How The US Hockey Stick Was Built

As of 1999, there wasn’t any warming in the US for 80 years.

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It has been archived here :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.


After adjustments, 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.

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to How The US Hockey Stick Was Built

  1. suyts says:

    Excellent! I was just thinking of asking you to step through this. Not even asked and answered!

  2. eqibno says:

    What really gets me about these adjustments is how they will be able, in the future of carbon credits and low-carbon energy (perish the thought) they will be able to measure temperatures “accurately” and claim that their efforts have been rewarded when the cold PDO and the waning AMO provide real cooling (hopefully not too much).
    They must be debunked and exposed ASAP. Thanks Steven, you are fighting the good fight.

  3. Doug Proctor says:

    It is interesting in a peculear-it-is way that Inhofe can’t or hasn’t used this simple demonstration that the alarm is all about the adjustment. It appears so obviously biased to me that I fail to understand why “reasonable” lay people don’t wrinkle their brows and want to hear the reasons that the changes were made the way they were.

    The lack of mid-tropospheric hotspot is a technical difficulty easy to dismiss for the non-technically rigourous. But the GCHN adjustments should be a red flag. If the government did such a thing to their income, say, to prove that they were far better off than ever before, people would balk. Why aren’t they – especially those with access to Congress – doing so?

    • gator69 says:

      Hey Doug! I email these postings to friends, family and colleagues and get the same reaction every time, ‘How is this allowed to happen?’.

      For left brained thinkers, it could not be more obvious, the only thing we don’t understand is how the alarmists keep getting away with this obvious fraud.

  4. scizzorbill says:

    Hard to believe there was a time when Hansen wasn’t a deranged agenda driven corruptocrat.

  5. Andy DC says:

    The left leaning MSM simply spews the AGW nonsense, right or wrong, because it is part of their political agenda. Skeptics are dismissed as unworthy and are totally ostrasized from the conversation. It is designed to paint the Republicans as ignorant know nothings, uncaring and out of touch.

  6. Rob L says:

    How does this fit in with the satellite record? Surely GLOBAL warming has more of a basis than the US data? And how are these adjustments justified by Hansen & GISS?

    • Satellite data only goes back to 1979

    • Eric Webb says:

      Their adjustments aren’t justified, they are purposely done so, to fit their AGW agenda. They have really made drastic adjustments before the satellite era because from 1979 to the present we’ve had a reliable way to measure temperatures, so they figure they can manipulate the data before reliable measuring to fit their AGW agenda. However, they’ve even been caught changing the temperature record after 1979 as well, which is why I’ve lost any trust I had in NOAA or NASA.

  7. Brian Carter says:

    Alas gentlemen, our final hope in all this madness may simply be the rebelious nature of youth. The young have the greatest stake in the future, not us. Ours could be argued a failed generation for allowing this scientific malfeasence to bankrupt the global economy. As they see their future prospects dimming, the failure of the experts, economic pain under the crush of regulation and the outright loss of personal liberty, skepticism and maturity may become the new ‘cool.’

    Thanks to the Internet, the tireless efforts of Mr. Goddard and many others will endure. Much of the deleted evidence has been preserved. The data is readily available to anyone with the ambition and curiosity to examine it. As the days of prosperity wind down and the harsh prospects of a carbon neutral society sink in, youth will rebel and find the ambition and curiosity. Then there will be hell to pay.

  8. David says:

    I think what we often get lost on is sustainability. If Global Warming by man made influences is a farce or not, we do know that Oil will not last forever. It is a finite and valuable resource that is getting costlier all of the time. We should be preserving as much as possible, without just burning it. If we can use it much longer by reducing our reliance on it, with geo-thermal, wind, solar, tidal wave, and cleaner thorium (instead of uranium) and these efforts would make our world more reliable, cleaner, healthier, safer and sustainable.

Leave a Reply