“If the facts don’t fit the theory, change the facts.”

“If the facts don’t fit the theory, change the facts.”

  • Albert Einstein

Einstein was just joking, but that is exactly what the Climategate team has done to the surface temperature record.



We have all grown used to seeing graphs like the one at above from NASA, showing nearly continuous global warming over the last 135 years – with a flat period between 1940 and 1980, and 1.2C warming from 1880 through 2000.

Much of climate science, journalism and public policy is based around the belief that these NASA graphs are an accurate representation of the temperature record, and that the apparent warming which is shown in the graphs is due to an increase in atmospheric CO2. It is therefore very important to understand the accuracy, consistency and integrity of these graphs.

However, if we look at earlier versions of the same graph, we see something very different. The graph below was published by NASA in 2001, and showed 1975 as barely warmer than 1880 – with less than 0.6C warming from 1880 to 2000. The 2001 version showed only half as much warming from 1880 to 2000 as the 2016 version of the same graph above.


The recent increase of 0.6C in NASA’s reported warming over the 1880-2000 time period, is particularly troubling because the recent alterations extend far outside of their own error bars. The graph at right shows the 2001 version and the 2016 versions at the same scale, normalized to the most recent common decade. The blue lines represent the 2001 error bars, and the green lines represent the 2016 error bars. Note how the alterations are about three times as large as NASA’s reported error. This indicates a scientific process which is completely broken.


The graph below shows the changes which have been made to the NASA 1880-2000 temperature trend since 2001, a total of more than half a degree. The alterations have been almost as large as the entire trend reported in 2001, indicating a signal to noise ratio of close to zero. In other words, the NASA temperature graph is meaningless from a scientific point of view.


Going further back in time with published NASA temperature record, we see even larger discrepancies. NASA’s James Hansen in 1981 (below) showed a spike in temperatures around 1940, followed by nearly 0.3C cooling until the late 1960’s. This spike and cooling has been almost completely erased from the NASA temperature record.


The image below overlays Hansen 1981 graph on the current NASA surface temperature record, and shows how pre-1980 temperatures have been cooled. By cooling the past, NASA increased the total amount of warming, removed the 1940’s spike, and removed the post 1940’s cooling.


 These alterations did not occur all at once, but rather have occurred in successive stages, where the past is made cooler to create the appearance of more warming. The amount of warming from 1880 to 1980 has been doubled since Hansen 1981.


 Before NASA was involved, the National Academy of Sciences and NCAR both showed even more post-1940’s cooling, and that Northern Hemisphere temperatures were no warmer in the late 1960’s than they were at the beginning of the 19th century. These graphs are completely different from the current NASA graph.


coolingworld.pdf                                       Page 148 : understandingcli00unit.pdf

In 1974, the US Science Board reported a sharp cooling since World War II. The image below is from the November, 1976 issue of National Geographic


That same issue of National Geographic included the graph below, and the following text.

“Downward trend of temperature since 1938 has come nearly halfway back to the chill of the Little Ice Age 300 years ago”

This downwards trend has been nearly erased by NASA and NOAA.


National Geographic : 1976 Nov, Page 614

 During the 1970s, the American Association For The Advancement of Science reported a global cooling trend since 1940 – as did Columbia University

CRodhLAVAAADroE.pngCRsGcKMUwAEFsAJ (1).png

TimesMachine: November 30, 1976                    4 Mar 1974, Page 1 – at Newspapers.com

In 1961 there was “unanimous agreement” among climate experts that Earth was getting colder. In 1979, the cooling was considered “indisputable” and NOAA reported about 1 degree F cooling since World War II

CQ1prlDU8AAILQx (1).png 2016-01-10-13-05-43.png


The CIA warned that the cooling trend threatened political stability. The US and Russia mounted ‘large-scale investigations to determine why the Arctic climate is becoming more frigid” and the ice was getting thicker.

CRwiEAwUkAEMVsS.png  2016-01-10-15-32-14.png

9 Jun 1976, Page 4                                     U.S. and Soviet Press Studies of a Colder Arctic;

Sixty theories were put forward to explain the cooling


20 Nov 1974, Page 17 – at Newspapers.com

 Further evidence for the cooling was that during the late 1950s and 1960s, glaciers were advancing for the first time in over a century.

