NOAA Refuses To Explain Their Most Recent Data Tampering

NOAA recently altered their data, to unilaterally wipe out the hiatus which the consensus had agreed upon for a decade.


January : Climate Change: Global Temperature | NOAA
September : Climate at a Glance (NCEI)

Now they are refusing to turn over their communications about this flagrant manipulation, just ahead of Barack Obama’s Paris scam.


NOAA refuses to comply with House science committee subpoena –

Make no mistake about it. This is the biggest fraud in history, and it is being directed by the White House.

About Tony Heller

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

48 Responses to NOAA Refuses To Explain Their Most Recent Data Tampering

  1. omanuel says:

    Thank you, Steven, for all the work you do for the benefit of society.

    • omanuel says:

      Thanks to the pressure you and a few others are putting on the consensus science community, world leaders and puppet scientists are feeling more and more like rats on a sinking ship.

      The relatively new ResearchGate blog, with a world-wide membership of scientists, is helping make that happen.

      • omanuel says:

        I repeat, our government is pushing federal research agencies to find convincing evidence of AGW before the Paris meeting next month, . . .

        But there is NO convincing evidence!

        To demonstrate that, the question was posted on ResearchGate: “Is there convincing evidence of AGW?”

        After a lengthy discussion, and many unsuccessful attempts to avoid the obvious answer, NOT ONE of the thousands of scientists on ResearchGate, claimed convincing evidence of AGW.

        Heads may roll, but the WIDELY-CLAIMED 97 % CONSENSUS SUPPORT FOR AGW is apparently completely bogus.

        Sent from my iPhone

    • omanuel says:

      After a lengthy discussion of the question, “Is there any convincing evidence of AGW?” on ResearchGate, none was identified:

  2. Why bother electing the congress or Senate when NOAA are the ones ruling your country?

  3. omanuel says:

    I hope, Steven, that you have found a way to communicate information privately to Representative Lamar Smith of Texas.

  4. ARW says:

    Are the scales the same on the two graphs above? It seems that if they are correct it is even worse that it looks

    • They appear to be, because on the September graph the 1 represents °F, and it is in approximately the right spot on the Celsius scale of the January graph.

      • ARW says:

        ahhh – didn’t catch the units – thanks – still ridiculous. How can they possibly justify changing the data from the year before with the same instruments recording the data. Just plain stupid.

        • Jason Calley says:

          They refuse to justify it — and they are not stupid, just evil.

        • I understood the comment to mean it would be stupid to think they could get away with it.

        • Jason Calley says:

          Hey Richard! hey ARW! I may have misunderstood…:)

          The sad thing is that as stupid as it seems (to either make the changes or to think they can get away with it), the fact is that so far at least, they have gotten away with it. And they have been paid well. And they have taken very nice working vacations to exotic locations for conferences. And (this is the worst!) they have received respect from real scientists in other fields who have failed to look closely at the data behind the CAGW hoax.

          The fraudsters WILL be found out by the public at large eventually — but even though the sceptics ranks grow daily, I still wish it were faster!

        • ARW, Richard & Jason:

          Do you think The New Leader will give a secret climate speech at the upcoming Democratic National Convention? Or at least to the Politburo?

          Until then this time-honored technique works just fine:

        • Voroshilov and Molotov up there look at Yezhov as if they thought: “When will you be gone, you puffed-up runt?”

        • Hey, Jason. I know exactly how you feel.

        • CW, I’m not really clear on whom you think he would be targeting, but I think if he gives any “secret Krushchev speeches” in the near future, it’s more likely to be over in Europe.

          If by “secret climate speech” you mean a private venue where he would denounce actual or perceived opponents of his climate policies before a gathering of movers and shakers … yes, I could certainly believe that’s part of his MO. I think the Clintons, Carter, and some other well-known names on both sides of the aisle would feel quite at home in such a setting, were they to attend. All of these people have a common cause, a common way of thinking, and a common culture, but some hide it from us more than others.

          What do you think?

        • Oh, I see the confusion, Richard.

          I meant the ”Inevitable New Leader”*) to be named by the Party for 2016, not the old “New Leader”. After the new Leader denounces the old Leader like Nikita did, the press organs of the Party and the State may publish a denunciation of the NOAA and other saboteurs and wreckers but typically not before then.

          Also, they will wait until the new Leader has formulated her strategic direction for the Party and the State, like corn production quotas for the next Five-Year-Plan, a better Constitution or something new and revolutionary about school lunches.

          Meanwhile, the old New Leader may also be giving secret speeches but history shows they don’t matter, unless he publicly announces Great Leap Forward or Cultural Revolution and sidelines the reactionary new New Leader. Then all bets are off.

          *) The inevitable candidacy of Hillary Clinton

        • Thanks for the explanation, and I apologize for the delay in responding.

