Software Expert: New York Times “Committing Massive Fraud” And Hiding All Temperature Data Before 1960!

A software engineering expert and leading blogger on climate analyzed the “How Much Hotter Is Your Hometown Than When You Were Born?” page by the New York Times and concludes it’s a “massive fraud”. Tony Heller’s Youtube video analysis so far has been viewed over 12,000 times since it came online two days ago.

Software engineering expert and publisher of the wildly popular Real Climate Science blog Tony Heller recently analyzed a web page by the New York Times that supposedly allows a reader to find out how much hotter his/her hometown is today than when he/she was born. Heller presents his findings in the following video:

In the video Heller exposes a number of grave and fatal infractions and says the New York Times page is fraught with deception. So massive are the transgressions that Heller concludes the page is “climate fraud”.

Data before 1960 “completely wrecks GW scam”

One example Heller cites is the starting point the New York Times uses for its data: 1960. The award-winning software expert asks why it starts only at 1960 when the US climate data goes way back to before 1900. Here Heller uncovers the reason: It’s because the weather in the US back in the early part of the 20th century was in fact much hotter than it is today, and the New York Times doesn’t want its readers to see it.

The following chart shows the percentage of days above 90°F for all temperature stations in the US:

Image cropped here.

According to Heller: “No wonder the New York Times pretends there’s no data before 1960. It completely wrecks their global warming scam.”

Going back further — for example to the 1930s — would show readers that it was in fact hotter in the US back then than it is today. That’s the last thing the New York Times wants its readers to know.

New York Times claims are opposite of reality

The New York Times page informs readers how many 90°+F days your hometown saw when you were born, and how many you can expect today and in the future. So Heller uses the example of Mt. Vernon, Illinois (2:30 mark) as an illustration. For Mt. Vernon, the New York Times claims we saw about 30 days of 90°F or higher back in 1960, and that today one could expect 41 such hot days.

But when Heller compared the New York Times claim to the real recorded data, he found the Times results were in fact completely wrong.

Chart source here.

The results show “the exact opposite of what the New York Times is claiming”, says Heller. Today Mt. Vernon, Illinois, sees only about 16 hot days a year, and not the 41 the New York Times claims we should be seeing now.

New York Times data “fake”

The New York Times also claims that the trend of more hot days in Mt. Vernon will continue upwards. The following is a blow-up of a part of a chart presented by Heller, with arrows added to compare the real and New York Times trends:

Chart cropped here.

Heller says: “The first thing to notice is the New York Times data from 1960 to the present is fake.”

“Massive fraud”…”want to deceive readers”

The veteran software engineer and data analysts believes: “Now it becomes obvious why the New York Times is hiding all temperatures before 1960 – because it was really hot back then. If they start at 1960, they can kind of pretend that the number of 90° days is going up. The New York Times is committing massive fraud.”

Heller adds that the the people at the Times “show no interest in telling the truth.” and “want to deceive its readers.”

No correlation between hot days and atmospheric CO2

Heller also presents a scatter diagram depicting the number of 90°+F days in the US vs atmospheric CO2 concentration:

The chart above shows that the number of hot days has decreased instead of increasing, i.e. no correlation with CO2.

Heller also points out that the number of 100°F days occurring in September in the US has also declined, but the New York Times doesn’t want the readers to know about that as well.

26 responses to “Software Expert: New York Times “Committing Massive Fraud” And Hiding All Temperature Data Before 1960!”

  1. Kurt in Switzerland

    Massive fraud? This is par for the course for Climate Science!
    Changing historical records, gross misrepresentation, cherry-picking?

    Gee, Pierre, you’re no fun. What’s a little temperature adjustment among friends? After all, it’s for a good cause!

  2. Dee

    NYT,1989, NOAA:U.S. Data Since 1895 Fail To Show Warming Trend

    Are atmospheric “greenhouse” effects apparent in the climatic record of the contiguous U.S. (1895-1987)?


    1. Yonason

      adsabs harvard link is broken (see the RL..16…49h?) Looks like link truncated? You may need to copy it from the address bar to get it to work. If that doesn’t help, post the search terms that bring up what you want us to see, and we can try to access it that way.

  3. Bitter&twisted

    Why should this be a shock?
    The whole point of AGW is fraud.

