1989 : NOAA Said No Evidence Of US Warming

U.S. Data Since 1895 Fail To Show Warming Trend

By PHILIP SHABECOFF, Special to the New York Times Published: January 26, 1989

After examining climate data extending back nearly 100 years, a team of Government scientists has concluded that there has been no significant change in average temperatures or rainfall in the United States over that entire period.

The study, made by scientists for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration was published in the current issue of Geophysical Research Letters. It is based on temperature and precipitation readings taken at weather stations around the country from 1895 to 1987.

U.S. Data Since 1895 Fail To Show Warming Trend – New York Times

NOAA now shows about half a degree warming during that same time period. They have rewritten their own history.

ScreenHunter_96 Jan. 19 16.59

Climate at a Glance | Time Series

About stevengoddard

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

14 Responses to 1989 : NOAA Said No Evidence Of US Warming

  1. gator69 says:

    If the data does not fit the hypothesis, alter the data and rationalize the alterations.

  2. Eric Simpson says:

    Wow. And how things changed! By 1998 we had the hockey stick. Hotair did a piece titled Is a lot of scientific research just… crap? My comment:

    One thing that’s crap is the climate “scientists’” hockey stick.

    I put scientists above in quotes because the evidence is that these climatologists and others are not primarily interested in the science (except for as a means to an end). They care about the public relations. By and large both the msm and the scientific establishment are liberal. So they agreed with the 1993 proclamation of the leftist senator Tim Wirth: “We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing.”

    Accepting Wirth’s idea that the warmist policy proposals (economic de-development) are good regardless of whether the science is correct would lay the foundation for what was to fololow: the quick uncritical acceptance of Michael Mann’s bogus hockey stick in 1998, which overturned decades of accepted (even by the ipcc in 1995) thinking on what the previous climate was like.

    Interesting thing about the hockey stick is that the warmists didn’t “need” it to make their case. They just wanted to make a more compelling case, as apparently no one was listening until they had the hockey stick as the centerpiece of their scare mongering. Indeed, the first ipcc chairman, Sir Sir John Houghton said “Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.”

    And, as lead ippc author Stephen Schneider said back in 1989: “We have to offer up scary scenarios… each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective and being honest.” The hockey stick in itself was the very picture of a disaster unfolding before our eyes, and sure enough, fabricating the bogus hockey stock was totally consistent with Schneider’s call to offer up scary scenarios, and to not be honest about it.

    Now, an effective counter to the warmist bs will be to get more of the public to see how the hockey stick was a false fabrication, and that without the hockey stick, there’s just nothing unusual or in any way alarming about the current climate or how we got here. Note the warmists continue to trumpet the hockey stick, and most of the public still believes it. This article, just out, is an EXCELLENT (the best I’ve seen) summary for the layperson on the hockey stick, spread the word:


    • rw says:

      Yes. And to paraphrase Lenin, they have given us the petard by which we can hoist them.

    • Eric Simpson says:

      First, thanks rw! Second, as I said I first ran my above comment in hotair, and as a reply to a response I got, I said:

      And you’re right about the science. I’d say that science should be inherently non-partisan, but client science ain’t. At best it is like some kind of quasi-science Frankensteinian hybrid of the leftist media and leftist politics, with the “science” part only an adjunct that does the bidding of their financial and intellectual overlords in the media & politics.

      Climatology is all geared toward marketing and PR, about convincing the public that a grave threat exists, so they can get their leftist policies enacted. Indeed, the story of the rise (and fall) of the hockey stick shows how this quasi-science politicized monster led to the sudden, uncritical, unquestioning acceptance in 1998 of Michael Mann’s bogus hockey stick throughout the entire (leftist) scientific (and media) establishment. This outstanding post, which is the best I have seen on the hockey stick for the layman, tells that tale: http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-rise-and-fall-of-hockey-stick-and.html

  3. Derek says:

    What are the official reasons for these “adjustments” and has any scientist debunked them?

  4. “NOAA now shows 1.3 degrees of warming during that same time period. They have rewritten their own history.”

    Actually, no. Take a look at the graph. It’s taken the trend line from 1895 to 2013. It should be 1895 to 1987. Replot it and you’ll see that nothing has changed and nothing has been rewritten.

  5. I see you have corrected the graph but deleted my comment. That is a bit dishonest. There’s another error: a trend of 0.05F per decade corresponds to 0.44F of heating over the 88 year time frame, not 0.5F.

  6. I notice that you corrected the graph but deleted my comment. That is a bit dishonest. There’s another error: a trend of 0.05F per decade corresponds to warming of 0.44F over the 88 year time frame, not 0.5F.

  7. R. de Haan says:

    We stuff you with hocke stick graphs until you surrender.

  8. homepage says:

    I read this piece of writing fully regarding the difference of latest and earlier technologies, it’s amazing article.

  9. Is “about half a degree” enough to refute the claim that there was “no significant change in average temperatures”? Is a change of less than half a degree significant, effectually or statistically?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s