According to NOAA the rate of global warming from 1880 to 2018 was only 0.70 degrees Celsius per century and would have been less had they not increased all the recorded temperatures from 2001 to 2013. Even with the changes to their temperature data, it was nowhere near the 1.36 degrees Celsius per century rate of warming in the period between 1910-1945, almost twice the overall warming rate.

The anomalies, above/below 13.90 C, the average twentieth century global temperature over land and ocean, in NOAA Climate Reports from 2001 to 2013 were increased from an average of 55.4 C to 61.7 C. In the same period, from 2001 to 2013, the UK Met Office had recorded an average anomaly of 48.61 C.

1910-1945 1.36 C/100 yrs  Click to enlarge

1880- 2018  0.7 C/100 yrs  Click to enlarge






Anomalies appear to have been changed towards the end of the decade, some by as much as 0.08 C, when their list of hottest years summaries were published in the lead up to the Paris Conference in 2015. You have to question why there were no alterations to their data sets in past years if their methodology was flawed and not just those that had indicated there was no significant warming trend for 17-18 years.



Met Office Data     Click to Enlarge

the UK Met Office, whose recorded anomalies for the period between 2001-2013 showed an average of 48.60 C, had refused to budge on changing any of its data which had confirmed there was no warming trend in period leading up to the Paris conference after all. With the Paris conference looming there were several theories to explain the missing heat one was that the planet was still warming and the heat had simply gone into the lower depths of the ocean, to the rescue came NOAA’s senior officer Thomas Karl who announced there was an update of the agencies climate data set which now shows a perfectly consistent warming trend over the period.

Whitney Webb of Environmental News wrote: Potentially explosive allegations have surfaced casting doubt on the validity of critical climate change data published by NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) that subsequently influenced multi-billion dollar decisions made by world leaders at the 2015 Paris Climate Conference.

NOAA Raised Temp   Click to Enlarge

John Bates, former NOAA Meteorology Principal Scientist and winner of the US Department of Commerce Gold Medal in 2014 for his work in preservation of climate data records, published a bombshell post titled Climate Scientists Versus Climate Data, on the climate change blog Climate Etc., lampooning the seminal climate change work of former director of the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) Tom Karl.

0.64 C/Century 1880-2013    Click to enlarge

Bates claims to have extensive documentation proving that Karl made, ”decisions that maximize warming and minimize documentation. “ The report in question was published by the journal Science on Jun 4, 2015, just five months before the 2105 United Nations Climate Change Conference. The Karl report directly refuted the somewhat inconvenient 2013 UN IPCC (United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) report also known as the Fifth Assessment Report, which concluded that rate of global warming decreased from 1998-2012 when compared to the global warming trend from 1951-2012. The phenomenon was dubbed the “global warming hiatus”.

NOAA was quick to applaud the study on its website stating of the Karl paper shortly after it was published, “A new study published online today in the journal Science finds that the rate of global warming during the last 15 years has been as fast as or faster than that seen during the latter half of the 20th Century. The study refutes the notion that there has been a slowdown or “hiatus” in the rate of global warming in recent years.”

The report’s ultimate validation, however, was its influence on the 2015 UN Climate Change Conference. In his blog post Dr. Bates writes, “Gradually, in the months after K15 [Tom Karl’s paper] came out, the evidence kept mounting that Tom Karl constantly had his ‘thumb on the scale’—in the documentation, scientific choices, and release of datasets—in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming hiatus and rush to time the publication of the paper to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy.” Indeed, world leaders have pledged hundreds of billions of dollars to support climate change research.

It bears mentioning that despite the unexpected results of the Fifth Assessment Report, the overall conclusion of scientists at that time remained dire stating that, “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia.” They also stated that,” Human influence on the climate system is clear. This is evident from the increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, positive radiative forcing, observed warming, and understanding of the climate system.” In effect, apart from the assertions of the Karl paper, the larger facts surrounding climate change remain the same according to the mainstream scientific consensus.

The conclusions drawn by Bates included recommendations for beefing up legislation regarding the archiving of federal climate data sets (the issue at the heart of Karl’s alleged malfeasance), enforcement of such legislation and, “a renewed effort by scientists and scientific societies to provide training and conduct more meetings on ethics.”

The wider significance of these allegations, however, cannot be understated given the current political climate. Climate scientists and policy makers fear the current administration’s efforts to undermine federal and international efforts addressing climate change could have long standing detrimental environmental effects. The Trump administration’s position on climate change have been made clear through their actions during Trump’s first week in office. For example, the EPA was ordered to remove its page on climate change. (The order has since been suspended.) Trump has openly tweeted his belief that climate change is a hoax stating, “The concept of global warming was create by and for the Chinese in order to make US manufacturing non-competitive.” It remains to be seen how the Bates allegations will affect the heated public debate. As of the writing of this article, Trump has not tweeted or publicly stated anything regarding this latest development on the climate change debate.


  1. Cardigan says:

    Professor Ridd, another whistle blower, was sacked from the James Cook University because he allowed material to be published accusing the university of bias in their studies of the great Barrier Reef. The matter is now up to the high court to decide whether the professor should be reinstated.

  2. Non Believer says:

    It beats me why these climate scientists say that carbon dioxide will produce a climate catastrophe, even though there is no evidence to support despite decades of flat temperatures and even years of cooling when CO2 had increased. There are many possible reasons for the data corruption, including sheer financial and career self-interest including scientists who don’t accept the alarmist paradigm but would lose research grants and career opportunities would disappear if they question “the science”

  3. Concerned says:

    They claim there has been no unusual warming in the USA but that is not to say that the rest of the globe is not warming. The USA is only very small percentage of surface area of the world so whether or not they have the most thermometers there is beside the point. The issue is we have only 12 years left to save the world from a climate catastrophe.

  4. Elmer Gantry says:

    When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, When I became a man, I put away childish things,
    St Paul, First Corinthians.

  5. Rhonda says:

    Both NOAA and Met Office data sets show the world is warming so it doesn’t matter what method of measuring temperature they are using the world is still cooking. This is the final call for us to act on climate change, we must all find ways in which to reduce our emissions, we have only 12 years.

  6. Geraldine says:

    I know there have been a lot of statements over previous years about our last chance to avoid a climate catastrophe but this time its true we have less than 12 years to reduce emissions otherwise the climate will be out of control.

  7. Cynical says:

    “Lifestyle changes that can make a big difference, said Dr Debra Roberts, the IPCC’s other co-chair.
    “You might say you don’t have control over land use, but you do have control over what you eat and that determines land use” “Buy less meat, milk, cheese and butter and more locally sourced seasonal food – and throw less of it away • drive electric cars but walk or cycle short distances • take trains and buses instead of planes • use video conferencing instead of business travel • use a washing line instead of a tumble dryer • insulate homes • demand low carbon in every consumer product”
    Not a word about overpopulation or the plastic pollution of our oceans!

  8. Russell says:

    The Met Office data shows a much lower anomaly reading for 1944 at 0.144 C than NOAA who recorded 0.29 C, more than double that of Met Office. Both can’t be right!

  9. Talford says:

    Our weather forecasters cannot accurately predict the weather for next month so only a fool would claim to predict climate variations years in advance let alone claiming to be able to regulate world temperatures.

  10. Reader Comment says:

    That the AWG climate change is a political idea rather than a scientific one can clearly be shown by researching the very beginnings of the appointment of the IPCC by the UN back in the late 1980’s.

    The UN asked the new panel to determine whether the current warming trend was influenced perhaps by humans. The IPCC behaved as scientists back then, and reported back that no definitive warming trend could be determined at that time, let alone any human effect. This was not the answer globalists wanted, and pressure was put on the panel to give the UN something with which to formulate policy. The scientists insisted they would need a decade or two before clear evidence was available.

    Well, we now know the outcome of relentless and powerful political pressure. The IPCC was juggled and manipulated until the desired report was eventually written. The rest is recent history, as the models failed, the alarmism became more shrill, and the climate champions entrenched themselves with political correctness and shouting down those with doubts and questions. All this information is available to anyone who cares to do a little research.
    I found these comments to a major newspaper sent in by a person called Andre.

  11. Florida Mansions says:

    Commenting on the report, Telegraph columnist James Delingpole said: “All the computer models the IPCC has used in its 25 years have predicted global warming much greater than has been observed”
    “This represents a problem because what it means is all these insistent claims they have been making that we need to take urgent measures now to deal with this unprecedented problem seem to be based on junk science”.

    “The IPCC stands or falls on its computer models. There is no other evidence out there that global warming is any kind of problem. That it exists only in the imagination of the people who programme those computer models and the scientists who contribute to the theory that anthropogenic CO2 is a problem”.

  12. Courvent says:

    Anyone who watched sixty minutes last Sunday would have been shocked at the volume of plastic rubbish we are exporting to Malaysia for recycling.
    Why are our students not protesting about the garbage floating in our oceans which will have more plastic than fish long before the world has a one degree of naturally warming and why are they not talking about the elephant in the room……. overpopulation?

  13. Noholme says:


    The Met Office were concerned about the temperature rise “blip” of the 1940’s and decided to reduce it. They they did that by reducing it to 0.144 C (see the Met Office Data Set above) compared to NOAA and NASA who retained it at 0.29 C and 0.21 C respectively.

  14. John Arnold says:


    The above link by NOAA is quite brilliant. Type in any period of years you wish and you will get a list of all the anomalies for those years plus a graph showing the trend line of the rate of warming per decade or century.
    The problem is that ALL of the temperature anomalies from 2001 to 2013 that are listed below the graphs do not match any of the NOAA climate reports for that period. Some of years have been raised by as much as 0.08 C. Check it yourself…go to NOAA Climate Reports and type in the year.
    Unfortunately the climate reports only go back to 1997 when NOAA discovered they were using the wrong baseline and reported a temperature for that year nearly three times what it is today. This is why they have not published the data of previous years…disappointing for people who have supported the theory.

    • Grace White says:

      The anomaly for 1997 in the NOAA climate report was 0.42 C which has been increased to 0.52 C. It also listed the temperature for 1997 at 62.45 F which is 16.91 C, three degrees warmer than the 20th century average of 13.90 C. Previous years’s reports are not shown because they would have all been invalid.

    • N Wilson says:

      This is the first time I have seen NOAA’s earlier anomaly data because their online climate reports only go back as far as 1997, the year they mistakenly recorded a temperature of three degrees Celsius above normal when they used the wrong baseline, so we don’t know whether prior reports had been altered too.
      The Met Office anomaly data showed no warming in the period 2001-20013 but had not been taken into account when the Paris conference participants accepted NOAA’s amended data.

  15. N C says:

    I cannot understand what the fuss is all about both NOAA and Met Office data sets show warming but neither show enough increase to justify all these draconian measures the IPCC suggest,especially when China and United States are doing nothing.

  16. Keith says:

    They begin by making falsehood appear like truth, and end by making truth itself appear like falsehood…..Dryden

  17. Talford says:

    If the super El Nino periods in 1997-1998 and 2014-16 in NOAA’s original data were smoothed out to the average temperature readings, before and after their occurrence, there is very little warming.
    The anomalies in the NOAA climate reports for the years from 2001 to 2013 have all been increased in the latest graph. In particular 2005 has been increased by 0.08 C, from 0.58 C to o.66 C and 2011 by 0.07 C from 0.51 C to 0.58 C.

  18. Farmers says:

    Will the Chinese cattle stations in Australia have to reduce their herds to comply with our obligation to the Paris accord or is it only for Aussie farmers? How stupid are we to go along with this madness?

  19. Gavin says:

    Why is the right hand side of the graph shown in Fahrenheit when all the climate data sets use Celsius as their standard? They do show Celsius but only on the left hand side so if you want gauge the temperatures in Celsius you have to follow the faint line across to the left of the graph.
    It might seem a minor issue but it is clearly designed to exaggerate a minor warming trend.

  20. Name Withheld says:

    “All weather on Earth, from the surface of the planet out into space, begins with the Sun”.
    NASA have forecast cold weather to grip the world as the solar minimum is set to deepen.
    NASA explains on its website: “Space weather and terrestrial weather (the weather we feel at the surface) are influenced by the small changes the Sun undergoes during its solar cycle”.
    It would seem that the varying phases of the Sun, and not CO2 emissions, regulate global temperatures.
    I cannot understand why this has not been mentioned before we embarked on these severe measures that will ruin our economy. The biggest polluters: China, United States, Russia and India must be laughing!

Leave a Response

Currently you have JavaScript disabled. In order to post comments, please make sure JavaScript and Cookies are enabled, and reload the page. Click here for instructions on how to enable JavaScript in your browser.