NOAA Data Tampering – Much Worse Than It Seems

Congress is focused on one small aspect of NOAA’s temperature fraud – the changes they made to eliminate the hiatus ahead of Paris. This was needed by the White House to give Obama a big lie to push his agenda in Paris. The hiatus killed their whole story.

But that is just the tip of the iceberg. Look at the massive fraud NOAA is engaged in at Indiana. They show Indiana warming at 0.1F (0.05 rounded up) per decade. Note the large spike after 1999.


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

Their actual thermometer data shows the exact opposite – that Indiana is cooling by 0.10 degrees per decade since 1895.


They accomplish this fraud by cooling all temperatures before 2000, and warming all temperatures after 2000. They are tampering with data at a rate of 0.14 degrees per century, almost three times as large as their claimed trend. This is totally unacceptable practice in any environment. The people who do this are committing fraud. If they consider the data to be so unreliable that they need to make such large adjustments on it, then it is not legitimate for them to draw any conclusions about warming or cooling.


The most egregious of these adjustments is their practice of manufacturing fake temperatures when none are available. Over the last fifteen years they have increased this from five percent of the data, to almost half of the data. More than 40% of USHCN Indiana temperatures were generated by a computer model, rather than a thermometer.

Again, note the large spike in fake data after 1999, which is the primary cause of their reported post-1999 temperature spike. Mind-blowing hubris combined with a criminal mindset is required to publish data like this.


Before NCDC got their hands on the data, legitimate scientists showed what was actually happening in Indiana


19 Nov 1976, Page 9 – at

The next graph overlays the bogus NCDC data in purple on the Indiana University data.


The Obama administration is rewriting Indiana history, US history and world history – while perverting and destroying science. Their intent and the outcome of this can’t possibly be good.

About stevengoddard

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

74 Responses to NOAA Data Tampering – Much Worse Than It Seems

  1. Martin Smith says:

    Steven, you are still trying to base your claims of fraud on the simple fact that NOAA has updated its data. NOAA explains the biases and errors that require the adjustments; it explains the methods used to compute the adjustments, and it provides all this data and methodology online to the public. All you have done is show that the data have in fact been adjusted, which is what is supposed to happen. You can’t justify a claim of fraud by showing that NOAA did what NOAA says it did and justified with actual science. You haven’t even shown any evidence that the adjustment is incorrect, let alone fraudulent.

    • You can’t possibly be as clueless and illiterate as you pretend to be. The mere fact that they publish a warming trend without disclaimer – when their data shows cooling, is word class malfeasance and fraud.

      Why do you support criminal activity Martin?

      • Martin Smith says:

        Your repeated attacks on my character say nothing about me. They say a lot about you. What disclaimer do you say NOAA should include? Isn’t this enough?

        My question was rhetorical. Of course, NOAA explains all its adjustments.

        [SG: NOAA releases their graphs to the public with no disclaimers. The fact that they have some fraudulent disclaimer on a remote web page, means nothing. The vast majority of people were unaware of the tampering until skeptics brought it to their attention. Why do you support criminal activity, Martin? What is your agenda?]

        • gator69 says:

          Jeffrey Skilling said that adopting mark-to-market accounting would represent “true economic value.” Who are you to question?

        • Nobama says:

          A magician explains that he is going to make his assistant disappear also. But that doesn’t make it “magic”, just illusion.

        • pmc47025 says:

          Martin, uh, no, a Q&A page is not enough. Until NOAA turns their data and adjustment algorithms over to an independent third party (are any left?) AND that respected institution claims the adjustments are not fraudulent AND the third party claims there is an identifiable CAGW signal in the data, I will reconsider. Until then, CAGW is a bag of hot farts.

        • Martin, the link that you provided does not quite address the claims that Steve has been making; it provides an overview of the latest changes to NOAA’s monthly global temperature product, primarily the revisions in the ocean temperature index embodied in ERSSTv4. Steve’s assertions, however, concern the adjustments made on the land record, not just once, but repeatedly so, rendering the temperatures of the past as some sort of variable, dependent on the present time as well as when it was taken. This, to say the least, is highly questionable.

        • Martin Smith says:

          pmc, the data and algorithms are publicly available, through tant page, I believe. If not that page, then certainly from NOAA. So anybody can reproduce the work.

        • pmc47025 says:

          Once again, Martin “believes” without providing any evidence.

        • Martin Smith says:

          Karl, Steven’s claim is that NOAA committed fraud. His evidence is that the data have been adjusted. Not that the adjustment is incorrect, only that the data have been adjusted. But no one, least of all NOAA, denies that the data have been adjusted. All the data and algorithms and all the scientific analysis behind all the adjustments are all available. Steven’s claim is invalid because he provides no evidence that any adjustment is even incorrect, let alone fraudulent.

        • AndyG55 says:

          SG’s claim is totally valid.. He sees FRAUD, so he is totally entitled to call that FRAUD.

          If NOAA, Gavin et al don’t like it.. why haven’t they done anything about it.

          Legal “Discovery” would be a major bitch for them, that’s why.

          I repeat, SG is totally entitled to call it as all the evidence points,

          MASSIVE UNJUSTIFIED DATA MANIPULATION to further an agenda.

          That is FRAUD.

          Certainly , nothing a whining little Goreboy like you says, is going change the fact of that FRAUD.

        • AndyG55 says:

          NOAA should put a disclaimer on every graph , that says.

          “Disclaimer: The data shown here has been massively adjusted to create a warming trend where there wasn’t one in the real data. No scientific credence can be taken of these graphs. They are for the use of climate change propaganda only”

        • R. Shearer says:

          Mr. Martin, you lie.

        • Tom says:

          You sir, lie. You are a liar. NOAA flaps it wings and lips with their “adjustments”. No one can replicate their data because they will not allow access to their code. Pure crap and you know so.

        • You have failed to explain their obvious fraud nor the fact that the adjustments just happen to always create or accentuate a warming trend.
          Really you’re either very stupid, very ignorant or very corrupt as all the evidence shows CAGW to be a scam.
          I’ll pick one thing, just one thing to test you. Where’s the mid-tropospheric hotspot that the models all say must be there for there to be a problem?

    • kentclizbe says:

      “updated its data”

      How precious.

      Bernie Madoff regularly “updated” his data.

      Enron regularly “updated” their data.

      Worldcom’s Bernie Ebbers was a regular data “updater.”

      Dennis Koslowski of Tyco always “updated” his data.

      Fraud REQUIRES “updated data.”

      The second thing fraud requires, to be successful, is fools who “want to believe” in whatever fairy dust the fraudster is offering.

      Belief in the impossible. It’s the key to being defrauded. Welcome to the club!

      “18 U.S. Code § 1031 – Major fraud against the United States
      (a) Whoever knowingly executes, or attempts to execute, any scheme or artifice with the intent—
      (1) to defraud the United States; or
      (2) to obtain money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises…”

      • Martin Smith says:

        kent, Steven has not shown any evidence of (a) or (1) or (2). In fact, he hasn’t even shown any evidence that any adjustment is incorrect.

        • kentclizbe says:


          Tony provides details of the malfeasance and fraudulence of the “data updates” nearly every day.

          Tony, as no one else does, goes back to the time of the original data gathering, and presents contemporaneous scientific reports of the conditions at the time of the original data.

          The “data updates” inflicted on the data by the US government-funded fraudsters assume that no one has the time/energy/interest to actually go back in time to the original data, and examine the conditions.

          Tony does that every day.

          Tony’s presentation is NOT a “paper” published after some pals say it’s okay, but a non-stop stream of information, providing us with his findings “just in time,” as soon as he finds them.

          Take Tony’s information, analyses, details, historical contextual tidbits as a whole. Digest it. There is no doubt that the government employees and contractors are committing fraud on a massive scale.

          Look at the comparisons of other fraudsters provided above–the scale of the cost of their frauds is minimal compared to the scale of the NOAA fake temperature data fraud.

          Imagine Madoff/Koslowski/Lay’s delight if they could have had the power to “homogenize” the official financial data. They could go back and “tweak” the price of oil–because everyone knows that ……….(fill in the blank with the most recent justification for faking data to match your needs).

          Those fraudsters were able to get away with billions of dollars of fraud–only by cooking THEIR OWN books. Internal “data updates” are pretty powerful. The mind boggles as the power of being in charge of public financial data–say stock prices, interest rates, GDP, the price of gold, oil, copper, etc. “Homogenizing/adjusting/tweaking/updating” that data could provide a pretty good living.

          As does “updating” temperature data.

        • Martin Smith says:

          kent, no he doesn’t. He provides examples that show the data have been adjusted.

        • kentclizbe says:


          Again, read all of Tony’s posts. Again, he does not present his data in a “paper,” it is a constant stream.

          Here is a perfect example of Tony going back into the actual historical record, and comparing NOAA’s “updates” with reality.

          He shows REAL contemporaneous DATA (un-“updated”) that summers have cooled in the last 60 years.

          He then shows the NOAA “updated” temperatures that reflect warming.

          Tony does these types of comparison posts–REAL to “updated”–almost every day.

          Don’t let yourself be fooled by the fraudsters! Even if they do have snappy “reasons” for their “updates!”

        • AndyG55 says:

          Martin again puts fingers in ears, feet over eyes and goes.. …. la-la-la-la

          Unfortunately keeps his mouth yabbering.

          Looking like a true IDIOT, that’s for sure.

    • wert says:

      NOAA explains the biases and errors that require the adjustments; it explains the methods used to compute the adjustments, and it provides all this data and methodology online to the public.

      Why the adjustment appears to correlate with CO2? Do you expect us to believe the past needs a linear cooling to be correct?

      I’m not going to buy this – and if you do, I’m sorry for you.

    • Andy DC says:

      If the actual data shows cooling, but the “adjusted” data always shows warming and those adjusting the data have a vested (multi-billion dollar) interest in promotimg warming, anyone with an iota of common sense would suspect that fraud was being committed.

    • soulsurfer says:

      Martin, if T changes then P changes too, since V, n and R are in this case constant. It’s called the ideal gas law: P x V=n x R x T

      Volume of the atmosphere doesn’t change, neither the amount of molecules, nor R which is a constant. So if T is changed then P has to be changed too. That makes no sense, why would we need to change P? Were all barometric measurements wrong in the past? Is barometric pressure higher now than back then? Surely we can check that… Barometric pressure records are very accurate, reliable, and kept for long times.

      And if P and T change so does windspeed. Windspeed is dependent upon pressure (gradient) and temperature (thermal instability). Now why change windspeed too? Because our windspedometers were wrong too?

      Of course if T changes so does the relative humidity. But why change that too? Must have been wrongly measured too!?

      See, in the real world all things are related and interconnected. Change one parameter, then all must be changed. That’s why these adjustments make no sense.

      Consider this: you measured one day that the temperature was 0.2C that day and recorded no ice formation. Obviously since I’ve is only formed below 0.0C. Now 10-20yrs later your measurement is adjusted down to -0.2C, for what ever reason. Then ice must have formed, but it hadn’t… Thus the adjustment is wrong!

    • Tom says:

      Crap. You lie.

      NOAA has not updated data – they now create data. NOAA does not explain their “biases” and “:errors” . It can not be replicated by you, me or anyone else. Why? Access to the code is not allowed. You know this.

      NOAA pointedly ignores explaining the difference from their proxy data and direct measurement by satellites (RSS and UAH). Why? Because they are running a crooked game. You know this.

    • Richard Willson says:

      Martin – WRT your statement “You haven’t even shown any evidence that the adjustment is incorrect, let alone fraudulent.”
      The scientific method puts the onus for demonstrating the correctness of data operations, whether original processing or revision, on those performing the operation. Such demonstrations, usually by peer review and open literature publication, were not followed by NOAA. That is the reason this important database’s revision appears to be more a political manipulation than a scientific re-evaluation.

  2. pmc47025 says:

    Tony, thank you for your tireless effort in showing that an arm of a corrupt government will intentionally fudge data to forward a political agenda.

  3. Moors710 says:

    Do you trust the government?

    • Gail Combs says:

      Not just NO! but HELL NO!!!

      In the last twenty years I have gone from thinking the government was bumbling to KNOWING the government is inimical to US citizens.

      We now have a government by the Elite/for the Elite and we are the dinner they are dividing up.

      “A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.” — Edward R. Murrow

  4. gator69 says:

    Steven, you are still trying to base your claims of fraud on the simple fact that Jeffrey Skilling has adopted mark-to-market accounting, citing that it would represent “true economic value”.

  5. Nobama says:

    All this talk of Klimate Koo koo has me worried for the Yucatan. Can you provide some pictures Tony, that can reassure us that no beach bunnies, er, uh, visitors! are being scorched by the sun?

  6. Climatism says:

    Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    “The Obama administration is rewriting Indiana history, US history and world history – while perverting and destroying science. Their intent and the outcome of this can’t possibly be good.”

    Amen to that.

    • davidswuk says:

      Indeed. A few years ago I printed-off historical temperature charts of several cities in the UK and around the World for future reference and now they are “All Wrong!” of course.
      According to non-whoa NOAA that is……..

  7. scottinfukie says:

    The Y axes in your last graph don’t line up at all. Not that it invalidates your point.

  8. sfx2020 says:

    It’s not just that, the adjustments they keep making has made everybody wrong, who used their data for research of all kinds.

    • Martin Smith says:

      Can you link to a few examples, because I think your claim is false.

      • Latitude says:

        Martin, it’s well known that NOAA runs an algorithm that “adjusts” past temperatures every time they enter a new temperature set…which makes every projection “wrong” as soon as it’s run

        • Martin Smith says:

          That’s a non sequitur, lat.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Poor Martin.. his ignorance displayed yet again…

          And he doesn’t even realise it.. 🙂

        • Martin Smith says:

          I would be quite happy to have my grandchildren read any of my comments on Steven’s blog posts. I can’t see many of you being able to say theme about yours.

        • Latitude says:

          sorry didn’t mean to go over your head….

          By the time someone has run a set of temperature data to get a global warming projection….the temperature data they used is wrong….NOAA has adjusted it again

          Adjusting the past down is probably the main reason that global warming projections are way too high….they are tuned to a fake past temperature history that shows a rate of warming that does not exist.

          ..but we will never know of the computer projections are right, wrong…or what needs to be done to correct them….because NOAA is constantly adjusting past temperatures…and the computer games are tuned to a past temperature history that shows a rate of warming that is false

        • AndyG55 says:

          Your grandchildren will be in fits of laughter at you moronic ignorance and stupidity.

          .. assuming you don’t let them get brain-washed as well.

          They will think dementia set in very early.

        • AndyG55 says:

          And because there is now a massive fabricated warming bias in the temperature data,

          any parameter fitting will have that unrealistic trend built into the, and would predict massively high.. just like they actually have been shown to do.

          Even if all their coding was correct (roflmao), the hindcasting to HadCrut, or GISS temperature data makes them MANIFESTLY WRONG

          Any software programmer would know that GIGO.

          Poor climate modeller never had a chance. They can hardly go back an start hindcasting to real temperatures, now can they.. because that would destroy the AGW LIE. Catch 22 writ large , and I find it truly hilarious to watch 🙂

        • Latitude says:

          Andy, I forget who it was….but someone adjusted the computer projections to original raw temp data and made the comparison….they were still a little too high, but nothing like they are projecting to the adjusted data
          That could have just been an artifact of the time series though…we will never know

        • AndyG55 says:

          Lat, there may actually have been some warming, this is actually a very good thing, because the LIA , by all accounts , was not all that pleasant in many places.

          We currently live in very benign times, thanks to that warming. 🙂

          Its the massive fraud of getting rid of the natural variations like the 1930-40 peak, that ruin any chance of climate scientists actually figuring out what really happens and making projections that have any actual validity.

          A “proper” “climate scientist™” HAS to use the fabricated HadCrut and GISS data.. therefore they will always be wrong in any conclusions they come to. GIGO !!!

      • AndyG55 says:

        Well Lat, the models do have quite a few inbuilt issues, which make them rather unreliable… but fact that they try to match to massively tainted data at the very first step, means that all their “fudge factors” will be manifestly wrong.

        They can go back and “untaint” the historic temperature series….

        or they can continue with models with an totally unrealistic warming trend built into them.

        They can’t have it both ways.

        Any removal of the data fudging in the historic fabrications to make the models give a better match to current reality, would automatically destroy the whole AGW farce. 🙂

        • Latitude says:

          +1…..their scheme backfired and bit them in the butt

          If they lie about past temps to create a faster warming trend…..they F up the models…if they F up the models…they show they don’t know how to do squat

  9. David A says:

    I am quite certain your gradchildren, what 8 to 10 years old, are not the arbitrators of logic any rational person would look to for guidance.

  10. Did they use Gruberomomoters?
    Do they all drive VWs?

  11. Are universities teaching courses in data “adjustment” these days? Maybe they just call it “Climate Science.”

    Fudge factor: The right answer divided by your answer — or something like that

    • Jason Calley says:

      Hey Doug! Wow! I think you are on to something. The chart shows a 60 degree rise in four months. It has been five months since the last data point. That means that the current temperature must be 155 degrees! I sure hope the kind folk in Kendall have a lot of ice in their refrigerators. They are going to need it!

  12. AndyG55 says:

    The real point is that SG shows that the adjustments in many cases are MORE THAN THE FINAL TREND..

    The adjustments account of MORE THAN 100% of the warming.

    This can only mean that CO2 is actually an atmospheric cooling agent 🙂

  13. sfx2020 says:

    Considering the winter trend,. you might actually be correct.

  14. AndyG55 says:

    OT, but a hoot.

    But WUWT has a cool article showing the effect on coal usage in making lighter weight cars using more aluminium. Look at the surge in coal usage in 2014. And where are wind and solar?

  15. Psalmon says:

    The newspaper article and previous reporting seals it. It took 60 years for them (after 1950) for them to realize they needed to restate the data. Thankfully or maybe hopefully, Martin is not in Accounting or Finance.

  16. Don says:

    Great work, Steven. A fabulous exposé of the the fraud. This part says it all:

    “More than 40% of USHCN Indiana temperatures were generated by a computer model, rather than a thermometer.”

  17. AndyG55 says:

    Brazil temperature trends are all UHI ! Is it FRAUD or INCOMPETENCE on GISS’s behalf.

    • AndyG55 says:

      That last sentence says it all..

      “Proper scientists would not touch any of this data with a bargepole.”

      Climate scientists™, of course, use it with glee, as a major part of their propaganda lies.

  18. Hifast says:

    NASA/GISS publishes its data regularly, but each successive data set alters historical data. Why must NASA continue to alter data that’s decades old? NASA provides no explanation why its 2005 adjusted data prior to 1970 is faulty and must be adjusted again in 2015.

    h/t to Tony

    • Dave Nottage says:

      I wait with bated breath as to anyone (eg Martin) who can provide a link to the explanation that doesn’t exist.

    • Steve Case says:

      Hifast says:
      November 22, 2015 at 10:15 pm

      Hi fast is exactly right. I’ve done exactly the same thing using WayBack Machine pages.

      Here are the changes made to monthly data since 2005:

      Here are the changes made just this past year:

  19. OrganicFool says:

    Fraud is the least of the allegations. It also seeks a genocidal policy to reduce the Earth’s human population to under 500 million as openly stated by many of their gurus. Paul Ehrlich even proposed mass sterilization.

    What are the AGW policies are being implemented? World government, Agenda 2030, “sustainable” cities, carbon currency schemes and the world’s first carbon billionaire.

    It’s ironic that when you tell a believer in AGW that it’s not happening, they seem sad rather than happy to hear there is no such thing as a runaway greenhouse effect. They seem to long for a return to ice age conditions, condemn their own use of heating and cooking and driving their vehicles.

    They must feel nothing but constant grief and despair, guilt and sadness most of the time and hardly enjoy life and the modern blessings that have made our lives far better than ever.

    When I ask the believer what is the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, nobody says .04%. They say 30% or some other ridiculous number. They don’t even know what represents! Hilarious.

    If it is NASA’s and NOAA’s job to educate the public, they have failed miserably.

  20. Dave Nottage says:

    This is a gem:

    They’ve adjusted their way out of their own proclamations. I fully expect that they’ll ignore it when it’s pointed out to them, or shout the “D” word, or both.

  21. Mike says:

    First off, there is way too much toxicity in these conversations. I get it, it’s the internet. If you want to be taken seriously, have a conversation, not a “I can belittle you more” contest. Secondly, everyone shut up and read this.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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