per year, while yours are showing the number of days per year that exceed a threshold. These two different types of graphs are not showing the same thing and should not be compared with one another. (Apples vs. oranges.)

  3. Lapsley says:

    At BOM, pre-1910 temperatures are disregarded not because, as climate deniers show, their inclusion clearly disproves global warming, but simply because there are no people still alive to corroborate those temperatures. It is simply a matter of demographics. This is also just plain good science. The deniers should also practice it. BOM does assiduously.

    BOM has verified that there are indeed Australians still alive born in 1910. It is true that while those still alive from 1910 would have been very young then, at least they would have some sense of the temperatures experienced during those early years. With no one alive to have actually experienced the purported high heat just before 1910, BOM would be grossly negligent in including such unverifiable data.

    Historical data alone is by itself inconclusive and insufficient for modern climate science analyses.

    • Gator says:

      So any observations before 1910 should be removed from the record? That would make for one Hell of a short history class! LOL

      You guys are soooo precious! Do you really believe the BS that you spew, or are you actually not that stupid? Intelligent minds want to know.

    • TeaPartyGeezer says:

      Lapsley ..

      Did you actually type that with a straight face?
      Do you actually believe any of that tripe?

      That ‘modern climate science’ can/must now throw out any written historical records that precedes the date of birth of its oldest citizen?

      Does that include ALL sciences, or does that only apply to climate science?

      Does that include ALL written historical records, or does that only apply to written historical records of climate science?

      Do you seriously expect us to believe that BOM verifies written historical records of 1910 temperatures by consulting people who were born in 1910 to determine their “sense of the temperatures experienced” that year?

      You use the word ‘science’ repeatedly .. or rather misuse it.
      You don’t seem to have the most basic grasp of what science is or how it works.

      And you dare to call US ‘deniers?’

      I’m gonna go out on a limb, here, and call you loony-tunes.

    • Gerald Machnee says:

      Show us who was consulted about the July, 1911 temperatures. You forgit the sarc tag or the &&&&&& logo.

      • Lapsley says:

        Glad you got it.

        My diatribe was simply for a little comic relief. I wrote it as if I were a BOM, NOAA, NASA, climate scientist, or maybe Bill Nye, who believes Tony Heller should be imprisoned or put to death.

        It was to show the preposterousness of their ‘science’ by presenting an argument just as preposterous. Bill Nye’s / Al Gore’s cookie jar CO2 heat lamp ‘experiment’ has no more factual basis than the ‘no one is still alive’ argument I made. Except they were dead serious, they truly believe the experiment was valid peer review quality science. But I knew my spiel was hogwash.

        I assume Tony got it. I wasn’t aware there was an irony identifier code requirement.

        • Disillusioned says:

          Thank you Lapsley. This has been a concern of mine for awhile. Although there is no “irony identifier code requirement,” perhaps something voluntary is the way to go.

          I take after my mother. I don’t always get jokes, and sometimes I need to be hit against the head to understand that something is humorous and not serious commentary. With observation over time, I became aware when some of the older posters were being humorous or sarcastic. Although, to a stranger they may not readily [or ever] get the nuance without an “identifier” such as a /sarc tag, etc.

          But now, the audience has grown; it is very wide, with people of several different native languages and cultures from several countries around the world.

          Please, please, regular American posters – consider the audience reach – it goes way beyond us. People from all over, who may not understand nuances of our language, may not get your subtle humor, sarcasm, etc.

          If you are being sarcastic or funny, please identify it as such. Really now, how hard is a /sarc tag?


        • Gator says:

          Art imitates life, a little too closely this time. ;-)

          If I had not encountered even more ridiculous arguments from alarmists, for decades now, I would not have needed a sarc tag. But it is nearly impossible to outcrazy the climate cult anymore, I have seen and heard it all.

    • Aussie says:

      This is quite unbelieveable. So we are to disregard all history or any discoveries or science before 1910 because there is nobody alive to corroborate it? And so we have to ignore the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, oh, and while we are at it, ignore ANY Ice ages or past climate….

      And get this, the BOM DOES accept rainfall data before 1910. So there goes your pseudo science answer.

      Its just highly convenient for them to ignore the hot past and fall in line with the politically correct “climate change” mantra. But its shocking science and given the billions being spent(wasted) and the massive cost in terms of power bills etc wouldn’t we want to properly investigate rather than conveniently ignore earlier temperatures.

      These high temperatures are also mirrored elsewhere in the world for the pre 1910 period as Tony has repeatedly shown. So that also would tend to lend even more weight to including them.

      • Gator says:

        Correction: “trillions” being wasted.

        This is from two years ago…

        New estimates published by the Climate Change Business Journal put the total size of the industry at $1.5 trillion a year, or $4 billion a day, equivalent to the size of the global online retail market. The figure includes carbon markets, carbon consulting, biofuels, carbon sequestration, renewable technologies, eco buildings and hybrid cars.

        The climate change consultancy market alone is worth $1.9 billion worldwide; $670 million in the United States, thanks to businesses need to keep on top of climate policy. And these figures are expected to more than double by 2020.


  4. Tel says:

    The removal of data before 1910 from the record is well known.


    The Federation Drought was by far the worst in Australia’s history … more than temperature measurements, there was also economic depression, rivers drying up, driest recorded year in 1902, increased disease, crop failure, approximately half of the sheep flocks lost to drought.

    But when considering the climate change trend, none of this happened!!

  5. iggie says:

    As far as rainfall goes, this sums it up.
    More rain after 1950 than before. Shows the worst years as 1902 and 1905.

    Of course, rainfall is harder to homogenise than temperature.

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.