The great conspiracy to destroy freedom, sabotage the USA, increase taxes, undermine the economy, institute world government based on socialism with Al Gore as dictator, and of course … drive us all back to the stone age

It’s all a conspiracy of lies, deceit, greed for money and power, and hatred of all the USA stands for. It’s nothing but an attempt to destroy our freedom!

Because if fossil-fuel industry profits aren’t safe, then we aren’t safe.

And one of the most important conspirators is NASA. Specifically, the evildoers at GISS: the Goddard Institute for Space Studies. The folks at GISS have been fudging the numbers, and I’ve uncovered their dirty little secret. They apply “adjustments” to the raw data (which they get from a number of sources, but mainly the Global Historical Climate Network) which they’ve cleverly manipulated to make the global temperature trend — if there even is such a thing! — seem different than what the plain old data say.

Case in point: Tokyo. It’s one of the world’s great cities, and you’d think that with so many scientists and engineers in Japan that they’d be able to read a thermometer. In fact they can, and this is what the thermometer has to say about the temperature changes in Tokyo over the last 130 years:

Tokyo has warmed a lot. And you don’t even need a thermometer to know that — just ask the people who live there. Or check the dates of the flowering of the cherry blossoms.

But what has NASA GISS done with this plain, honest, simple record of data? Why, they’ve “adjusted” it of course! They’ve mangled it, manipulated it, worked their wickedness, until they made it look like this:

My God! What kind of evil heart would motivate those mad-brained miscreants so to distort the truth? How empty are such souls, as can twist innocent numbers to their perverted ends? Alas! Alack! See for yourself the “adjustments” these charlatans have applied:

Yes, the madmen have applied an artificial “trend” of 1.9 deg.C cooling, to offset most of the warming in the Tokyo record. But they won’t get away with it. We’ve got our eyes on you!

Foul deeds will rise, though all the earth o’erwhelm them, to men’s eyes.

48 responses to “The great conspiracy to destroy freedom, sabotage the USA, increase taxes, undermine the economy, institute world government based on socialism with Al Gore as dictator, and of course … drive us all back to the stone age

  1. Also, Al Gore is fat.

  2. Absolutely shocking! Keep up the great work Tamino. You are all that stands between us and Al Gore’s communist-nazi-islamofascist FEMA-run death camps! VIVA LA CO2!

  3. This can’t be correct. uWatts tells us, with examples!, that GISS is corrupt, all temperature stations are misplaced and the adjustments all bias towards warming! You must have read the data wrong.

  4. Tamino – can you separate the analysis pre and post WW2? I presume that Tokyo was rebuilt in a significantly different manner to what was originally there (both in terms of building materials and perhaps population density).

    Judging from your last graph, the adjustments began during the Meiji restoration which created increased industralization from the early 20th century .

    I wonder if anyone has done any investigations into UHI effects for traditional Japanese architecture (i.e. predominantly wooden) versus concrete, brick and asphalt.

  5. Very nice, keep up the good work.
    It realy illustrates how well the temperature stations have been corrected.
    For wind speeds, data from a wind anemometer has to be adjusted for all its directions as the influence of terrain roughness, shielding and topographic effects (hills) is taken into account. This brings all stations into a comparable format so that wind speeds can be compared. Just the same adjustments are required for temperature data when we are looking for trends in the data.

  6. The guys at NASA aren’t stupid. They managed to fake the moon landings after all. Of course they would correct some stations downward, to be able to use these as examples that nothing sinister is going on.


  7. What a scam. This just shows the uncertainty in the temperatures – if the range of doubt in the Tokyo record is alomst 2 degrees then we could just as easily be seeing a cooling trend. The GREAT GLOBAL WARMING HOAX is unravelling day by day.
    (Apologies for the accuracy in spelling – I must be having a bad day.)

  8. Gavin's Pussycat

    You forgot the all-caps in the header… and where are the exclamation marks?!!!!

  9. OK JeffId, how did you get in there and what have you done with Tamino?

    More seriously: which source data did you use for each graph?

  10. These figures from NASA are very weird.
    Did you scandisk your computer before downloading the raw data?
    Watts is gonna have a fit if he ever reads this.

  11. Tamino,

    You only chose Tokyo so you obviously are cherry blossom-picking!

  12. Looks like GISS has built itself a (prolly slippery) stairway to Hell.

    Horatio is just glad to know he’ll be in good company.

  13. Shocked, shocked, to see a website advocating, well, whatever the heck it is:

  14. But there’s wisdom to be found if you keep looking:

  15. We demand that you immediately release all the data you used to construct this graph, AND all the code you wrote to process the data!

