Gavin Needs To Transition Out Of Obama Fraud Mode

The next president of the United States has apparently been reading my discussion of data tampering by NASA and NOAA.


I have been documenting how NASA, NOAA and CRU are creating a completely fraudulent hockey stick of warming – by cooling measured pre-1960 temperatures, warming post-1960 Northern Hemisphere temperatures, and ignoring satellite data which actually measure troposphere temperatures where the greenhouse effect occurs.


Let’s take a closer look at that. Before data tampering, Gavin shows that the 1930’s were the warmest decade at the capital of Iceland.


Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis

But after data tampering, the 1930’s warmth disappears.


Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis

This overlay shows how NOAA and NASA have butchered the data to make the 1930’s warmth disappear.


Same story at the capital of Greenland.


Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis

Same story with US temperatures. In 1999, NASA showed that US temperatures peaked in the 1930’s.


in the U.S. there has been little temperature change in the past 50 years, the time of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases — in fact, there was a slight cooling throughout much of the country

NASA GISS: Science Briefs: Whither U.S. Climate?

But now they show a very different story, with a hockey stick of warming after 1970.


Fig.D.gif (525×438)

Gavin’s data is based on NOAA data, which massively cools past temperatures to make a fake hockey stick of warming. The same tampering they did in Greenland and Iceland.


It is abundantly clear that the historical temperatures published by NOAA and NASA are fraudulent. But they have an even bigger problem with recent temperatures.

The greenhouse effect takes place in the troposphere, yet actual measurements of the troposphere by satellites and balloons show no warming this century. NASA’s claims of record warmth due to the greenhouse effect are not supported by science or the scientific method.


Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

The current occupant of the White House demands this fraud from NASA. But the next President wants to put an end to it. Gavin should be thinking about trying to become an actual scientist again.


About stevengoddard

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

41 Responses to Gavin Needs To Transition Out Of Obama Fraud Mode

  1. Steve Case says:

    Gavin should be thinking about trying to become an actual scientist again.

    Don’t hold your breath.

  2. Climatism says:

    Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    Great work Tony (and Steve!).
    Your efforts prove what a profound difference a laptop, persistence, facts, data and an incessant quest for the truth can do to change public opinion by making those in the highest offices in the land take note, thus helping to expose the most scandalous fraud in human history – CO2-induced dangerous climate change.

    Importantly, your work has also exposed the environmental activist bureaucrat scientists and their Govt. agencies who propagate and feed off the scam, attaining fame and fortune along their merry way:
    – NASA (Jim Hansen, Gavin Schmidt)
    – NOAA (Tom Karl)
    – NCDC (Tom Peterson)
    – CRU (Phil Jones)
    – CSIRO
    – MET Office (Julia Slingo)
    – Bureau of Meteorology (AU)
    – UN IPCC activist climate scientist ratbags, and pretty much every other government affiliated environmental climate groupthink agency, worldwide.
    – And not to forget the groupthink mainstream activist media who have made the scam survive and thrive: CNN, BBC, ABC, NYTimes, NatGeo, TiME, Sydney Morning Herald, The Age, etc etc.

    You Tony, and the many other sceptical independents out there, are actually the real ones helping to “Save the planet” by saving us from them.

    Nice work.

  3. rah says:

    How could he possibly make such a transition? He would have to admit his tampering and repudiate his own lies to pursue and report honest research. The way I see it there is no way out for him but to get some position with those in the “private” sector that are facilitating the scam and serve one of those masters as he has served Obama. It’s like the Mafia, the only way out once your in too deep is to assume ambient temperature. But I’m sure that there are plenty of universities that would Love to have him. Such great generators of “Climate science” as Penn State or East Anglican CRU would be happy to have him in some capacity I imagine.

  4. Marsh says:

    I believe we are on the verge of a Domino effect, once Obama leaves office. We will witness born again Scientists with turn coats everywhere & claims of being on the fence Many Scientists will personally experience evolution & “survival of the fittest” ; some careers, will face extinction..!

    • Ted says:

      I partially agree. I see plenty of alleged scientists switching sides, but they won’t admit they were ever wrong. We’ll find out soon that the entire problem was fixed, forever, by the Parisites last week. It’ll be just like Montreal was, for the ozone hole. And they’ll use their success in saving the world yet again as proof that we need to hand over whatever money and freedom we have left, so they can save us from the next apocalypse they dream up.

  5. Perhaps a better career will be in modeling orange jump suits

  6. rah says:

    “Steve says: “The next president of the United States”

    I am really beginning to hope that can happen. If the RNC doesn’t screw it up there is a possibility. If they piss Trump off too much I’m afraid he will go independent and if he does then we’re going to be stuck with Hillary.

    You can always count on MSNBC to show you who the establishment fears most:

    Trump just screwed the pooch when he attacked Cruz.

    • dave1billion says:

      Susan Estrich recently wrote a column all about how Cruz is such a mean bastard so I had the same thoughts that you did Rah.

      Notice they’re not attacking Jeb Bush or any of the other third-tier candidates.

      If Trump really wants to be president then he can bide his time if he loses this nomination and try again in 4-8 years after polishing his credentials and building a grass roots organization. If he goes third party then he kills any chance he’ll ever have to be president. He’s enough of a businessman to know that. So if he does go third party I’ll just assume that he was never serious about being president anyway and it was all a big ego trip for him.

    • Robertv says:

      Rafael Edward Cruz
      December 22, 1970 (age 44)

      Calgary, Alberta, CANADA
      Born in Canada to an American mother and Cuban father.

      Could that be a problem ?

      • Robertv says:

        What I don’t understand why they consider him Hispanic.Ted Cruz’s mother was born in Wilmington, Delaware, and is of three quarters Irish and one quarter Italian ancestry.

        • Jason Calley says:

          Under current US federal guidelines, almost anyone who wants to be Hispanic can claim to be so. People are urged to “self-identify” whether they are Hispanic. If you have a Hispanic last name (even if you are Norwegian) you can be Hispanic. If you are descended from anyone who was Hispanic, ditto. If you come from a family that used to speak a Hispanic language (that probably includes Portuguese), yep, you’re OK. If you were born in any place that is now (and here is the sweet part!) or was previously, part of the Spanish Empire, then you are Hispanic. So maybe you were born in Forrest City, Arkansas, or Abilene, Kansas, or maybe Jupiter, Florida (all of which are located in areas of the former Spanish Empire)…YOU ARE HISPANIC! Technically, legally, yada yada yada, under the Treaty of Tordesillas, any place in North and South America (except for the very eastern tip of Brazil) qualifies you as belong to an area formerly part of the Spanish Empire — and that bit of Brazil was Portuguese anyway, and I am sure that that qualifies you as well!

          As crazy as it sounds, I kind of like the “you are Hispanic if you feel Hispanic flavor to the law. As long as we have laws that discriminate on the basis or race and ethnicity and so on, (and that is exactly what “affirmative action” laws are) we should be able to just choose, at least for legal purposes, any race or ethnicity we wish. Maybe gender too. Hey, I like equality — and if you don’t hire me or give me a loan, then I am a transgendered lesbian black man from Bhutan, and you’re a racist!!!


        • We have federal guidelines for that kind of racial stuff, just as Jason says. The federal government bureaucracy seems to be a veritable hotbed of racial theories. They are mostly Democrats and the existence of races makes them anxious. They spend a lot of time collecting racial data, studying it, classifying it, revising it, summarizing it and cataloging it. Then they write it down in racial directives that normal, decent people don’t read:

          Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity, 1995 *)

          Revisions to the Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity, 1997

          *) Since I refuse to read racist bullshit, I don’t even know if the one-drop rule is in there somewhere (see my comment below)

      • rah says:

        Not under current US Law. The SCOTUS has refused to rule on if there is a difference between a Natural-born Citizen and a Citizen by birth multiple times when given the opportunity. BTW FDR was born in Canada.

        • EV2 says:

          Maybe you’re referring to another “FDR”, but if you mean President Roosevelt, every bio I’ve ever seen on him says he was born in Hyde Park, NY.

        • Ted says:

          FDR JUNIOR was born in Canada. Both presidents Roosevelt were born in New York state.

        • Jason Calley says:

          One can argue that the 14th amendment supersedes the natural born clause that was an earlier part of the Constitution.
          “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”
          It blurs the line between born citizens and naturalized citizens and says that even naturalized citizens may not have their privileges abridged. A lawyer would argue that “privileges” would include the right to hold elected office.

          I am not saying that I agree with it, but there it is. Heck, as far as I am concerned the 14th was never legally ratified any way.

          Still, the point is moot, either way. Why? Because the US Constitution is no longer in force and has not been for at least a couple of decades. It was kind-of-sort-of honored (but still disobeyed) for a much longer time before that, but these days, the politician literally laugh (literally!) when asked about whether they are acting Constitutionally. You might as well argue that current Italian laws violate what the old Roman Republic ordered. Sorry. The old US Constitutional Republic is gone. It ain’t coming back. Arguing about it is like a five year old crying for his puppy that just wandered under the trash truck that was rolling by. “Whaaaaaaaaay! I want Spots back!” Ain’t gon’a happen. The best you can do is figure how to get another dog and then train it to be smart enough not to go into the street.

      • Robertv says:

        The same with Obambi. Why do they call him black when he’s half white.

        • EV2 says:

          Interestingly, Obama’s only possible slave ancestor found so far is on his mom’s side, which once again shows how convoluted and silly is the game of identity politics. In reality we’re all from Africa, some just more recently than others.