  4. SebastianH

    Software engineering expert […] veteran software engineer and data analyst

    Let your fanboy-dom go already! If you admire that profession so much I wonder why you don’t trust what I, an actual software engineering expert, says 😉

    Be a little bit more skeptic and investigate what data he is using to compare it to those sources he calls fake. Then we can talk about how the “hugely popular blogger” with the annoying voice actually deceives his audience and how you guys are falling for it.

    1. Dee

      Any warming in the US in the 20th century was caused by NASA adding +.5°C warming through “adjustments”.

      Direct quote from NASA:
      “These adjustments caused an increase of about 0.5°C in the US mean for the period from 1900 to 1990.”

      Source: NASA

      That’s a half degree of any alleged warming immediately accounted for, and is purely from retrospective “adjustments”.

      How much warming in total in degrees Celsius is alleged to have occured in the US over the 20th century?

      It would be most interesting to see an answer from a reputable source.

      As it stands, the answer is none outside of adjustments.

      And bear in mind that what they were adjusting upwards was already questionable data from Temperature stations which were subsequently found to already have been biased by being poorly sited and being prone to recording artificially higher temperatures to begin with.

      See the US Government Accountability Report for details about that, summary here:

      1. SebastianH

        Source: NASA

        From that FAQ:
        “The adjustments and their effects are described here”:

        “with a graph showing the effect of each of the five individual adjustments here”:

        In short:

        About half of that increase was due to information obtained about station moves (mostly from cities to airports where conditions were generally cooler), the other half from changes in the time of observation (mostly as a consequence of a concerted effort to transition to a uniform time of observation for a whole network of stations). After 1999, GISS replaced the unadjusted USHCN reports by the adjusted reports […]

        And you guys believe only the unadjusted data that this popular blogger uses is the holy grail … why?

        1. spike55


          Conditions are cooler at airports.. chuckle ..


          TOBs adjustment has been shown to be a load of garbage type nonsense.

          So that gets rid of ALL the increase in GISS.

          Thanks seb… take another faceplant. !!

          1. Yonason

            When I was in Jr. High, I belonged to the Civil Air Patrol. I spent a week each year for two consecutive years at encampments at USAF air bases.

            “Conditions are cooler at airports.. ”


            I needed that.

            Problem is, the resident activist isn’t TRYING to be funny. So sad.

            Oh, and one year it was during a drought. It didn’t rain all summer. That was back in the early 60’s, when the [CO2] was “safe” and things like droughts couldn’t happen.

        2. Dee

          Can anyone point towards a NASA figure for the amount of warming that the US experienced in the 20th century that was NOT as a result of NASA data modifications?

          All of the warming (+0.5°C) came from modifying the data.

          1. SebastianH

            Do you believe unadjusted data is the holy grail and should never be touched to correct for location, timing, technology changes?

          2. spike55

            seb, WHY are you ALWAYS the one trying to support CORRUPTION and FRAUD.

            Is it an inbuilt part of your psyche?

            You know the whole “adjustment” rort is used to fabricate warming to justify their agenda.

            Its what they do
            We know from real data analysis that the TOBs adjustment is basically hogwash.

            Assuming you mean “scientific” adjustments, instead of “agenda driven” adjustments..

            .. it seems you are saying that much more downward adjustment should be made for recent UHI increases and movement to airports, etc , than just a tiny insignificant gesture..

            Protected, unaffected rural sites show NO WARMING since the 1930s, 40s.


            HadCrut for the Arctic shows NO WARMING since the 1930s, 40s.


            Its only once it goes through AGW agenda-driven “fabricated adjustments” that warming magically appears.

            And as you showed above, basically 100% of the warming in GISS comes from highly dubious unwarranted “adjustments”

          3. Yonason

            But spike, if they don’t make “adjustments,” how will they get the data to “fit” … the climate “model.”

  5. richard verney

    Tony Heller examines the unadjusted US USHCN data. This consists of approximately 1250 stations, and when the unadjusted data is examined it shows a clear cooling trend as from the 1930s to date. The software is available on his site so that anyone can check the source code, and the data for themselves. Steven Mosher of BEST and Nick Stokes ( a prominent Australian warmist who has a PhD in Maths) have been invited to check the software, source code and data and not one of them has found fault.

    In my opinion Tony Heller does a better data comparison which consists of the unadjusted data from about 750 stations in the USHCN network. This sub set data is the data from the stations that have a continuous record going back to the beginning of the 20th century. Not all of the 1250 stations that make up the US USHCN network have continuous records, and I prefer a comparison that does not involve station drop outs that may corrupt/impact upon the data, and hence I prefer examining the data only from the stations that have a continuous record.

    Materially, the trend of both data sets is the same. In fact there is all but no difference between the two which goes to show just how significant the cooling trend is.

    Furthermore, Tony Heller has examined the unadjusted data from all the stations in the USHCN network which take temperature readings in the morning, and the trends from all the stations that take temperature readings in the afternoon. Materially, there is no difference in the trend of the two subsets. They both show the same post 1930s cooling and at the same rate.

    I say that this is material because one reason behind the adjustments made to the US data is for TOBS (time of observation). GISS considers that TOBS creates an error since GISS considers that stations whose TOB is in the morning double counts warm temperatures and therefore makes an adjustment to correct this assumed error. But as Tony Heller has found out there is no difference whatsoever in the trend of temperatures between stations that take measurements in the morning and those that take measurements in the afternoon. The TOBS adjustment is unnecessary and in itself it creates an error making the adjusted data less reliable than the unadjusted data.

    1. SebastianH

      So you are advocating that we all use unadjusted data even though the method to record the data, the time and often the place changed over time? Is that what you pseudoskeptics want? Would you want to do that if the stations would have been moved to warmer places/times and needed downward adjustment or is it just that you guys dislike the direction adjustments have been made?

      So is the NOAA adjustment that warms the pre-1940 times a good adjustment then?

      Or do you prefer the raw data over the adjusted data to show a faster warming of SSTs?

    2. spike55

      “invited to check the software, source code and data and not one of them has found fault.”

      There you go seb, prove that your petulant arrogance actually has some meaning or substance.


      1. SebastianH

        He uses unadjusted data. Why would we need to find a flaw in a software that just parses the data files and records max/min/etc data from the time-series? No one needs to be an expert to do this …

        1. spike55

          WOW seb,

          Great to see you ADMITTING that TH’s analyses are CORRECT.

          Using ORIGINAL REAL DATA.. WOW.

          .. a big no-no in climate non-science

          Only allowed to use the fabrications that have been thorough the AGW agenda mill. !

          Take your attention-seeking trolling, and your AGW scam BS elsewhere, seb.

          1. SebastianH

            “original real data” … you are really something …

      2. Bitter&twisted

        (Do Not Converse With The Russian Troll)

  6. richard verney

    I have posted a long comment, unfortunately it has disappeared. Moderators please look out for it and please post it.

  7. sasquatch

    Historical temperature data, Sioux Falls, SD:

    100 degrees or higher occurred most often during the decade from 1930-1939.

    The breakdown by decades follows:

    1920 – 1929 8 days
    1930 – 1939 58 days
    1940 – 1949 22 days
    1950 – 1959 13 days
    1960 – 1969 10 days
    1970 – 1979 31 days
    1980 – 1989 23 days
    1990 – 1999 6 days
    2000 – 2009 3 days
    2010 – 2016 9 days (partial decade)

    100 Degree Days or Higher in Sioux Falls, SD

  8. Curious George

    The NYT graph for Mt Vernon shows a diverging envelope after year 2000. Surely they used model predictions, not actual measurements. A skillful splicing of “data” from different sources is a hallmark of modern climastrology.

  9. Dee

    Before the earth scientists took over the asylum, NOAA used to advance the Milankovitch Theory to explain what controls climate,seasons, weather severity and ice growth.

    “The “roundness”, or eccentricity, of the earth’s orbit varies on cycles of 100,000 and 400,000 years, and this affects how important the timing of perihelion is to the strength of the seasons. The combination of the 41,000 year tilt cycle and the 22,000 year precession cycles, plus the smaller eccentricity signal, affect the relative severity of summer and winter, and are thought to control the growth and retreat of ice sheets.”

    Source:NOAA (archived at wayback)

  10. Yonason

    Slightly OT


    First frost takes out canola and soy in Canada.

    The frost is early, but well within the normal range of variability. – I guess we have to chalk the agri-losses up to: Farming is a crapshoot, and sometimes you lose, even when the [CO2] is allegedly on your side.

    Gee, if the “warming” keeps up at this rate, it will become increasingly more difficult to spin it as news-worthily abnormal catastrophic warming.

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