Spectacular & Cynical US Government Temperature Fraud In Illinois

In 1984, the Chicago Tribune reported Illinois had cooled 3.5 degrees, as greenhouse gases increased since the 1930s.

2015-11-10-00-24-10

2015-11-10-00-29-47

Chicago Tribune Archive | April 23, 1984

NOAA has since made most of this 1930 to 1980 cooling disappear, created a long term warming trend, and turned 2012 into the hottest year on record in Illinois.

NCDCIllinoisAverageTemperature

Let’s have a look at the spectacular fraud NOAA is engaged in with Illinois maximum temperatures. They show a long term warming trend, with 2012 being by far the warmest on record.

NCDCIllinoisMaximumTemperature

Climate at a Glance | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

This NOAA trend is completely fraudulent, and in fact 2014 was by far the coolest year on record in Illinois.

2015-11-10-00-20-30

The next two graphs show the massive data tampering NOAA is engaged in at Illinois.

2015-11-10-00-12-28

They created their fake warming trend by cooling the past 2.5 degrees relative to current temperatures.

2015-11-10-00-22-59

Over the last 20 years, NOAA has been replacing actual measured temperatures with fake ones they manufactured, and now almost one fourth of Illinois maximum temperatures used by NOAA are completely fake.

2015-11-10-01-07-42

NOAA says that 2012 was the hottest year on record in Illinois by a wide margin, but the frequency of 95 degree days didn’t even rank in the top ten, and hot days only occur about 20% as often as they did a century ago.

2015-11-10-01-12-54

Illinois has cooled dramatically over the past century, as the criminals at NOAA tamper with the data to create the appearance of warming.

On July 21/22 1901, Illinois temperatures ranged from 103 to 115 degrees. Unimaginable by modern residents.

2015-11-10-00-46-17

Chicago Tribune Archive | June 30, 1931

About stevengoddard

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

33 Responses to Spectacular & Cynical US Government Temperature Fraud In Illinois

  1. Martin Smith says:

    Steven, once again, you have shown nothing but the fact that NOAA has updated the data. Since NOAA publishes all the data and the changes and the explanations for the changes and the algorithms and math used to compute the changes, showing that NOAA has changed the data is not remarkable. It certainly doesn’t show fraud. Forget fraud. You have to show that one or more of the corrects is incorrect. You haven’t done that.

    • AndyG55 says:

      Let’s look at Martin Smith shall we…

      Martin is a software engineer with ZERO understand of anything to do with climate science.

      He also markets himself as a technical writer.. one can only imagine how un-technical those rants would be !!

      He also thinks the cartoonist site , SkS, actually present something resembling science.. seriously !!!

      He frequents a site run by a Peter Sinclair aka Greenman, who fancies himself as a low-end videographer making propaganda mis-information videos about anyone who questions the AGW meme. Peter was apparently “trained” ie brain-washed, by Al Gore.

      here is a quote from Martin on that “climatecrock’ site.

      “We need a database of current states of climate arguments. Skeptical Science is basically that database, but we need a canonical name for each argument and a summary of the current state of the argument, plus the list of papers and datasets that are used to establish the current state of the argument, and finally, the list of papers that are refuted by the current state of the argument.
      Then the rule for moderation can be: If your post argues against the current state of some climate argument, your argument most not be one that has been refuted.
      The whack-a-mole strategy is what must be prevented from obscuring the current state of climate science.”

      Really Martin.. GET A LIFE !!

    • AndyG55 says:

      It is very evident that ALL the adjustments are done to meet a political end point.

      That is FRAUD.

    • AndyG55 says:

      Poor Martin,

      Now marked as a VERY LOW-END Al Gore operative.

      Everyone knows that Gore is the pinnacle of CLIMATE FRAUD, PROPAGANDA and LIES.

      Yet that is where you are and who you associated with.

      You poor brain-washed pitiful fool. !

      And guess what………… Its on the web…… FOREVER. 😉

    • The concept of “updating” the past is straight out of Orwell’s “1984.” The past does not change.
      And they are updating it with 25% fake temperatures.

    • Dave N says:

      “Since NOAA publishes all the data and the changes and the explanations for the changes and the algorithms and math used to compute the changes..”

      Please direct us to where their algorithms are, and most importantly, why they’re supposedly correct, and independently verified by a non-alarmist organisation (and their reasoning, therein)

    • R Shearer says:

      The robber updated the bank’s assets.

    • Neal S says:

      Well if it is not fraud, it is at least incompetence. Tony has posted numerous times differing charts by various authorities showing the past supposedly changing multiple times according to those various authorities. To the extent that these charts disagree with each other, at most only one can be correct for those portions that overlap. (And I doubt that any are correct) If these authorities have gotten it wrong so many times before, on what basis should we believe that they ‘finally’ have it ‘right’ now?

    • Andy DC says:

      The math and algorithms are obviously biased to warm the present and cool the past and thus show a highly exaggerated warming trend that the raw data doesn’t show. How convenient! How coincidental! When people with a vested interest start monkeying around with the data, so it fits their vested interest, all bets are off!

  2. Martin Smith says:

    Steven, look at your final news article from the Chicago Tribune. You are using it as evidence that Illinois was much hotter in the past. You say, “On July 21/22 1901, Illinois temperatures ranged from 103 to 115 degrees. Unimaginable by modern residents.” But the stations referred to in that news article are stations that were corrected, so you can’t use the temperatures reported in that article as evidence… UNLESS you can prove that those temperatures are correct and the NOAA adjustment is incorrect. All you are doing is using the unadjusted data to claim that the adjusted data is incorrect.

    You can’t do that because NOAA has explained why the data is wrong and has correct the data. You are simply proclaiming NOAA is wrong and the unadjusted data is correct. Proclaiming something to be true doesn’t make it true. You have to show that the NOAA correction is wrong, and you can’t do that by using newspaper articles that report temperatures from the stations that were corrected.

    • AndyG55 says:

      Your moronic defence of the manic data adjustment fraud from Gavin et al is getting very bizarre and is particularly feeble. You better go back to Al Gore and ask how you can do a better job because all you are doing here is wasting your time.. Although from your faceplant page, I guess you have plenty of it to waste.

      Get a life, you mindless little troll.

  3. PeterK says:

    Martin Smith: Once again you have posted nothing new, just the same old, same old. Where I come from, people like you are told to piss off and then ignored. Martin, PISS OFF!

    • Martin Smith says:

      Yes, Peter, that is because Steven Goddard has posted nothing new, just the same old, same old. Apparently you’re ok with him doing that but not me? Steven claims he is showing that the NOAA adjustment is incorrect by (1) posting graphs that show the data has been adjusted, and (2) by posting news articles from the past that report unadjusted temperatures from the stations that NOAA adjusted.

      Neither of those argument techniques is evidence that the adjustments are incorrect. All they show is that the data was in fact adjusted, which NOAA has spent a great deal of effort trying to explain to you.

      • AndyG55 says:

        Martin is a very low-level Al Gore operative.

        Martin is a software engineer with ZERO understand of anything to do with climate science.
        He also markets on faceplant himself as a technical writer.. one can only imagine how un-technical those rants would be !!
        He also thinks the cartoonist site , SkS, actually present something resembling science.. seriously !!!
        He frequents a site run by a Peter Sinclair aka Greenman, who fancies himself as a low-end videographer making propaganda mis-information videos about anyone who questions the AGW meme. Peter was apparently “trained” ie brain-washed, by Al Gore.

        He has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to offer to any rational discussion, because his knowledge base is so minute.

        He is here with the sole intent of spreading zero his lonely life’s brain-washed misinformation and BS.

  4. Gail Combs says:

    Steven, once again, you have shown nothing but the fact that NOAA ENRON has updated the data books. Since NOAA publishes all the data Quarterly Reports and [DOES NOT show ALL***] the changes and the explanations for the changes and the algorithms and math used to compute the changes, showing that NOAA ENRON has changed the data is not remarkable. It certainly doesn’t show fraud. Forget fraud.

    *** NOAA would not be up for contempt of Congress if they were willing to show ALL.

  5. eliza says:

    I knew he was a paid troll. But anyway he probably helps the skeptic case because of his replies

  6. eliza says:

    You will find a persistent presence by MS to all postings here. He has his instructions and is probably paid to do this.

  7. Steve Case says:

    Here’s a YouTube explaining the Homogenization of Temperature Data

    What it amounts to is hundreds of weather station keepers in good faith recorded thousands of readings a century ago and today GISS looked at those records upside down and inside out and decided that they were all wrong.

  8. Hey Marty, changing data is the definition of science fraud, and defending fraudsters is the definition of a douche. You, sir, are a douche.

    • Martin Smith says:

      Morgan, you are accusing Roy Spencer of science fraud. He is on version 6.0 of his data, I believe.

      • If Roy Spencer changed his data 20 times, and every time in the same direction, the way Gavin and Trenberth do, then I’d say it was fraud. He didn’t, though.

        • Gail Combs says:

          The satellites are known to drift. (Major dust-up with Judith Lean and Richard Willson.) Luckily the lower troposphere data can be corrected real time with primary data from radiosonde instrument packages since Obummer decides muslim outreach is more important for NASA than space capability.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Apples and Cows.

        The US historic temperature data was collected according to specific instructions put out by the US government in the 1800s and using government equipment. Quite a bit was hourly and continuous data collected by professional meteorologists for over ONE HUNDRED YEARS. Not only that those meteorologists did careful experiments and determined the correct conditions for collecting the data and the ERROR for the equipment. Those people a hundred years ago were SCIENTISTS not data rapers.

        Australia pictures of Stevenson screens 1879!

        …Sadly for the BoM and Luke, Colonial historical records from the late 1800’s are increasingly revealing that the Stevenson screen was in widespread use. …for high order stations the Stevenson screen was being introduced from the 1880’s.

        Melbourne 1879 – from Museum Victoria.

        from Tasmanian Archives from ~1900 Hobart, St George’s Terrace, Battery Point, circa 1900 damaged – person is Leventhorpe Hall.

        Given that over 70% of the US temperature gathering stations under Karl’s care have ‘issues’ causing the reading to have errors GREATER THAN 2°C (3.6°F) errors that mean the thermometers READ TOO HOT, NOAA needs to get it’s own house in order before casting any stones at historical data. That does not mean sitting in front of a computer playing computer games that turn the correction into adding more warming either.

        Class 4 (CRN4) (error >= 2C) – Artificial heating sources <10 meters.

      • catweazle666 says:

        You really are a complete idiot, aren’t you?

      • AndyG55 says:

        You are a useless moronic ineffective Gore operative.

        You have nothing to offer to any rational discussion.

  9. Latitude says:

    NOAA has a algorithm embedded in their code that “adjusts” the past temperatures….every time they enter a new set of current temperature data..

    Over the years there’s been several blog posts about it….including on WUWT…I’m surprised you guys are arguing with someone about past temps, and not bringing that fact up.

  10. So according to the NOAA, the temperature of any given place at a given time depends also on the time it is being considered, essentially a sort of relativistic thermometry. How cool!

    • Gail Combs says:

      “When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

      ’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

      ’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”

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