Data Tampering At USHCN/GISS

The measured USHCN daily temperature data shows a decline in US temperatures since the 1930s.  But before they release it to the public,  they put it thorough a series of adjustments which change it from a cooling trend to a warming trend.

The graph below shows the difference between the published data and the measured data.

The next blink comparator shows changes in the US temperature record from GISS. It alternates between their 1999 graph and the 2012 version of the same graph. The past is cooled and the present is warmed.

The next graph shows the difference between the 2012 version of the GISS US temperature graph, and 1999 version.

How the US hockey stick was built

As of 1999, there wasn’t any warming in the US

Hansen made these remarkable comments in 1999 :

Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat and drought. The drought of 1999 covered a smaller area than the 1988 drought, when the Mississippi almost dried up. And 1988 was a temporary inconvenience as compared with repeated droughts during the 1930s “Dust Bowl” that caused an exodus from the prairies, as chronicled in Steinbeck’s Grapes of Wrath…..

in the U.S. there has been little temperature change in the past 50 years, the time of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases — in fact, there was a slight cooling throughout much of the country

NASA GISS: Science Briefs: Whither U.S. Climate?

At that time, GISS US temperature data showed an 80+ year decline in US temperatures, with 1934, 1921 and 1931 being the three hottest years

This data has been deleted from the GISS web site, but originally resided at this URL


It has been archived here :

The next graph shows the 1920-1999 changes which Hansen made to the US temperature record since 1999 – in GISS version 3.


The GISS US temperature graph looks like this

Fig.D.gif (513×438)

The next blink comparator shows the changes that were made to the US temperature data since 1999. The year 1998 was promoted from #4 to #1.

Hockey sticks are indeed man-made – by climate activists pretending to be scientific heads of government agencies.

160 Responses to Data Tampering At USHCN/GISS

  1. Andy DC says:

    Good work. That is just the tip of the tip of the iceberg.

  2. lance says:

    i can see this expanding exponentially!!

  3. erschroedinger says:

    Yada, yada, yada. All you denialists can do is accuse scientists of dishonesty, fraud, socialism, etc. I guess it’s hard when you don’t have any facts on your side.

    • I presented the facts in this post, and you ignored them and instead wrote gossip. Are you completely daft?

      • Bob says:

        The links you supplied to the data don’t work. I suspect there is fabrication is going on, but its not where you are pointing.

      • All of the links work fine. Do you know how to click on a link?

      • Bodhisattva says:

        Yes, he is in fact apparently completely daft.

        Ignore him.

      • Peter franks says:

        He isn’t daft, he is a leftist whacko that cannot accept reality. Scum not worth engaging in discussion since they are so blinded by their ideology they will not admit to the facts.

        • dbhalling says:

          Typical of AGW prophets a bald statement with no proof. The evidence is overwhelming that CRU did tamper the data. AGW prophets have been lying about the data from the very beginning. Real science and real scientist do not lie about the date.

        • Rick Smith says:

          The guy that runs that site is a washed up cartoonist John Cook and the psychologist Stephan Lewandowsky , not even close to being a scientists.

        • sam says:

          I read the SS excuse, but it doesn’t matter. TH is putting up graphs that clearly show that these corrupt agencies have made adjustments to make it look like it is getting warmer..and they have done this repeatedly. They have to because so much government largess is at stake to support the billions of dollars spent on the global warming industry. The problem started when margaret thatcher put tax payer money on the table, but not just for climate research, but for research to support the weak ‘co2 warming’ theory.. History clearly shows that her motivation was to promote nuclear power at the expense of coal fired plants because the unions were busting her chops. THEN in the 90’s AL Gore brought the scam to the USA and installed a corrupt ‘warmist’ regime at NASA and NOAA. It creates a juggernaught, if they admit that it was in fact warmer in the 30’s than it is now, then the bottom falls out of the billions of $s that go into the global warming industry, it’s blatant corruption period. They got caught changing temperature data from the 30’s – that can’t be denied.
          I have emailed the NOAA several times, politely , asking for clarification on the adjustments they have made over time and about the report they got caught changing 30’s data and when they got caught they quietly changed it back. YOu would think they would have a FAQ or a prepared statement about all of this since it’s all over the internet and it comes up when you search noaa, nasa etc. They do not reply, they have no explanation. what does that tell you? tels you that they infact have NO explanation.they and the mainstream media live in their own world where climategate never happened etc. a great read is the climategate emails with analysis at

      • Renee says:

        lol, love that. “..completely daft?” I was thinking he must be the dead cat.

    • Brian Carter says:

      Mr. Schroedinger, Are you claiming that Mr. Goddard simply made up some cartoons? If you go to GISS and USHCN you can see the data for youreslf. It takes some effort and little more than a high school education. But that is better than exposing yourself as a hysterical screaming nincompoop.

    • Sparks says:

      Fraud is illegal, pointing out the fraud is not. Just because you are quick to turn a blind eye to evidence of fraud when it suits your position doesn’t mean that others will be so spineless.

    • Eric Webb says:

      Wow, erschroendinger, kind of an ironic statement you are making there. Have yet to see you present any facts to us, because I, like many of us here, would sure like to know what “facts’ you have to present.

    • hanson807 says:

      So your argument, if I can sum it up for you, is who are you going to believe, your lying eyes or James Hansen?

    • Jo says:

      @erschroedinger YOU are the problem. YOU and the likes of you are liars, cheats, whiners and crybabies. When people present FACTS, such as “here is EVIDENCE that someone LIED”, all you can do is response in typical alarmist fashion? Calling people deniers and blaming them for exposing the frauds for whom they are? YOU are the idiot. Go back into your basement.

    • liberalsnightmare says:

      Dishonesty fraud and Socialism are just the beginning, let’s throw in Liberalism which is commonly known as a mental disorder mixed in with with a little Marxism for tyranny and an inability to work or function in the arena of ideas with out throwing a fit and hiding your heads in the sand when confronted with empirical data and evidence refuting your junk science all day long and yes you find it right here on this website. Your a real Dinger erschroedinger!

    • dbhalling says:

      Facts? You ignore the facts, but accuse the author of what you are doing. Thanks Jay Carney.

    • Truthseeker says:

      “The truth? You can’t handle the truth!”

    • dbhalling says:

      Explain why AGW prophets always have to lie. Let’s start with Al Gore’s absurd hockey stick graph, which anyone with an iota of knowledge knew missed the Little Ice Age and the Roman Warming period. If AGW were a science, then you would have expected all the AGW people to point out this fraud and throw Gore out on his ear. But no, AGW prophets tried to cook the books and protect this fraud. Perhaps you saw the peer reviewed paper by two economists defending AGW prophets uses of lies.

      What is amazing to me is that AGW prophets are disgusted with the unscientific approach of creationists/Intelligent Design advocates, but both AGW and ID prophets ignore evidence and logic. In fact AGW prophets make ID advocates almost look honest and Al Gore makes televangelists look like pikers. AGW and ID are two peas in a pod – religion.

    • And, just where are your “facts”? The data presented are from recorded official documents. Your irrelavant comment, erschroedinger,is pure Sophestry.

    • tommy boy says:

      The “facts” as you call them are by a carefully selected group of 2K scientist, and ignore 5K scientist that signed a petition that it was a crock. The key is in order to be in 2K club you had to be a “climatologist” which is a hugely misunderstood, very loose “science” that had published within the year on global climate change… Its called fascism when you attack people for not towing the government line…. you are sad. BTW what is your degree in?

    • tommy boy says:

      5,000.00 scientist signed a petition against this hoax, they were ignored. 2K “peer reviewed” which means almost nothing except others having the same view took a look at it, are used to prove your point. However the difference being the 2K scientist for Man made Global warming, had to be “climatologist” one of the worst understood and loosely defined sciences we have ever seen, WHO had to have published an article on climate change in the last year! Talk about a skewed sample! often does a weatherman get it right BTW, he does not have to as he deals with percentages and manipulates and changes opinions until it rains outside then, and only then, he claims 100% chance of rain, and still you trust this pseudo science that is not at all testable),. When you condemn those who question the government thought police, it is called fascism – and you can give the old nazi salute to your King Obama…. BTW – what degree do you have?

    • gord says:

      All those charts and graphs look like facts to me, holy fek some people are just that draft.

    • rachase says:

      erschroedinger: FACTS are what is proving that the alleged “scientists” have engaged in dishonesty, fraud, etc. It’s hard to understand that when you don’t have the ability (or willingness) to discern truth.

  4. gator69 says:

    “I guess it’s hard when you don’t have any facts on your side.”

    I’m surprised he can spell ‘facts’…

    Nice work Steven, this has now been added to my ‘Data Fraud’ file.

    • Eric Webb says:

      I think we need a more than just a ‘file” with all of the fraud that has occurred with the AGW idiots.

