Are the climate data manipulated?

Günter Ederer / 18.11.2015 / 16:45 /

Professor Friedrich Karl Ewert advised in 36 countries on the construction of 83 dams. The geologist specializes in investigating the permeability of rocks and the methods of sealing them. Accurate measurements, precise statistical surveys were needed to rule out later shortcomings or even a disaster.

With this methodical thoroughness, he began to question climate change after retirement. He began to evaluate the temperature measurements of the usual warm and cold phases, as he had learned during his studies. Since 1880 there was already a worldwide network. The data thus obtained are managed by the Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) of a department of NASA and offered on the Internet. Of the meanwhile 7365 stations, there are evaluable data series of 1153 stations for the period from 1881 onwards. These figures are also the basis by which NASA supplies the IPCC, the so-called IPCC. And from these publicly available data, Ewert has made a rather incredible discovery: Between the years 2010 and 2012, the temperatures measured since 1881 were massively changed in hindsight,

It reads like a conspiracy theory, which Ewert writes in the summary of his years of Sisyphus work: Comparing the data from 2010 with those of 2012 shows, the NASA GISS has changed their own records so that we have a clear picture, especially since the beginning of the post-war period, Global warming that does not exist.

Ewert had noticed in a report that the temperature data from Reykjavik and Godthab Nuur had been changed retrospectively. For the data from 2012, this resulted in a higher temperature rise in these Arctic stations than in the numbers before 2010. An analysis was possible because the data offered by NASA-GISS were archived before 2010 and could therefore be compared with those of after 2012 ,

Ewert randomly selected another 120 stations around the world and set to work to compare data from the years before 2010 and after 2012. And he always came to the same conclusion: The temperatures delivered from 2012 showed a higher warming, as the published until 2010. In order to be able to discover these, say, falsifications not so easy, ten different methods were used, which open only to those who has both groups of data and is not afraid to compare them before the mammoth task. One of the foundations of this work are those published by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) are the published seven warming and cooling epochs, which begin in 1881 and which are based on 1097 measurement stations.

Thus, in 1881, we had a mean global temperature of 13.8 degrees Celsius, which dropped to 12.9 degrees by 1895, then increased to 14.3 degrees by 1905, dropped below 12.9 degrees in 1920, to 13.9 in 1930 Increased to 13 degrees in 1975, increased to 14 degrees by the year 2000, and since then has cooled to 13.2 degrees by 2010. The hitherto warm year 2015 has no decisive importance on the long-term trend. It only shows that it is 1 degree warmer in 2015 than 1880, which means no turnaround for a year yet.

During this period, the CO2 concentration has increased from 3 parts in 10 000 parts of air to 4 parts without affecting the cycles of increase or decrease in temperature. As I said: These are all data of the IPCC.

Changing the data of individual years in the heating or cooling zones results in completely different climate scenarios. Ewert has collected tens of thousands of individual data for each of the 120 randomly selected stations that were reported by NASA before and after 2010 for each year. Thus, the changes in the seven climatic phases became clear. The manipulations are visible in the diagrams. Printing out his data would result in a 6 meter long list.

It turns out that ten different methods have been used to produce global warming. They are all documented in the study with examples.

6 of the 10 examples were used most frequently.

• A reduction of the annual mean values ​​in the initial phase.
• A reduction of single higher values ​​in the first heat phase.
• An increase in individual values ​​in the second heat phase.
• A suppression of the second cooling phase beginning around 1995.
• A reduction of the data series around the earlier decades.
• For long-term series, the data series were even shortened to the early centuries.

For the shortening of the data series by deleting the data from earlier decades, the example Darwin (Australia).

The data from the first chart with the NASA-GISS measurements from 1882 to March 2010 indicate a cooling of – 0.0068 degrees Celsius per year. In March 2012, the NASA-GISS only the temperatures from 1964 available, resulting in a warming of + 0.0038 degrees per year.

In December 2012, NASA-GISS will once again offer a new data series. It began again in 1897. But miraculously, much colder temperatures were reported for the years 1897 to 1964 than before 2010. Thus, the annual temperature rise increased again to + 0.0104 Celsius.

In another example, the measuring station of Palma de Mallorca, it becomes clear how warming arose from a slowdown in Palma de Mallorca from 1881 to 1895 and then further minor adjustments.

If the data released by NASA-GISS from 1880 to March 2010 show an annual cooling of 0.0076 degrees Celsius, then the numbers from the same source result in a warming of + 0.0074 degrees per year in March 2012 , It is noticeable that some years are missing.

And as if that was not enough, the numbers change again in August and December 2012. Now it has become even warmer because of the new number sets. Now it shows an annual warming of + 0.01202 degrees per year.

