NASA/NOAA Daily Climate Fraud Update

 Eighty years ago today was one of the worst tornado outbreaks in US history.



7 Apr 1936, Page 1 – at

This came two weeks after the most extensive flooding in East Coast history.

Screenshot 2016-02-03 at 10.25.16 AM-down

19 Mar 1936, Page 1 – at

February, 1936 was the coldest February in US history.



And the summer of 1936 was the hottest in US history.



1936 was by far the most extreme year in US history. NOAA and NASA have responded to this by altering the data in an attempt to cover it up.


About stevengoddard

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

52 Responses to NASA/NOAA Daily Climate Fraud Update

  1. omanuel says:

    I can’t imagine why their climate model are wrong. They only ignored a tiny area about the size of Chicago:

    • omanuel says:

      This was my response when the Union of Concerned Scientists invited a question today for Presidential candidates:


      Society needs a president to take control of science policy away from the NAS (National Academy of Sciences) who betrayed the public and their leaders by using their control of research funding to produce the lock-step “consensus science,” Climategate and “Standard Climate, Cosmology, Nucleat & Solar Models, exposed as fraudulent in a paper Nature is now reviewing (Nature’s tracking number NCLIM16030433):

      Click to access Solar_Energy.pdf

  2. dcpetterson says:

    1) You seem to be confusing “weather” with “climate” .

    2) You seem to be confusing the continental United States with the Earth.

    Looking at individual weather events, or individual years, and looking at 2% of the Earth’s surface, that does not address long-term climate trends over the Earth as a whole.

    You know this, of course. Yet you will still publish cherry-picked and misleading trivia.

    • Moron who doesn’t read the post he’s commenting on.

    • gator69 says:

      You seem to be confusing the continental United States with the Earth.

      You seem to be am illiterate idiot. Whoever is taking your dictations should probably also read to you as well, and maybe explanations of simple concepts are in order too.

      • dcpetterson says:

        “You seem to be am [sic] illiterate idiot.”

        ‘Nuff said.

        • gator69 says:

          ‘Nuff said.

          Really? A typo? That is the best you can do, attack a typo? In your lofty opinion of yourself you believe that I cannot spell an or am, and I do not know the difference between the two? It is incredible but telling that you thought this delusional “coup d’état” was worthy of leaving a comment. you actually thought you scored a goal! 😆

          Simply amazing. But then arrogance is the worst form of ignorance, and you apparently have both in spades.

    • Andy DC says:

      We are supposedly have been causing 25% of the pollution, but somehow global warming and extreme weather have miraculously been avoiding the USA. Does that make any sense?

      • dcpetterson says:

        “Does that make any sense?”


        A) Do you know how averages work?

        B) When the USA puts CO2 into the air, are you under the impression that it remains within the confines of the continental USA?

        • AndyG55 says:

          When the USA reduces the amount of CO2 put into the air, are you under the impression it isn’t transferred elsewhere.

          Don’t worry, dcp, with China, India, Turkey etc etc…..and soon some of the major South African countries as well, all continuing to use and expand fossil fuel use….

          .. there will be plenty of extra CO2 for plant life to feed on for a long, long time. 🙂

        • dcpetterson says:

          Andy, I note you didn’t answer my questions. You seemed to think that since the USA produced so much CO2, that alone means we should have had the most effect from it. Is that what you truly think or not?

        • AndyG55 says:

          Stick to writing lo-end fantasy, bonehead

    • Steve Case says:

      The point that Tony Heller/Steve Goddard is making isn’t that the weather of 80 years ago in the United States of America was an indicator of global weather at the time, the point is that the government in control of the United States of America is rewriting the weather records of that bygone era in order to suit a political agenda.

      At least when applying the duck test it looks that way.

      • dcpetterson says:

        This reply at least contains some substance.

        Are you aware of the reasons for the adjustments to the older data? Do some research into what NASA and NOAA say about the adjustments, and report back.

        (One hint: until recently, the majority of temperature records in the USA were collected by volunteers who used no standards whatever. Of all the worldwide historical data, that collected in the US is close to the lowest quality. I invite you to find out why.)