    • And a picture of the weather station for every day a reading was taken. And we want you to prove that you calibrated the thermometer to a precision of 0.00001K before every measurement. And we want you to prove that there was no external heat source – air conditioners, cars, people, mice, small insects – within a kilometer of the station when the reading was taken.

      And if you can’t do all of this then global warming isn’t happening and it’s the sun anyway.

  16. Tamino, I love your common sense analysis. But what’s the point of this post? I want more!

  17. Well, cooling kills more people than warming, so of course GISS wants it colder.

    They’re out to get us!!!

    (The Japanese, too, evidently!!!!!)

  18. A bit OT, but what happens to older blog entries on Open Mind? I had a link to a couple of good pieces (at least one from 2008) on my blog, and now they throw “page not found” errors. Thanks.

  19. Its good to see this blog joining the brigade of LIGHT at last. You will be soon joining the ranks of bloggers like:
    The Climate Scum
    “Bloviations from a blog baron about the climate scum like Al Gore who try to pull a scam on mankind! My motto: Infinitus est numerus stultorum”

    • Yes, a commendable first attempt. But all the graphs are a bit dry; a funny picture or two would improve things immeasurably. And the overall tone seems far too polite – after all, Al Gore is fat.

  20. Tamino, I hate to spoil the excitement, but it’s quite clear that you have your spreadsheet upside-down.

  21. All your weather base are belong to us.

  22. Good work in exposing the coolies, Tamino.

    It is shameful that NASA continues these shenanigans to perpetuate the Myth of Global Cooling. For 40 years this has been allowed to go on. Anthropogenic aerosol cooling is a hoax. It’s time to elect politicians that will set the science straight.

    No wonder the coolies are trying to reframe the discussion from Global Cooling to Climate Change.

  23. “(Side note: for us realist-paranoids means “rally-my-ass-off” for the Colbert Nation. Clearly that means it will be a great way to trim those extra pounds! But for Stewart’s crowd of pinko namby-pambies, rallymao has another meaning! Did you notice the last three letters? It’s a code! Clearly, they’re congregating to support the murderous commie founder of Red China. Ooh, that burns, even worse than discovering that Che-Ney was Russian for the “new Che Guevarra.” And he seemed such a nice fellow!)”

  24. The fact that we haven’t bothered to find out why those adjustments are made is proof that it’s a scam.

    Why isn’t the mainstream media covering this? Where’s the BBC???

  25. Glad to see the truth come out. Now we can move on to more important things. NUKE THE WHALES

  26. Tamino, nice to see some humour here. We can’t eat steak and potatoes every meal!

  27. Dick Veldkamp


    In this case, what’s the reason for the -seemingly rather large- correction? Or are you just pulling our collective leg?

    [Response: The adjustment is designed to correct for urban heat island effect (UHI). It’s based on a weighted mean trend of data from nearby rural stations.]

  28. The issue I take is when people think they can just phase all fossil fule use out completely and power the world on clean renewables only. That we cannot do. We also have a guranteed 100 years left at minimum of oil and something like 1000 years left of coal to use with hundreds of years of natural gas. Thus we can more logically and scientifically engineer and site proper windmills, solar panels, and improve the efficiency of soiler boilers while still using the necessary fossil fuels. Coal for instance is the most energy efficient electric source in the world, meaning it is more efficient than even nuclear. Coal is far more effecient in terms of BTU’s per unit mass (usually Kilograms is used as the mass measure) and so is very important to the world.

    Oil provides for hundreds of lubricants we cannot currently otherwise produce as well.

    • David B. Benson

      The September 2009 issure of \Scientific American\ contains aqn article stating that peak crude oil will occur in 2014 CE and, according to CalTech Professor David Rutledge, peak coal will happen maybe two decades later.

      Coal burning is one of the least thermally efficient ways to produce electricity, about the same as nuclear. The difference is that coal burning creates CO2 and nuclear fission does not.

      Many of these issues have been thrashed out on
      where looking through prior threads will repay your time.

    • Not this again.

      You’re just a fossil fuel shill – whether you know it or not. And your post, yet again, is riddled with errors. We can rely on renewables. The timescale is up to us. Nuclear fuel is far more efficient than coal – I have no idea how you cooked up that nonsense.

      And synthetic oils can, at need, be created from organic material. That is, fresher organic material than fossil fuels!

      I’m struggling to find anything that you got right.

      Are you real, or are you just someone’s poor joke?

    • 100 years of oil?

      We currently use circa 30 Billion barrels per year. If we assume that the world uses oil at European levels for most of the next century – assuming the full economic development of India and China – we would need to roughly triple that figure, to 100 Billion barrels per year. If you then want this to last for a century, you need to find 10 Trillion barrels; more than every identified resource (conventional, oil sands, oil ‘shales’, etc) put together, assuming 100% recovery and no rate constraints.

