Shameless Data Fraud At NASA Continues

I’ve updated NASA’s surface temperature graphs to include their latest 2015 fraud. You can see how they have doubled 1880-1980 warming since their 1982 version, and are continuing to continuing to cool the past and add additional fraud on to all of their post 1980 temperatures, every year.

GISS1982_2002_2014_2015

All global warming over the past 19 years is due to data tampering by criminals at government agencies, and long term warming has been more than doubled since 1982 by these same criminals.

About stevengoddard

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

35 Responses to Shameless Data Fraud At NASA Continues

  1. Thanks for doing this. I love your animated charts.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Agreed Morgan, but I would like to see a 4th red circle around the 1940s too. It seems to be the pivot point with the adjustments cooling the past before 1940s and warming the time after the 1940s so the cyclical curve is straightened out.

      If we still had Rule of Law in the Anglosphere, these Data Rapers would be in jail.

      • They will. President Trump will line them up on a panel and ask them one by one to explain the reasoning for all the adjustments, and basically not believe a word they say when they try to lie their way out of it. With each wrong answer, he will just fire them one by one.

        • Gail Combs says:

          I sure hope so.
          Fed does nothing, Chile has an 8.x quake, Carly trumps Trump, and the world goes on… over at ChiefIOs. The comments are interesting.

          p.g.sharrow says:
          17 September 2015 at 7:33 pm

          Think I’d rather not Carly, Doesn’t work well with others or take advice from underlings. At least that is my take over the last 20 years of my knowledge of her activities…pg

          I do not like Carly either. Unfortunately the computer ate my spreadsheet on the candidates.

          But here is the big count against Carly:
          Carly Fiorina believes in man-made global warming, she tells Seth Meyers

          she acknowledged that she believes climate change is caused by humans. “I’m prepared to take the scientists at their word,” she said, “but the problem is we never finish the scientists’ sentence…. A single nation acting alone can make no difference at all.”

          Lest you think Fiorina is backing President Obama’s push to enact an enforceable global pact on reducing greenhouse-gas emissions or cheering his landmark deals with China and India, fear not. “Why would we destroy all these jobs with regulation when the answer to climate change is innovation, not regulation?” she asked. There follows a short but interesting conversation on when and how the U.S. can and should lead in the world, and then Fiorina changes the subject to Russian President Vladimir Putin, who is both “a bad dude” and funny. —Peter Weber

          So she believes in the “Broken Window Fallacy” and is being wishy-washy on CAGW, know doubt because she knows a strong stand FOR CAGW is a vote killer for the GOP voters.

        • Bob123 says:

          God willing, Trump will never get the nomination. He’s a buffoon who knows nothing about science. He STILL believes that vaccinations cause Autism. I’m as conservative as they come, but trump is no conservative. He just good at saying what people want to hear.

        • gator69 says:

          Trump got 20,000 Texas conservatives to applaud at the idea of taxing the rich.

          Trump got 20,000 Texas conservatives to applaud at the idea of President Trump muscling a CEO not to move his company overseas — an Obama-esque abuse of executive power.

          Trump got 20,000 Texas conservatives to applaud at the idea of rethinking free trade.

          Trump got 20,000 Texas conservatives to applaud when he said he would not shred Obama’s Iran deal on day one but would instead try to make it work with stronger inspections.

          http://www.glennbeck.com/2015/09/17/is-it-possible-that-it-really-was-all-about-race-fascinating-response-to-glenns-question-to-tea-partiers-who-support-trump?utm_source=glennbeck&utm_medium=contentcopy_link

          This is partly why I am now a Libertarian. #Principles matter

        • Snowleopard says:

          I live in an area that had several HP facilities when Fiorina was CEO. There are still a few left! According to those who had some experience there, Carly seems to do well at making herself look good as things fall apart while her “fixes” make things worse. One cannot blame her for HP’s continuing problems at this point, but she has few fans there. She left HP around ten years ago, what has she done since that’s any better?

        • Robertv says:

          No Dr Ben Carson he is a Bush man.

        • darrylb says:

          Nuts, sorry about Carly’s AGW perspective, I sort of liked her
          I have to stay with Ben, If for no other reason than he will be honest, he will listen-particularly to experts in specific areas
          he will take in all information before making a decision

        • Robertv says:

          “he will listen-particularly to experts in specific areas”

          NASA
          NOAA
          GISS
          AAAS
          EPA
          UN
          etc

        • omanuel says:

          All tyrants are shameless. That is a requirement for effective dictatorship. See Stalin’s Science

          https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/STALINS_SCIENCE.pdf

  2. bwdave says:

    It might be hard to get criminal charges to stick to mindless drones following department procedures.

    • “I was only following orders” said the 1000 Nazis who followed the orders of one 5 foot 6 scrawny psychopath.