        • AndyG55 says:

          “This reply at least contains some substance.”

          You were obviously talking about Steve’s post.

          Certainly not about yours.

          ZERO substance in your posts, just empty baseless rhetoric.

        • dcpetterson says:

          Andy, you didn’t answer my questions again. Do you know what adjustments NASA and NOAA made and why they made them? I bet you don’t. Right?

        • AndyG55 says:


          I’m not your teacher.. Go and learn for yourself.

    • omanuel says:

      The astrophysicist, Piers Corbyn, developed AccuWeather forecasts from an understanding that the Sun has dominant control of all space and planetary weather in the solar system.

    • dcpetterson says:

      I assume you have some evidence supporting the idea of this global conspiracy to fake climate data that involves nearly all nations on Earth and all scientific organizations on the planet, and very nearly all climate scientists. I await revelation of that evidence, and the reason why no one has let the cat out of the bag.

      Meanwhile, the question of who has the money is, in fact, being investigated.

      But of course, that’s part of the global conspiracy, right? I’d think Exxon would be willing to pay big bucks to any scientist or world leader who blows the lid off this conspiracy. Maybe you should suggest it to them.

      • AndyG55 says:

        NYT as a reference..ZERO science

        Exxon were totally correct to totally ignore the unsubstantiated hype over a STILL unsubstantiated non-science hypothesis that calls itself “climate change™”.

        There is no verifiable risk from real natural climate change

        The risk to the world is from the “climate change™” AGENDA

      • dcpetterson says:

        “NYT as a reference..ZERO science”

        True. The NYT article wasn’t about the science. It was about who has the money.

        You went on to not provide any evidence of the global conspiracy you’re proposing. Because there isn’t a global conspiracy.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Your words.. I never mentioned it.

          Guilty conscience of the AGW scammers again?

      • AndyG55 says:

        The NYT article was NOT about who has all the SunEdison money that came from government subsidies.

        It was about money raised by a private company that knew the whole scam was nothing but an unproven hypothesis, and thus didn’t see the point in wasting money on it.

        That is what any responsible company would have done.

        Sun Edison, on the hand was given huge amounts of taxpayer money… ALL GONE… WHERE?

        And you can bet that the NYT will NEVER investigate that.

  3. sngj59 says:

    Wouldn’t it be interesting to apply today’s adjustment algorithms to 1930 temperature data.

  4. JamesG says:

    Climate is of course just the long term average of weather but the sheeple now use climate change and temperature change interchangeably as if there was some direct link.

    Of course it’s fine for extremist climate researchers like Trenberth. Mann, etc. or daft politicians to point to individual extreme weather events as evidence of a climate change (even to the ludicrous extreme of blaming cold weather events on warming) but woe betide any skeptic who does it.

    It is far more effective though to show the long term trends in extreme weather events since they are all either in decline or static over the longer term. Activists cannot then raise any strawman argument (that prevents them using their brains) then – at least until the weather records are adjusted too 🙂

  5. David A says:

    dcpeterson, please internet search for “NIPCC climate change reconsidered”, (thousands of skeptical peer reviewed published papers laid out by subject) Literally hundreds of hours of research for you if you wish a realistic perspective. Also search “CO2 science”, to further your education. I also recommend “Poptech” as a well organized site showing the peer reviewed skeptical research.

  6. dcpetterson says:

    You’ve all admitted you have no data backing up your odd assertions and global conspiracy theories, and you’ve all degenerated to meaningless name-calling. My work here is done.

    • gator69 says:

      God you are a dumbass.

      Not once in the above post was there a claim of anything global.

      Yes, your work is indeed done, you have earned every name we posted in reply to your ignorant musings. 😆

    • My work here is done.

      Work? You have not done any work.

      All you did was is make some false statements, voice a few platitudes, object to a typo, and set up and knock down strawmen. But I gather that’s what counts as work in the alarmist world.

      Back to fiction writing with you.

    • AndyG55 says:

      “My work here is done.”

      That’s what all Mills and Boon style writers think.

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 )

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