      • gator69 says:

        Hey Eric! I have over 40 separate files on ‘climate change’, and can easily reference them on my iPhone anywhere, anytime. I can always back my assertions with data.

        I have files like ‘Hansen’, ‘Big Green’, ‘Hockey Stick’, and so on. It obliterates warmists, who NEVER have hard data!

  5. George Kominiak says:

    Doesn’t it bother anyone that the US Goverment is directing, encouraging, condoning, tolerating , …(you pick) large-scale lieing???


    • The US Government is led by a better class of people than the rest of us. They know better than we do. Their hearts are pure and their opposition is entirely evil and wrong. They should be allowed to lie because they have only the best of intentions. There is no room for contradictory facts. If they need to correct raw data to make it reflect revealed truth, they are doing the Lord’s work.

      • Cascade - Cal says:


      • Peter franks says:

        Lies, thy name is Obama.

        When in the last 6 years has the little dictator NOT lied to the American people?

        Found out about Fast and Furious from the news vs. executive privledge protection for the criminal Holder? Nope
        Not a smidgen of corruption in the IRS vs. Lerner MIA emails, etc.? Nope
        Economic recovery well on it way, vs. Q1 2014 GDP down 2.9%? Nope
        AlQaeda is decimated and on the run vs. ISIL taking over Syria and Iraq? Nope
        Benghazi was caused by a video vs. the AlQaeda related terrorists that did it? Nope
        Arab Spring will bring peace vs. the rise of Islamic terrorism it has resulted in? Nope
        And lets not forget If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor AND If you like your plan you can keep your plan – NOPE.

        Barack Obama has lied to the American public at every instance since he was elected.

    • paul harvey says:

      People DON’T believe or trust this administration at all, and have seen them lie constantly. Sadly, now we won’t trust scientists, as easily, any longer, and I feel that NO administration is likely to regain the public trust easily…..

  6. Facts don’t bother the Church of Warmingology. Really though, what is their rationale for the “adjustment”?

  7. Jamie says:

    I followed this data over the years and i also pointed out the changes and tampering to various people on various websites, only to get abused and hassled and told that i was making this all up to suit an agenda!!!
    So well done on all this info!

  8. Keitho says:

    Good job Steve. Look at the sun’s variability and that doesn’t cause this.

    Look at the ocean heat change and there is nothing there.

    Look at sea level change and it isn’t responding as if things are getting warmer.

    All you have left, as you have pointed out here, is that the temperature record is just bogus.

  9. Suspicious0bservers says:

    Can I put this in tomorrow’s news?

  10. Mark says:

    Hmmm, The sensational way this article is written sounds like someone has a not-so-hidden agenda. According to the one NASA link provided, the 1999 article of which the text has been taken out of context is series of questions trying to understand why the USA data is not heating up as much as the rest of the world with an assumption that when better tools become available the mystery will be understood and not a damning expose on scientific underhandedness.

    While I don’t understand the particulars, Nasa records of data changes sound reasonable. Removal of data points that did not meet quality control checks (i.e. may not be accurate) and an admission that data was changed because values were “inadvertently appended to USHCN data for prior years without including the adjustments at these stations that had been defined by the NOAA National Climate Data Center)”

    • I’ll put you down for supporting data tampering by government employees.

    • Were this only one or two stations then that justification would have some credibility. When these “corrections” are applied to almost every set of station data across the country then it becomes a much more difficult claim to swallow. (And that I have documented at Bit Tooth Energy

    • Bodhisattva says:

      Errors certainly do occur and if they’re actually errors nobody has any issue with reasonable steps to correct them.

      But what you don’t seem to get is that errors are random. When all the so-called ‘errors’ result in the same one-way adjustment, that’s not errors, that’s deliberate and obvious data tampering. Fraud.

      I think Mr. Goddard’s response to you on this was perfect, on the nose.

  11. The government, media, industry, academia, environmentalists, anti-Capitalists, and UN have a vested interest in keeping this global warming/climate change scam going. It is the hideous symbiosis whose purpose is to level the playing field of less fortunate nations by cutting the legs out from underneath the evil United States, throw a guilt trip at US citizens so they don’t squeal about further taxation, and the New World Order.

    The gw crowd and their trolls do not have one piece of empirical evidence linking human activities to the climate – NOT ONE! All they have is untraceable weather anecdotes, computer projections which never pan out, and Hockey Stick FrankenGraphs cobbled together with unrelated, unreliable proxy data sets.

    For the last 600,000,000 years temperatures have hovered around 10C about 14% of the time, around 25C about 50% of the time, and somewhere in between 36% of the time. Right now we are at 14.4C, about 29% above the bottom of the historical range. (Ref: Dr. Christopher R. Scotese‘s PALEOMAP Project at We are no where near any temperature tipping point.

    The 0.4C rise in temperature since the Industrial Revolution pales in comparison to the 1.6C increase of the Medieval Warming Period, the 2.5C increase of the Roman WP, and the 3.2C increase of the Minoan WP using the IR as a baseline. The average temperature has been declining for the last 6,000 years of the present 10,500 year Interglacial Warmup. (Ref: Alley, R.B. 2000. The Younger Dryas cold interval as viewed from central Greenland, Quaternary Science Reviews, 19:213-226.)

    We are at the very end of the present Interglacial WP. After this comes about 90,000 years of snow, ice, advancing glaciers, fuel shortages, crop failures, and loss of life. Enjoy the warmth while you can.

    • gator69 says:

      “The gw crowd and their trolls do not have one piece of empirical evidence linking human activities to the climate – NOT ONE! All they have is untraceable weather anecdotes, computer projections which never pan out, and Hockey Stick FrankenGraphs cobbled together with unrelated, unreliable proxy data sets.”

      You forgot unlimited taxpayer funding, and useful idiots. Otherwise spot on! 😉

    • Doug says:

      This is a correct long term analysis (in brief) thank you Charles. Indeed, enjoy the warmth while you can… A few centuries from now our great great grandchildren will be wishing they still had fossil fuels to burn, but will have to make do with solar heat harvesting, wind and nuclear powered electricity, and mass migrations towards the equatorial regions…

  12. The Truth Shall Set You Free says:

    The missing link temperatures are archived through website snapshots in 2001.*/

    • mreaston4 says:

      Yep, and the data doesn’t match the copy that was created. Hopefully more people can be a skeptic and look that up instead of believing this blog post which appears to not be accurate with invalid data.

  13. Kyle Hayman says:

    Do you people understand that the term has been labeled global warming and not United States of America warming? That either way “fraudulent this fraudulent that” (which I beg to say this website hones in on random fraudulence itself) the US does not have its own independent atmosphere and that heat retention occurs in a very complex, gloooooobal way in our snow globe of a world?

    But either way, does the physics that I so clearly and first-handedly understand not apply to how carbon dioxide re-emits infra red radiation back into our atmosphere? Is the greenhouse gas phenomenon a hoax? Do we really not understand how burning every carbon based life form’s entity that has ever once graced this earth and throwing it up into the sky to now inhabit our snow globe of a world’s atmosphere causes some sort of reverberating, complex problem?

    Let me tell you, climate skeptics, that you need to get your head out of the conspiracy clouds and understand the unbiased ways of science. The ever increasing concentrations of this blanket of a gas is slowly but surely retaining energy, retaining heat in our globe…. In a remarkably quick time frame. Not quick in terms of your lifetime or mine, but the magnitude in which this is happening is phenomenal. Now if you believe you have undeniable, all-powerful information about our world, about the science of how the ecosystem works and about the physics of our atmosphere,…in which you can discredit ALLLLL the climatologists who spend their lives understanding, and alllllll the scientists in general who DO understand this concepts and CAN critically think and relate physics with ecology with biology….then you are severely kidding yourself.

    You are hindering our collective awareness that we have an inevitable problem. A problem that already will be pretty unavoidable in the near future. Understand that the longer you wait, and the more carbon, greenhouse gas we seep into our finite atmosphere, an even more severe positive feedback mechanism will arise.

    Please understand that we all need to be on the same page. That this currently is a viscous, cumulative and exponentially increasing cycle. Let’s all say GLOBAL WARMING DOES EXIST and the permafrost layered tundras begin to thaw in the coming years. And the methanogen bacteria laying dormant within the frozen soil become reactivated. And METHANE begins now to be exponentially increased within our atmosphere as they respire it through their now evident metabolic processes. That is the greenhouse gas to worry about. That is several magnitudes more potent of a greenhouse, re-emitting gas. Add this exponentially increasing heat to the acidification of our oceans (carbon+water=carbonic acid, acid rain, etc), melting of land ice, rising ocean levels and thus altogether severe CLIMATIC SHIFTS (whether it be in pH shifts, temperature shifts, sea level boundaries ETC….). Watch this video to see methane release and cool fires that show methane emission, etc but SHOWS that methane can be released and the severe effect it will have on our environment when permafrost thaws.

