Data tweaking heats up climate hype

By |2015-11-17T20:43:40+00:00November 17th, 2015|CFACT Insights|12 Comments

aaaweathersatSatellite temperature records that offer the most comprehensive and accurate measurements show no statistical warming for nearly 19 years and counting.

Yet, based upon tweaking of near-surface ocean temperatures earlier this year, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) surmised that this “pause” of pending human-caused climate calamity doesn’t exist.

As in the past, this tinkering of spotty and unreliable surface data by NOAA and other government agencies always seems to conclude that past temperatures were cooler than actually documented, making recent trends appear warmer.

The latest data revision involves upward adjustments of superior readings taken from ocean buoys to match random and haphazard measurements obtained by ship crews.

Distinguished Georgia Tech climate scientist Judith Curry confirms that the recent NOAA study headed by Thomas Karl didn’t use currythe best available ocean data.

She told “The new NOAA dataset disagrees with a U.K. dataset, which is generally regarded as the gold standard for global sea surface temperature datasets . . . The new dataset also disagrees with Argo buoys and satellite analyses.”

Dr. Curry added that, “While I’m sure this latest analysis from NOAA will be regarded as politically useful for the Obama Administration, I don’t regard it as a particularly useful contribution to our scientific understanding of what is going on.”

Incidentally, surface climate data reports represented by NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) are no more reliable than NOAA’s, and likely far less.

It was revealed earlier this year that nearly half of their recently alleged global warming claims resulted from highly suspicious statistical changes . . . not from actual temperature readings.

This shouldn’t be particularly surprising in light of the fact that NASA-GISS was previously headed by mainstream media’s celebrated climate doom and anti-fossil energy activist James Hansen.

Time and again we are warned that a latest month or year is the “warmest on record,” claims typically based upon temperature differences many times smaller than either NASA’s or NOAA’s cited margins of error.

In August, both agencies announced that July 2015 was the hottest month since instrumental records began in 1880. NOAA asserted that this record beat out July 1998 by eight one-hundredths of a degree Celsius (0.08º C), yet with an uncertainty of 0.014º C. NASA-GISS records indicated that July 2015 edged out July 2011 by 0.002º C.

Similarly, President Obama proclaimed that 2014 held a feverish record (with only a 38% probability and by infinitesimally small margins) over 2010, 2005, and 1998.

Explaining why, he said: “It was inconvenient for this administration that climate data has clearly showed no warming for the past two decades. The American people have every right to be suspicious when NOAA alters data to get politically correct results they want, and then refuses to reveal how those decisions were made.”

While NOAA has provided Rep. Smith’s committee with limited publicly available data and has briefed staff on some aspects of their research, the agency insists that it has no intention of handing over documents that reveal its internal deliberations.

Arguing that “Because the confidentiality of these communications among scientists is essential to frank discourse among scientists, those documents were not provided to the House Science and Technology Committee,” they insist that “It is a longstanding practice of the scientific community to protect the confidentiality of deliberative scientific discussions.”

We might readily understand why many NOAA scientists would fervently wish to protect confidential discussions.

A painful lesson can be drawn from the release of scandalous ClimateGate emails revealing previous deliberative data-rigging discussions.

One email string discussed “Mike’s [journal] Nature trick” about how to hide the temperature decline.

This exchange referred to Michael Mann’s infamous “hockey stick” graph which showed recent temperatures catapulting off its mannmanncobbled-together chart.

That now-debunked knuckle-biting sensation has since even been dropped from alarmist UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports,which had originally featured it as a cause for drastic and immediate actions.

Nevertheless, mythological “settled science” climate doom continues to dominate international energy policies.

Given the many billions of dollars that the junk science-premised global warming industry is costing U.S. taxpayers and energy consumers, a cooling dose of Congressional scrutiny is warranted and vital.