      Under any realistic scenario, the capacity constraints that have been evident for perhaps 5 years now will likely remain in place and grow more severe.

  29. Jakob,
    I think your estimates of reserves do not take into account the exponential growth of consumption, decreased efficiency as we move away from prime fuels and increased energy cost of recovery. I would be surprised if we had over 100 years of fossil fuels left. Moreover:
    1)petroleum is too valuable as a feed stock for chemicals to burn
    2) If we did burn all the fossil fuels, we would render our world practically uninhabitable over much of its surface for humans.

    Somehow, we have to develop a sustainable economy. This ought to be so obvious that it is a tautology. After all, any energy resources that are not sustainable are by definition finite and nonrenewable. I don’t see a way around it. Do you?

    • Somehow, we have to develop a sustainable economy. This ought to be so obvious that it is a tautology.

      That’s the key to everything. And for that to happen we have to ditch the neoclassical economic concept of unending exponential growth. Right now everybody is looking at the symptoms, but this economic concept is at the root of most, if not all, of them.

  30. JM: The issue I take is when people think they can just phase all fossil fule use out completely and power the world on clean renewables only. That we cannot do.

    BPL: Yes, we can. Not immediately, but we can. In fact, we have to.

  31. “Or check the dates of the flowering of the cherry blossoms.

    I did. But I didn’t find any Little Ice Age there. Whatsup? Look!

    I always knew that it was a hoax.

    • Cool. Or actually, warm.

    • Kaj Luuko.

      I’m not sure if you are actually interpreting the cherry data properly – I’m a bit leary of Poes theses days…

      The y axis shows the number of days from the beginning of each year to the annual flowering of the cherries in Kyoto. Cherry blossoming is closely related to temperature, so the sooner the blossoming, the warmer the spring temperature.

      If one converts the blossoming date to a mean temperature proxy, it is quite easy to see both mediæval warmth and a later ‘Little ice Age’. I constructed such a graph, last month to demonstrate the dubious nature of Loehle’s millenial reconstruction compaered to that of Ljungqvist.

      As I said, the cherry blossom data hint at both a warm mediæval period and a subsequent cold one. They also show that the recent warming trend in temperature is unprecedented in more than a thousand years.

  32. and Ray, if the Russians are right about adiabitic (sp?) oil? Then what?

  33. You are clearly wrong! You obviously do not even know what Tokyo looks like. I’ve fixed your graph:

    As you must have failed to notice, the red line, which I think is temperature, clearly shows an increase in the temperature!

    I’ll tell this to La Ogre

  34. Dave DeAngelis

    I will apologize in advance for the following, but perhaps one of you learned folk can help me:

    I had read somewhere on the web (sorry not real helpful) an article (maybe 6 months ago) that I had thought would become central to the entire “Greenhouse Gas” theory and debate. I’ve looked through all my notes, since more has not arisen on the subject, but I cannot find anything, perhaps it was a posting here? The gist was:

    Oxygen (O2) has a heat adsorption signature and Nitrogen (N2) does as well. I had even thought their values were close to each other… CO2 has a higher value than either. This article then said, “but an mixture of 20% O2, with 80% O2 gives a value oddly close to that of CO2 as mixtures of gases are strange things”. When I read this, it made sense with my view of a robust atmosphere where CO2 moving from 0.00285% (do I have enough zeros? maybe need one more?) up to 0.00365% would have little if any effect on the atmosphere’s overall heat trapping signature. If the “gist” above is corrent, then the increase would have essentially NO effect.

    Are you familiar with where I might have read that statement? I had thought it was blogged, but included credits and references to a published scientific journal article, maybe three joint authors… I AM 46 years old, so my mind could very well be slipping or “creating” details to bolster a false memory… If you know, please enlighten me and I’ll bookmark it for educational discussions with wrongheaded colleagues…


    • Hi Dave,

      I think what you may have seen was something about the heat capacity of carbon dioxide — which is quite small given how little of it there is in our atmosphere, particularly relative to nitrogen and oxygen which are the main atmospheric constituents — and the absorption spectra of carbon dioxide — which like water vapor and methane is a greenhouse gas.

      Nitrogen and oxygen are incapable of absorbing infrared radiation. The reason for this is that they are symmetric diatomic molecules (N2 and O2) and as such have no electric dipole — that is, essentially a separation between their positive and negative charges.

      The absorption of electromagnetic radiation by a molecule — such that it enters a quantized state of excitation — requires this sort of separation for the absorption of electromagnetic waves — or alternatively, photons. Likewise the emission of electromagnetic radiation by a molecule requires this separation.