ScreenHunter_3425-Oct.-08-15.20.gif   PaintImage471.png

Glaciers Grow In Norway                Northwest Glaciers Again Advance

This cooling was a big change from the previous decades. Glaciers were disappearing in the early part of the century, and many had vanished by 1923.

CVeJXGtUAAAZ-J6.png    CRrqyZAVEAIZ0v4.png

29 Dec 1923, Page 5                                       1 Aug 1907, Page 4

2016-01-11-10-40-30.png   CWmFv2UVAAEIqBi.png

07 Apr 1923                                               Retreat of the Ice Rivers in the Alps

During the 1930s and 1940s, the glaciers of Norway and Greenland were rapidly melting and faced “catastrophic collapse.” By 1952 the glaciers of Norway and had lost half of their mass.


18 Feb 1952                                                  17 Dec 1939, Page 15

National Geographic showed images of rapid glacial retreat in the Alps by 1940.


National Geographic : 1976 Nov, Page 594

Evidence for the earlier warmth and post WWII cooling is very compelling . So why does it no longer appear in the NASA temperature record? NASA shows the period during the 1960s when glaciers growing as warm, and the earlier period when they were melting earlier as cold. The NASA temperature record does not appear consistent with the evidence on the ground, whereas the 1975 National Academy of Sciences graph is consistent.


This Climategate E-mail provides a big hint as to what has happened to the data since 1975. Climate scientists wanted to get rid of the “1940s blip”

From: Tom Wigley <wigley@ucar.edu>
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>
Subject: 1940s
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
Cc: Ben Santer <santer1@llnl.gov>

So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC,
then this would be significant for the global mean — but
we’d still have to explain the land blip.

It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip,
but we are still left with “why the blip”.


Removing the 1940s blip is exactly what NASA did. This is particularly evident in Greenland, Iceland and United States temperature data.

station (2).gifReykjavik01112016.gif

Data.GISS                                                               Data.GISS

In 1999, NASA’s James Hansen reported that the US cooled half a degree since the 1930’s.



Whither U.S. Climate?

By James Hansen, Reto Ruedy, Jay Glascoe and Makiko Sato — August 1999

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 (Figure 2)

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

NASA now shows warming during that same period. NASA US temperature data is based on  NOAA USHCN data, which is massively altered to create the appearance of warming.


Fig.D.gif (525×438)


The graph below shows how the NOAA data is altered. The blue line shows the averaged measured temperature at all USHCN stations, and the red line shows the average adjusted temperature. The warming trend over the last century is entirely due to “adjustments” by NOAA. Note how the “1940s blip” has been largely removed.


The image below shows the adjustments made by NOAA to the US temperature record – a total of 1.6 degrees F.


A large portion of these adjustments is due to NOAA simply making up data. If they are missing data at a particular station one month, they use a computer model to fabricate the temperature for that month. Since 1970, the percent of fabricated data has increased from 10% to almost half of the data. The US temperature record from NASA and NOAA is thus a completely meaningless fabrication, which bears no resemblance to the thermometer data it is derived from.


The data has been adjusted to match the increase in carbon dioxide. In other words, it is being forced to fit to greenhouse gas theory.


In summary, the NASA global and US temperature records are neither accurate, nor credible representations of reality.

“With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk”

  • John von Neumann

About Tony Heller

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

37 Responses to “If the facts don’t fit the theory, change the facts.”

  1. Andy DC says:

    Tony, you have expressed and documented this amazingly well. The best way I know to sum this up in one sentence is that if you take the vast number of long standing US stations, not corrupted by urban heat island affect, there has been virtually NO warming since at least the 1930’s. Nearly all the warming since 1880 took place between 1880 and 1940. Thus there is NO correlation between increased amounts of CO2 and temperature. Nothing remotely approaching any sort of climate crisis.

  2. Jason Calley says:

    Doing a count down here. Five, four, three, two, one… wait for it….

    “But you have not presented ANY EVIDENCE that any of the adjustments are wrong!”

    sarc off

    Seriously though, how can anyone look at all those charts, examine the pattern of how the charts have changed, and still not come to the conclusion that the numbers are being purposefully altered to match an agenda?