But don’t expect any such investigation to end politically purposeful government agency manipulations which have revised temperature data between 1880 and 2010 a total of 16 times during the past 3 years alone.

Yes, man-made climate changes pose real threats. We can count on them to continue so long as UN wealth redistribution and crony capitalist “alternative energy” subsidy agendas reward super-heated science representations.

NOTE:  A version of this article first appeared at:


  1. Scott November 17, 2015 at 10:37 PM

    Why does congress even have to ask for their emails? My company doesn’t have to ask for my company emails. If they want them they just have the administrator take them… they belong to the company. These emails belong to the government, they should just take them.

  2. old timer November 18, 2015 at 9:45 AM

    If congress can’t order NOA to deliver them, Lamar Smith should ask Anonymous to hack NOA for the records and release them to congress.

    • The Professor of Freedom November 18, 2015 at 2:47 PM

      Anonymous is ‘NATO’ I will speculate since they are funded mainly by us and for us through us!

  3. The Professor of Freedom November 18, 2015 at 2:42 PM

    November 18th, 2015 The Climate Talks in Paris will Fail: Why?

    As expectations build for a global consensus to emerge from the United Nations climate conference in Paris, starting on 30 November 2015, that could agree to taking action to limit any rise in global temperature to 2 degrees celsius, I would like to explain why these expectations are misplaced. And what we can do about it. The essence of the problem is that most people and organisations are asking elites to take action on their behalf rather than taking action themselves.

  4. John November 20, 2015 at 6:40 AM

    Why are so many of the deniers of the theory of human caused climate change from Texas? I wonder if all the money contributed by Exxon and Koch to CFACT has any effect on the spin that comes out of it.

    It is grossly ironic when the fossil fuel crowd says the other side is in it for the money!

  5. Dano2 November 20, 2015 at 11:06 AM

    Poor Larry bumbles:

    Satellite temperature records that offer the most comprehensive and accurate measurements show no statistical (sic) warming for nearly 19 years and counting.


    based upon tweaking of near-surface ocean temperatures earlier this year

    Temperature cannot be tweaked.

    this tinkering of spotty and unreliable surface data

    Dishonest statement, with no evidence.

    And the satellite people say surface data are better, so bumbling Larry is stumbling around, looking for play. I hope Morano doesn’t pay Larry for this poorly-written drivel.



  6. RealOldOne2 November 25, 2015 at 11:27 AM

    Global warming extremist trolls are denying reality when they claim that Bell’s statement: “Satellite temperature measurements that offer the most comprehensive and accurate measurements show no statistical warming for nearly 19 years and counting.”

    This is an accurate statement. Here is the empirical data that confirms the no warming in nearly 19 years:

    And peer reviewed science by the global warming alarmists themselves confirm that the satellites are the most comprehensive and accurate method to obtain a global average temperature.

    “Satellite TLT data have near-global, time-invariant spatial coverage; in contrast global mean temperature trends estimated from surface temperature records can be biased by spatially and temporally non-random coverage changes.” – Santer(2015)
    “thermometers cannot measure global averages – only satellites can. The satellite instruments measure nearly every cubic kilometer – … – of the lower atmosphere on a daily basis. You can travel hundreds if not thousands of kilometers without finding a thermometer nearby.” –

    The climate alarmist trolls will play their games, obfuscate, repeat their propaganda, but they can’t and won’t rebut this empirical science, because their whole religion is based on flawed, faulty, falsified, failed climate models which can’t accurately project future global temperatures at even the 2% confidence level. (vonStorch2013) It is insane to implement draconian climate policies on such flimsy support.

  7. Roald J. Larsen November 26, 2015 at 5:21 PM

    Why cheat if the data really show a problem?

    This is why the sea surfase temperature doesn’t go up .. The earth isn’t warming.

    Like 2014, this year is said to be the warmest on record, ref.:

    Of course it will be the warmest on record, no point in cheating if you don’t get the result you need ..

Comments are closed.