        • Jason Calley says:

          I call him mulatto. If anyone complains, I ask them if they think that being called half black and half white is an insult. “What? You think that inter-racial sex is wrong? You think that sins of the parents somehow make the child unclean? I thought that whole mind-set died out with Jim Crow. What’s wrong with being a mulatto?”

          I am serious about that. Mulatto is not an insult, no more than mestizo, or quadroon, or even octoroon. Only racists see those words as insults.

        • “Why do they call him …”

          I think it’s because they love him and want him to have twice a good thing*). My wife once called me a half-wit for something that qualified at most as a quarter-wit. She was being charitable.
          *) It could also be that Progressives regard the one-drop rule. They are all Democrats, after all:

    • Ted says:

      It may already be too late for Trump to jump the party. 44 states prohibit anyone from running under one party if they’ve already been a candidate for the same election under another party. There are varying rules as to what counts as “running.” In most states, nothing matters until the primaries actually start. In a few, just declaring your candidacy is enough, and he already couldn’t get on the ballot as an independent. Basically, if Trump stays republican until Iowa, he’s locked in. I doubt even Trump could be arrogant enough to believe he can win as a write in candidate.

      Beyond that, the party leadership doesn’t like Cruz much more than it likes Trump. A lot of people think the money guys would support Cankles over either of them. Trump is the first man since Perot who can win without outside money, if it comes to that.

    • gallopingcamel says:

      I registered a protest vote (Boris Johnson, the Lord Mayor of London) in the last three presidential elections because both major parties offered “Crony Capitalism”, a “Welfare State” and open borders.

      If Cruz or Trump becomes the GOP nominee I will vote for them believing they will try to secure our borders and crack down on people who do not respect our laws.

      Will either of them curb the “Nanny State”? Probably not but at least they are more appealing than the “Establishment Candidates” from both major parties who offer nothing but “Political Correctness” and ostrich like behavior relative to the Iranian rulers who openly declare “Death to America” and the destruction of Israel.

      No, I am not a knuckle dragging KKK member with a cupboard full of guns. Yes, I do attend TEA party meetings when I am not teaching quantum electro-optics at the largest university in the USA.

      • Ted says:

        ********Language alert*******

        Sorry, I couldn’t resist. I actually have nothing against your school. Your city, on the other hand…

        • Ted says:

          That second one is the wrong video. Here’s the one about Phoenix:

          Perhaps if I’d gone to ASU, instead of Big Jake’s House of Learnin, I’d know how to properly copy a link.

  7. George Applegate says:

    We are at a tipping point and American leadership can make the difference. If action is taken on climate change and we choose to eschew fossil fuels, we will end the steep trajectory of human progress, condemn billions to unending poverty and privation, and begin the decline of modern civilization. History will only record that we made the right decision – otherwise there will be no history. You, Tony, will be in that history if it is written. Thank you.

  8. If he does get elected I hope his first move is to hire you to run GISS.

    Seeing Gavin get perp walked out the door would be to Vine for

  9. SpinHacker says:

    Reblogged this on this fall 2015 and commented:
    Science is a debate using principles, and natures laws as we best know them to date. Principled men need to drive the debate or else we have so called scientists calling for legal restraint for those who do not agree with them. That’s not science, that’s totalitarianism or totally screwed up.

  10. AndyG55 says:

    That exact same pattern of lowering the 1940’s and raising current has happened in basically every part of the world.. Those you have followed web sites here, at

    etc will have seen a myriad of examples

    Here is another one…

  11. pmc47025 says:

    NOAA says:
    “In ERSSTv4, the raw SST data are from ICOADS Release 2.5 ( before 2007 and NCEP GTS ( /cmb/obs/gts) 2008 and after.”

    I assume that means they process and splice two different data sets at the 2007 boundary?

    If curious, follow the links for ICOADS 2.5. It’s certainly not “raw SST data”. Here’s a snip of part of the description:
    “NODC/OCL World Ocean Database 2005 (WOD05) oceanographic data were re-translated into IMMA format using a new scheme to estimate sea surface temperature (SST) from subsurface ocean profile temperatures”

    The advertised confidence intervals are bogus (fraud?).