      • omanuel says:

        May the current hatred of free speech and honesty mark an end to the ~500 year (1543-2015) effort by tyrants to hide from the public that “God” uses the Sun, not self-appointed tyrants, to make and sustain every atom, life and planet in the Solar System. See above link to Stalin’s science

  3. Loretta Weiss-Morris says:

    Could you please explain exactly where you are getting the data for your comparative graphs from? I believe you but I’m trying to convince somebody else of their validity and he views the lack of citations as a reason to dismiss what you are demonstrating.Thanks in advance,Loretta Weiss-Morris  What light is to the eyes – what air is to the lungs – what love is to the heart, liberty is to the soul of man.– Robert Green Ingersoll

    If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter. — George Washington

    Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.– George Orwell

    The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. — Edmund Burke

    From: Real Science To: lorettawm@yahoo.com Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2015 7:23 AM Subject: [New post] Shameless Data Fraud At NASA Continues #yiv7676138056 a:hover {color:red;}#yiv7676138056 a {text-decoration:none;color:#0088cc;}#yiv7676138056 a.yiv7676138056primaryactionlink:link, #yiv7676138056 a.yiv7676138056primaryactionlink:visited {background-color:#2585B2;color:#fff;}#yiv7676138056 a.yiv7676138056primaryactionlink:hover, #yiv7676138056 a.yiv7676138056primaryactionlink:active {background-color:#11729E;color:#fff;}#yiv7676138056 WordPress.com | stevengoddard posted: “I’ve updated NASA’s surface temperature graphs to include their latest 2015 fraud. You can see how they have doubled 1880-1980 warming since their 1982 version, and are continuing to add additional fraud on to all of their post 1980 temperatures, every ye” | |

  4. gator69 says:

    Another great post for my “Data Fraud” file. Just sent this out to everyone I know, thanks Tony!

  5. ChadP says:

    Can you please post the separate images (not animated gif) so I can study closer? Thanks! I love your work.

  6. Climatism says:

    Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    The massive and blatant adjustment of temperature data to fit the global warming narrative is surely unparalleled in any field of science in the history of existence.

    Climate data fraud/tampering proves that if you are a Govt. funded body like NASA, NOAA, MET or the BoM, charged with “Saving The Planet”, you are given a free licence to lie in pursuit of your ideological belief. Any manipulation, falsehood or exaggeration you utter is simply a sign of your commitment, not of your deceit

  7. gator69 says:

    Speaking of fraud, Lubos has found a much better utilization of the RICO Act than what Trenberth recently suggested.

    RICO may have been used against some people in the tobacco industry – as alarmists love to point out – but if you study the Wikipedia page on RICO, you will find out that it’s been mostly used against organizations that unquestionably deserve to be called criminal organizations. Those that hire illegal aliens, those that conspire to deliberately reduce the value of a baseball team, motorcycle teams connected with drugs, groups covering sex abuse scandals in the Catholic church, and dozens of others.

    Does it make any sense to try to prosecute climate skeptics by referring to RICO? The answer is obviously No. They are not racketeering, they are not influenced, they are not corrupt, and they are not even an organization in any sense. However, someone else could be tried as a violator of the RICO act.

    Just think about it: Which people are grouped in organizations that corrupt others? Which group of people has received over $50 billions for having done nothing useful because this group has been connected? Which major group in the world of 2015 is all about racketeering? If you still don’t know, I have to remind you about the definition of a racket:

    “A racket is a service that is fraudulently offered to solve a problem, such as for a problem that does not actually exist, that will not be put into effect, or that would not otherwise exist if the racket did not exist. Conducting a racket is racketeering.[1] Particularly, the potential problem may be caused by the same party that offers to solve it, although that fact may be concealed, with the specific intent to engender continual patronage for this party. An archetype is the protection racket…”

    Cute. Haven’t you heard about that trick somewhere? Don’t you know someone who proposes services to solve a problem that doesn’t actually exist, that will not be put into effect, or that wouldn’t exist without the racket itself? Do climate skeptics claim that there is a problem that has to be solved and do they offer their services to do so? I don’t think so.

    Yes, Ladies and Gentlemen. The climate alarmism is clearly the greatest racket in the world as of 2015.

    http://motls.blogspot.com/2015/09/rico-ipcc-and-comrades-may-be.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LuboMotlsReferenceFrame+%28Lubos+Motl%27s+reference+frame%29

  8. NucEngineer says:

    And Winston looked at the sheet handed him:
    “Adjustments prior to 1972 shall be -0.3 degrees and after 1998 shall be +0.2 degrees.”

    Winston wondered at the adjustment to the data. At this point, no one even knows if the data, prior to his adjustments, was raw data or already adjusted one or more times previously.
    It didn’t matter. All Winston was sure of is that one of the lead climatologists needed more slope to match his computer model outputs. He punched out the new Fortran cards and then dropped the old cards into the Memory Hole where they were burned.

