New Video : “Data Tampering Complete : Mission Accomplished!”

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to New Video : “Data Tampering Complete : Mission Accomplished!”

  1. Bill Crofut says:

    Mr. Heller,

    Your many videos on the global warming fraud have been most informative. It’s been a distinct pleasure to look forward to your daily presentations. As an agw skeptic for
    many years, the label “denier” has been applied to me by several adversaries in the
    comment section of each of several online web pages (i.e., Scientific American, NCSE,
    et. al.). Needless to say, your presentations have been a source of personal
    satisfaction. However, it seems there is now a video presentation that refutes every
    argument you’ve made; Oh! woe is you and me:

    Whatever happened to GLOBAL COOLING?

    Following is my brief review of some of the issues raised:

    Perhaps the most “interesting” feature of the video is the graph “showing” the number
    of papers published on global cooling.

    This is perhaps the second most “interesting” feature; the number papers published on global warming.

    Your assessment of the shamelessness of the agw proponents would seem to be
    substantiated by these >>>>>PLOTS<<<<<. Isn't that just the epitome of "scientific"
    evidence; lines on a graph?

    Ah! but my criticism would seem to have been countered by the actual identification of
    papers. How many? See below:

    One peer reviewed paper is displayed because it supports the premise.

    "There's still uncertainty, of course…" would seem to be no more than a leading

    1978 paper by James Hanson and colleagues

    "We have the science nailed down" is followed by the ad-nauseum agenda to which we have become accustomed.

    Could Mr. Gore have ghost written that line?

    "The scientific debate about whether we are warming or cooling the planet is over; it
    has been for decades."

    "What is needed now is not debate because it's not going to get us anywhere."

    My personal status as a young-Earth Biblical creationist and geocentrist puts me at
    odds with you on some topics, but please keep up the good work you've been doing to
    date on the agw scam.

    • Anon says:

      /Perhaps the most “interesting” feature of the video is the graph “showing” the number of papers published on global cooling./

      There are also a huge number of papers published on the benefits of Sugar over Fat in dietary intake… so? Bon appetit! then? (lol)

      The Sugar Conspiracy

      In 1972, a British scientist sounded the alarm that sugar – and not fat – was the greatest danger to our health. But his findings were ridiculed and his reputation ruined. How did the world’s top nutrition scientists get it so wrong for so long?

      And how many studies were published excoriating red meat?

      Eat Less Red Meat, Scientists Said. Now Some Believe That Was Bad Advice.

      And the list goes on and on:

      Scientists Say ……….

      And all of this was predicted by President Eisenhower in his farewell address:

      Eisenhower’s Less Famous Warning: Government-Controlled Science

      In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

      Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

      The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded.

      Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

      And the rest of your “refutation” is just as flimsy…

    • Anon says:


      The same thing that happened to the inconvenient Global Warming “PAUSE” or “HIATUS” no doubt:

      Hiatus controversy: show me the data

      Posted on November 6, 2015
      The bottom line with regards to the hiatus is all of the data sets except for the new NOAA/NCDC data set show a hiatus (with NASA LOTI being the other data set coming closest to not showing a hiatus).

      Temperature Record Adjustment Timeline:

      DATA ADJUSTMENT #1 (Land Temperatures – 2015 (this was the new dataset Curry mentions above))

      Global warming ‘pause’ caused by glitch in data

      DATA ADJUSTMENT #2 (Troposphere RSS Temperatures – 2017)

      Major correction to satellite data shows 140% faster warming since 1998

      DATA ADJUSTMENT #3 (Ocean Temperatures – 2019)
      Ocean temperature data shows warming is accelerating faster than we thought*
      “In the past when [the models and records] didn’t agree so well, part of that was a problem with the observations, not the models,” he said.*

      DATA ADJUSTMENT #4&5 (Australian Land Temperatures – 2019)
      Heat on Bureau of Meteorology over data records rewrite

      The Bureau of Meteorology has rewritten Australia’s temperature records for the second time in six years, greatly increasing the rate of warming.

      So within 4 years we have all data sets showing a “pause” to not showing a “pause”… interesting. I wonder why? Maybe politics?

      Sen. Cruz Questions Sierra Club President Aaron Mair on Climate Change Pause

      So what does all this mean?

      1] All of the un-adjusted data sets show a pause or hiatus.

      2] There is not a single un-adjusted dataset that shows the current decade to be hotter than the 1930s.

      3] And for good measure: there is not a single long term high quality tide gauge that shows an acceleration of sea level rise.

      So in order to buy the CAGW argument I need to discount ALL the raw data, then believe in NASA / NOAA adjustments and then avert my eyes from my local tide gauge.

      This is why CAGW is such a hard sell. You have hardly any proof, and the proof that you do have is highly manufactured or manipulated.

      But don’t take my word for it:

      In Their Own Words: Climate Alarmists Debunk Their ‘Science’

      Several e-mail exchanges reveal that certain researchers believed well-intentioned ideology trumped objective science. Jonathan Overpeck, a coordinating lead IPCC report author, suggested: “The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out.”

      In another e-mail, Thorne stated: “I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.”

      Another scientist worries: “…clearly, some tuning or very good luck [is] involved. I doubt the modeling world will be able to get away with this much longer.”

      One researcher foresaw some very troubling consequences: “What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multi-decadal natural fluctuation? They’ll kill us probably…”

      The whole thing is outrageously UNETHICAL !!!

  2. Mr Sir says:

    How about those record September highs in Antarctica this year?

    • Gator says:

      Little Missy apparently has no issue with massive intergovernmental fraud that starves millions to death annually.

      Why do you hate poor brown people Little Missy?

  3. Winston says:

    In the graph showing the massive rise in temperature, what does the y-axis parameter “Anomaly (°C) with regard to 1961-1990” mean? In simplistic terms, I would have thought it meant temperature variation from the temperature average (?) Over the period 1961-1990, yet that can’t be right.

  4. Bill Crofut says:

    Mr. Heller,

    You read the following headline:
    “Alaskan Glaciers Are Melting Twice as Fast as Models Predicted.”
    “Climate Math”
    [1 min., 55 sec.]

    My email subscription to “Science News” recently provided the following link:

    “See how an Alaskan glacier has shrunk over time”

    Alaska’s Columbia glacier began rapidly retreating around 1980, and its leading edge has moved more than 20 kilometers inland. These images, captured by the joint NASA/U.S. Geological Survey Landsat satellites, were stitched together into a video to show the glacier’s dynamic evolution from 1972 to 2019.

    To my untrained eye, the 14-second time-lapse video seems to show the opposite of the headline claim. So, I stopped the video at each of the posted years and copied the image into Microsoft Word. Again, to my untrained eye, some of the images appear to be repeated. I’d like your professional appraisal of the headline claim. I would also like to share the copied images with you, but hesitate to clog your comment space without permission.

    Here’s a brief description of my observations: seemingly duplicated images, 1975-7; 78 & 9; 80 & 82; 84 & 86; 87 & 89; 2001 & 2; 88 is a blanket of yellow; 90 is blank. Several of the images appear to be simply duplicates with applied color changes to the major features.

Leave a Reply to Bill Crofut Cancel reply

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