Home rebuttal: alarmists’ claims Climate Is Normal Climate Facts Our Best Data Who's Lying? What is Real Science Peer Review proxies Papers Debunking Claims NASA Debunk Antarctic Loss Real Cause of Climate Renewables Corals Trillion Dollar Industry Big Money Scaring green money Russian Money Paid by fossil fuel Warming Stopped Media Lies People are Dying History (politics) Extreme Weather? CO2 didn't warm arctic CO2 & Rate of warming CO2 lags Temperature CO2 Innocent! 1/2 of Warming Wrong Its Warming,But Acidification IPCC_Flawed IPCC Prediction Fail IPCC_Disproved IPCC_PeerReview IPCC Scientists IPCC&CLouds WWF Infiltrated the IPCC Harming People misconduct Data Adjustments Cooling since 1945? Drought, hurricanes etc. Arctic Antarctic Selected Emails Selected Quotes Fraud Of Century? 97 percent of scientists 25% of AMS / 50% JonesInterview An OK Prediction Data Sources False Deadlines Record Temperature Climate Change Truths Its OK to Lie! Energy Facts GridStorage CostlyEnergy Mann's Book Wegman styn_vs_mann Peer Review Error Statistical Errors The Sun Solar OceanHeat Ocean Heat Polar Bears OK AlGore's Errors Ask Questions Climate Models Local Food Threats Why I'm a Skeptic GreenhouseMoon Alternative Energy 1350+ realist papers Conflict of Interest? Muzzeled Scientists How To Argue Common Ground Hurricane No Proof NW Snow Pack James Hansen Consensus The Hockey Stick 650 Dissenters Easy Solution DataQuality Heat Island Is Science Settled? Ocean Level Sea Level sea_&_islands Glaciers Ice Sheets Greenland Gore's Mentor OGWC Articles Summary FinancialPapers OtherMotivations PeakOil Ozone Hole Fracking Acid Rain No Limits Videos Printables Links Briffa et al (1998) data

Debunking the Climate Scam

Billions of Dollars -  Fudged Data  -  Corrupt Scientists

Greedy Green Corporations - Trillion Dollar Prize

No Warming For Two decades - Illiterate Media

Bought and Paid For Organizations


Email WebMaster

This chart from http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_urb-raw_pg.gif shows the amount of adjustments applied to the USHCH data sets.  NOAA explanation of adjustments.

Adjustments” to the original data readings are large –

So large that unadjusted data shows cooling.

Temperature anomaly profile from NASA GISS after adjustments removed = Unadjusted data (Raw data)

Below is from:

http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/06/how-the-us-temperature-record-is-adjusted/ (Read the Full Article)

Here is the official explanation of the adjustments: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/ndp019.html   (Local)


More at Steven Goddard

If The Data Doesn’t Match The Theory – Change The Data  

Even More at Steven Goddard



Long term stations show NO WARMING before “adjustments”

Figure 3: Temperature trends and station counts for all US stations in GISS reporting continuously, that is containing at least one monthly data point for each year from 1900 to 2000. The slope for the rural stations (335 total) is -0.00073 deg/year, and for the other stations (278 total) -0.00069 deg/year. The monthly data point coverage is above 90% throughout except for the very first few year  For the whole story, see:




   (graph from: https://realclimatescience.com/2018/03/noaa-data-tampering-approaching-2-5-degrees/

Raw NOAA Data                Adjusted NOAA Data




The mystery deepens — where did that decline go?

From: http://joannenova.com.au/2010/03/the-mystery-deepens-where-did-that-decline-go/  (local)


Frank Lansner has done some excellent follow-up on the missing “decline” in temperatures from 1940 to 1975, and things get even more interesting. Recall that the original “hide the decline” statement comes from the ClimateGate emails and refers to “hiding” the tree ring data that shows a decline in temperatures after 1960. It’s known as the “divergence problem” because tree rings diverge from the measured temperatures. But Frank shows that the peer reviewed data supports the original graphs and that measured temperature did decline from 1960 onwards, sharply. But in the GISS version of that time-period, temperatures from the cold 1970′s period were repeatedly “adjusted” years after the event, and progressively got warmer.


The most mysterious period is from 1958 to 1978, when a steep 0.3C decline that was initially recorded in the Northern Hemisphere. Years later that was reduced so far it became a mild warming, against the detailed corroborating evidence from raobcore data.


Raobcore measurements are balloon measures. They started in 1958, twenty years before satellites. But when satellites began, the two different methods tie together very neatly–telling us that both of them are accurate, reliable tools.


You can see how similar the data from both methods is:


So what do the raobcores tell us about the period before satellites started recording temperatures? They make it clear that temperatures fell quickly from 1960-1970.

The decline in the original graph in National Geographic in 1976 is apparently backed up by highly accurate balloon data, and was based on peer reviewed data:  Budyko 1969 and Angell and Korshover (1975). These two sets overlap from 1958 to 1960, and correlate well, so stitching them together is reasonable thing to do and it doesn’t make much difference which year is chosen from the overlap period (indeed any other choice makes the decline slightly steeper).

Read the rest at the source:  From: http://joannenova.com.au/2010/03/the-mystery-deepens-where-did-that-decline-go/  (local)



Massive Tampering With Temperatures In South America


IMPORTANT––> Balloon data shows  1940-1975 decline existed










peer reviewed data:  Budyko 1969 and Angell and Korshover (1975)  (links appear dead)


Blog post on Faked data (local)