    “There!” Winston exclaimed to himself. “Now the temperature data record is correct again; all is double-plus good.”

      • omanuel says:

        Yes. That is where we are, seventy years after Stalin won WWII.

        Here’s a summary of precise experimental data and observations “Stalin’s scientists” ignored. It was posted for comment and discussion on ResearchGate, Public Dropbox, BrittiusWordpress, etc.

        https://brittius.wordpress.com/2015/08/16/dr-o-manuel-ph-d-stalins-science/

        None have responded.

      • Dear Gail,

        Carly Fiorina’s comment struck me as fairly clever: “I’m prepared to take the scientists at their word,” she said, but she didn’t specify which scientists. She let the interviewer make assumptions. In so doing, she sidestepped the whole “anti-science” and “denier” attacks, while espousing exactly the same position that an intelligent skeptic would, i.e., call off trying to control the world’s temperature by over-regulating the economy. I’m fine with that.

        Regarding HP, I have little concerns about this. I’ve seen articles that say that her stellar success at Lucent was simply because of the general tech industry rise in the late 1990s. But that HP’s loss, after Carly was hired just before the largest tech crash in history, was all Carly’s fault. Also not mentioned is HP’s ongoing layoffs, during a time of “the expanding Obama economy,” that are larger layoffs than Carly’s company did during the monumental dot-com bust that destroyed many of her competitors.

        In context, and considering the scales involved, she help HP together well. But she had a child of the one of the founders mad at her, and he owned a lot of stock and was poisonous in his rumors (which the media were all too willing to believe), so she was eventually forced out. His actions later got HP sued and ridiculed when the “spy cameras” were revealed — spying at HP became a laugh line for years.

        After releasing Fiorina, HP plowed through one CEO after another, struggling to regain what they had with Fiorina at the helm. Now they have another female CEO, who laid off more employees in a single quarter at HP (during the “Obama recovery” in 2012) than Fiorina did in nearly six years including the tech crash. This gets little attention.

        ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

        • Andy DC says:

          I get the feeling that Carly is an average candidate, but she has now become the darling of the pseudo-intellectuals in the media, who think they can tell us great unwashed what to believe. I don’t think she will ever rise out of single digits,

        • @Andy DC, who wrote:

          I don’t think she will ever rise out of single digits

          Hmm. That got disproved rather quickly. Announced just a couple of hours ago, about a national CNN poll:

          Fiorina ranks second with 15% support — up from 3% in early September. She’s just ahead of Ben Carson’s 14%, though Carson’s support has also declined from 19% in the previous poll.

          If you base your opinion of her on her statements made when running for office in hard-left California five years ago, or when representing McCain’s establishment views seven years ago, you would think of her as a “squishy moderate establishment Republican.” One article describes her as “a transgendered Jeb Bush.”

          But in recent years, and consistently in this campaign, she has evidenced a solid conservative perspective. She completely supports the Second Amendment, the free market as the best way to grow the economy, a strong military as the best way to avoid war, and so on. There are sites like ConservativeReview.com that base their mixed opinions of her on statements she made (often when representing McCain’s views and policies) from several years ago. A more recent and more fair analysis would put her up among the solid conservative candidates. The change appears to be sincere.

          Look at some of the others; they are evolving to the left, not the right. Bush is a prime example of this. And Mr. Trump has been all over the map, including the front, back and edges. ];-)

          Carly Fiorina is not my #1 choice, but I am impressed by her ability to handle questions and speak clearly to issues; I wouldn’t mind seeing her on the ticket with Ted Cruz, for example.

          ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

    • Airstrip One, Oceania, 2015.

  9. omanuel says:

    Shameless data fraud at NASA went undetected from the time NASA was established until Climategate emails surfaced in late November 2009.

    • Well, except that our host here was posting about it long before, ClimateAudit had forced forced NASA to admit their tinkering and change their algorithm years before Climategate, and I and many others had been discussing NASA data problems for years prior to Climategate. You’ve been following many of these blogs for longer than that, as I recall.

      Those Climategate emails simply confirmed what had already been deduced, and made the argument stronger for presentation to others.

      Unfortunately, a strong argument is only part of what is needed.

      ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

  10. dikstr says:

    The animated charts are a great idea but should be put on the same scales. The differences of chart size and in some cases the range of the coordinates makes comparisons less clear.

    • I think they look a bit confusing precisely because they are on the same scales. Put your cursor on the +0.2° line, and on the -0.2° line, as these lines are common to all three charts. Those lines don’t move. The overall chart size changes to handle the data, but our host has positioned the animation so that any movement of data from chart to chart is via adjustments, not scaling.

      ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

    • No dikstr, they are all on the same scale. That’s the whole point. Tony does impeccable work.

  11. Hifast says:

    Reblogged this on Climate Collections and commented:
    Tony Heller’s updated charting of historical data “creep” due to NASA manipulation.

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s