February Data Tampering So Far

Prior to data tampering by NOAA, afternoon temperatures this month so far have been the coldest of the last century. But NOAA adds 2.5 degrees to recent temperatures relative to 1936, and turns a cooling trend into a warming trend.

NOAA Data Link

Almost 60% of the temperature data being used by NOAA in their final adjusted data set is fake – i.e. generated by a computer model with no underlying data.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to February Data Tampering So Far

  1. arn says:

    AGW is being saved the same way the presidential election has been “saved”.
    (by the same billionaires and their minions)

  2. D. Boss says:

    The most telling is when you have plotted the “adjusted” data or the adjustments against CO2.

    When the data is adjusted to perfectly match rise in CO2, you can be certain that this is deliberate, and is done with an agenda to support the narrative.

  3. Vegieman says:

    No understand second graph. The percent fabrication is a little foggy also. What is the NOAAs thinking? Do they show their work or would that be racist? A little more explanation for this kind of data would be useful to the interested general public that isn’t familiar with these kind of representations (yours) and misrepresentations (theirs).

  4. So the wind turbines in Texas didn’t freeze, after all.

  5. Jerry L Kreps says:

    Unfortunately, many areas of science are now plagued with the idea that if the data collected doesn’t correlate with the computer model “explaining” the science then the data is modified until it does, or is rejected. As you might suspect, many models are based more on politics than on science. AGW is only the tip of the iceberg.

    For the last 30-40 years the ideas of Dark Matter and Dark Energy have been talked about, written about and taught in universities as if they were proven facts, yet over that period none of the experiments designed to prove their existence have succeeded in doing so. So sure that their models are correct they continue to preach that which they cannot prove.

    In February of 2020 the CDC completed a study of the effectiveness of face masks in stopping virus inhalation or exhalation. They had examined published papers between 1946 and July of 2018. Their report summarized the conclusions of the 10 best RCT papers by stating that N95 and cloth face masks do NOT work. They published their conclusions as a “Policy Paper” in May of 2020. A couple weeks later Dr Fauci repeated the CDC conclusion. Their opinion differed from that of the media and oligarchs, which created a firestorm of pseudo public opinion and they quickly reversed their “science”. To calm the public the FDA “temporarily” approved the Chinese KN95 masks for sale in the US, allowing the US made N95 masks to be reserved for medical personal. The 3M corporation had a graph on their website which showed that the N95 mask, rated to filter 95% of smog particles 2.5 microns or larger, had little effect in filtering 1 nm viral particles. That graph disappeared and a rash of quickly published papers “proved” that KN95 were effective at 95% and cloth masks up to 80-90%.

    America is in its age of Lysenkoism and may remain in it for decades to come.

    • Jean-Marc says:

      So true and somewhere so sad by the same time!

    • Solar Mutant Ninjaneer says:

      Right on Jerry!
      I’ve noticed the same thing recently. The masks and mandates are an excellent example of the corruption of science for political reasons. In addition to the 10 randomized controlled trials (RCT) conducted between 1946 and 2018 that definitively show that mask use by the public is ineffective against the spread of viruses and is potentially unhealthy, there were two RCTs conducted in 2020 on Covid-19 that came to the same conclusion – one with US Marines and an extensive Danish study. You would have thought them newsworthy, but since they don’t support the narrative, nothing.
      I recently became aware of descent within the particle physics community regarding the need for an even bigger particle collider to prove dark matter, etc. Here is a video with some pretty rational arguments against the particle physics “consensus”.
      I am not an expert in either field, but given the inherent conflicts of interest, I have to be skeptical.
      I am an expert in heat transfer and thermodynamics and know for a fact that the influence of CO2 on Earth’s temperature is negligible – just from theory. (It is also obvious from the observational evidence.) When I extrapolate the obvious-to-me deceit in “climate science” to other fields, it gets pretty depressing.

    • D. Boss says:

      Jerry L Kreps says: “For the last 30-40 years the ideas of Dark Matter and Dark Energy have been talked about, written about and taught in universities as if they were proven facts, yet over that period none of the experiments designed to prove their existence have succeeded in doing so. So sure that their models are correct they continue to preach that which they cannot prove.”

      Yes and instead of considering that their theory of gravitation, and/or say the “standard model” may be wrong, they go off on idiotic tangents….

      Science has more dogma and doctrine than the Roman Catholic Church. Say anything against that dogma or doctrine and you get burned at the stake or at least ex-communicated. And that was before the whole mess became Wokistan!

      Goebbels and Pravda would be envious of the mass brainwashing that is so pervasive from the Media/Industrial Complex these days.

  6. Jean-Marc says:

    It could be cool if we would have been able to “like” comments left by your followers like we can in Facebook.

  7. Mr English says:

    Sorry the powers that be are stomping on your civil rights. This is sad. Thanks for the truth Tony you rock.

  8. hotwire says:

    NOAA and NASA can only do this for so long and the past will look like the ice age ended in 1900.

  9. Can you explain, or direct me to a source that explains, how you obtain the original data?
    If I were up to no good, I would keep others from seeing the pre-adjustment data.

  10. John Sutcliffe says:

    Tony you are right again and why are the world powers not working toward increasing food security as a cooling planet will reduce world food production. In Australia the last 2 years we had drought and extreme summer heat brought on by a Cooling Indian Ocean and slow or late wet season on the North West coast not wetting inland Australia (Bureau of Meteorology, BOM) and funneling heat from the inland to the east coast of Australia. This was good news for the alarmists who declared the heat and associated bush-fires was a clear example of Global Warming. These radical alarmist theories were well supported by the mainstream media. See attached link to ABC/BOM reason for lack of Kimberly rainfall.

  11. S.K. says:

    Tony is not the only scientist to expose the data altering.

    If the corrections fixed known problems in the instruments, that would help accuracy. But they are statistical. They make the station measurements smoother when mapped and they smooth over discontinuities. In my opinion, NOAA has overdone it. TOB, PHA, infilling and gridding are overkill. This is easily seen in Figure 7 and by comparing Figure 3 to Figure 6 or Figure 5. Does the final trend in Figure 3 more closely resemble the measurements (Figure 6) or the net corrections in Figure 5? The century slope of the data is 0.25°, the corrections add 0.35° to this and the “climatological gridding algorithm” adds 0.9°! It is worth saying again, the type of statistical operations we are discussing do nothing to improve the accuracy of the National Temperature Index, and they probably reduce it.

    Here are a few of Tony’s earlier posts.

    https://newtube.app/user/TonyHeller/xEyXN2e (temperature alterations part 3)

  12. Raymondveins says:

    Guys just made a web-site for me, look at the link: https://fiani.com.ua/
    Tell me your recommendations. Thanks.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.