Written by Greg Corombos,

The climate-change movement is being rocked by another major ethical scandal that journalists and some climate scientists say could serve to expose the movement as “one of the greatest scientific scandals of all time.” climate cover up

The latest blow against the credibility of the of those demanding urgent, sweeping political change in response to human activity allegedly threatening the sustainability of earth appeared in Saturday’s edition of the London Daily Telegraph. Columnist Christopher Booker cites the work of Paul Homewood on his “Not A Lot of People Know That” climate blog.

Two weeks earlier, Booker noted that Homewood compared the original temperatures recorded at weather stations in Paraguay over a 60-year period with the numbers now being used in climate reports.

“In each instance, the actual trend of 60 years of data had been dramatically reversed, so that a cooling trend was changed to one that showed a marked warming,” wrote Booker.

In the new piece, Booker reports on Homewood’s research into the original and revised data at many other South American weather stations.

“In each case he found the same suspicious one-way ‘adjustments,’” reported Booker.

According to Booker, Homewood is now studying similar data from arctic stations from Canada to Siberia.

“Again, in nearly every case, the same one-way adjustments have been made, to show warming up to 1 degree C or more higher than was indicated by the data that was actually recorded,” he wrote.

Homewood’s research shows a consistent changing of temperature data and always in a way that makes it appear the earth is growing warmer. Moreover, these changes were not made by obscure organizations. They were done through the U.S. government’s Global Historical Climate Network. Additional responsibility lies with the Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the National Climate Data Center.

Climate scientists who do not buy into the global analysis on climate change say this manipulation is a devastating indictment of the movement.

“It’s enormously significant because the whole thrust of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is supposedly the official source of climate change data, have been saying that currently it is warmer than it has ever been in the historic record or the instrumental record,” said Tim Ball, a former professor of climatology and author of “The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science.”*

Ball [co-founder and inaugural chairman of Principia Scientific International] said while Homewood’s discoveries does not amount to breaking news, the reporting by the Telegraph is monumental.

“There’s nothing new about this, other than that it’s finally got into the mainstream media, but only into the conservative mainstream media because the Telegraph is a conservative newspaper in Britain,” Ball explained.

Ball elaborated on the temperature fudging that he says has been happening for quite a while.

“This adjustment of the historic record has been going on for a very long time,” he said. “It started with the elimination of a period known as the Medieval Warm Period a thousand years ago, when it was warmer than today.”

Nonetheless, he said Homewood has uncovered valuable evidence of a massive scientific and political con job.

“What is now being disclosed by Homewood, but has been disclosed by others long before this, is that they are adjusting the modern instrumental temperature record so that the older records appear colder than they actually were,” Ball said. “What that does is that it changed the gradient or slope of the temperature increase, making it look like the warming is much greater than it actually is. So this is what’s going on.”

*Read in more detail from Dr Tim Ball’s book:

Ball said the scientific history of events like the Medieval Warm Period is a major problem for activists looking to convince people that human industrial activity over the past few hundred years is responsible for record-high temperatures. So, he said, they’ve determined to rewrite history.

“They’ve got to keep saying, ‘Oh no, it’s warmer now than it’s ever been,’ Ball said. “So anything that suggests it was warmer in the past must be eliminated. So they created the infamous ‘hockey stick,’ which essentially rewrote the historic record.”

Homewood’s research and Booker’s reporting have the potential of making this the biggest scandal since the revealed emails from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia, in which climate scientists allegedly admitted to manipulating data to reach preferred conclusions. Ball said this new potential scandal could actually be bigger. He said most people couldn’t decipher the contents of the emails very easily, but the temperature changes are a very different story.

“This kind of thing is much more clear,” he said. “When you start changing numbers and you can show that it’s clearly deliberate and it’s clearly all in one direction … this is much more understandable to the public.”

Ball [co-founder of Principia Scientific International] expects even more evidence of unethical science to be revealed before long.

“It isn’t just that they lowered the historic temperature,” he said. “They also reduced the number of stations that they were using to determine the global temperature. They argued that in vast areas, where you only have one or two stations, that one station was representative of the temperature in a 1,200 kilometer radius. I mean it’s absolutely outrageous what they’ve done.”

But far from deflating the climate-change movement, Ball said revelations like the ones from Homewood will only intensify efforts to enact sweeping policy changes in the U.S. and beyond.

“Look for a cover-up because there’s huge volumes of money involved,” he said. “There are political implications with this [and] with Obama with climate change as the key thing. Now they’ve got the pope involved in it. So there will be a scramble to counteract this. I mean a real vigorous scramble.”

So how will climate-change activists fight back against these revelations? Ball expects the same tactics he’s witnessed through the decades in this debate.

“They tell lies,” he said. “They come out and say severe weather has increased when it hasn’t. They say that the temperature is continuing to increase when it hasn’t. They just tell lies about it, and that’s what’s going on. Of course, as everybody knows, it’s not the original crime that gets you in trouble. It’s the cover-up.”

“Once the cover-up is exposed, you’re done,” Ball said.

At the end of his column in Saturday’s Telegraph, Booker says, “This really does begin to look like one of the greatest scientific scandals of all time.”

Ball agrees.

“I do think this is the greatest deception in history, as I say in my book. There have been scandals in history, but they’ve been regional or they’ve only impacted certain areas. This whole climate thing has had a global impact on energy and government policies around the world,” he said. “So it really is the biggest deception in history. There’s so much money and so many political careers riding on this that it’s going to be a battle royale.”

