It’s been over a month since I wrote an update on “The Greatest Scientific Fraud Of All Time,” so it’s time to check in on it again. For those not following this, the fraud in question is the world temperature data tampering fraud, by which the keepers of historical world temperature records adjust temperatures in earlier years downwards in order to create or enhance warming trends and support the narrative of catastrophic global warming. The principal perpetrators of the fraud are U.S. government employees in the agency known as NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration).
Readers of the previous articles know that NOAA has been caught red-handed over and over adjusting earlier temperatures downward. They uniformly provide no explanation beyond something like “our homogenization algorithm is working appropriately,” refuse to give any details, and expunge the earlier raw data to make it as hard as possible for anyone to prove the fraud. My previous articles are here, here, here, here and here.
Numerous examples of NOAA’s pervasive and unexplained adjustments have been published on websites including ICECAP, RealScience, NotaLotofPeopleKnowThat, WattsUpWithThat and others. And numerous independent researchers have done a lot to thwart NOAA’s data deletion efforts by archiving earlier versions of the data. You can’t follow this issue at all without knowing that there are very credible and thoroughly demonstrated instances of pervasive data tampering by NOAA. You also can’t follow this issue at all without knowing that there are several other independent data sets, most notably the two satellite data sets of UAH and RSS covering the period 1979 to present, that do not show the warming that the NOAA data shows.
And yet, with this background, NOAA keeps putting out press releases, more or less monthly, trumpeting alleged new high temperature records, and supposed “news” outlets pick up the releases and put out stories with one scary headline after another, never mentioning that other data sets do not show the same records or warming, and never mentioning that serious and thoroughly-proved allegations of data tampering have been made against NOAA and never refuted.
Not meaning to pick specifically on Bloomberg News, but their website front page has made a point for several months of having a global warming scare headline up there at nearly all times. For example, today there is “World Breaks Temperature Records As Climate Summit Nears.” (“Global land and sea surface temperatures from January through June were 1.53 degrees Fahrenheit above the 20th century average, the highest since recordings started in 1880, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said in a report.”) Yesterday it was “Monster El Nino Makes Record Hot Year Look Inevitable.” (“This has been the hottest start to a year by far, according to data released today by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.”) Or try June 18, “This Year Is Headed For The Hottest On Record, By A Long Shot.” (“Last month was the hottest May on record, and the past five months were the warmest start to a year on record, according to new data released by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.”) Or April 17: “Global Temperature Records Just Got Crushed Again.” (“March was the hottest month on record, and the past three months were the warmest start to a year on record, according to new data released by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.”) Notice that every time the source is specifically NOAA, without any mention of other data sets that do not show the same thing, nor any mention of the well-established allegations of data tampering against NOAA. Pathetic.
Believe me, Bloomberg is not the only one. To give just a couple of examples, here is NBC News from yesterday, “Another Month, Another Global Heat Record Broken.” (“Off-the-charts heat is “getting to be a monthly thing,” said Jessica Blunden, a climate scientist for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. June was the fourth month of 2015 that set a record, she said.”) Or the New York Times from March 18, “Winter Sets Global Heat Record Despite US East’s Big Chill.” (“Federal [NOAA] records show that this winter and the first two months of 2015 were the hottest on record globally, with a chilly U.S. East sticking out like a cold thumb in a toastier world.”) Always NOAA and only NOAA. Never any mention of other data sets or what they show. Never any mention of known NOAA data tampering.
A website called NoTricksZone has a good roundup today comparing the latest NOAA data showing supposed “records” with data from the other independent (and also more accurate) satellite data sets. It’s just as you’d expect:
NOAA claims that the global surface temperature reached a new all-time record high with an anomaly +0.88°C – the warmest since recordkeeping began in 1880! However measurements taken by satellite Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) show that although June 2015 indeed was a warm month at +0.39°C, it was only the 4th warmest June ever, and more than 30 other earlier months have seen greater positive anomalies [in records going back to 1979] Satellite data (revised) [also data going back to 1979] taken by the University of Alabama in Huntsville UAH show that the June 2015 temperature anomaly was +0.31°C, a warm month but not the hottest June ever as three other June months were as warm or warmer. Moreover plots of the RSS and UAH data continue to show that global temperatures have been flat for now close to 20 years.
NoTricksZone then has the following comment from meteorologist Joe d’Aleo:
“The problem is that the same staff responsible for creating the reports about the climate . . . and running some of the greenhouse models that project the scary scenarios . . . are also responsible for the databases that validate the forecasts. . . . There is a lot of control available for modelers to predict a desired result, and data source inconsistencies allow NOAA to be creative – and the result is a hybrid of data and models (with their adjustments like TOA, infilling and homogenization) to show whatever the puppet-masters in government require. It may be that some really believe in their science and work hard to mine the data, achieving a form of bias confirmation. In other cases it is ideologically or politically driven or a matter of job security.”
Also at NoTricksZone from a couple of weeks ago (July 7) is the latest discovery of yet another example of widespread NOAA data tampering. A guy named Michael Brakey is an energy consultant in Maine, and for his job had reason to archive older temperatures to keep track of how his home efficiency solutions were working. To his amazement, on repeated visits to NOAA’s website to collect data, he found that older temperatures had been systematically altered downward:
In early 2015, I revisited the NOAA website and updated my HDD [heating degree day] and cooling degree-day (CDD) data for a local television presentation. Here I was shocked to discover that NOAA had not only rewritten Maine climate history for a second time in the last 18 months, but with all the tinkering they also screwed up southern interior Maine averages.
There’s lots more detail at the link, including additional discovery of massive data tampering with archived temperatures in Ohio and Tennessee. The tampering is always in the same direction — earlier temperatures get cooler, thus enhancing warming trends, and making the latest data look like a “record.”
Brakey asked NOAA to explain, and got this:
“…improvements in the dataset, and brings our value much more in line with what was observed at the time. The new method used stations in neighboring Canada to inform estimates for data-sparse areas within Maine (a great improvement).”
Replacing actual, observed temperatures in Maine with observations from “neighboring Canada” supposedly brings the value “more in line with what was observed at the time”? It couldn’t be more preposterous. Bloomberg, NBC, New York Times, and the rest of you: do you realize the extent to which you are getting scammed? Or are you part of the scam? It’s just beyond belief.