Systemic Data Tampering: NASA GISS Alters US Southeast Data, Changes Cooling To Warming

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

By Kirye
and P. Gosselin

Today we look at the NASA data from 6 stations from the US southeast region. In every case the trends were warmed up by what NASA calls “adjusting”.

Four of the 6 stations showed a clear cooling trend, which were then altered by NASA to show warming. Another station saw its flat trend turned into warming, and a another station had only modest warming but was altered to show stronger warming.  This is how NASA tells us the US has been warming over the past century, when in fact it really hasn’t warmed much.

NASA’s own data tell the story.

First we look at Greensboro, Alabama. Here we see how warm it was in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s, but look what happened once NASA GISS scientists got their hands on the data:

Data source: NASA GISS

in Newnan Georgia, NASA simply dropped all the inconvenient warm readings of the early 20th century, see below. A cooling trend disappeared Orwellian style:

Data source: NASA GISS

In Hattiesburg, Mississippi, cooling was also altered to produce warming. It has nothing to do with CO2, but instead has everything to do with fudging historical data:

Data source: NASA GISS

If these types of people are capable of unabashedly rewriting history, imagine what they wouldn’t think twice about at the ballot boxes this coming November. Look at what they did to the data from the Little Mountain station in South Carolina:

Presto! First you see the cooling, now you don’t. It’s all been doctored. Data source: NASA GISS

Well, at least there wasn’t any cooling recorded at the station of Cullowhee, North Carolina, as the next chart shows. But NASA insists that it has to be some warming, and so cooled the early data so that we get a warming trend.

Data source: NASA GISS

Finally we look at what NASA did to the temperature data from Lake City, Florida, below. A clear cooling trend was altered to show warming. NASA GISS scientists obviously have no scruples about turning historical records into modern lies. Anyone else would be put on the dock for such deceit – at least intensely investigated.

Data source: NASA GISS

But NASA GISS scientists get away with it because they’re “experts”, we are told, and so who are we to question them – no matter how fishy it all appears? There’s no one to really police them. Unless this stops, very dark tyrannical times lie ahead for us. The alterations are systemic.

UPDATE; And here’s the plots for a station in Tennessee (no surprise here either):

 




Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

22 responses to “Systemic Data Tampering: NASA GISS Alters US Southeast Data, Changes Cooling To Warming”

  1. Mack

    And the scale of the tampering is even worse when one considers the impacts of urbanisation on many of the sites with long data records which aren’t properly accounted for in the modern ‘cooking the weather books’ process.

    The US citizens of the ‘Dust Bowl’ years of the 1930s would laugh at anyone claiming that the country was ‘hotter than evah’ now. Having said that, the Native American Indians, who endured many centuries long mega droughts earlier in the Holocene, would probably have taken a dust bowl decade with glee. The only unprecedented heat emanating now in the US is coming out of the fertile imaginations of corrupt scientists.

  2. Not an Energy Budget – PLUS: Postma vs. Spencer Live Debate? – Newscats Hasslefree Allsort

    […] Systemic Data Tampering: NASA GISS Alters US Southeast Data, Changes Cooling To Warming […]

  3. Zoe Phin

    Thanks Kirye
    I live in the southeast. I’ve been in Newnan, Georgia. What they did to its data is the most disgusting of all.

  4. toorightmate

    The results are identical to those produced by Tony Heller for numerous North American sites.
    Jennifer Marohasey has found the same for Australia’s BoM tampering.
    My big hangup is that it is absolutely scientifically wrong to adjust raw data. If the raw data does not look right, then say so and give reasons why it looks wrong BUT DO NOT ALTER THE RAW DATA.
    I started working life as an experimentalist working for a Chief Metallurgist who would have cut my throat and removed my testicles if I dared to manipulate raw data.

  5. oebele bruinsma

    To me, as an old scientist, this good news: Manipulating data is inserting an opinion, which is unscientific as politics enter the equation. Conclusion: Global warming is politics, which is not exactly new news.

  6. Steve Case

    NASA changes the data for their Land Ocean Temperature Index every month. It follows a pattern, of ALL of the changes to the data since about 1970 show warming and prior to 1980 most of it shows cooling. It looks like this:
    https://i.postimg.cc/Xv6f3DjS/image.png
    Each plotted point represents the differences NASA reported in March of 2010 and what was reported in March 2020. Here’s their current report:
    https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v4/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
    The plotted differences were generated from the Jan-Dec Annual Mean in column 14.

  7. bonbon

    This is again NOAA data.

    1. bonbon

      Just click the graphic links. It is only precise to attribute the source of tampered data. Dr. Bates, longtime NOAA whistleblower first showed the extent of the politically motivated tampering.

  8. RickWill

    More World’s best practice data homogenisation.

  9. Georg Thomas

    Why is NASA not being held accountable for the tampering? What mechanism is shielding them from public scrutiny. Fortunately, in the USA, there are still large numbers of sceptics; what could they do to move the scandal into the limelight or make it actionable?

  10. Tom Anderson

    What I find painfully frustrating is that it is a federal crime under section 2071 of Title 18 of the U.S.Code for the custodian of federal data to manipulate it. I have contacted the U.S. Attorney General’s office heads of Senate and Congressional science/technology committees, inspectors general of the relevant departments and seen no evidence of any attention to this crime. It carries up to a $250,000 and 3-year prison term as penalty.
    It is a crime, not just fudging data.

    1. Yonason

      You aren’t the only one who is concerned, Tom. There are a lot of other good people who want to stop the destruction. It’s on their radar, and they are taking some action on it.

