The Greatest Scientific Fraud Of All Time — Part XXXI

It’s been almost two years (February 20, 2022) since I added a post to this series. The reason is that global surface temperatures, as measured by NOAA and NASA, had decreased somewhat from 2020 highs, bringing about a hiatus in the otherwise endless drumbeat of propaganda from those agencies claiming “hottest month ever” or “hottest year ever.”

But then a strong El Niño early last year induced a small temperature increase several months later, picked up by the NOAA/NASA thermometer network. [emphasis, links added]

Result: From NOAA, October 16, 2023, (“Globally, September 2023 was the warmest September in the 174-year NOAA record. The year-to-date (January–September) global surface temperature ranked as the warmest such period on record.”); NOAA, November 15 (“The planet added another record-breaking month to 2023, with October ranking as the warmest October in the 174-year global climate record.”); Axios, December 14 (“With November ranking as the warmest such month on record, NOAA is projecting greater than 99.5% odds that this year will be the world’s warmest since instrument records began in the 19th century.”).

Expect the official announcement that 2023 was the “hottest year ever” to come out sometime around the middle of this month.

But does the data really establish that the most recent months and year are the hottest?

Readers of the prior 30 posts in this series know that the data on which these claims are based have been subject to extensive adjustments by computer algorithms, in every case to lower the temperatures in the earlier years and raise the temperatures in the later years — thus introducing an artificial warming trend that does not exist in the original records.

Those 30 prior posts have looked at both unadjusted and adjusted records from dozens of temperature stations around the world, documenting, in particular, the downward adjustments of the earlier temperatures, especially those between about 1900 and 1950.

As a few examples, this post from July 2013 documented temperature adjustments from the station in New York’s Central Park; this one from July 2014 discussed data adjustments from Kansas and Texas; this one from July 2015 discussed data adjustments from Maine, Ohio, and Tennessee; this one from February 2017 discussed a station in Connecticut; this one from August 2017 discussed multiple examples from Australia; this one from January 2018 had multiple examples from upstate New York; and so on.
The work on which these posts have been based — tracking down unadjusted and adjusted data from particular stations and compiling them into useful graphic presentations — is laborious and time-consuming.

It has been done for dozens of stations by a handful of independent researchers, notably, Tony Heller, Joseph D’Aleo, Paul Homewood, and Willie Soon.

But there are upwards of a thousand stations in the networks that NOAA and NASA use for their world surface temperature announcements. So far as I am aware, nobody has yet undertaken the enormous effort of showing the adjustments at all of those stations.

That may be about to change. Yesterday, at his website Real Climate Science, Heller had a very brief post with the headline “What Did They Do Wrong?” The entire text of the post reads as follows:

I have developed new software to analyze the global temperature record. The party is over for the blade of the hockey stick fraud.

In addition to that text, the post also includes a brief ( 2 1/2 minutes) video by Heller, in which he announces his new project.

He says that he has now developed software that enables him to quickly analyze the unadjusted and adjusted data for particular temperature stations anywhere in the world and will be publicizing the results of his analysis over future months.

As a teaser, Heller puts up graphs of the unadjusted and adjusted temperature records for a station in Liberia, Costa Rica, in Central America. As should surprise no one, the adjusted data show substantial downward adjustments to cool earlier data and thus make the current data appear to be the warmest, when in the unadjusted data earlier years are warmer.

From Heller’s video, here are the unadjusted data for the Liberia, Costa Rica station:

Here are the adjusted data:

If you compare the two, you will note first that the most recent temperatures are identical in the two graphs.

A recent peak in June 2023 is the highest point in the “adjusted” graph, at something just under 86 degrees F; and the “unadjusted” data point for the same month is at the same level.

But if you go back even a few years to the 2015-2019 interval, suddenly the “adjusted” temperatures are all well below the 86.17 deg line, while several of the “unadjusted” temperatures are well above.

And the further back you go the crazier it gets. Between 2005 and 2013, there are 13 months above 86.17 deg in the “unadjusted” record, but none even close to that level in the “adjusted” record.

Then, from February 1997 to December 2005 in the “unadjusted” record there are 12 months above the 88.89 deg level, two of which are above 91.61 deg — and all these data have magically disappeared entirely in the “adjusted” record.

Somehow in the “adjusted” record, the temperature of about 86 deg from earlier this year stands as the hottest since the record began, while in the “unadjusted” record there are about two dozen months that have higher temperatures, some by as much as about 6 degrees.

In his video, Heller says that he plans to ask the NOAA temperature adjusters what exactly the Costa Rican weather people did wrong to get all their readings for this station from 1997 to 2005 deleted. Good luck getting any response to that. Hey, those readings don’t support the official narrative!

Heller says that he plans to use his new software for many forthcoming posts disclosing the fraudulent data adjustments that result in the regular “warmest month ever” proclamations. If so, I will be happy to amplify his work on this blog to the extent I can.

Read more at Manhattan Contrarian