  12. JPinBalt says:

    Aside, but still inside the beltway,
    My nomination for climate idiot and fraudster of the day from the Washington Post.
    “For a second straight year, the Arctic is warming faster than any other place in the world, and walrus populations in the area’s Pacific and Atlantic ocean regions are thinning along with the ice sheets that are critical for their survival .. Warmer air and sea temperatures melt [Arctic sea] ice that in turn expands oceans and causes sea-level rise, which scientists say presents a danger to cities along the entire Atlantic coast, from Miami to Washington to Boston. Walrus and other arctic mammals that give birth on ice sheets are struggling with the change, … “
    OK – maybe the reporter an WP should realize basic science that water expands when frozen and volume decreases when it turns back into a liquid. Ice cubes melting in a glass of water will lower the height in the glass, not raise it. In the 80s in DC working on climate change we were laughing when magazines ran covers with the Statue of Liberty under water because of Arctic Sea Ice melting. The joke walrus rerun story and pic of mass land meeting since ran out of sea ice hang outs has also been repeatedly heavily discounted.
    Arctic sea ice area is in the normal zone,
    Who needs to check facts?
    Is the WP becoming the new NYT? Fiction disguised as news, or just plain idiocy?
    Did even an editor take a basic science course during high school to realize that thinning or melting sea ice would reduce volume and theoretically reduce sea level as opposed to flooding Boston, Washington, and Miami? Maybe they failed basic science since they were busy in creative writing classes.
    No wonder the brainwashed morass inside the DC beltway believes in AGW when repeatedly reading newspeak on this issue from “America’s most trusted source.”

  13. Tom Moran says:

    Great work Tony! Imitation truly is the best form of flattery…..anyway to post the past predictions about how the greenhouse effect would materialize in the troposphere? The divergence between “scientifcally enhanced” terrestrial data and TLT makes it difficult to back the bad mojo.

  14. Corenelius says:

    Don’t lose sight of the fact that, in the Reykjavik graph, both the NASA 2012 and 2015 plots are accurate to .01 degrees C, even though they disagree in some places by 3 degrees C. Only the brilliant “new science” from the global warming world could make such a mathematical leap possible. Prehistoric cave people such as ourselves aren’t capable of grasping it.

  15. gallopingcamel says:

    Thankfully your work is getting noticed in the corridors of power.

    Five years ago I met with Tom Peterson in his office in Asheville:

    Tom helped me improve my access to the v2 and v3 GHCN data sets so I know that your work is well founded. I asked Tom why NOAA adjusted the raw data to increase the warming trend given that UHI effects imply adjustments in the opposite direction. His explanations made no sense.

  16. gallopingcamel says:

    Awesome as ever!

  17. gallopingcamel says:

    When a GOP candidate gets 41% in a poll he must be appealing to Independents and maybe some Democrats.

    Remember the Reagan Democrats who unseated Jimmy Carter?

  18. eliza says:

    Trump has stated that he will only run as a Republican in last debate. A Trump/Cruz ticket is winnable me thinks or vice versa preferably but I doubt Trump would accept LOL

    • Doug says:

      I’d definitely vote for either of those tickets but would prefer Cruz/Paul. There is nobody stronger than Paul regarding protecting individual rights and returning government to its proper Constitutional limits. It’s a shame that he doesn’t present the appearance of being presidential.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Ron Paul yes RAND paul – NO. He is very wishy washy and mealy mouthed and at this point I am sick of politician double-speak.
        Paul wouldn’t be pinned down as a skeptic, but said the “scientific debate should not be dumbed down to politics.” He said “Science behind climate change ‘not conclusive'” In other words he is playing word games.

        His ‘Official Position’
        “Washington’s bureaucratic regulations, corporate subsidies, and excessive taxation have made it unnecessarily difficult for energy developers to take advantage of new and innovative forms of cheap and clean energy.”

        He is equally wishy washy on other issues and shows no concreat plans that I can see.

        You can compare that to Trump’s positions on the issues:

        Cruz voted for the Corker amendment.
        Senator Cruz voted for the Corker Bill… which just gave nukes to Iran.
        Senator Cruz vote for TPA
        Trump never said that he won’t aid Middle Eastern Christians, Cruz did.
        Senator Cruz wants to increase H1Bs by 500% and put more Americans out of jobs.
        His wife is a member of the CFR and a VP for Goldman Sachs.

        Ted Cruz’s choice of Elliot Abrams to craft his foreign policy is disappointing. Like his colleagues on Cruz’s council. Arams is a leader in the neocon world, and he is a leader of what is perhaps the most powerful and pernicious group in the neocon network: the Council on Foreign Relations where his wife worked formulating North American Integration plans

        While the CFR is the most notorious of the associations of Abrams, it isn’t the only one. He is also a member (or former member) of the Center for Security Policy, Hudson Institute, National Endowment for Democracy.

        The problem Ted Cruz’s inner circle is composed of men and women of vast foreign policy experience; the problem is that their experience is in growing government, supporting surveillance, and using American troops as global peacekeepers in the quest of global hegemony.

        Each of these endeavors — pursued over and over by Cruz’s chosen advisors — is unconstitutional and not at all consistent with Ted Cruz’s public statements.

        Sad to say ONLY Trump out of the pack of a gazillion Rebooblicans hits all my hot buttons with a clear answer I agree with.

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 )

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s