*For in-depth analysis read Dr Tim Ball’s book:


Comments (7)

  • Avatar



    …and so they voices from the IPCC themselves:
    “To leave no doubt, in an interview published in the Neue Zürcher Zeitung on 14 November 2010, Ottmar Edenhofer, co-chair of IPCC Working Group III, said “The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War…. one must say clearly that de facto we redistribute the world’s wealth by climate policy…. One has to rid oneself of the illusion that international climate politics have anything to do with environmental concerns.” Full story at:

  • Avatar



    Who is to really blame for this temperature data fraud?

    When it comes to the reduced number of surface stations used, the manipulators pass the buck to the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO).

    The WMO is the UN organization, together with the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP), that set up the IPCC.

    Both the WMO and UNEP, of course, support the catastrophic man-made global warming hypothesis of the IPCC.

    Its really like scientific incest!!!!!!

  • Avatar



    “Greenhouse gases like water vapor” What do you mean by “greenhouse gases”? I was lead to believe you thought there was no such thing as the “greenhouse” effect, so what the hell are you talking about when you say..”greenhouse” gases like water vapour?
    “diffusive and conductive heat transfers into the surface”
    What absolute and total crap you’re spouting. You’re telling us that the atmosphere has some “diffusive and conductive.!!” capabilities which transfers heat into the surface!!!? Wow, you are in the “Greenhouse” brigade after all. Rope a dope, You’re posting at the wrong blog. Actually, no, keep posting here,’s fun,…I think.
    And here on Earth we have this “diffusive” and “conductive” action by the atmosphere which penetrates down to the core to keep it nice and hot.
    Yeeaahh, That’s right. you’ve only got 168w/sq.m. of solar radiation striking the surface, so all that “diffusivity” and “conductivity” must be what’s required to power that 50% nuclear reactor we have at the Earth’s Are you sure it’s not “backradiation”? There are people who believe that “backradiation” warms the surface of the Earth, but there are none so looney who would say that “conductivity” and “diffusibility” from the atmosphere would maintain Earth’s core temps. That’s you, isn’t it?
    Hell, even me bothering to answer you ,I find myself thinking about the “physics” you write and seriously wondering whether your crackpot theory is dangerously contagious to my sanity.

  • Avatar

    Wendy Thompson


    The current “cooling trend” (or pause) is due to the fact that the superimposed 60-year natural cycle is declining for 30 years, whereas the long-term (934-year) cycle is still increasing until about the year 2059, after which nearly 500 years of cooling will lead to another “Little Ice Age” no warmer than the last. These cycles are seen quite clearly in the inverted plot of the scalar sum of the angular momentum of the Sun and all the planets. Glacial cycles are regulated by the roughly 100,000 year cycles in Earth’s eccentricity, due primarily to the gravitational pull from Jupiter. Variations in eccentricity affect the annual mean distance from the Sun, and thus the intensity of insolation. Meanwhile magnetic fields from the planets also affect Sun spot activity and cosmic rays intensity, this affecting the Earth’s albedo due to variations in cloud cover.

    So there you have it in a nutshell and carbon dioxide has nothing to do with it. Greenhouse gases like water vapor do not warm the surface by 33 degrees and rain forests are thus not 30 degrees hotter than much drier regions. Instead, gravity induces a temperature gradient (as per the Second Law propensity towards maximum entropy) which enables diffusive and convective heat transfers into the surface that raise its temperature above the effective radiating temperature of Earth, and likewise for other planets and moons with significant atmospheres.

  • Avatar



    Sooner or later the truth always comes out … in this case, its come out prematurely, ten months before the Paris Climate Conference is due to be held this coming December.

    It truly is the greatest scientific scandal and fraud ever perpetrated on the world. Unfortunately, it is just too big a fraud to fail. Besides, these climate change charlatans need to get a signed agreement in Paris, and if that fails, they will just keep trying until they finally do get an international agreement on fossil fuel energy. Time is on their side. The science is irrelevant, and cooling weather by Mother Nature will be irrelevant. It’s all due to climate change!!!!!!!

    So, they will just keep on manipulating the temperature data and continue engaging in misleading and deceptive conduct. The sad thing is that governments are in on it, and so we should not expect things to change. After all, what does it matter … tax payers are paying for this scandal.

    • Avatar




      That’s all well and good, but at the end of the day, [b]someone[/b] will have to pay! … If I were one of these climate charlatans, I would be [b]very[/b] afraid for my life right now. There [b]will[/b] be those that will not be so kind when they finally realize they have been taken for a [b]massive[/b] ride down the road to slavery. It will not be pretty in the end.

  • Avatar



    The models are wrong because of the initial assumption that without GH gases the troposphere would have been isothermal. We know this assumption is made because we know the 255K temperature is at about 5Km altitude, and yet they say the surface would have been the same 255K. From there they get their sensitivity by assuming water vapor makes rain forests about 30 to 40 degrees hotter than dry regions and carbon dioxide adds a bit of warming also. In fact none of that happens.

    The assumption regarding isothermal conditions is inherently applying the Clausius “hot to cold” statement which is just a corollary of the Second Law which only applies in a horizontal plane. That we know because it is clearly specified (as here) that the entropy equation is derived by assuming that changes in molecular gravitational potential energy can be ignored. It is those changes which actually cause the temperature gradient to evolve, so we must always remember that sensible heat transfers are not always from warmer to cooler regions in a vertical plane in a gravitational field
    So they cannot prove that the Clausius statement they use to get their assumed isothermal conditions is correct in a vertical column of a planet’s troposphere, and so they cannot prove the fundamental building block upon which they built the GH conjecture.

    Any questions are probably already answered here:

Comments are closed