Anyone who takes the trouble and deals with the endless lists of Ewert finds so colorfully highlighted when and how the previously measured data after decades of today’s doctrine are adapted by man made temperature increase, so that global warming becomes plausible. When comparisons are made that it has become much warmer today compared to the years since industrialization, as repeatedly reported, these are reports based on the ever-changing temperatures of earlier decades

The thesis of man made climate change gets a completely new meaning: Yes, it is always made by humans, if the data of the theory are adapted. The diligence work of Prof. Ewert has forerunners, fits into a series of scandals and contradictions, which are ignored by the political supporters of man-made climate change.

After the manipulations of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, the other climate data source of the IPCC had come out and their boss Phil Jones had to resign, also the two American renowned meteorologists Joseph D’Alemo and Anthony Watts examined the data of 6,000 measuring stations NASA. On January 26, 2010, they released a 110-page study under the heading. “Surface Temperature Records: Policy Driven Deception? – Temperature measurements on the surface – politically driven deception?

They describe hundreds of irregularities, such as relocations of measuring stations in inner cities, selection of stations that are sometimes taken into account and sometimes not taken into account, cyclic changes in the multi-decade changes of cooling and heat phases. In summary, they conclude that NOA and NASA, together with CRU, are the driving force behind the systematic cheering of global warming in the 20th century and that there is an urgent need to have the terrestrial temperature data investigated by independent climate scientists who are not themselves Have interest in the result of the evaluations.

It was the contradictions of the daily reports in the German press about the impending heat collapse of the earth and the reports of snow in Jerusalem, bitter winters on the east coast of the USA, unknown cold spells in Argentina etc., the Prof. Friedrich Karl Ewert, Rainer Link and Prof. Hans-Joachim Lüdecke decided to evaluate the available temperature data of NASA in an elaborate work at about the same time. It was released in 2011 in Singapore and came to the same results as the Americans. “An analysis of 2246 surface temperature data” was the description of their study.

The facts have neither been disproved nor taken into account by the climate warming scientists. Hardly a politician and journalist took the trouble to look at the extensive figures. The manslaughter arguments that 98 percent of all scientists in the world agree and that 18,000 of the best scientists in the world have worked this out, dominate public perception and national and international politics. The extensive research carried out by Canadian journalist Donna Laframboise proves by name that more than 5,000 of the IPCC climate scientists listed in the “IPCC Review Bible” have not even completed their studies.

It must be emphasized once again: All the data Ewert uses in his new study, are freely accessible, if you know what and where to look for and it is all the data that NASA itself has published, so no “concoctions” of ” climate deniers “.

According to NASA data from 2010, the surface temperature worldwide from 1940 to today has decreased by -1,110 degrees and since 2000 by -0,4223. The changes that result from “heat islands” are taken into account. Thus, the effects are described when measuring stations are relocated to the cities or framed their location of settlements. The slowdown applies to all continents except Australia, which has warmed 0.6339 degrees in the last cycle since 2000 (phase seven).The figures for Europe: Between 1940 and 2010, the data for 2010 showed a reduction of – 0.5465 and – since 2000 – – 0.3739.

After the scandal surrounding the manipulated data of the University of East Anglia’s CRU and now due to NASA’s changes in temperature readings, these serious events should be scrutinized by independent scientists and either refuted or lead to political consequences.

It would be inconceivable if all the CO2 laws, the interventions in the market to save the world, the German energy laws for climate protection and so on would be based on manipulated temperature data. An entire industry of climate rescuers and the resulting trillions of dollars invested or deindustrialized with them are at stake. In any case, those who have hitherto been involved in global warming, such as the Federal Ministry for the Environment, the Federal Environment Agency or even the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, are not suitable as appraisers. You would have to question yourself.

You can query this axis contribution with diagrams from the author. E-Mail:

All datasets are always available to the public. The studies of Prof. Ewert will be sent by e-mail upon request. (


The above is translated by Google Chrome from the original German language version which is found here.


About budbromley

Bud is a retired life sciences executive. Bud's entrepreneurial leadership exceeded three decades. He was the senior business development, marketing and sales executive at four public corporations, each company a supplier of analytical and life sciences instrumentation, software, consumables and service. Prior to those positions, his 19 year career in Hewlett-Packard Company's Analytical Products Group included worldwide sales and marketing responsibility for Bioscience Products, Global Accounts and the International Olympic Committee, as well as international management assignments based in Japan and Latin America. Bud has visited and worked in more than 65 countries and lived and worked in 3 countries.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Are the climate data manipulated?

  1. Reblogged this on kommonsentsjane and commented:
    Reblogged on kommonsentsjane/blogkommonsents.

    For your information.



Leave a Reply to budbromley Cancel reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.