    The industrial age has been great, but now we need the energetically clean age….or nothing at all unfortunately. This is serious, and will be seen more evidently as time slowly, but SURELY, progresses.

    Ponder that my climate skeptic friends, and please feel free to converse about how humans during this age have not fucked up the environment. Explain to me how you think ALL SCIENTISTS have an agenda and how it’s SO UNFATHOMABLE that big oil has not infiltrated your minds in order to support a CONTINUING and unstoppable use of fossil fuels. THERE is your agenda. THEY are putting the viability of your progeny at risk, the viability of the entire earth at risk, for the greed of money. Please debate me on how the physics of greenhouse gasses is FALSE, how the ecosystem is not EFFECTED through a negative feedback mechanism of great complexity. And how burning all of this dead, carbon based matter and putting it into the atmosphere does not cause a slight, cumulative problem.

    • dbhalling says:

      Yes Jesus. Now go slap some eco water on yourself

    • Truthseeker says:

      Kyle Hayman, please provide just one example of observational data that shows that the composition of a free-flowing planetary atmosphere affects the ambient temperature of that atmosphere over and above the incoming solar energy … just one … any one will do.

      Anyone that uses the term “greenhouse gas” has no understanding of the relevant physics.

    • cgp says:

      Have you not heard about the carbon cycle? The balances between sinks and sources vastly overwhelms man made emissions.

    • Camp says:


      I am going to help you with something, but before I do, let me say I am all for alternative energy and a clean environment. Please do not confuse the claims of man made global warming with environmental responsibility. I’m going to explain the return of radiant heat in a way that has clarified it for many.

      The particles in the atmosphere that “reflect heat” are not a one way mirror. They are “reflective” on all sides. Particles in the atmosphere that reflect radiant heat not only reflect sunlight in, but also keep sunlight out. Light bouncing off the Earth’s surface and reflected back into space is less intense than new light entering Earth’s atmosphere. It is safe to assuming that at least an equal amount of light entering the atmosphere is reflected by these particle back into space and never reach Earth as are reflected off the planets surface, contact the particles and then radiate back down. In this instance, because the light never entering the atmosphere is more intense than the light coming from the planet and bouncing inside, the net effect would be less heat, not more. Assuming the methane/CO2 and the like do reflect radiant heat inside the atmosphere, then they must also reflect new light out.

      A good example of this is the mirrored room. If you put a light bulb in a mirrored room and turn it on, the light bounces off the mirrors creating a hot, amplified environment. Cut a whole in the side and out pops a laser. However, in our example, the light source is external to the room (ie..the sun). Place a light bulb outside of a mirrored room. Although small amounts of radiant heat from the back of the mirrors does enter the room, the mirror block the much more intense light from entering. The net effect is a room not receiving heat from the source. Open up a panel to let light in and the room heats up.

      However, the CO2 levels are currently around 400 ppm. The term “part per million” is convenient for scientists. You add the word “million” and people take notice. 400 parts per million is a saturation of 4 in 10,000. In other words, imagine a forest of 10,000 trees. Two of the trees are brown, 9998 are white. The forest changes to 4 brown, 9996 white. Is there any real effect on the forest. The answer is negligible. The major problem with the “science” of global warming is that a “normal” baseline for CO2 and Methane in our atmosphere is a matter of opinion and not fact. No baseline for normal levels exists and what does exist is based on pure opinion.

      The great George Carlin does a fantastic bit on global warming in which he points out, the Earth has been around for billions of years. It has been through constant bombardment from meteor strikes (one big enough to kill the dinosaurs), volcanic eruptions, the breaking of the continents, pole shift, massive plagues, solar storms and many things much more impactful than we are. It is the height of arrogance to believe that 100 years of industrialization far exceeds that of a 6 mile wide asteroid slamming into the sea.

      • MLeonard says:

        Sorry – GCSE level physics not understood here. The suns energy comes in as light and high frequency electromagnetic rays that are not absorbed by greenhouse gases. once it has hit the surface of the planet it is transformed into Infrared radiation (electromagnetic waves of a different frequency). Greenhouse gases have chemical bond lengths that are willing to vibrate at this frequency – which means they are willing to absorb the infrared radiation – transforming it into heat, where they do NOT absorb and transform sunlight. There is not “reflection back to earth”.

        There are baseline data levels available for carbon dioxide in the atmosphere going back 600 million years – taken from bubbles of atmospheric gas found in ice cores.

        And no – its entirely possible that mankind can in no way replicate the impact on the environment of enormous asteroids and the state the earth was in when it was first here – but it wouldn’t take remotely that amount of impact to wipe us all out – would it?

        Could you explain to me what the scientists and governments around the world stand to gain from supporting climate change science? because there is huge financial investment and gains to be made by those funding the anti climate change movement.

        Lastly – If climate change is a myth, and those who support it are wrong, but we act as if they are right – we end up with a cleaner world not dependent of fast depleting resource – whereas if climate change is real, and we act as if it isn’t, large portions of the world die horribly. Game theory surely supports going with acting as if it is real?

        • Mr Leonard: In response to: “Could you explain to me what the scientists and governments around the world stand to gain from supporting climate change science? because there is huge financial investment and gains to be made by those funding the anti climate change movement”.

          Governments (including the UN) have a very tangible interest in promoting the Global Warming allegations. As long as global warming can be asserted as a “fact” (“settled science”) and one that threatens our very existence if not immediately countered, they can justify the imposition of draconian controls over all industry and draconian taxes on industry and the general population. In case you haven’t noticed what has been going on in the U.S. for the past half dozen years or so, our government has been on a near uncontrolled power grab, and convincing the low information voter that global warming is an onrushing reality will be the icing on the power cake, Some other world governments have similar appetites.

          As for scientists, the great majority of those who are on the “human caused global warming is settled science” garvy train depend upon government grants for a living. There have been a number of cases where those researchers who were funded by such a grant, but came to other than the polically correct conclusions about the causes or adverse effects of global warming, had their government grant promtly dry up. And contrary to what you may hear from the “alarmists”. the “denier” scientists, with a small handful of exceptions, do not work for or receive funding from “Big Oil” or similar commercial entities with a vested interest in pumping out CO2.

          And to answer your question about why not just go ahead with curtailing CO2 emisssions since it would be a benefit in the long run even if they aren’t as bad as they are now siad to be? (1) The course of action that is presently contemplated and being implemented by Obama will quickly destroy our already fragile economy. (2) There is still no definitive proof that it is human caused CO2 that is driving any alleged climate temperature changes. It remains nothing more than a theory, and there are competing ones being proposed by many reputable scientists, (3) Even if it were CO2, the emissions of the rest of the world (principally China, India, and deveoping nations) completely dwarf ours, and even if we reduced ours to zero, atmospheric CO2 would continue to increase.

        • paul harvey says:

          Unfortunately, many of the solutions proposed in this country and a few others will not be observed by the worlds other large polluters, so gains would likely be minimal, and meanwhile the resulting tax increases and rise in energy and gas prices would , likely, have a devastating effect on our economy, an economy that is already in sad shape….. But the real problem the AGW crowd has now is that many do not believe them anymore as email scandals, data smoothing, hyperbole, etc have galvanized opposition, and they are not helped by the lack of trust in our current administration either…..

      • Colinjames says:

        Oh my freekin lord finally someone who takes the same approach I do, I’ve expressed almost exactly the same thing- care for the environment, just don’t believe the AGW hype- and get hate filled screeds in response from AGW believers, of which I was one until just a few months ago. I don’t know if you’re familiar with Suspicious Observers but they just put out the single best piece on climate I’ve seen. Much of the video is from the Electric Universe 2014 conference which has two other climate related presentations on the Thunderbolts Project YouTube channel worth checking out. It’s more astronomy than anything but they (TP) do great stuff on the Earth-Sun electrical connection. That’s a huge factor missing in AGW “science”. S.O. is more dedicated to space weather and the sun in particular, with a lot more focus on climate change, which itself is real, always is obviously, just not because of man-made carbon emissions. But you knew that already.

    • The issue,Mr Hayman, is twofold: (1) is the global climate in a warming trend, and if so, is it an unprecedented “catestrophic” one; and (2) if the answer to the question is “yes”, then is the temperature increase driven by human-caused CO2 emissions? The answer to the first part of #1 is,obviously “yes”, since there has been a very slow warming since the last glacial maximum some 20,000 years ago, said warming being a natural cyclic phenomenon that has been going on with the earth’s climate as long as there has been a climate–cool/warm/cool/warm/cool etc. The reasons for the cyclic behavior are not completely understood, but the fact of their existence has been well documented. CO2 indeed is a greenhouse gas–but it is a very minor component of our atmosphere, one small enough to almost be classed as a ‘trace’. Water vapor is by far the dominant greenhouse gas, and its effects on temperatures are orders of magnitude greater that those of CO2. Unfortunately, what drives medium to longer-term changes in water vapor content of the atmosphere is a complex issue that still being pursued by those scientists who have an open mind about global warming, and who do not subscribe to the liberal mantra that the science of it is “settled”.

    • bit chilly says:

      if all these carbons we burnt took co2 levels to almost 400ppm, who or what burnt the carbons in the past when the level was in the 1000 plus ppm kyle ?
      going by the amount of shouting in your post,i assume you have your pension invested in green energy,another fool.

    • Bodhisattva says:

      Here are a series of quotes of what you said and my responses:

      QUOTE: “the US does not have its own independent atmosphere and that heat retention occurs in a very complex, gloooooobal way in our snow globe of a world?”

      Yes, but what is happening in the U.S., and is arguably being measured and recorded as well as, if not better than, what is happening everywhere else, is clear and it’s not what silly alarmists are claiming. Further, we’ve had alarmists, for the past 15 years or so, claiming that there would be ZERO arctic ice by the summers of between 2012 and 2015 and guess what – yet another alarmist prediction proven flat out wrong. In the first IPCC reports we were ASSURED that by now temperatures would be MUCH HIGHER than they are now if we didn’t IMMEDIATELY take DRASTIC ACTION, and yet temperatures are virtually unchanged despite taking NO action. Temperatures are at OR BELOW what the IPCC claimed they COULD be IF and ONLY IF we took drastic action. Let me repeat that – we took nearly NO action and yet our outcome is what the IPCC said could only be achieved through IMMEDIATE, DRASTIC, SUSTAINED action and despite the continued same slow, steady, NATURAL increase of atmospheric CO2, we’re down near the best case predictions of the IPCC. Now, to me, that proves that NOT LISTENING TO THE IPCC AND CLIMATE ALARMISTS LIKE YOU IS THE BEST CASE OPTION LEADING TO THE BEST CASE RESULT!

      You do admit, curiously, to our “snow globe of a world”, which is interesting. Somewhere in that confused mind of yours, you understand that the natural tendency of the Earth is to cool, for water to be trapped as snow and ice covering much of the world with same and leading to long stretches of inhospitably cold and dry times during which life struggles and dies and mass extinctions leave only traces of the explosions of life that occur in the warm, wet times (which you seem to be terrified of!) in the geologic records available to us.

      QUOTE: “the physics that I so clearly and first-handedly understand not apply to how carbon dioxide re-emits infra red radiation back into our atmosphere?”

      Thank you for demonstrating so conclusively that you THINK you’re so much smarter than us while you PROVE how clueless you are. First, you admit carbon dioxide RE-EMITS what energy it briefly manages to weakly grasp. Second, you fail to admit that the re-emission happens in a random direction – as often as not towards space, allowing the energy to continue to be LOST, to be NOT RETAINED. Which is why you are so wrong, part 1. Part 2 of why you are so wrong is that yes, perhaps a bit more CO2 DOES actually tend to TRY to make the world a warmer place, but just as quickly as the Earth does actually heat up it becomes a more efficient radiator of said heat, at a number of frequencies, including many where CO2 simply CANNOT stop the loss of heat.

      If what you believe to be true actually WAS true the Earth would already be another Venus. Fortunately that is not possible because what you believe is demonstrably false. Just look around you and you will see – but yeah, I know, you won’t get it.

      QUOTE: “Do we really not understand how burning every carbon based life form’s entity that has ever once graced this earth and throwing it up into the sky to now inhabit our snow globe of a world’s atmosphere causes some sort of reverberating, complex problem?”

      Another thing you don’t get is that human activity is one of the smallest contributors to the changing CO2 levels in the atmosphere, but already I’m ahead of myself. Because, actually, it’s a fact that anything humans can do to increase atmospheric CO2 is actually saving the planet. Yes, it’s true. Do you know what level of atmospheric CO2 would cause the food chain to collapse by having it fall so low plants start struggling just to survive due to not having enough? We’re not really that far from that level. And in fact we’re nowhere near the level commercial growers artificially INCREASE the CO2 levels in their growing spaces (actual REAL greenhouse conditions) in order to improve the growth of their plants and to increase the yields. Plus, if you bother to check, since at least 1980 we’ve known, thanks to our various Earth observing satellites, that warming, or more CO2, OR BOTH has actually been HELPING the biosphere become healthier, more productive. I’m going to let you deny that or look it up and find out it’s true – I want to see which outcome is the one you’ve got the most invested in reaching. I’m betting it’s the former.

      QUOTE: “understand the unbiased ways of science”

      Yes, the liberal science, that ALWAYS (on any topic or issue, I can prove it, too) works like this:

      1) Decide what conclusion you want your “science” to reach.

      2) Assemble cherry picked data from cherry picked sources and, if that doesn’t work, make data up or continually adjust what REAL data you ONCE had (before you ruined it) until your initial conclusion is ‘proven’.

      3) Pervert the peer review system so your “science” is published and nothing that contracts it has a chance to get published. Also brutally repress anyone who announces they did their best to replicate your work, because they really believe in both you and your cause, but they simply could not get the results you did no matter how hard they tried.

      4) Have all your friends write nonsense papers that cite your paper so your citation count goes through the roof, proving how right you (and they) are, then have a big party patting each other on the back for how smart you all are.

      QUOTE: “this currently is a viscous, cumulative and exponentially increasing cycle.”

      Funny, all the VALID data says no statistically significant global warming in over 20 years. Of course NASA and other alarmist groups keep claiming to have PROVEN that this is the warmest [insert month name here] ever, even though when you check the basis of their claim they’re saying it was .02 degrees warmer than the old record and they also admit the error (uncertainty level) is .1 degree, or 5 times the amount they’re claiming this one was warmer by.

      No, actually it’s not increasing, in fact REAL scientists are pointing out everything suggests the sun is going into an unusually calm period and we’re likely to have another Maunder Minimum. You know, Frost Fairs on the Thames, that sort of thing.

      QUOTE: “if you believe you have undeniable, all-powerful information about our world, about the science of how the ecosystem works and about the physics of our atmosphere”

      No, that’s what YOU AND YOURS claim. We claim to be good at observing WHAT IS HAPPENING and I got news for you. It’s not what Chicken Littles like you keep claiming will happen. Just the opposite, in fact. EXAMPLE – climate alarmists predictions hurricanes would become more numerous, more dangerous, or both. Yet we have not had a CAT III or greater storm hit the U.S. in record time and the ACE index (if you don’t know what that is it only emphasizes how clueless you are despite your repeated false claims of intellectual superiority) remains in record low territory. EXAMPLE: Climate alarmists repeated predictions the Arctic would be ice-free in summer starting between 2012 and 2015. And yet the Arctic is actually GAINING ice, year over year, as a rule.

      QUOTE: “in which you can discredit ALLLLL the climatologists who spend their lives understanding, and alllllll the scientists in general who DO understand this concepts and CAN critically think and relate physics with ecology with biology”

      Are you having trouble with keys sticking on your keyboard? Your “L” key in particular?

      No, we don’t discredit anyone. Those people who repeatedly make ridiculous claims of drastic catastrophes which never come to pass have managed to discredit themselves. All we did was watched and, after THEY DID IT, we pointed out that THEY DID IT.

      And if they DID understand the concepts and COULD critically think they would never have made such drastic predictions that even they, had they the slightest understanding of the physics involved, WOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN FOOLISH ENOUGH TO MAKE IN THE FIRST PLACE. But I’ll tell you why they continue to do so:

      1) They don’t believe in science, they believe in the herd mentality and the utility of appeals to emotion over appeals to science, truth and logic. Because instead of making calm, realistic predictions of what might actually have a chance to happen, they keep making these HUGE APOCALYPTIC predictions that have no chance of ever coming true. Why?

      2) Because people LIKE YOU keep proving that such appeals to emotion work much better than the calm, reasonable, rational approaches people like me think are far superior and the sad things is people LIKE YOU keep proving them right and proving people like me wrong IN THAT RESPECT ALONE. In all other respects we beat you in every contest, but you keep winning that one alone.

      QUOTE: “You are hindering our collective awareness that we have an inevitable problem. A problem that already will be pretty unavoidable in the near future.”

      Which people like you have been saying since before I was born so given that my whole life your false predictions have NEVER COME TRUE it’s hard, at this point, for me to even take the time to bother with you but, lucky for you, today is a rare time I have the time to do so.

      QUOTE: “The ever increasing concentrations of this blanket of a gas is slowly but surely retaining energy, retaining heat in our globe”

      Which only proves that you really don’t have even the most rudimentary understanding of what is really happening.