  3. Gail Combs says:

    Excellent Tony!

    Another point to note is Ex-Senator Wirth and Hansen played their dirty tricks on Congress to get them to believe in CAGW in 1988. Clinton signed the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change on 12/06/92 and it was ratified. The USA has poured BILLIONS into the Climate Change fiasco. So one question WHY IN HADES does the USA have missing DATA and WHY is it INCREASING since 1988 and not DECREASING???

  4. bleakhouses says:

    This is me channelling one frequent polemic poster here: “If the facts don’t fit the theory, change the facts;” exactly right.

  5. Steve Case says:

    This litany scientific missteps continues to be ignored by the “Main Stream” news outlets and will continue to be ignored. If Bernie or Hillery win in November it will never see the light of day.

    • rah says:

      Of course we have a long way to go until the election and anything can happen but the fact is that despite the press playing up the divisions in the Republican party the Democrats are fragmented worse right now. As things stand now I really don’t think that Hillary has much of a chance. All indications are her support is already going the wrong direction!

      • Gail Combs says:

        When it comes to politics the JP Morgan owned MSM is going to drive the public to pick the candidates THEY want and not what is best for US citizens. They have done that for over one hundred years and the Elite have gotten richer and the American Citizen has been saddled with debt.


        …Total net American liabilities to the rest of the world now stand at more than $80 trillion.

        Several publications have reported that China now owns significant public infrastructure in the contiguous United States and has requested public land and “special economic zones” free from U.S. labor controls as collateral on future loans. — John Griffing

        Remember at the beginning of Obummers term how Hillary Clinton spent so much time over in China? Remember that earlier Bill Clinton sold out the USA to China?

        • Jason Calley says:

          Gail, you are probably aware that the main point of contention for the occupation of the wild life building in Oregon is that the BLM has been actively burning out the ranchers there so that their land can be bought cheap and then have the rights sold off. Yesterday the county fire chief quite in protest after he discovered that some of the troublemakers in town were in fact FBI undercover agents pretending to be militia.

        • Gail Combs says:

          No Jason I was not aware of that but it does not surprise me at all. (references please for my collection)

          The goal has alway been to drive Americans off the land and into ‘sustainable housing’ aka micro-mini city apartments. The Elite want to eliminate the riff-raff from their hunting preserve and they also seem to be using Federal Land for collateral for the loans to the Federal Government.

          A group of farmers warned about that over a decade ago. Somewhere I have the references….

          AHHHh yes the great Derry Brownfield, may he rest in peace.
          “Our Land: Collateral for the National Debt” by Derry Brownfield Dec. 3,2008

          MORE from the farmers:

          A massive land grab is underway in Missouri and Arkansas. NGO’s (Non-Governmental Organizations) are lining up other states to be included in the Department of Interior’s “National Blueway System” designation. The Blueways System stems from Obama’s “America’s Great Outdoors” Presidential Memorandum, under which Secretary of Interior Salazar issued Secretarial Order #3321. (scroll down)

          The first Blueway designation occurred in May 2012, across the States of Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Connecticut. That watershed encompasses 7.2 million acres. The “White River National Blueway” is 17.8 million acres, and includes 60 counties across Missouri and Arkansas. Not one elected official from these 60 counties knew a thing about the designation, or the plans put forward by the “nominating committee.”

          Private property rights advocates knew nothing about the plan either, and when they’d found out about it, the designation had already been assigned. The “stakeholders,” NONE of whom represent or are actually private land holders in the area, have put together a significant list of “Strategic Objectives” to control the use of land within the 21,000 square mile area.

          In the Memorandum of Understanding including the triumvirate of Federal Agencies designating and collaborating on the “National Blueway System” it states:

          “Nothing in this MOU is intended to authorize or affect the use of private property or is intended to be the basis for the exercise of any new regulatory authority.”

          Yet when you examine the Nomination pdf that the “stakeholders” put forth to acquire the designation, there is no way the objectives can be met without regulation.

          First, let’s have a look just who the non-governmental stakeholders are and then what they propose to accomplish with this Blueway….


