Messing With Texas

NCDC adjusted data shows a strong warming trend in Texas.

Climate at a Glance | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

The underlying measured data shows a strong cooling trend, with 1921 as the hottest year.

This graph shows both adjusted and measured.

Spreadsheet    Data

This graph shows the adjustments, older temperatures have been massively cooled.

In 2012, the San Antonio Express News said Texas is not warming, based on NCDC data.

Mims: Research shows Texas is not warming – San Antonio Express-News

And Anthony Watts captured this graph from NCDC in that same year.   They hadn’t erased the heat of 1921 yet.

Climate scientists who have been claiming Texas is warming are totally wrong. | Watts Up With That?

We can see that the tampering with Texas data has gotten much worse over the past seven years. The biggest fraud in science history.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to Messing With Texas

  1. Gator says:

    I don’t know that I would consider this part of “science history”, as it has nothing to do with science. More likely, this is the biggest fraud in fraud history.

    • rah says:

      They’re going to have to pull out all the stops to make a 2019 temperature anomaly look positive for 2019. Texas this summer was the greenest I have ever seen it.

    • Gummans Gubbe says:

      Spot on! And an interesting question. Have you seen the Sky Scholar video “April 10th, 2019 – Claims of a Black Hole Image: the Day Astrophysics Died”.

      Under socialism the borders between fraud and science fraud disappear. Scientists and producers will vanish, power hungry people rise to the top.

      • Henning Nielsen says:

        Hi Gummans Gubbe, was it Schellnhuber who once said that “Climate war is the continuation of revolution by other means”?

        Or maybe some other German?

  2. gregole says:

    The further back in time, the greater the tampering. What do we know now that we didn’t know then about reading a thermometer? Pure fraud.

  3. Stewart McIntyre says:


    Just a quick one.
    How do I send an email to Tony to check out the Australian BOM website climate temperatures graph.
    I find it hard to believe there is no high temperatures during the 1930’s.

  4. Joel says:

    Isn’t “Don’t Mess with Texas” a major slogan that everyone knows? NCCDs (Natural Climate-Change Deniers) are either rather dumb or they seem to have no shame.

    • Disillusioned says:

      Religious fanatics have no critical thinking skills. They do not question what their leaders tell them. They believe what they are told, and will not dare look into or try to reconcile discrepancies. They simply believe. And you are wrong, if you do not.

      And, since you do not, you are a very serious problem. The shame is on you. ;-P

  5. TomRude says:

    CBC Mortillaro interviews Katherine Hayhoe…
    The propagandists always find the perfect mouthpiece.
    The lies are astounding:
    “Hayhoe’s work recently earned her the United Nations 2019 Champions of the Earth award. Nicole Mortillaro spoke to her about the challenges of communicating the realities of climate change.

    What are the biggest hurdles for you in getting the message out about climate change?

    There is a massively funded and very intelligent disinformation campaign that is trying to muddy the waters on everything that we do. So it is really kind of like the Girl Guides trying to fight the Marines here.

    When we first started, we [were] naive. We thought, well, surely the truth will win if we just tell people the truth. But it’s such a highly politically polarized topic. And sadly, it isn’t just limited to the U.S. anymore. In Canada, it’s becoming increasingly politically polarized as well. ”

    Hansen was such a rebel… working for NASA, that hot bed of rebellion… LOL

  6. Bill says:

    Snopes has an article about your work:

    Claim: NASA and NOAA faked climate data in the GISTEMP global temperature record to exaggerate global warming.

    To suggest — 14 years after the fact — that identifying publicly discussed adjustments to raw data whose methods have been published in peer-reviewed journals represents catching scientists “red-handed” in “the largest scientific fraud ever uncovered” exposes only the ignorance of the author, not some nefarious sleight of hand by climate scientists. As such, the claim is rated “False.”

    • GeologyJim says:

      Sounds just like Zeke to me, with just the right touch of withering sneer – no surprise

    • rah says:

      Snopes is and always has been FUS!

    • Gator says:

      Another BS post from the highly partisan and ignorant

      Note that all Snopes did was appeal to a disproven authority. It’s like relying on Bernie Madoff for info on his own scandal. Nothing these “experts” have claimed has ever come to pass. Epic failures do not make good sources.

      If you don’t believe me, ask Zeke Hausfather what the UHI adjustment is for their data, and why historic data is constantly being altered. They claim it is settled science, and yet they still have not figured out what temperatures were in the past so they keep changing them, and cannot tell you what their adjustments are actually doing.

      Or you could buy a bridge in Manhattan.

    • tonyheller says:

      At least 97% of people who see those graphs have no clue that it is fraudulent and does not represent the thermometer data.

      • AlJones1816 says:


        Can you speak to how you’ve combined station records to produce the graphs in this article? In your spreadsheets you provide the already-averaged series, so backtracking your methodology is not possible. Thanks.

      • Bill says:

        My point in posting the article was to

        1) point out a mainstream site that quoted Tony’s work, and
        2) ask Tony to debunk it.

        I read this site all the time, and I’ve been an anthropogenic climate change skeptic for 20 years.

    • Disillusioned says:

      97% of people who cite, reference or link to Snopes are not interested in learning about the truth; rather they are interested in protecting their belief.

    • Gerald Machnee says:

      That snopes report is the same as reading Wikipedia on climate.

  7. Jeff says:

    Is there available a detailed rebuttal of:

    Hansen et al. 2001
    Hansen, J.E., R. Ruedy, M. Sato, M. Imhoff, W. Lawrence, D. Easterling, T. Peterson, and T. Karl, 2001: A closer look at United States and global surface temperature change. J. Geophys. Res., 106, 23947-23963, doi:10.1029/2001JD000354.

    It appears the time of day change in measurement is the most prominent factor in increasing recent history temperatures (how can that be?) and that there is an overwhelming amount of past cooling and present warming due to “station history anomalies” whereby they throw out some stations and then generate new data for them from neighboring measuring stations.

    Anyway, I’d just like to see if there’s a detailed rebuttal, because the paper wasn’t written for a general audience.

  8. Alexander says:

    We see the same temperature trend reversals in Australia for isolated rural sites.
    As you say it’s a CON
    The older the recording the bigger the adjustment and this suggests there is a correction made using a regression coefficient. The excuse for correcting data is along the lines that it is needed because there are “anomalous measurements caused by thermometer errors / replacement” . The use of regression corrections under such circumstances are totally inappropriate. I like Tony’s suggestion (elsewhere) that the adjustments are based on CO2 level.

Leave a Reply

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