      There’s no ‘blanket’. Putting aside the claim CO2 is ‘well mixed’ have been brought into question recently, it does not form a ‘layer’ and perhaps this gives insight into how the flawed conceptual thinking of alarmists is behind their inevitable ridiculous conclusions. There is no ‘blanket’ of gas and, furthermore, there’s hardly any CO2 at all! Do you understand how much 400 ppm is? Do you understand how much a change from 270 ppm to 400 ppm is?

      Let me explain using rival football teams. Let’s say for sake of this discussion only that Lambeau Field holds 10,000 people – I’m reducing the numbers to whole numbers because I understand people like you probably cannot think in terms of powers of 10 once all fingers and toes are accounted for, assuming you still even have all of yours, which might be a stretch.

      OK, so who’s a rival of Green Bay. Maybe the Vikings? I want to use a team that’s close and in the same division so this makes more sense. SO it’s game day and Lambeau is packed to capacity (remember, for our example that’s 10,000) with 9,997 Green Bay fans and 3 Vikings fans.

      That’s before the industrial revolution, and yes it was actually 2.7 fans, but to make this work I rounded up to 3.

      Now, after the industrial revolution, again the Vikings meet the Pack at Lambeau, only this time there are 9,996 Green Bay fans and 4 folks from Minnesota – I guess Jesse Ventura joined them this time?

      And you’re saying that change makes a fundamental, controlling difference? That the perceived output of the crows of 10,000 will be different because of the change of a single fan from cheering Green Bay to cheering the Vikings?

      Really? That’s what you call science?

      I mean, just the idea that 3 out of 10,000 produced a noticeable effect in the first place was pretty much lunatic – I almost didn’t mention that but I thought I’d throw it in, too.

      QUOTE: ” Let’s all say GLOBAL WARMING DOES EXIST and the permafrost layered tundras begin to thaw in the coming years. And the methanogen bacteria laying dormant within the frozen soil become reactivated. And METHANE begins now to be exponentially increased within our atmosphere as they respire it through their now evident metabolic processes.”

      First, let’s not ‘say’ that ‘global warming does exist’ because that furthers your nonsensical notion, your straw man argument, that anyone ever claimed it doesn’t.

      Of course it exists, stop demonstrating you have no valid arguments by trying to prove your intellectual superiority (which is also untrue, as your efforts demonstrate conclusively) by inserting straw men into this discussion.

      You have proven you’re aware of exactly why global warming starts AND THEN after a lag measured in HUNDREDS OF YEARS atmospheric CO2 starts to increase. Proving conclusively that if there is a cause-and-effect relationship (And you’ve just admitted there is! But also proved you know you’ve got it backwards!) between the two. But you did miss out on ‘the other half’. it’s not just permafrost. It’s also (at least, there may be other sources too) methane hydrates (clathrate deposits) in the sediments of the relatively shallow continental shelves. Anyway, you’re right. As the Earth warms, NORMALLY AND NATURALLY, permafrost does melt – in fact that whole 2 mile thick ice sheet that covered much of North America, Europe and Asia melted, THANK GOD, and indeed did allow the production of prodigious amounts of new methane, AS IT CONTINUES TO DO SO TODAY, just as you point out, without realizing it, without understanding the results. Because, if you bothered to REALLY look into it, you would find out what quickly happens to all that naturally released methane. Your own side points out it doesn’t stay methane for long. It turns into CO2 that is even now SLIGHTLY lowering the pH of the oceans and SLIGHTLY changing the balance of RELATIVELY INSIGNIFICANT TRACE GASSES in the atmosphere.

      Does CO2 have a ‘forcing’ effect? You know, it may, but EVERY BIT OF ACTUAL REAL WORLD DATA says that your side has overestimated any actual CO2 forcing by at least one if not multiple orders of magnitude, because your predicted results NEVER COME TRUE.

      The world warming? That’s not a prediction – that’s what has been happening for the past 15,000 years.

      At least.

      That’s as much a prediction as “the sun will come up tomorrow, tomorrow”.

      Yes, I hope it will!

      And the world, hopefully, will continue to warm.

      Because the one thing we both know about climate change is it is inevitable.

      I know you and yours are convinced you can ‘stop global warming’ and huge foolish experiments with the atmosphere and oceans have been proposed towards doing just that.

      Trust me. Climate is going to change. NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO, climate is going to change. You can’t stop it any more than you can stop a hurricane or stop the advance of the tides – but if you really believe otherwise, please collect a bunch of your climate alarmist friends and have yourselves airlifted out during extremely low tide to the waterline in the Bay of Fundy then do your best to command the tide to stop coming in and see what happens.

      • Bodhisattva says:

        NOTE I found at least one mistake in my post… I said “contracts” when I meant to say ‘contradicts’. I bet there are other mistakes – easy for someone to figure out what I meant. I’m not perfect either.

    • sam says:

      Thawing Tundra? Even NASA GISS is now admiting that antarctic and artic ice is now increasing, and has been increasing for years especially in the antarctic which set consecutive ice records in 2013,14, and probably 15 as well.. so mcu for the supposedly out of control greenhouse effect, turns out the sun and ocean currents are dominating. the co2 theory was that extra co2 makes more water evaporate but no clouds form but they never proved that the clouds wouldn’t form and they did, now wait till the maunder minimum closes in.

  14. gator69 says:

    Hey Kyle! There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our current climate, or how we got here.

    Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any global climate changes.

  15. dbhalling says:

    Hey Kyle, explain why AGW prophets always have to lie. Let’s start with Al Gore’s absurd hockey stick graph, which anyone with an iota of knowledge knew missed the Little Ice Age and the Roman Warming period. If AGW were a science, then you would have expected all the AGW people to point out this fraud and throw Gore out on his ear. But no, AGW prophets tried to cook the books and protect this fraud. Perhaps you saw the peer reviewed paper by two economists defending AGW prophets uses of lies.

    What is amazing to me is that AGW prophets are disgusted with the unscientific approach of creationists/Intelligent Design advocates, but both AGW and ID prophets ignore evidence and logic. In fact AGW prophets make ID advocates almost look honest and Al Gore makes televangelists look like pikers. AGW and ID are two peas in a pod – religion.

  16. David Sparks says:

    Mr “Goddard”, or whatever your real name is: where are the links to each version of the graphs in your blinking graphics? You can’t expect people to take your claims at face value if you offer no evidence at all of where you got each version of each graph.

    And don’t you think that using a false name, and offering no evidence of your background, qualifications etc, doesn’t exactly help anyone accept the veracity of your claims?

    Why not just be honest, and give your readers the access to your sources? What are you hiding?

    • OMG – I must just be making this stuff up.

      • fishcake says:

        Well if you’re not prepared to offer any verifiable evidence for your claims, then clearly you are.

        As you know, this issue has become ludicrously politicised and polarised on all sides.

        if you are genuinely interested in exposing wrong doing, then there is no reason at all why you can’t give links to the original graphs you reproduce here.

        Let’s have a link to the “raw daily”, “raw monthly”, “TOBS” and “final” graphs, so we can see them ourselves. What on earth is “TOBS” anyway? – you don’t explain.

        It’s only those with something to hide, or an agenda, who refuse to link to the original data they’re using. Presumably you don’t fall into that category.

        So I look forward to you posting all the links to all the data.

      • David Sparks says:

        PS Apologies – no idea where the “fishcake” came from….

        • Fen says:

          I know where it came from – fishcake is one of your sockpuppets. You just forgot to log out of that account before posing on your “david sparks” account.

          Ironic, considering the baseless charges you levelled.

  17. David Sparks says:

    OK, let’s get this straight – when I go looking for the links, I find myself looking at tables of data. So you have plotted these graphs yourself allegedly from these tables of data? Is that correct?

    Can you please explain the 2 “versions” of the same graph which appear to have been scanned at the top of this page:
    ….. the ones marked “US temperature” and “(a) US temperature”. Do you have links for them? – because there are no links for those graphs on that page.


      • David Sparks says:

        I can’t open these links, as my computer tells me it doesn’t know which program to open them with.

        You’ll forgive me for wondering why there are so many hoops we apparently have to jump through to get back to the original sources for your claims. I HAVE found your link to the source for the “newer” version of the 2-version blinking graph I refer to above, but the older version seems to have no link to it at all….. unless one of the links you’ve just suggested is one of those?

        Look, I really am just an ordinary citizen trying to cut through the cr*p on both sides of this debate, but to be honest I am also more than a little suspicious of the disconnect between the meticulousness you claim in transcribing large tables of data on the one hand, and on the other hand the incredibly confusing and seemingly slapdash layout and structure of your site.

        Could you make life easier for us by making it obvious whether titles and links refer to the graphic above or below them, for example?

