Record keepers cooked global temperature books

Remember the horror stories about 2014 being the hottest year since before Henry Ford took his date to the prom in a hay-fueled buggy? 

The terrors posed by melting glaciers and rising sea levels threatening polar bears and Al Gore’s new coastal California residence? And oh yeah, mustn’t forget those historic first-time-ever droughts and tag team hurricanes — all caused, of course, by our CO2-belching smoke stacks and SUVs?

Well, maybe not. It seems that official surface temperature records upon which this panic has rested have been systematically cooked to indicate that Earth has recently been overheating just as alarmists, including some at NASA, wish us to believe. This will come as no surprise, however, to scientists familiar with data recorded from satellite and high altitude balloon instruments. That data shows that global mean temperatures have been statistically flat over the past 18 years.

Pseudoscientific chicanery reported last year by Steven Goddard’s Real Science blog illustrates shameless manipulation of some of the world’s most influential climate records. 

His investigation reveals that many surface measurements originally recorded in NOAA’s U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) have been replaced with temperatures “fabricated” from theoretical computer models.

In doing so, original recorded temperatures were subsequently lowered, thereby exaggerating warming in recent decades by comparison. Whereas the original records dustbowlingshow that the U.S. has actually been cooling since the 1930s, the hottest decade on record, NOAA’s manipulated graph based nearly half on fantasy data projects a high warming rate in excess of 3º C per century.

ASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies based its recent mainstream media-parroted “2014 hottest year” canard on this same contrived data, but ratcheted up the hot spin cycle even more.

Yet when the Daily Mail asked the new NASA-GISS Director Gavin Schmidt why the press release failed to mention his own low confidence that the likelihood of 2014 being “the warmest year since 1880” is just 38%, he offered no response.

Incidentally, that alleged “record” amounted to a two-hundredths of a degree increase over 2010, the previously claimed “warmest year.” That miniscule difference falls within a margin of error broadly recognized to be several times higher.

More evidence of this feverish fraud was reported earlier this month by English journalist Christopher Booker in The Telegraph. Booker’s U.K. article discussed an investigation into “how we are being tricked by flawed data on global warming,” which was conducted by Paul Homewood who checked original temperature graphs for weather stations in Paraguay against subsequent substitutions.

Homewood then checked a swath of other South American weather stations around the original three, finding the same one-way “adjustments” in all of them.

The first of these again appeared in NOAA’s USHCN. These in turn, were then amplified by NASA-GISS and NOAA’s National Climate Data Center using hypothetical warming trends to estimate temperatures across vast regions of the planet where no measurements exist.

Yet, as Booker emphasizes, “these are the very records on which scientists and politicians rely for their belief in ‘global warming’.”

Homewood is now finding evidence of the same pattern of data fudging for weather stations across much of the Arctic between Canada and the heart of Siberia. In nearly every case the one-way tweaks show warming up to 1º C higher than actual original data indicate. Replaced versions also completely eliminate obvious evidence of Iceland’s “sea ice years” around 1970, when extreme cooling nearly devastated the country’s economy.

Homewood points out that even a 1987 NASA-GISS graph presented in a paper authored by its former director and lead climate alarmist James Hansen was doctored siberiandogsto “transform Arctic history.” 

This falsification was first exposed in 2007 by Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre. Here, the original Arctic temperatures which were actually much higher than any time since had been lowered so much that they became dwarfed by those of the past 20 years.

Those who worry a lot about the vanishing Arctic ice caps and drowning polar bears we keep hearing about in order to sell the Obama Administration’s EPA war on coal should be cheered to know that Arctic temperature shifts have virtually nothing at all to do with atmospheric CO2 concentrations. In reality they are caused by perfectly natural multi-decadal changes in Atlantic Ocean currents.

So now that the Atlantic is about to flip back to a cyclical cooling phase, perhaps we should begin to worry more about how to heat our homes with windmills and sunbeams. In any case, will someone please kindly inform Al Gore and those frantic polar bears they can finally relax?

NOTE:  A version of this article appears at



About the Author: Larry Bell

Larry Bell

CFACT Advisor Larry Bell heads the graduate program in space architecture at the University of Houston. He founded and directs the Sasakawa International Center for Space Architecture. He is also the author of "Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind the Global Warming Hoax."

  1. li d

    Gday Larry.
    Tell us mate.
    Where is all the water coming from
    if temps aint rising?
    Are aliens filling the oceans?
    Ya know why oceans rise eh?
    And you would agree they are rising eh?
    So can ya reconcile this?
    Cheers Li D.

    • Douglas_Kubler

      Tell us mate, when was the last time the ocean levels were unchanging?

      It seems your ideal world is one where the rate of accumulation of ice and the rate of melting are exactly balanced. Most unlikely.

      Would a falling ocean level be better? Not really, what a disaster for all the harbors and canals (Panama, Suez) of the world. Think of the humanity!

    • RxExec

      The levels aren’t rising or falling, they are shifting with currents. Loss of ice to the right, gain of ice to the right. Its pretty easy to understand.

    • Kjell Erik Midtgård

      -As a mather in fact, earth receives water from space in form of meteors, that for the mostly consist of water and dust. There is no reason to suspect aliens for that phenomenon. -it is altso a fact that landmasses rises from and lowers into the sea. It is due to geological movements. Still no reason to suspect Aliens. Have a good day your self 😀

  2. FredHubler

    For those who allege this is just an instance of cherry
    picking data, Steve Goddard has been documenting these adjustments for years.
    Check this link for adjustments to US temperature since 1999.

    And for those of you who think Steve Goddard is just making
    this up, here is a link containing a NASA graph of US temperature in 1999.

    • li d

      Its clear as anything the data
      skewing is in favor of denialists
      and its also clear WHY the data is
      Seems folk are creating a conspiracy
      that only conspires to fool themselves.
      Temps are going up for whatever reason.
      Rising sea levels are a result of this.
      Due to bloody obvious things like
      thermal expansion and melting ice
      on land .
      If folk are in educated denial of this,
      thats fabulous. Just tell us where the
      water is coming from. Or at least, to
      maintain a sort of self intellectual integrity,
      tell yourself! The water is coming from…

      • FredHubler

        “It’s clear as anything the data
        skewing is in favor of denialists”

        It definitely isn’t clear to me; please

      • FredHubler

        Despite the claims in the NOAA link,
        the NASA graph of 1999 US temperature and the NASA graph of current US
        temperature clearly contradict the claims in that link. I challenge you to provide
        a single instance in which later temperatures were not raised, or earlier
        temperatures were not lowered or both were not done simultaneously to exaggerate
        the warming trend indicated by the instrumental record.

  3. Festus Haggen

    I’ve always wondered what is the base from which we measure climate change? Was the base climate 50 years ago, 500 years ago, or 5000 years ago? And what makes that climate, whatever it was, preferable to what we have today? Hasn’t the climate been continuously changing since the beginning of time on earth? Seems to me that natural forces and solar activity have always determined the climate, and always will. It may get warmer, or it may get colder, but it’s going to do whatever it’s going to do, whether man is on this planet, or not.

  4. robmanzoni

    These fraudsters must be brought to book, prosecuted and serve their time, just like Bernie Madoff. The damage they’ve done is vast – far greater that Madoff’s was – and it is costing lives and damaging well-being; and the fanatical warmists target host scientists; and destroy their reputations through more egregious lies.
    Like Hillary and Bill, with their Foundations’ Scams, they must be locked up…

0 Pings & Trackbacks