      “A recent [it was 5 years ago] letter from 300 scientists is requesting that Congress assure that the Data Quality Act is complied with, which NOAA has not done regarding both the U.S. and global empirical temperature observations.”
      https://www.c3headlines.com/2016/01/a-legitimate-question-how-much-of-modern-global-warming-is-fabricated-by-noaa-nasa.html

      Draining the swamp takes time. But it’s happening. We’ll get there.

    2. Zoe Phin

      They get around the crime by allowing the raw data to be available. They’re not changing the raw data, they are creating an alternative reality and encouraging people to accept it. The original reality is still available, but is to be mocked.

      They commit a moral crime, but not a legal one.

      1. Yonason

        Adhering to the letter of the law but not the spirit of it is still illegal, though probably much more difficult to get a conviction on. Also, the degree to which they are misleading everyone would seem to me to constitute fraud, which is another crime. Additionally, conspiring to do mislead and intimidate those not on board with the con game is no doubt covered under other statutes. Plenty of criminal activity in that region of the swamp.

        1. Yonason

          Note Added In Proof (written by a lawyer)
          https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/02/more-faking-of-the-surface-temperature-record.php

          “We have written many times about the fact that the Earth’s surface temperature record has been so badly corrupted that it is impossible to say whether claims like “2017 was the third-warmest year since thermometers became common in the late 19th century” are true.”

          If the operational product is corrupted, it seems to me their behvior is so at odds not just with the spirit but even the letter of the law, that they wouldn’t have a very solid defense.

    3. Kadambari Wallner

      hi Tom i would love to support you in filing a case against data manipulation.

  11. Tom Webb

    As a retired electronics design engineer with a lot of science background I have made measurments that needed explanation and sometimes adjustment. The raw data must be retained as historical evidence (it cannot be repeated). However if the data contains known errors, these errors must be identified and appropriate adjustments made so that the historical data trends make more sense. The obvious mistake in the displayed data is no explanation of why historical data was adjusted. Why was it assumed to be in error?

  12. Yonason

    @Tom Webb

    I think I agree with you, Tom, but I’m a bit confused by some of what you write…

    “…if the data contains known errors, these errors must be identified and appropriate adjustments made so that the historical data trends make more sense.”

    1. If the data contains “known errors,” what about them needs to be further “identified?” Perhaps the last part helps?

    2. As you imply in the last half of that sentence, the historical trends need to make sense. And that implies that one cannot adjust ALL the data, only a very small portion of it and only in very specific ways (e.g., the “bad” data is barely indistinguishable from the “good” data,” i.e, not prominent outliers). BUT, if permitted adjustment doesn’t bring the “bad” data in line (if I remember correctly, the statistical parameters of the adjusted must now agree with the unadjusted), it is of no help, and isn’t allowed.

    And one NEVER does what NOAA/NASA do, which is to adjust ALL the data. I.e., most of the data must be acceptable in order to justify attempting to adjust only a very small portion of outliers. Otherwise, what measure do you have that any of the data is “good?” Or, more in line with what you write, they must make sense in the historical context, and if one adjusts everything, the historical context is destroyed.

    Here is one of my previous posts on what Judith Curry has to say about it.
    https://notrickszone.com/2019/03/31/fabricating-a-warming-nasa-now-altering-unadjusted-data-to-create-new-warmer-unadjusted-data/#comment-1299918

    As to the reason(s) they tamper with the data in the first place, I think Tony Heller exposes the main one, which isn’t one they want you to know about.
    https://realclimatescience.com/2016/11/noaa-adjustments-correlate-exactly-to-their-confirmation-bias/

    1. The Indomitable Snowman, Ph.D.

      The general rule of thumb is that you CAN challenge measured data – BUT you have to have a very good reason for doing so. What makes this whole thing grossly unethical is that there have been no proper justifications for it – and since the data didn’t agree with the political demands, too bad for the data.

      Examples from my “cub engineer” years…

      o The measured data points should be linear with respect to the load capacitance; they weren’t, and badly so. That could only mean that some of the data (three points) had to be wrong. When it was remeasured, the new data fell on a straight line (with load capacitance), and things were fine. Note the grounds for challenging the data (the data and basic physics didn’t agree).

      o The measured data was outside the boxbound. All but one capacitance is closely quantified, while a final one is poorly-defined but doesn’t vary by more than 10 or 15%. However, the measured data would only fit if that final capacitance was altered by some 50%. When it was remeasured… bingo, came right into the 10 – 15% window where it should have been. Again, the data didn’t agree with the basic physics so it needed to be remeasured.

      Anyone who can’t justify revisiting measured data without some solid STEM-based reason for doing so is a fraud. And “THAT CAN’T BE RIGHT!!!!” alone isn’t sufficient justification.

      1. Yonason

        @The Indomitable Snowman, Ph.D.

        “…When it was remeasured,…”

        Right. The outliers alerted you to the fact that something was wrong, and you took more measurements, which is the only remedy for bad data.

        “Again, the data didn’t agree with the basic physics so it needed to be remeasured.”

        Again, the only method for correcting bad data is to measure it again.

        But we can’t go back in time to remeasure the past, so if the data is indeed bad, it is lost to us. Of course, from what I know of history, I believe researchers in the past were a LOT more meticulous than most today. So, because I trust the researchers of old, I also trust their raw data much more than most raw data generated today.

        There are cases where adjustments to a small subset of the data may be justified, but old climate data that don’t agree with a shaky hypothesis isn’t one of them.

  13. Manomissione sistemica dei dati: la NASA GISS modifica i dati degli Stati Uniti sudorientali, cambia il raffreddamento in riscaldamento

    […] Fonte: No Tricks Zone […]

Leave a Reply

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

Close