        And look – just humour me one last time, and I PROMISE I’ll go away, study what you say, and not continue to badger you. Just pls post the 4 specific links to the 4 different versions of the graph you show here:

        That’s all I want – the 4 links to the 4 different versions….. in a form that a non-expert can open on the average laptop!


        • It is not a trivial task to work with huge data sets. If you are serious about this, you can reproduce my results with a linux, mac or cygwin system using these instructions.

        • GD in VA says:

          I wonder if Mr Sparks makes the same requests of the people making the global warming/climate change claims. I’m guessing he doesn’t. Thank you for all your work to analyze the boatloads of data. It must take quite a bit of your time.

        • Camp says:

          David, Tar.Gz is kind of like a Zip file. If you have Windows Vista or newer, the compressed file reader in Windows should open it fine. If you installed WinZip as your default reader, that is your problem. You’ll need a better compressed file opener to access the compressed files in the link.

        • MinTPA says:

          I second GD’s comment. Did you do this kind of deep dive for the “consensus scientists”? How about the emails that showed them claiming the data does not support decreasing temperature? If so please give 4 sources of your research on that, just 4 links is all I ask. Steven posted code to pull source data, so a few references of your deep honest dive for validating those exposed emails should do it for me….

        • David, your choice of OS is what is limiting you. Those files are compressed using both the “tar” program, which is standard on Linux. The CRU servers were running Linux and most of the files on those servers are compressed using tar. The links open automatically for me because I am using Linux (Kubuntu 14.04 to be exact) and when I click on those links my “ARK” program opens them immediately. You can download and install a free compression/decompression program for Windows which will do the same.

          After you install a program which opens zip files, download the FOIA2009.ZIP and FOIA2011.ZIP files released by a CRU whistle blower and browse the emails. Google will help you find them. When you read what the CRU folks discuss in their emails it will open your eyes. Especially the HARRY_READ_ME.TXT file. It describes in detail the sordid condition of the “data” on which the hockey stick and other graphs were made, and how they replaced the raw temperature data from 1960 onward with fictitious data.

          The day after I downloaded the 2009 zip file and browsed the emails, I saw an interview on CNN in which a “reporter” asked Al Gore about the leaked emails.. Gore claimed that the emails were “ten years old” and not relevant. The “reporter” never challenged that assertion. Had she or Gore really even glanced at the emails they both would have known that the emails were as recent as seven days before her interview with Gore.

          You can down parts of, or the entire, FOIA documents for both 2009 and 2011 from here:

          and the HARRY_READ_ME.TXT file from here:

          Follow the profanity. It leads to where the quality of the data is described.
          Also note in the DOC files the contracts where the CRU agrees to deliver “proof” of AGW at “milestones” (for money — AGW is all about money). When I was doing graduate research one could not claim to deliver proof of any hypothesis before the data was even collected.

        • Bodhisattva says:

          You know, all you are doing is proving that you’re not as smart or capable as those who have figured this out – which, don’t get me wrong, is part of the problem, nothing to be ashamed of, just a fact of life as you have other interests and haven’t bothered to accumulate the knowledge and abilities required to sort this out to the level SG has. And neither have I, by the way, so don’t think this is me saying I’m better than you.

          In any case, there’s enough evidence out there available to you and me that SHOULD help us understand how SG is correct and Al Gore and other climate alarmists are wrong.

          I mean, with basic 3rd grade math I was able to figure out a level of 400 ppm and a change from 270 ppm to 400 ppm were both not significant in the grander scheme of atmospheric science and climate change. Or maybe they taught me more math in 3rd grade than they do the average person?

          Or maybe it’s just that I understand the CO2 doesn’t create an impenetrable barrier, but actually sometimes water vapor (in the form of clouds that reflect certain EM frequencies) actually does… and that WATER VAPOR is the key greenhouse gas – a fact that even alarmists know but often do their best to keep from “people who aren’t smart enough to understand the science”.

          Why hide facts from people? So they won’t figure out it’s water vapor, not CO2, that controls global warming to a much more significant degree?

    • Everything you need to reproduce my results is here

  18. gp says:

    Your first graph: what is the Y axis? It is unlabeled.

  19. OrganicPragmatic says:

    Setting aside the question of whether human beings are changing our climate by burning fossil fuels is difficult to do but try for a moment. What can’t be ‘denied’ is that the debate itself has had two horrific effects on our world.

    The first is the death of science. Having been educated as one, I can’t seem to recall the part where I was taught that ‘consensus’ equals good science. I can’t recall the part where I was taught that challenging the popular theorem of the day was all but criminal. Whether or not you believe the earth is warming and whether or not you believe that mankind is the cause, you should be terrified when someone cluelessly tosses around terms like “settled science’ and uses rhetorical devices to compare scientists who are skeptical of data produced by people who admit to manipulating it to Holocaust ‘deniers’.

    There was once a consensus that the world was flat, that the sun revolved around the earth and on and on. If you are a serious climate scientist and you believe in global warming then you should WELCOME skeptics. You should sit down with the ‘skeptic’ and listen and set aside your preconceptions and look at the facts. We are all entitled to an opinion but not to our own set of facts. You don’t decide the conclusion and then search desperately for data that supports it. That is not science. In science, you form a hypothesis and then you test it and the data leads where it leads and DISPROVING your own hypothesis is good, perhaps great, science. Consensus = Truth? A very carefully massaged consensus at that. What scientific method is this? I believe it came from the movie “Mean Girls” where the popular girls decided what was in and what was out and woe unto thee who challenged them. Disgraceful.

    The second sad truth about the global warming debate is that by politicizing the argument and using it to push a political agenda we’ve seen something really harmful to the planet. People like me who are of the opinion that reducing pollution is an objectively good idea regardless of the hot air spewed forth in this debate get so disgusted with the hysteria that they forget that cleaner air and water and food is a good thing. Should we reduce pollution? I believe the scientific consensus is “Duh!” on that one. …but we don’t have to manipulate statistics and use scare tactics on that one. People want to breather cleaner air and drink cleaner water already. Do I want to see a massive transfer of wealth from developed countries to third world countries? No. The proponents of the theory of Global Warming openly admit that their prescribed fix would not change the outcome of their models but they still want to see the wealth transfer. Half the proponents – maybe more, maybe even a majority of them… probably don’t even know that the proposed ‘response’ they support would not make a difference if their theory is correct and if there’s a majority then perhaps we can say the science is settled – that the proposed fixes are crap and should be ignored.

    Deniers.. skeptics… thank God or the Big Bang or your preferred theory explaining the universe that not all scientists learned their methods from watching Mean Girls over and over on cable. Some of us learned to seek truth and that fudging the data is unthinkably immoral. The first pollution we need to address is the pollution of science on EITHER side of any scientific debate. Get the best data available, let it lead where it leads and form your hypotheses and if they are wrong then you STILL did good science. Tweak it and you are no longer part of the scientific community – you’re an activist.

    Oh…. I am not a climate scientist but I’ve worked with them to build simulations to model weather and climate. The models are awful – compare the models used to form the global warming theory to actuals and you can forget consensus. The theory was that if CO2 went up by X then temps would go up by Y. The CO2 went up by more than X and the Temps dropped, period, end of discussion, consensus does not trump facts.

    Do I believe that greenhouse gases could alter climate? Probably. The theory is sound to a degree but – and now we are in my world – the models only look at so many variables and there are many more that we don’t fully understand or know how to measure that to look at one variable in isolation and imagine that there will be a direct correlation between a single variable and the outcome? That’s insanity. There are thousands of variables here and it is possible and I think (THINK, thinking is good for us) it is reasonable to postulate that a steady increase in the so-called greenhouse gases will impact climate. Does killing the petro-based economy then make sense? Do your own research folks, compare the total output of every gallon of gas, every pound of coal and the incredible volume of hot air that has spewed from politicians over the past century to one good solid burp from a volcano and see what you find out.

    Sigh. If you think the world would be better off if wealth was transferred around to where everyone had the same amount then argue THAT, don’t wreck science or cause half the world to roll their eyes and look for corruption whenever sustainability or a reduction in pollution is mentioned. Mean Girls was satire, not a blueprint for scientific debate.

    • Axacta says:

      >The first is the death of science. Having been educated as one, I can’t seem to recall the part where I was taught that ‘consensus’ equals good science.<

      This kind of stuff has been going on at least since Piltdown man. Within 3 years it had been outed as a fraud, but it took 30 years to change the "consensus". The medical research community has made an art form out of fraud, bullying and payoffs for many decades.

      Science is no less corrupt than any other endeavour where some see a road to fame and fortune. And it is hardly infallible. Over half of all scientific findings eventually end up in doubt, superceded or completely refuted. Before any scientific research into global warming even began, the theory had less than the chance of a flip of a coin being correct.

    • dbhalling says:

      How about Galileo? There is also a famous case of how biology was perverted and stunted in the Soviet Union.

      This is why there should be separation of science and state.

  20. fly4vino says:

    The public has trouble understanding why a government agency would fudge the data .

    When you look inside the sausage making machine you find

    A – Liberal politicians following in the steps of Stalin, Hitler, Mao, want reasons for the government to exert more control.

    B – Scientists love money and attention. As attention whores they rank up there with movie starlets. Crises bring money, attention and power.

    C- Politicians have learned to convert power into contributions which help keep them in office. It was ont an accident that Obama’s government loan program to green stuff had a major campaign fundraiser in upper reaches. The taxpayers are on the hook for billions in loan guarantees to doomed to fail schemes, overloaded with high fees and interests to friends. The evaluations by DOE ranked projects in a system similar to college grades. If you or I were spending our funds or funds under our care we would pick from the A projects. But not the feds, any project with a D+ or greater was eligible for funding and guarantees. Funding went to those with the most political juice.

    • FHRivers says:

      The government tried to initially blame a terrorist attack on the 9/11 anniversary on a YouTube video. The IRS conveniently lost important of the e-mails of all of the individuals involved in a political targeting scheme. The VA fudged wait time data so that executives would qualify for bonuses.

      So no, it’s not a stretch at all for me to believe that a government agency would fudge data or outright lie for political purposes.

  21. Steven,

    I’ve been beating this horn for more than a dozen years. Thanks for getting it out there.

    Earlier in my life, I made it a habit of downloading the actual temperature data sets from nasa. After a few years, I noticed that data values were altered. Ie., comparing temperature record from 1999 did not agree with the temperature record from earlier.

    Investigating this more, I found a number of discrepancies.

    1). For ground stations, there was a formula published to ‘correct’ the ground stations.
    Inextricably, the correction factor was applied twice.
    2). Temperature data sets were altered.
    While a certain amount of churn would be expected – the actual stations dropped are biased toward colder stations. More than 350 siberian measuring sites were dropped.
    3. Temperature measuring sites were reclassified. Stations are classified as either rural, or not.
    Correction factors were adjudicated for non rural sites – making historical temperature comparisons IMPOSSIBLE.
    4. Nasa was caught fudging the data from the 1930’s. (Directly altering the data point).

    Now additional to this, climategate reported that the British work is similarly tainted. Ie., that Michael Mann took meteorological data, applied a correction factor, and then ‘lost’ the uncorrected data. He likewise refuse multiple FOI requests (british equiv thereof).

    The science has been distorted. Deliberately. The public has been deceived.
    Anyone with a real interest in climate science should investigate Bond events, and they will quickly see that temperatures in the last interglacial were warmer than present.

    Or read Fisk., et. al who found that Co2 trailed temperatures – not led them. On average by about 800 years.

    Anyways. Thanks for getting this out there.

  22. Dst1964srq says:

    Mr. Goddard,
    Thank you fir continuing to not only show these fraudsters to be who they are but your impeccable research is very thorough and easy for the common person to understand your theorem. These Climate Hawks aredoing this I can only conclude to push their far left agenda to spread the wealth among the world, especially making the US pay for the rest of the world but ALSO to make these Green Energy Companies filthy rich! Stay on this my man! Their propaganda machine won’t let up but once we get a conservative government back into power here in the US, we will have more success stopping this madness!

  23. tobyw says:

    The goal of the Progressive movement is not science, it is Progress which means progress toward socialism and world government. Bye bye US Constitution and the republic it guarantees.

    Why is the proper question never asked? What is the end state and its properties?

  24. Michael Anderson says:

    It appears that the effects of the Krakatoa eruption have also been minimized, claims that it affected weather until 1888 seem to miss the mark by several decades. There is a clear warming trend after the eruption until about 1915 at which point the trend goes negative again. During those decades the warming trend is about three times as rapid as the subsequent cooling.

  25. sp4mf15h says:

    HAHAHA You claim the data is fraudulant but in fact all you have done in your blink graph is change the scale so that the numbers seem different when flashed one after the other. LOL

  26. I used your information as a lead-in to my joke. Thanks for all your hard work.

  27. David says:

    All of you who are on the warming side (Hansen et al) MUST acknowledge that warming figures are based on models of temperature – not actual readings. NASA and GIS data actually show temps have declined over the last 1/2 century +. Facts are different from hypothesis. Go back to Freshman Science – Scientific method. Hypothesis cannot be proved.

  28. As a retired research scientist, I am compelled to take issue with your contention that hypotheses cannot be proved. Actually, it is through the scientific method that facts are “created” or proved. And this is done by first developing and proposing a hypothesis that is objectively tested using applicable known (previously proven) facts. Since it is not possible to “prove” anything with absolute (100%) certainty (you can do an experiment x times with the exact same result, but that does not guarantee that will be the result of the x+1 repetition) statistical methodologies are used to satisfy that the results that you do get either “prove” or “disprove” the hypothesis that was tested.If it is “proved”, a new fact is born. (by way of full disclosure, the scientific method employs a “null hypothesis” approach for reasons of logic.)

  29. jhubermn says:

    I clicked on the link under the statement by James Hansen. The quote from Hansen is completely accurate, but at the same time it’s also misleading, because it doesn’t quote everything that Hansen was trying to say. As I understand it, Hansen’s major point was that, although temperatures in the USA had not warmed (as of 1999) past those of the 1930s, the USA is only a portion of the globe. If temperatures from the entire planet are taken into account, then there’s been significant warming, as shown in the side-by-side graphs showing US and global temperatures over the past 120 years (look at Hansen’s 1999 post, By the way, Hansen’s American graph in this posting uses the raw temperature data, prior to the “correction” discussed by Goddard. Presumably the global data are similarly “uncorrected”. For me, the important point is that, in order to determine whether or not surface temperatures over the globe have warmed or cooled, we need to look at temperatures over the whole surface of the globe; we can’t rely on measurements from only a portion of the globe.

    • Hansen said the US was cooling. Do you find that confusing?

      Global temperatures were tampered with long before 1999. It was harder to mess with the US record and took longer.

      • jhubermn says:

        Thanks for replying. No, I don’t find Hansen’s statement confusing. What I find confusing is that, in your original blog post, you failed to discuss the reasons offered by GHCN for the data corrections. You may disagree with the reasons, but in fairness you ought at least to explain that the GHCN had reasons that the GHCN considered to be scientifically valid. Those reasons can be found here for version 1 of the GHCN data:, and the reasons for the additional corrections going to versions 2 and 2.5 can be found here: In the absence of these explanations, readers of your blog might come away with the impression that GHCN is part of a conspiracy to fool/alarm us into thinking that US temperatures are increasing.

        I might also mention that Richard Muller, who is just as skeptical as you, did his own analysis of historical temperature records, with and without corrections, and including data from more weather stations, and he concluded that the values currently offered by GHCN, GISS, and NOAA are highly accurate. His results can be viewed here:

    • Two issues are at play here. First, surface temperature readings have been demonstrated to be biased in that most are raken in metropolitan areas where, over a period of time, the urban heat effect causes an upward creep in both daily maximum and minimum. For that reason satellite upper atmosphere readings are now considered to be the only valid measurements that can be used to track the temperature of the global climate. Second, surface temperature readings in the past record do not account for major changes in the global station network such as occurred when the USSR abandoned a large portion of its stations — all of which, of course, were in the colder sub arctic region.

    • Bodhisattva says:

      Yeah, you know what the problem with that is?

      We don’t have temperature measurements ‘over the whole surface of the globe’ and those trying to make it look like the globe is warming catastrophically have been caught several times doing several things to produce ‘man-made’ global warming through data manipulation and outright data fraud.

      Yeah, people who stood to lose big due to their proven, undeniable misdeeds did convene ‘investigations’ (whitewashes) and eventually did find they did nothing wrong.

  30. Ray says:

    Where do the data come from for the ‘measured’ graph?

  31. When I compare the archived original values with those displayed on the new version of the graphs, the allegation that the original figures have been creatively adjusted in a way that supports the warning scare that is being promoted appears to be a valid one.

  32. B Moore says:

    Scientist offers $10,000 to anyone who can disprove human activity does not contribute to climate change.

    • How about the same offer, but for proving human activity DOES ? The AGW crowd has given up on that with their retreat to “settled science”, by which declaration they move above the fray (they think).

  33. Charlie Koehler says:

    If you Google ,The American Thinker, Global Climate History, you can see the data for your self.

    • Craig Warden says:

      I did. what data? Just words and theories. No statistics, references, methods, nothing resembling a scientific paper. Just rhetoric.

