Fake Data – The Basis Of Climate Science

Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

– Michael Crichton

NASA has a scientific consensus web page showing how closely different agencies’ temperature graphs line up. If all the graphs agree, they must be accurate! What other possible explanation could there be?

Scientific Consensus | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Unfortunately, the NASA graph from the year 2000, doesn’t even agree with their current graph.  Eighteen years ago, NASA showed 0.5C warming prior to the year 2000.  Now they show twice as much warming prior to 2000.

NASA accomplished this by hiding pre-1880 temperatures, progressively cooling older years, and progressively warming more recent years. They added 0.5C to the pre-2000 trend via good old fashioned data tampering.

Spreadsheet    Data

If we go back further to 1974, the National Center for Atmospheric Research showed almost 0.5C cooling from 1940 to 1970.  NASA has complete erased this.

1974      2018

At the time, there was unanimous consensus among scientists that Earth was cooling.

January 30, 1961 – NYTimes

The cooling was indisputable.

Lawrence Journal-World – Google News Archive Search

The US and Soviet Union were worried about “ominously thickening” Arctic ice, and a new ice age.

TimesMachine: July 18, 1970 – NYTimes.com

Glaciers were growing in Norway for the first time in 200 years.

18 Jul 1963 – Glaciers Grow In Norway

Icelandic ports were blocked with ice for the first time in a century.

March 2, 1975 – B-r-r-r-r: New Ice Age on way soon? | Chicago Tribune Archive

Forty two top American and European investigators wrote a letter to President Nixon warning of a new ice age.

The evidence is overwhelming that Earth cooled from 1940 into the 1970’s.  How did NASA erase it?


Let’s take a closer look at that.  Outside of the US, the Global Historical Climatology Network has very little historical daily temperature data.  Thermometers record temperatures one day at a time – and without daily temperature data, any claims made about global temperatures are meaningless. There is no such thing as a monthly thermometer.

station-counts-1891-1920-temp.png (825×638)



Forty years ago, climate scientists didn’t even attempt to claim they knew southern hemisphere temperatures, because there was so little data.

TimesMachine: January 5, 1978 – NYTimes.com

In 1989, NOAA’s top climate expert reported that most global warming occurred before 1919, and that earth cooled from 1921 to 1979.  The scientific consensus has completely erased this inconvenient truth.

07 Dec 1989, Page 14 – Santa Cruz Sentinel at Newspapers.com

Not only is there very little land data available, but there is also very little ocean data too. Climategate E-mails showed that they are simply making the data up.


And even now, much of the data is fabricated.  Last month NOAA showed Saudi Arabia record hot, even though they had no thermometers there.

September-2018-Global-Temperature-Percentiles-Map.png (993×743)

Much of the land surface is gray, meaning “missing data.”

201809.gif (1052×743)

The only large area on the planet with good long-term temperature data is the US, and NOAA massively tampers with the data to turn cooling into warming.

Spreadsheet   Data

NOAA has accomplished this through a spectacular hockey stick of data tampering.

The adjustment being made correlates almost perfectly with atmospheric CO2. The ultimate example of junk science confirmation bias.

In 1989, NOAA reported that there was no trend in the US climate over the prior century.

U.S. Data Since 1895 Fail To Show Warming Trend – NYTimes.com

In 1999, NASA’s James Hansen lamented that the US was not warming.

How can the absence of clear climate change in the United States be reconciled with continued reports of record global temperature?

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

So he simply changed his own data, to turn cooling into warming.

NASA 1999    NASA 2018

The frequency of hot afternoons has actually plummeted in the US over the past century.

Climate scientists took the best temperature data set in the world (the US temperature record) and corrupted it to match the generally worthless global temperature record. And sadly, one of the two satellite temperature data sets has become corrupted recently too. Three years ago, Carl Mears at Remote Sensing Systems was coming under tremendous pressure from the climate community to show some troposphere warming.

Note that after 1998, the observations are likely to be below the simulated values, indicating that the simulation as a whole are predicting too much warming.

Climate Analysis | Remote Sensing Systems

I predicted in 2015 that he would give in to the pressure and alter his data.

Look for the satellite data to be adjusted to bring it into compliance with the fully fraudulent surface temperatures. The Guardian is now working to discredit UAH, so it seems likely that RSS will soon be making big changes – to match the needs of the climate mafia. Bookmark this post.


March 27, 2015

And that is exactly what happened.  Mears altered his own data to make the models look slightly better. The large discrepancy became a small discrepancy.

there is a small discrepancy between the model predictions and the satellite observations

Remote Sensing Systems

The image below overlays Mears’ old graph on his new one. It is clear what he did – he  eliminated the blue error interval, and started using the high side of the interval as his temperature. Science by peer-pressure is not science.

In summary, the close agreement between the temperature sets is a result of collusion, group think, scientific corruption, thuggery and junk science. It has nothing to do with climate. There is no conceivable way that independent groups could have come up with the same graph.

via The Deplorable Climate Science Blog


November 4, 2018 at 08:09AM

One thought on “Fake Data – The Basis Of Climate Science”

  1. The fundamental premise of man-caused climate change is that the radiative greenhouse effect makes the surface of the earth 33 C warmer with an atmosphere than without an atmosphere, i.e. 288 K with minus 255 K without. What follows explains how that is simply not possible.

    First off, the 15 C, 288 K, global average is a wild ass guess pulled out of WMO’s butt.

    The 255 K is the S-B BB calculated temperature of the net 0.3 albedo in/out top of atmosphere average 240 W/m^2 needed to maintain a habitable balance. (1,368/4=342*.7=240 & 255 K) The 255 K has absolutely no meaningful connection (Apophenia -WUWT) with the surface 288 K.

    Without an atmosphere the earth would be much like the moon, albedo 0.12, ToA average of 301 W/m^2 not 240 W/m^2 and 25% more heat. The equivalent S-B BB calculated temperature would be 270 K not 255 K. No atmosphere means no vegetation, water, snow, ice, oceans, clouds, etc. and no longer a 0.3 albedo.

    But this ToA averaged model is simplistic and unrealistic.
    Say the atmospheric earth is 308 K lit side, 268 K dark side, average 288 K, range 40 C.
    Say the non-atmospheric earth is 388 K lit side, 188 K dark side, average remains 288 K, range 200 C.
    Identical averages, but the first model is habitable, the second is not, a meaningless comparison.

    Let’s look at reality.
    ISR (incoming solar radiation)
    1,368 W/m^2, 0.0 albedo, net 1,368 W/m^2, S-B BB temperature is 394 K, 121 C, 250 F. This is why the ISS has a pair of redundant ammonia refrigerant coolers, chillers, AC systems. Space is hot, not cold.
    Without atmosphere, i.e. lunarific
    1,368 W/m^2, 0.12 albedo, net 1,204 W/m^2, S-B BB temperature is 382 K, 109 C, 228.2 F, above boiling point of water.
    With atmosphere, i.e. earthy
    1,368 W/m^2, 0.3 albedo, net 957.6 W/m^2, S-B BB temperature is 360.5 K. 87.5 C, 189.5 F, below boiling point of water.

    The without atmosphere is quite clearly 21.5 C hotter (382.0 – 360.5), not 33 C colder, than the with it atmosphere.

    Without an atmosphere the earth will be much like the moon, blistering hot on the lit side, bitter cold on the dark and most certainly NOT the average 255 K frozen ice ball that RGHE claims.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply to nickreality65 Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s