          At first thought, I was skeptical of your idea, but upon reflection, I do find it plausible. Do a mock purge of those who “have betrayed the cause”, and then promote new people into those positions who will “fix” the problems. That is one way they could go. It’s even possible that later on, when they’ve managed to sufficiently muddle up the record that almost no one can tell what was done when, those same victims could be rehabilitated.

          I wouldn’t put it past her!

        • Of course, I would hope she wouldn’t get elected in the first place!

        • ARW says:

          I guess I am just exasperated. The scientific method has been trashed by these types.

  5. gofer says:

    “Former NOAA employee, Andrew Rosenberg, told Nature that Dr. Karl’s team was merely updating analysis.

    “There’s absolutely no implication that there is malfeasance of any kind,” Dr. Rosenberg told Nature.”

    Not even a smidgen…….a drop, a tittle…..sure, right.

    • Frank K. says:

      I believe “Dr” Tom Karl just has an honerary doctorate from NC State. I had to earn mine the old fashioned way (qualifiers, research, thesis…).

    • Jason Calley says:

      “there is malfeasance of any kind”

      They are just doing their job. Unfortunately, their job is to create lies while pretending to be scientists. “We were only following orders!”

  6. says:

    Steve — Do you have access to the original datasets to reproduce each graph before and after adjustment? It would be more convincing that overlaying image files.

  7. says:

    Steve — Do you have access to the original data on each of these graphs so they can be reproduced. I love your work, but overlaying image files isn’t the most convincing way to do it.

  8. oz4caster says:

    Here’s another piece of evidence indicating that the recent adjustments made by NOAA/NASA are well out of line since 2010 with the massive amounts of surface data used to initialize the global weather forecast system four times each day.

  9. gregole says:

    This is Climategate all over again:

    …”Late Tuesday, NOAA provided Smith with some more information about its methods and data but refused to give Smith everything he wanted. NOAA spokeswoman Ciaran Clayton said the internal communications are confidential and not related to what Smith is trying to find out.
    “We have provided data, all of which is publicly available online, supporting scientific research, and multiple in-person briefings,” she said.”

    Internal communications are confidential. Uh huh. Like “ Mike’s Nature Trick… and Hide the Decline..

    The data is publicly available on-line. Sure it is. Just ask the Climate Audit crowd what they went through.

    But this one takes the cake:
    …”Citing confidentiality concerns and the integrity of the scientific process…”.

    What is this? Espionage? Whose intellectual property is this anyway? What with the confidentiality? Am I to understand we need confidentiality to protect “the inegrity of the scientific process…” What kind of scientific process needs to be veiled in confidentiality in order to protect it’s integrity. Are these people operating in some weird parallel universe?

    Godspeed to Lamar Smith.

  10. But Dick, [they] do lie and steal and cheat, don’t they?”
    “Yes sir, they do.”
    “I thought so.”

    A universally applicable assumption.

  11. Climatism says:

    Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    When flatlining temperatures wreck your global warming agenda, refusing to rise after 18+ long years in hiatus, despite record human CO2 emissions over that same period, simply homogenise, adjust (tamper) with the data.
    As simple, easy and as criminal as that.

    “Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past.” is the political ideology of the totalitarian government of Oceania [Obama] in George Orwell’s [Tom Karl’s] dystopian novel [Gov Agency] Nineteen Eighty-Four [NOAA].”

    • omanuel says:

      Yes, we live in an Orwellian world, ruled by misinformation ! Climategate emails simply opened our eyes to a reality we did not want to admit.

  12. rah says:

    More of that there Transparency I see.

  13. elcrustace says:

    A “long-standing practice in the scientific community to protect the confidentiality of deliberative scientific discussions”… It remembers me of the freemasonry, which pretends to bring light to the Humanity by gathering powerful people in the secret of their temples.

    To their credit, the last time their “deliberative scientific discussion” made surface, it was called the ClimateGate. Obviously they dont want it to happen again.

    At least in the US you have political people willing to do that kind of investigation.

  14. Constitutional checks and balances. Executive branch lies, administrative branch says “show me your math.”

  15. ren says:

    Polar vortex core shift between Greenland and Scandinavia.
    This position is not favorable for America.

    • Fred Harwood says:

      Ren: Please say why?

      • ren says:

        The polar vortex restricts the flow of air. In this arrangement, it may flow from Siberia over the Bering Strait. If flowed in from the Pacific would be a warmer.

        • rah says:

          I certainly hope AccuWeather is right. We could use a “warm surge” here. I have fought hard wind blown rains the last two nights. Last night coming back from Bremen, Indiana up in the flat lake country it was a long three hours to get back home. Dark, wind blown rain, and gusts that were kicking my rig at times while driving two lane state highways bisecting the fields made it a less than enjoyable drive. I had to slow several times because of sideways rain being blown in sheets blanking out visibility. There is no relaxing behind the wheel in those kind of conditions. In some ways it’s worse than winter driving.

  16. SpinHacker says:

    Reblogged this on this fall 2015 and commented:
    The regulatory state powers set in motion by Woodrow Wilson are flexing with impunity today.

  17. SpinHacker says:

    Congrats for your work being mentions in the daily caller.

  18. sfx2020 says:

    To paraphrase the climategate email, “They spent years working on the temperature data, why should they share it with anyone?”

  19. Steve Case says:

    Over on one of my favorite sites chock full of those on the other side of things pointed out that the “NOAA’s Adjustments *Lower* the Trend”. So I unearthed my file saved from last January and compared it to the current October issue and plotted the differences:

    Interesting, besides changes made in the earlier years that lower the trend, virtually all of the negative downward adjustments were made prior to 1980. How interesting is that? Some up and some down for the first 100 years, and for the last 35 years all upwards. It just gets more and more interesting as time goes on.

    But it doesn’t matter who points this out, the word isn’t going to get out through the mainstream media unless there is some sort of an explosion that they can’t ignore.

  20. Gail Combs says:

    NOAA’s refusal to disclose e-mails and other information is because the e-mails contain evidence of wrong doing. We Americans learned how crucial this type of correspondence is in the Watergate mess. If a US president was forced to hand over private recording that implicated him then these GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES don’t have a leg to stand on.

    After the attacks on Willie Soon and other scientists. Tell me how in heck they can refuse to disclose GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES activities in the ‘Most Transparent Government EVAH!’ while demanding private citizens like Willie Soon disclose all?

    Democrats call for information from seven climate testifiers’ universities Yes you read that correctly, Universities are getting called on by elected officials to disclose private info about University employees. Not about public grants but about PRIVATE grants.

    ….The New York Times incited this climate-science street fight in a Sunday, 22 February, front-page article above the fold. Members of Congress widened it….

    By midweek, another New York Times article had summarized developments:

    In letters sent to seven universities on Tuesday, Representative Raúl M. Grijalva, an Arizona Democrat who is the ranking member of the House committee on natural resources, sent detailed requests to the academic employers of scientists who had testified before Congress about climate change.…

    From the Senator Ed Markey website:

    Markey, Boxer, Whitehouse Query Fossil Fuel Companies, Climate Denial Organizations on Science Funding
    Wednesday, February 25, 2015

    100 letters sent to unearth extent of climate denial-for-hire programs

    WASHINGTON (February 25, 2015) – Senators Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) today sent letters to 100 fossil fuel companies, trade groups, and other organizations to determine whether they are funding scientific studies designed to confuse the public and avoid taking action to cut carbon pollution, and whether the funded scientists fail to disclose the sources of their funding in scientific publications or in testimony to legislators.

    This investigation follows the revelations regarding one of the chief climate denial researchers, Wei-Hock “Willie” Soon, from documents released by Greenpeace showing that Soon received more than $1 million from ExxonMobil, Southern Company, and others to produce what he termed “deliverables” to push back on climate science or carbon-cutting policies in papers or Congressional testimony. Soon did not disclose this funding to peer-reviewed scientific journals that require such disclosure…..
    Corporate special interests shouldn’t secretly peddle the best junk science $ can buy #climate
    — Ed Markey (@SenMarkey) February 25, 2015

    The actual truth about Willie Soon:

    …In late February, 2015, Dr. Wei-Hock “Willie” Soon was accused by a Greenpeace activist of failing to disclose conflicts of interest to an academic journal. The accusation was false, but it was repeated by liberal reporters….

    * Kert Davies, the source of the accusations, has been making similar attacks against Dr. Soon and other climate scientists since as long ago as 1997. He is not a credible source.

    * Grants supporting Dr. Soon’s work were vetted and submitted by the Smithsonian, not by Dr. Soon. Grant dollars went to the Smithsonian, which kept around 40 percent of the money for oversight and overhead.

    * The amount of industry support Dr. Soon received, variously reported as $1 million or $1.2 million, includes the Smithsonian Institution’s 40 percent share and was received over the course of ten years. [that boils down to $60,000/yr – a piddling amount]

    * By agreement between donors and the Smithsonian, Dr. Soon wasn’t even aware of who some of the donors were, making a conflict of interest impossible.

    * Disclosure of funding sources is not a common requirement of academic journals in the physical sciences field. Most climate scientists – alarmist as well as skeptical – do not disclose their funding sources.

    As Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change said we are going to agree in December to totally restructure civilization WITHOUT full disclosure of everything that went into the design and the reasons why this is needed.

    This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution… democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming. Communist China is the best model.

    Based on the ‘evidence of Karl et al.’ the citizens of the USA will not only have their whole way of life restructured they will be fined a trillion dollars a year!

    As one of those to be fined I darn well want to know what that G*& D^*!!@ evidence is and how it was arrived at. Other wise –They lynch traitors don’t they?

Leave a Reply