  34. Steve Hine says:

    Without diving in that deeply, it looks to me like when you add the additional 15 years of data after 1999, the mean (zero on several of your graphs) is raised. That makes the older temperatures look cooler than they did before because the additional data from the past decade-plus includes some of the highest average temperatures recorded. That group of high temperatures raised the mean making it look like the older temperatures dropped. Did the placement of the zero change or the raw numbers? I’d like to see the graph without the +/- and mean format and just graph the raw temperature numbers and compare that. What’s the trend? I hope it’s static; that would be best for the planet.

  35. fly4vino says:

    Of course people contribute to global warming (now global climate change). but is it 10% of the change or 1/10th of 1% of the change A more meaningful proof would be that it does not contribute more than say 25% of the change. There’s also the failure to acknowledge that the US portion of the total “greenhouse gas” is a tiny portion.

    We have had much of north America covered in ice and we have had fair weather dinosaurs living in Alaska .

    The American Federation of Scientists were screaming that nuclear war would produce global cooling . With events in Iraq, Israel , Pakistan, North Korea and Russia going the way they are going we may need some global warming

    • When folks argue that the arctic has never been this war until humans started injecting CO2 into the atmosphere, I simply ask how they explain where all the oil that is up there came from? Generally the respoinse is a blank stare.

      • chrismasieroChris says:

        Oil comes from dead stuff not earlier than 5 million years ago, and generally no later than 160 million years ago.

        The arctic has certainty been warmer before, some millions of years ago, usually due to a very slowly shifting climate.

        However, it’s only melted this _fast_ when the earth has gone through drastic climate change – The arctic is a very special place, it has enough methane stored in there to heat our planet to incredibly high temperatures, once that feedback has started it will not stop.

        We just didn’t realize it could happen this fast until it was too late, and now methane is spewing into our atmosphere. But you should already feel it, the arctic is lost, the weather we all knew from our lives is gone, our environment is ruined, and you must be without sanity not to already feel it – it’s happening now.

        • dbhalling says:

          Actually there is no data to support your assertion of unprecedented change in the temperature of the arctic.

          More importantly, natural gas starts to form from biomass in weeks. The term fossil fuels is a misnomer.

  36. rachase says:

    And your authority for the claim that the Arctic never melted this fast ever before? And how do you define ‘this fast’?

  37. Larry Wilson says:

    So what? The issue is Global Warming, not US temperature trends.

    • mlaanderson says:

      So you’re fine with altered data as long as it supports your point of view?

    • rachase says:

      The “issue” is what the preponderance of evidence “suggests”. The US is not an isolated part of the world, and “what happens in the US doesn’t stay in the US” Our record is a not insignificant fraction of “global”. And our historical record is what should be one of the more technically reliable of the complete world data set. My suspicions about the accuracy of third world measurements and records are high. A sugnificant number of colder climate recording stations were lost both before and with the breakup of the Soviet Union, which has to have a effect on the subsequent global climate record. “Climategate” suggested that there has historically been at least a little hanky-panky afoot in Great Britian and the rest of Europe.

  38. wesley1066 says:

    97% of Climatologists agree that AGW is real. 97% of UFOlogists agree that flying saucers are alien visitors from other planets. Some times when you have two problems they solve each other: The aliens are coming to Earth to steal our heat.

  39. Hans says:

    From what I can tell, NASA and NOAA publish the rationale and the method (algorithm) they use to “tamper” with the data, right alongside the data. Perhaps this is new, but regardless, it would help if you could address their rationale directly instead of merely saying it’s been tampered with. It would provide quite an interesting discussion for those trying to understand the issues.

    • rachase says:

      As a (retired) research scientist, my only comment is that any data that has been “remanufactured” have to be viewed with the utmost suspicion. Historically recorded observations have to be either accepted for what they are, or, if there is valid cause to have no confidence in them, rejected–unless there is a clear, rational, objective reason that they ALL are biased (skewed) by a provable, KNOWN common amount that can be corrected with complete confidence by an appropriate factor that is accurately applicable to ALL. Obviously, decades of diverse historical weather observations cannot be placed in this latter categorical situation, and any correction of them by common algorithm renders results which are pure biased garbage.

  40. “If the data doesn’t support the hypothesis…….change the data”. As a physician and researcher I have seen an incredible number of prospectively and retrospectively bogus studies, but they pale in comparison of both scope and cost to the ongoing manipulation of weather database by NOAA , NASA and the MET. The manipulation of data points, after the fact, in a manner which universally supports a hypothesis, is beyond rational defense.( If the FDA caught a researcher doing this with their data they would be banned from further consideration.)

    The most disheartening aspect of this mess,in my opinion, is that so many scientists have remained silent in the face of this perversion for so long. This is more than cognitive dissonance at work this; this level of deceit requires the fuel of money and power only marshaled through a collusion within the “academico-industrio-political “sphere.

    It took nearly 50 years(1900 to 1950) for the scientific community to overcome the dominance and outright bulling by American geologists favoring static continental theory ….hopefully this charade will not go in that long.

  41. JB says:

    Hey, where did Bob Go?

  42. Doug Proctor says:

    Why does Judith Curry think all these adjustments are reasonable? How does she reconcile what looks so bizarrely uni-directional with what she says is a neglible global change in pre- and post-adjustment values?

  43. Andrew M. says:

    what you’re fighting against is Figure 8 in this paper:
    Lawrimore’s figure 8 and your first 2 figures above appear to be contradictory.
    Are they contradictory and, if so, how should that be resolved?

  44. Dan Ashley says:

    There is more problems than only the reporting of the data points. The reported warming is based on the conclusions of both altered data and on the mis-use of Gaussian statistics. The climate is not a Gaussian statistical described system. Gaussian statistics require an absolute independence among the observations. The observations about weather are not independent–that is to say, the temperature in Los Angeles affects the temperature in San Diego–after all the air blows both ways. A proper use of statistical analysis would be to use mandlebrot statistics.

    A second problem is that as calculations are done with measurements, the margin of error increases (remember your high school chemistry class?). The margin of error in climate change assessments is seldom, if ever, reported. Usually writers do this because the margin of error exceeds their prediction.

    By the way, my credentials: 2 PhD degrees, retired professor.

  45. Mervyn says:

    I like the following video of John Coleman breaking the news, a few years ago, of temperature data manipulation and fraud by US government agencies like NASA and NOAA. Since then, the fraud has simply just continued:

  46. Roland says:

    Can someone explain to me why the data has been changed? Surely there is a good reason behind this, scientists don’t just manipulate data for lols.

    • gator69 says:

      Yes, I can explain why the adjustments are made. They are made to support the narrative, and keep the trillion dollar climate industry afloat. Their jobs, their reputations, their agendas, and their children are all dependent upon these adjustments.

  47. Steve Goddard may just be the least convincing conspiracy theorist ever. (If he can use hyperbole, I can also.). Take the “jumping graph”. Only the 1930s and 1998 are significantly different. Secondly the added years after 1998 make the mismatch look worse than it is. Thirdly this is only USA inland data – which everyone already admits has not had a clear warming and/or cooling trend in the 20th century. Fourthly if this is such a hoax, why did they do nothing with the oceanic data? Why do adjustments in those data REDUCE apparently warming? Why do overall corrections dampen global warming? It is almost like nothing was being hidden. Fifthly, how many times to auditors of the data need to show no evidence of malfeasance? How many times do plots of the raw data need to be made to show that the actual warming trends are virtually the same – adjustments or not?

    • gator69 says:

      Why do adjustments in those data REDUCE apparently warming? Why do overall corrections dampen global warming?

      Truly delusional.

      • Roland says:

        Could you please actually counter his statement. If the oceanic data had not been adjusted and shows warming what do you say to that?

        • gator69 says:

          Could you please actually counter his statement.

          There isn’t anything to counter, his comment is ignorant gibberish.

          If the oceanic data had not been adjusted and shows warming what do you say to that?

          I say climates and oceans change.

      • HipsterCat says:

        Up CAis down and down is up. Established records are inconsequential.

  48. Yohan says:

    You’re an embarrassment for Rice. You should at least claim that you’re not a scientist or educated in climatology or the physical sciences.

  49. Yohan says:

    You’re an embarrassment for Rice. You should at least claim that you’re not a scientist or educated in climatology or the physical sciences. Credibility.

  50. Pingback: Scientific Research Proof of Concept Validates Bitcoin Technology

  51. Pingback: Scientific Research Proof-of-Concept Validates Bitcoin Technology | NewUCity

  52. Pingback: Scientific Research Proof-of-Concept Validates Bitcoin Technology |

  53. NotAGolfer says:

    Does anyone know: Where does one download the actual recorded temperatures, rather than the “anomalies” (diff. between data and base year average)? By always showing anomalies, they can screw with the data more easily around the base years.

  54. Thanks for getting this working again. Like Petr Beckmann and Fred Hoyle’s defenses of nuclear power, this page is the one exposé the Sharknado cult cannot answer.

Leave a Reply

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