          …January of 2006. Dr Taylor Woods, a member of the NAIS Subcommittee, was the one speaking. He never said what the name of the program was, nor offered any website where one could go for information. I asked a couple of questions and then made a statement. That statement was, “It sounds like you just want to have complete control of the food supply.” Dr Woods replied, “We already do.”…. http://www.newswithviews.com/Hannes/doreen5.htm

        • Jason Calley says:

          BLM setting unattended fires and burning cattle and homes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zvrrQbjepc Videos of burning start at 3:15

          Harney Fire Chief resigns https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SB6m7x3QDAg

          Sorry to be brief, but am seriously multitasking at the moment!

        • Gail Combs says:

          Thanks Jason.
          The data just keeps building up that we have a criminal and immoral government.

      • DD More says:

        RAH – another indication.
        NBC/WSJ.polling is not getting any attention.

        Dec 14 2015
        In addition, only 20 percent [Record high – 2009 May 7-9 Satisfied — 35%] of the public believes the country is headed in the right direction, versus a whopping 70 percent who think it’s on the wrong track. And 73 percent say they want the next president to take a different approach from President Obama’s. “This will become a high hurdle for the Democrats at some stage of the 2016 election,” says Yang, the Democratic pollster.
        http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-th… [Hidden way down in the column]

        Any polling outfit not taking into account the 73% is push polling and not fit for consumption.

        73 is the new 97 percent.

  6. gator69 says:

    Another keeper for my ‘data fraud’ file, and another post I will share with the masses. Thanks Tony!

    • Gail Combs says:

      Very much a keeper Gator. It is nice to have it all laid out in one place. Makes it easier to ship off to others.

  7. One more smoking gun to add, Tony

    None of the previous temperature data from either NOAA or GISS has been archived. It is only through the efforts of independent bloggers and others, who have privately kept their own records or used Wayback, that we can keep track of what has been going on.

    About the only thing we can glean from the official sources are the graphs themselves , which were published at the time and cannot be easily destroyed.

    Any reputable scientific outfit would always keep prior data, and be able to account for the differences.

    I have had many debates with people who denied that any adjustments had even been made. At least now they seem to accept them, and have changed tack to expect us to prove why the adjustments are wrong.

    • DD More says:

      Add CRU to the list, at least according to
      The HARRY_READ_ME file was a long-running commentary, describing the disconcerting breath of problems he encountered while attempting to edit and organize his climate data sets at CRU. These challenges included CRU loss of data, predecessors accidentally deleting important calculations, receiving poorly organized data from various parts of the world, and having to work with a glitchy array of customized computer programs. In circumstances such as these, the writer was forced to make many judgment calls on how to proceed, despite admitting, “I haven’t had any training in stats in my entire life.”
      See more at: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/joseph-rossell/2014/11/17/climategate-after-five-years-ten-credibility-killing-quotes-leaked#sthash.sce4R0n9.dpuf

      • Jason Calley says:

        DD More, yes, very important to remind newcomers about the Harry_Read_Me file. I have never met a CAGW enthusiast who had even heard of it. Whoever Harry was, I wonder if he was the person who leaked the emails and files. Thanks, Harry, wherever you are!

        • Gail Combs says:

          As I read the Harry_Read_Me file, I kept thinking of what the FDA or FAA would have done to me if my labs records were in that poor a shape!

          Heck ….

          please look into the case of Mr. Dobbins in the United Kingdom. Some of his numbers on his registered show herd of dairy cattle were not jibing with their passports, so Defra (Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, the UK’s USDA) took all of his cattle passports and confiscated his entire herd giving him 48 hours to positively identify all 576 of his cattle before they destroyed them. He couldn’t identify them because Defra had confiscated all of his documents. It’s like show me the title to the car, while I have taken the title and hidden it in my house thirty miles away. As an added slap in the face, no indemnity is necessary under EC regulations when animals are not identified in exact compliance with their regulations. The man’s entire livelihood was destroyed because not every piece of paper was in the prescribed order….

          Now tell me how a few misapplied eartags or missrecorded numbers are enough to destroy a man’s entire life but the SAME government is willing to ignore a complete mess, including missing records, and other evidence of wrong doing. Not only ignores the mess but uses that crappy information produced as an excuse to kill hundreds of people a year?

        • DD More says:

          Gail that reminds me of the “Larry the Cable Guy” thoughts on cows.

          Everyone concentrates on the problems we’re having in Our Country lately: Illegal immigration, hurricane recovery, alligators attacking people in Florida . .. .. . Not me — I concentrate on solutions for the problems — it’s a win-win situation. * Dig a moat the length of the Mexican border. * Send the dirt to New Orleans to raise the level of the levees. * Put the Florida alligators in the moat along the Mexican border.

          Any other problems you would like for me to solve today? Think about this: 1. Cows

          Is it just me, or does anyone else find it amazing that during the mad cow epidemic our government could track a single cow, born in Canada almost three years ago, right to the stall where she slept in the state of Washington? And, they tracked her calves to their stalls. But they are unable to locate 11 million illegal aliens wandering around our country.. Maybe we should give each of them a cow.

          Read more: http://www.hobotraveler.com/jokes-sent-to-andy/wisdom-of-larry-the-cable-guy.php#ixzz3xLrHWvA7

        • Gail Combs says:

          Yeah, Amazing, They want us to tag and track all our livestock and yet they have no problem with possibly criminal and disease ridden illegals flooding across our boarders. — schizophrenic much?

          Another goody from Doreen Hannes and Sharon Zecchinelli. — Two ladies I have a lot of respect for. (I worked with them on the NAIS issue via e-mail.)

          Sharon: …The main thing, though, that qualifies me to join the national debate is that I have read every document, press release and all the Federal Register documents that USDA has issued with regard to NAIS. I even attended, at my own expense, NIAA’s ID Expo in 2006 to learn firsthand about the program. It was there that Dr. John Weimers told me personally that he would drive every back road to find every backyard flock and tag each chicken. It was also there that Indiana’s State Vet Dr. Jennifer Greiner said to me she couldn’t sleep at night thinking I would be eating diseased meat, that being my own sheep.

          But the USDA has zero problem with Con-Agra selling feces covered meat. (And no I am not kidding the new regs allow washing of the meat instead of condemning it like the old regs.)

          So why do they want to tag granny’s flock of chickens?

          …the fact remains that the reason to locate livestock in 48 hours is to kill them to prevent the spread of disease. No, I won’t use the euphemism depopulate or as they said in the Traceability Business Plan ‘sacrifice’.

          The kill zone, by the way, is 12.4 miles in diameter. That means everything inside that kill zone is going to be destroyed, wooden structures will be burned, fields sprayed to prevent spread, quarantine zones, people displaced out of their homes, dead animals buried or burned. It might show the US as a real player in the global agricultural market but at what price?…

          One other thing. Remember last year when they used NAIS to locate the cows during the blizzard? That was not allowed by their own Draft Plan. The stated purpose of NAIS is to protect against disease. A blizzard isn’t a disease. What other purposes will USDA rationalize they can use NAIS for?….

  8. AndyG55 says:

    Getting rid of the 1940ish peak was one of the prime aims of the homogenisation process.

    There are so many instances like Reykjavik, from all around the glode, that it has to have been intentional from the word go.


    • Jason Calley says:

      “There are so many instances like Reykjavik, from all around the glode, that it has to have been intentional from the word go.”

      A husband comes home from work once and there is lipstick on his collar; yeah, maybe some lady stumbled against him on the bus. Once he came home and smelled like perfume. Maybe it really is just a new cologne that the barber rubbed on him after his shave. But he comes home three nights a week with lipstick? And perfume? And missing a sock? There just might, just might, just might be a problem….


      • Gail Combs says:

        The adjustments always remind me of this song. (Clam Chowder sung it at BosCon)

        • Jason Calley says:

          Ha! Good song! Well, I am no climate scientist, so if they say 2015 is “the hottest year evah!” then it MUST be true!

        • Gail Combs says:

          Hubby’s out so I am listening to Celtic Thunder on his computer. Nice group!

  9. Son of Durin says:

    “It is a huge mistake to theorize before one has data. Inevitably, one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts”.

  10. Hifast says:

    Reblogged this on Climate Collections.

  11. Really a great presentation Steve. Thanks.

Leave a Reply