      So what happens is this… A greenhouse gas molecule will absorb thermal radiation within certain bands — where the bands are determined by the quantized states of excitation. These states of excitation will be vibrational, (either stretching or bending) rotating, or ro(tational)-vibrational.

      However, assuming you have a high enough atmospheric pressure the energy that is absorbed is lost due to collisions before the quantized state of excitation has a chance to spontaneously decay. So the energy that was absorbed becomes thermal energy which is distributed between the various gases — including the gases that are not greenhouse gases.

      However, so long as this energy is held by gases that are not greenhouse gases it cannot be radiated away as they are as incapable of radiating infrared thermal radiation as they are of absorbing this radiation. And yet the only way this thermal energy is going to escape to space is as thermal radiation.

      So thats where the greenhouse gas molecules come in again. Given the distribution of thermal energy in the atmosphere there will always be a certain percentage of greenhouse gas molecules that are in any given state of excitation. Furthermore, a given state of excitation has no memory of how long it has been in existence. As such over any given period of time a certain percentage of greenhouse gas molecules in a given state of excitation will undergo spontaneous radiative decay.

      That is the role that greenhouse gas molecules play: they both absorb thermal radiation from the surface and from the rest of the atmosphere (e.g., other greenhouse gas molecules as well as clouds) and they emit the radiation. Of course thermal energy is although transferred to the atmosphere by means of thermals and moist air convection. But nothing can get thermal energy to space except for thermal radiation — either from the surface or the atmosphere. Not thermals, not moist air convection, not nitrogen and oxygen.

      Now if you increase the concentration of carbon dioxide you will increase the absorption of thermal radiation by the atmosphere. This means that on average the height from which such radiation will finally be radiated without undergoing absorption and will thereby escape to space will be higher in the atmosphere. And at least within the troposphere the temperature falls with altitude.

      This implies that at least initially the temperature of the carbon dioxide that emits the photons that finally escape to will be cooler. And given the fact that it is cooler, just as a hot iron glows bright but glows less and less as it cools the carbon dioxide will glow in the infrared less brightly than the carbon dioxide below. The carbon dioxide that is responsible for radiating the thermal radiation to space will have to warm up, and given the increased distance to the surface and a constant rate at which temperature drops with increasing altitude this will imply that the surface must warm, too.

      A bit complicated, I know. But it has virtually nothing to do with the heat capacity of greenhouse gases — as the thermal energy is distributed among all the gas molecules that constitute the atmosphere. Instead the critical role that greenhouse gases play is in the absorption and emission of thermal radiation.

      Anyway, the scientists know what they are talking about. We have been studying the radiative properties of greenhouse gases since the 1800s. We know that without greenhouse gases the temperature of the average temperature of the Earth would be about -18°C instead of 14°C. Since the early 20th Century (largely with the advent of quantum mechanics) we have understood the role of quantized states of molecular excitation in determining the radiative properties of greenhouse gases.

      We are able to measure the radiation spectra of visible light. We are able to measure the radiation spectra of thermal radiation as it escapes to space. We are able to identify the radiation absorption signatures of the greenhouse gases by the bites they take out of the thermal radiation the Earth emits into space. We are even able to measure the mid-troposphere concentration of carbon dioxide by means of the increased absorption of thermal radiation at the relevant wavelengths.

      Thats what you see when you look at my avatar — an image of the distribution of carbon dioxide in the mid-troposphere in July of 2003. To learn a little more — even see a video showing how carbon dioxide absorbs infrared in the lab — pass your cursor over my avatar and click on the link that says “About my avatar…” I will be including more information over time.

  35. @Dave DeAngelis: You can find lots of things written on websites, such as designs of machines that work forever without fuel, foolproof plans on how anyone can become a millionaire in a year and so on. What you read in that website is similar to these.

    There is no debate about the direction of climate science. If you want to educate yourself what climate science says, spend a bit of time at

    The whole debate by the deniers is manufactured. Read the books Doubt is their Product (most of it free) at
    Climate Cover-Up at

    If you prefer watching to reading, watch (Astro) Turf Wars,

    Climate science is climate science, and the noise you may hear is manufactured by the deniers.

  36. Are you familiar with where I might have read that statement?

    I’d guess either The Onion or Energy and Environment, both about equally credible, though only one intentionally …

  37. Dave DeAngelis,

    N2 and O2 don’t absorb much infrared; CO2 does. Heat capacity doesn’t much enter into it; it’s an entirely different concept.

  38. Dave, another approach to the science is historical. You can try approach, if you like, with this series: