NYTimes ‘Committing Massive Fraud’- Hides Climate Data
A software engineering expert and leading blogger on climate analyzed the “How Much Hotter Is Your Hometown Than When You Were Born?” page by the New York Times and concludes it’s a “massive fraud.”
Tony Heller’s Youtube video analysis so far has been viewed over 12,000 times since it came online two days ago.
Software engineering expert and publisher of the wildly popular Real Climate Science blog Tony Heller recently analyzed a web page by the New York Times that supposedly allows a reader to find out how much hotter his/her hometown is today than when he/she was born.
Heller presents his findings in the following video:
In the video, Heller exposes a number of grave and fatal infractions and says the New York Times page is fraught with deception. So massive are the transgressions that Heller concludes the page is “climate fraud”.
Data before 1960 “completely wrecks GW scam”
One example Heller cites is the starting point the New York Times uses for its data: 1960. The award-winning software expert asks why it starts only at 1960 when the US climate data goes way back to before 1900.
Here Heller uncovers the reason: It’s because the weather in the US back in the early part of the 20th century was in fact much hotter than it is today, and the New York Times doesn’t want its readers to see it.
The following chart shows the percentage of days above 90°F for all temperature stations in the US:
Image cropped here.
According to Heller: “No wonder the New York Times pretends there’s no data before 1960. It completely wrecks their global warming scam.”
Going back further — for example to the 1930s — would show readers that it was, in fact, hotter in the US back then than it is today. That’s the last thing the New York Times wants its readers to know.
New York Times claims are the opposite of reality
The New York Times page informs readers how many 90°+F days your hometown saw when you were born, and how many you can expect today and in the future.
So Heller uses the example of Mt. Vernon, Illinois, (2:30 mark) as an illustration. For Mt. Vernon, the New York Times claims we saw about 30 days of 90°F or higher back in 1960, and that today one could expect 41 such hot days.
But when Heller compared the New York Times claim to the real recorded data, he found the Times results were in fact completely wrong.
Chart source here.
The results show “the exact opposite of what the New York Times is claiming”, says Heller. Today Mt. Vernon, Illinois, sees only about 16 hot days a year, and not the 41 the New York Times claims we should be seeing now.
New York Times data “fake”
The New York Times also claims that the trend of more hot days in Mt. Vernon will continue upwards. The following is a blow-up of a part of a chart presented by Heller, with arrows added to compare the real and New York Times trends:
Chart cropped here.
Heller says: “The first thing to notice is the New York Times data from 1960 to the present is fake.”
“Massive fraud”… “want to deceive readers”
The veteran software engineer and data analysts believe: “Now it becomes obvious why the New York Times is hiding all temperatures before 1960 – because it was really hot back then. If they start at 1960, they can kind of pretend that the number of 90° days is going up. The New York Times is committing massive fraud.”
Heller adds that the people at the Times “show no interest in telling the truth.” and “want to deceive its readers.”
No correlation between hot days and atmospheric CO2
Heller also presents a scatter diagram depicting the number of 90°+F days in the US vs atmospheric CO2 concentration:
The chart above shows that the number of hot days has decreased instead of increasing, i.e. no correlation with CO2.
Heller also points out that the number of 100°F days occurring in September in the US has also declined, but the New York Times doesn’t want the readers to know about that as well.
Read more at No Tricks Zone
Trackback from your site.
Bill Butler
| #
If there were any evidence that the New York Times were really “Committing Massive Fraud”, then this evidence should be brought to the attention of the New York Attorney General’s office. Until/unless such action is taken, this fraud claim should be regarded as an uniformed, misguided opinion.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Bill,
You are naïve. Scientific fraud is not illegal. It’s in the same category as religious fraud. It is protected by the first amendment.
Here is a another example of scientific fraud that has been with us for almost 200 years:
The ‘Missing Link’ of Meteorology’s Theory of Storms
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Reply
Kenneth Hughes
| #
…but it is illegal to then use this misinformation to extract more taxes. That IS fraud.
Reply
Dr Pete Sudbury
| #
Sorry? Is this the same website that recently ran a screaming headline about “record global cooling” on a paper using 3 years’ data around the peak of a huge el Nino, and ignoring the previous eighty years, all of which were cooler than 2015?
I wouldn’t trust your analysis, or that of anyone you (mis)quote!
Reply
Dr Pete Sudbury
| #
The only NYT site comparing average temperatures that I could find “How Much Warmer was The City in 2016?” was using an average from 1981-2010 compared with an actual from 2016. I can’t find anything going back to 1960, or looking at the number of days over 90F. I’m guessing that the properly averaged data indeed shows (as it seems to do on the site above) that, as the site says, 90% of cities are indeed warmer, which rather spoils the story.
Rather confusing…
Reply
Dr Ed Huff
| #
Just go to https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/08/30/climate/how-much-hotter-is-your-hometown.html, insert the city of interest and your birthday. If and only if your birthday precedes 1960 will the website say: “Our dataset goes back to 1960, …”
Will you apologize for posting misinformation?
Reply
Dr Ed Huff
| #
That NYT website has to be silly. When looking at Sunnyvale, CA, USA (where I live) it only reports “The Sunnyvale area is not prone to 90-degree days.” Looking at the historical data for Sunnyvale at http://www.intellicast.com/Local/History.aspx?location=USCA1116, however, tells a different story. Highs above 90 deg. have occurred in Sept. since 1958, but many others above 90 deg. that didn’t set records must also have occurred. Judging by eye, it doesn’t seem the record highs are getting any hotter either. Tony’s analysis seems to be spot on.
Reply
Shawn Marshall
| #
Tony Heller’s work – usually simple graphs that the rest of us can get – is outstanding. He disembowels the AGW bulls.
Reply
DJC
| #
You, Dr Pete Sudbury cannot produce any correct physics showing why carbon dioxide could possibly warm the Earth’s surface. It is gravity which sets up the temperature gradient in every planetary troposphere, not back radiation. Loschmidt explained this in 1876 but climatologists choose to ignore this direct consequence of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Prove me wrong in my 2013 paper “Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures.”
The fundamental assumption, Dr Pete Sudbury, in all climate models and climatology energy diagrams is that one can add to solar radiation about twice as much radiation from the cold atmosphere and then use the total (less non-radiative cooling) in Stefan Boltzmann calculations to explain the global mean surface temperature.
Radiation cannot be added that way.
No empirical experiment has ever been published demonstrating that it can be. It would be contrary to Wien’s Displacement Law and their false assumption ignores the fact the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is based on the integral of a single Planck function.
Even if there were a mean of about 500W/m^2 of radiation from a much hotter or closer sun, that radiation would be variable all over the globe and thus produce a lower mean temperature than would the uniform flux needed for Stefan-Boltzmann calculations to be correct.
So it’s laughable that NASA energy diagrams show a net of 390W/m^2 and assume that will produce a mean of 288K. They make a double mistake – adding back radiation and then assuming variable flux will produce the same temperature as uniform flux. Prof Claes Johnson explained why the back radiation merely resonates and is not thermalized in the warmer surface.
Prove wrong my peer-reviewed 2012 paper “Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Themodynamics” Dr Pete Sudbury!
How, Dr Pete Sudbury, does a location on the equator of Venus warm by about five degrees (from 732K to 737K) over the course of about four months on the sunlit side? Where does the new thermal energy come from? The direct solar radiation reaching the Venus surface is about one-eighth of that impinging on Earth’s surface. There cannot be any heat from the less hot atmosphere that could raise the temperature of the hotter Venus surface.
What does happen, Dr Pete Sudbury, is that solar radiation can only raise the temperature of regions in the upper troposphere and above. But then gravity maintains a non-zero tropospheric temperature gradient which is the state of maximum entropy (thermodynamic equilibrium) and so the whole thermal profile in the troposphere rises by about five degrees at all altitudes.
The same kind of thing happens on Earth and in every planetary troposphere, and that is why it is hotter than Earth’s surface at the base of the 350Km high nominal troposphere of Uranus.
Prove wrong my 2016 paper “Comprehensive Refutation of the Radiative Forcing Greenhouse Hypothesis” Dr Pete Sudbury!
Oh, sorry, Dr Pete Sudbury. I just learned that you’re a retired psychiatrist. Apparently, you’ve learned all about climate change by reading the fictitious, fiddled physics of climatology. Well, well, well! So sorry if I’ve confused you with correct physics that refutes the whole scam.
So let me keep it simple for you Dr Pete Sudbury, seeing that you probably don’t even know what the Second Law of Thermodynamics says or what entropy is.
It was warmer than the present back in Roman times, and there was certainly overall net (natural) global cooling between then and the Little Ice Age when they skated in the River Thames in London.
Temperatures have to do with gravity and the height of a planet’s troposphere. Luckily Earth’s troposphere is about the right height for comfort. If we had just as much greenhouse gas but a troposphere only half the height, then global mean temperatures would be less than zero C, just as we know the global mean is well below that for our Moon.
And so that is why it is hotter than Earth’s surface at the base of the tropospheres of Venus and Uranus, despite the latter having no solar radiation and no solid surface down there.
We now know that cosmic rays assist cloud formation and, guess what, cosmic ray intensity varies partly due to solar activity and also to magnetic fields from the planets. Those clouds do shade the Earth and keep us cooler, you know.
We also know that the greenhouse gas water vapor varies in concentration between about 1% and 4%, so that’s a 3% variation. With carbon dioxide taking up a whole 0.04% of our atmosphere (one molecule in 2,500) that extra 3% of greenhouse gas that we find above rain forests could be assumed to have roughly the effect we might get by increasing carbon dioxide to 76 times its concentration, that is, from 0.04% to 3.04%. The trouble is, it doesn’t happen. Rain forests are cooler than dry regions at similar latitude and altitude as I found when I studied 30 years of temperature data from locations on three continents.
Prove wrong the study in my 2014 book “Why It’s Not Carbon Dioxide After All” Dr Pete Sudbury.
Reply