Computational Software Expert Blasts National Climate Assessment Report: “Wildly Fraudulent”…”Scientific Garbage”

Tony Heller

Expert software engineer and climate science blogger/critic Tony Heller just posted a video commenting on the just newly released National Climate Assessment (NCA) report:

“Utter garbage”

Heller starts by pointing out that “there’s a huge number of problems” with the report and that the content contradicts itself, even on the same page.

Heller says that the claim that the number of record hot days is on the rise “is simply not true” and he wonders how peer review “allows this sort of utter garbage to get through“.  Heller makes it clear that this report belongs in the garbage can of science.

Wildly fraudulent

Heller methodically explains how the NCA report used faulty computational methods to make it appear as if more record hot days have been occurring, when in fact the trend has been the opposite.

The National Climate Assessment graph is wildly fraudulent. Not only have record maximum temperatures plummeted in the US, but record minimum temperatures have plummeted too. The US climate is getting milder, not more extreme.”

 Record minimum daily temperatures (blue) and record daily maximum temperatures (red) have been falling “tremendously”, thus contradicting NCA report claims. Chart: Tony Heller here.

The computational methodology used by the NCA report authors is so dubious that Heller even goes on to wonder how “this sort of scientific garbage” ever got through peer-review.

Consistent poor quality

Heller then singles out one of the authors of the report, known Texas Tech University climate activist/alarmist Katharine Hayhoe, reminding viewers that he has examined her work many times in the past and that the NCA report’s poor quality is consistent with that he has seen from Hayhoe in the past.

Heller’s makes his frustration with government funded climate science clear: “Government funded climate science is the biggest fraud in history.”

That statement by Heller could be disputed, however, as the history of government science fraud is long, tragic and has cost tens of millions of lives just in the last century alone. Other examples of government science fraud include eugenics, science of race, Lysenkoism, and the carbohydrate-promoting nutritional guidelines of the late 20th century, to name a few.

History indeed tells us to be very careful and skeptical about government-funded science.

One for the dustbin

President Trump should send this report to a thorough review by a panel of independent critical scientists.


23 responses to “Computational Software Expert Blasts National Climate Assessment Report: “Wildly Fraudulent”…”Scientific Garbage””

  1. tom0mason

    Between the poor temperature charts given in the National Climate Assessment Report, and the outrageous claims of sea-level rise also within it, this report as a classic example of how wrong consensus science can be, and how political the vagaries of both weather and climate have become.
    Tony Heller does a good excellent job in setting the record straight and as he highlights the crass data manipulations.

  2. SebastianH

    While it is a bit odd that the graph uses the ratio between hot and cold days to visualize global warming, it’s even weirder that this Tony Heller guy doesn’t notice that they didn’t delete anything at the start …

    1. Colorado Wellington

      I really appreciate your contributions, Sebastian. It is satisfying to see guys like you reduced to defending this NCA and similar political garbage.

      1. SebastianH

        Do you have any reason to call it “garbage” besides some guy calling it garbage and you believing him without being the least bit skeptic? It fits your believe system and therefore it must be wrong. The data for these graphs is out there …

        1. Kenneth Richard

          Global Temperature Data Manipulation

          Thousands Of Non-Urban Thermometers Removed

          0.3°C Of Pause-Busting Warmth Added Since 1998

          0.5°C Of Warming Removed From 1880-1950 Trend

        2. yonason

          Quite simple, really.

          Over the years I’ve been reading articles here and comments on them, the case has been convincingly been made that it is garbage.

          On the other hand, neither you or any other warmist supporter has ever made a convincing case that it isn’t.

          1. SebastianH

            You are in the wrong corner of the internet then, yonason. Why do you think me or other warmists (what a word) should come here to make a case. Go anywhere else outside the denialist blogosphere and be surprised.

          2. yonason

            More of the sort of evasive statements SebH specializes in: bald-faced fact-free assertions and insult.

          3. tom0mason

            The main point yonason, is that Tony Heller uses their ( National Climate Assessment (NCA) ) own data and method to prove that their output is little more than manipulated nonsense.

            He has convincingly done as much with GISS data.

          4. yonason

            Yes, Tom, and his work is an outstanding contribution to understanding the warmists’ scam. So, when he calls it “garbage,” he can back that up data from the warmists themselves. SebH can only howl in derision.

            Paul Homewood has some good detailed commentary on this, as well.

    2. Kurt in Switzerland


      Would you prefer to plot the ratio between cold and hot days to visualize global cooling?

      1. SebastianH

        Do it yourself or trust in someone like Tony Heller to do it for you and see where that takes you …

  3. John F. Hultquist

    The report is a document fabricated during the Obama years. It should be labeled in BOLD as such and otherwise ignored.
    We don’t waste time contemplating our garbage. We toss it out.
    Okay, we compost what we can.
    If we were sent a copy of this report, it would go directly to the garbage pile (aka ‘compost-to-be’).

  4. tom0mason

    Science, especially ‘Climate Science™’ has been deflected from studying, researching and, explaining real ‘testable’ observed phenomena, and it has become little more than a ‘high confidence’ belief system dependent on the output of unreal computer models.

    ‘Climate science™’ has been hijacked by the purveyors of perverse computerized virtual world and become a political tool of the left — Lysenkoism in aces.

  5. Expert Blasts New Climate Report: 'Wildly Fraudulent'…'Scientific Garbage' | Principia Scientific International

    […] Read more at No Tricks Zone […]

  6. yonason

    Tony Heller’s most recent video, as of this posting.

    Data tampering has consequences

    1. SebastianH

      You really believe this guy, do you?

      1. yonason

        He’s got the data, his analyses make sense. Why wouldn’t I?

        1. SebastianH

          It doesn’t make sense. It is the same as the blogs you sometimes link to that call something “Devine intervention” or claim that something violates the laws of thermodynamics.

          Your reply would be correct if you had written: “it supports my feelings about climate science, why wouldn’t I?”

          1. Pethefin

            The differece between post-modern “science” and old-school Science is that one of them follows data and the other plays with computer models. One of them does not even agknowledge the difference between data and interpretation, calling the latter adjusted data. One of the follows scientific method and the other whatever methodology the science policy du jour expects of them. History of science will look at the era of game-boy-science with disbelief.

        2. SebastianH

          Btw: he makes the same mistake that Kenneth and Pierre make regularly, looking at the SMB of Greenland and concluding that Greenland ice actually gained mass.

          About the age of Arctic ice:

          1. yonason

            NASA manipulates temperature data to produce the illusion of warming,…

            …and SebH want us to trust what they say about the Arctic? Ha ha. No thanks.

            They have been tampering with the data for many decades.

            Here’s documentation from 1997-1998 from the website that cooled my luke-warm belief in AGW, and turned it to skepticism.

            His previous comment isn’t worth addressing other than to point out that it’s his usual substance free distortions. At least in this one he gives a NASA video, and it’s worth pointing out why they aren’t to be trusted.

  7. Brian Martus

    We believe him because he has never cheated and faked his reports. On the other hand the IPCC and it’s cronies have been caught out doing this on a number of occasions.

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy