Global warming spreads by word of morph

Here in New Zealand, the NZ Climate Science Coalition has battled for several years to understand the national temperature record and get the data released that lies behind it. Now we battle to correct it.
Because NIWA, in “reconstructing” the record, manages miraculously to lower past temperatures and increase recent ones to create a spurious warming that overstates the actual national warming over the last hundred years by 168%!
We’ve told NIWA about it and we’ve sent them our report that proves it, but they refuse to acknowledge our finding, much less explain themselves. It is a national disgrace which our newspapers, magazines, radio stations and television channels strangely refuse to investigate.
The warming is truly man-made, for it hasn’t happened in the real world, it has been created only by the adjustments.
Now, from C3 Headlines, we learn that an even more invidious process has been going on in the United States.
Every month, the old temperature record “morphs” into a slightly different shape. Nobody would notice without taking a real close look. Constant adjustments keep the old temperatures going down and recent temperatures going up, increasing the rate of global warming with every move.
Naturally, when respected scientists at NOAA say the temperature has been going up, people believe them. But if this story is true, their message of warming is only produced by unscientific methods.
Shame on them! I wonder – did New Zealand get it from the USA, or did we infect them? This is a discomfiting analysis, even without accepting the article’s political remarks.


This is an adopted article.

“Science” By Lubchenco’s NOAA: Fake Global Warming By Changing Historical Temperature Data

To promote the global warming scare, Jane Lubchenco’s NOAA continuously changes past temperature records to create fake warming – on a monthly basis

When one starts working with temperature data from various climate research agencies, one begins to notice rather bizarre style of science that would likely qualify as fraud in the mind of a normal person. In the case of NOAA / NCDC, this Obama “science” research group is demonstrably fabricating new “global warming” every single month.

Below is a simple example of the historical temperature record changes being done by Obama’s NOAA on a monthly basis:

As can be seen, literally, Jane Lubchenco and her team are changing historical temperature records each and every month (note how they have “warmed” May 2008 since the NOAA report of December 2008) – even changing the historical record back to the very beginning, the January 1880 temperature record.

We asked a well known climate expert, Dr. Timothy Ball, if what Obama’s NOAA / NCDC climate scientists are doing is common in the general science community: that is, is it common to constantly revise historical empirical evidence? Here is his response:

“Absolutely not. There are adjustments to the raw data done by each nation when it collects the data. For me there are even questions about this, but it means that what goes to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and then to the Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN) and used as “raw data” is already adjusted. Post-collection adjustments are unnecessary and unacceptable.”

With that said, it appears Lubchenco’s NOAA is conducting a corrupt style of science that amounts to an Orwellian revision of history and empirical evidence. Not necessarily a surprise when a left / progressive ‘Big Green’ political hack is put in charge.

So what has been Jane’s impact on temperature history with all these small revisions being done on a monthly basis? Well…one would expect that proponents of global warming alarmism would want to make modern temperatures warmer and earlier temperatures cooler.

Surprise! That exact politically-correct green agenda is robustly being carried out by NOAA’s “scientists” as seen below.

The above record of temperature change over the four months since July 2011, by NOAA & NCDC personnel, is definitely not random. There is a significant man-made pattern to the cooling and warming changes.

Soooo…since Obama’s “science” team has been in place, how much have they changed the historical temperature records?

Examining the historical record changes since 2008, the same pattern emerges with warming changes dominating after 1951 – “Unequivocal” global warming by humans indeed! Those cooling changes dominate the period prior to 1940. Lubchenco even provides “unequivocal” global cooling on demand – what an amazing goddess of left / liberal / progressive science!

Back to the facts. And when comparing the left axis of both charts, it becomes abundantly clear that all those small changes done on a monthly basis by NOAA starts accumulating to become ever larger changes over a few years. Obviously, Obama’s team believes in man-made warming, especially when they simply accomplish it on their PCs.

Most importantly for policymakers and the public, the above data falsification is good reason not to trust anything the green activist Jane Lubchenco says, nor any of her NOAA / NCDC minions carrying out her political agenda.

Previous unequivocal-warming and unprecedented-warming postings. Additional fabricating-fake, modern and historical temperature charts.

Views: 55

6 Thoughts on “Global warming spreads by word of morph

  1. Clarence on 22/12/2011 at 3:40 am said:


    I could understand a once-and-for all-revision. Perhaps even a second one is some aspect is overlooked. But every month! And always incremental amounts in the same direction!

    Can anybody think of an innocent explanation?

    • Richard C (NZ) on 22/12/2011 at 7:55 am said:

      Yes. Just as CO2 can produce phenomenal warming in the future, it also has amazing retroactive capability to produce warming and cooling in the past that must be constantly accounted for. Otherwise if nothing was done, who would ever know that past temperatures are effected by CO2 in this way?

      English technicians lurking may question my use of “effected”, viz:-

      tr.v. ef·fect·ed,
      1. To bring into existence.
      2. To produce as a result.
      3. To bring about.

      Not being an expert in my first (and only) language, is is possible that I have inadvertently used the wrong word and perhaps “affected” would be more appropriate:-

      adj. af·fect·ed,
      1. Acted upon, influenced, or changed.
      2. Emotionally stirred or moved.
      3. Infected or attacked, as by disease.

      I’m open to correction.

    • Hi Richard, I can’t resist this!

      On the face of it, CO2 simply “affects” past temperatures. That is, it is one of such influencing factors.
      You could only use “effects” if CO2 was the only, or the vastly predominant, influence, since in this context it means “cause”.
      I hope that’s clear.

      Thanks, now I wander back to work.

  2. Richard C (NZ) on 22/12/2011 at 8:34 am said:

    NOAA data is readily accessible by all comers (not just US citizens0 and being one that does I’m grateful for the free information but I steer well clear of temperatures preferring warts-n-all HadCRUT3 to any US sourced series due to the dodgy adjustments (see below), but these NCDC monthly adjustments are a revelation as to the extent of the manipulation.

    The blogosphere is rife with examples but just a couple that I’m sure most are already aware of:-

    The US series blink comparator:-

    NASA GISS – Adjusting the Adjustments

    I.e. give GISS a MISS and now NCDC also.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 23/12/2011 at 8:42 am said:

      Jimmy Works His Arctic Magic

      Posted on December 22, 2011 by Steven Goddard

      [See blink comparator]

      Despite having no data north of 80N, Hansen has determined that it was very hot there in November. By fabricating a huge 4-8C anomaly at the North Pole, he is able to keep global temperatures (barely) rising this century, while HadCRUT shows global temperatures falling.

      He also did a bang up job warming Greenland well above measured temperatures. RSS showed almost all of Greenland cold, but Hansen’s magic crayon did an impressive job of heating the place up.

      [See image]

  3. Gary on 23/12/2011 at 8:04 pm said:

    No doubt about it it is unethical fraud. Out of it if it is accepted, people will be taxed, people will loose jobs, and possibly whole communities destroyed, because of someones political agenda. The greens are such unethical dirtbags.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation