A detailed review of the climate data tampering at NASA and NOAA

Week Three: Ninth Anniversary Fund-Raising Drive for Behind the Black

It is now the third week in my annual anniversary fund-raising campaign for Behind the Black.

Please consider donating. I am trying to avoid advertising on this website, but will be forced to add it if I do not get enough support from my readers. You can give a one-time contribution, from $5 to $100, or a regular subscription for as little as $2 per month. Your support will be deeply appreciated, and will allow me to continue to report on science and culture freely.

Regular readers can support Behind The Black with a contribution via paypal:

Or with a subscription with regular donations from your Paypal or credit card account:


If Paypal doesn't work for you, you can support Behind The Black directly by sending your donation by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman, to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652

Steven Goddard has once again taken a close look at the climate data gathering at NOAA and NASA and found clear evidence of tampering.

He not only documents how the scientists at these agencies have adjusted the raw data to cool the past and warm the present to create the illusion of global warming, they have done so with a limited data base.

The bulk of the data tampering is being done by simply making temperatures up. If NOAA is missing data for a particular station in a particular month, they use a computer model to calculate what they think the temperature should have been.

Those calculations are then designed to support the theory of human caused global warming, caused by increased carbon dioxide.

Goddard doesn’t just tell us his opinions, he backs up his conclusions with detailed graphs and data.

Do I accept Goddard’s conclusions entirely? Maybe. The two questions I ask that none of the NOAA or NASA scientists have been willing to answer are these:

  • Why do all your adjustments to the data always increase the warming trends during the past century?
  • What are your justifications for these adjustments, especially for those adjustments to past data taken decades ago?

Since these government scientists have refused to answer these basic questions, even stonewalling elected officials who ask them, I lean strongly towards accepting Goddard’s harsh conclusion that these scientists are frauds and are purposely tampering with the data for political purposes.


One comment

  • Edward

    If they are publishing the data without making it clear that they have modified it from previous publication, or why they have done so (Robert’s justification question) or how they have done so, then they are violating scientific principles and ethics so basic that they are taught in the first science class in which students record and report data.

    To deliberately make changes in data (including fabricating data) without noting and explaining the change is the definition of scientific fraud.

    “There are many types of science fraud, from minor manipulation of results or incorrect causal connections to full-blown fabrication of results and plagiarism of the work of others.”

    As the “explorable” article notes, fraud should not be confused with error or even expectation bias. If the climate scientists note that they have changed data or included calculations to estimate missing data, then they are making known that the calculations should be verified to ensure that an accidental bias was not built into the process; they could have made errors or let biases cloud their judgement, which aren’t fraud but aren’t good, either. If they fail to note the changes or calculations and report their results as though they are based upon measured raw data, then they have committed scientific misconduct, probably to the point of committing scientific fraud.

    The fraud being perpetrated upon us by many in the climate community has dire and expensive consequences. Scientific resources that should be going toward finding actual sources that affect climate and could be used to predict it are instead squandered in trying to prove a cruel hoax, a hoax worse than Piltdown Man. Social and economic resources are wasted on trying to stop global warming by modifying human activity on the assumption that humans are causing the indicated global warming.

    If their data were strong enough to support their conclusion, then they would not have to change the data in order to show that it supports the conclusion. It is a strong sign that the conclusion is incorrect.

    It bothers me that so many people claim to believe that humans are causing a global warming that will be catastrophic in a century, yet they continue to use powered transportation, a major generator of the CO2 that they claim causes the warming.

    It isn’t just the scientists who are lying to us, it is anyone who tells us or perpetuates the claim that humans are causing global warming. If they actually believed what they say, they would stop driving (etc.), stop using powered appliances, and stop buying manufactured goods.


    It also bothers me that when it was noticed that the temperatures stopped rising, the scientists failed to note that we were saved from a predicted Armageddon and instead tried to explain how CO2 was still a problem despite the new evidence that it isn’t; there is some factor(s) that is stronger than the CO2 that humans are adding to the atmosphere.

    Real scientists would insist that our resources be directed into finding and proving that factor, not into fudging data to prove a fallacious, non sequitur, and nonsensical conclusion.

Leave a Reply

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