The Plot Thickens: NASA Exposed Adjusting Temperature Data All Over The World Now

a reply to: bobs_uruncle


We have never had CO2 levels this high in human history and they continue to go up. Also the CO2 levels in the ocean is going up.

I just do not get how you people continue to deny that this is an issue that needs to be addressed, this along with overfishing, deforestation, the pollution of our waters and the pollution of our aquifers.

Now you guys are off an a tangent and just throwing outrageous tax ideas to see what sticks.

Again, the rising CO2 levels are real! We have observed a 40%+ increase of CO2 in about half a century and the levels continue to rise as we continue to pump CO2 in the atmosphere.

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

For this question, lets assume CO2 is not a 'greenhouse gas' and forget about the temperature and the global warming hype.

We have observed a 40% increase in CO2, do you agree that human activity is responsible for that increase?

No, I don't agree, temperature increases have always preceded increases in CO2 increases. If we are experiencing a global average increase in temperature it stands to reason that CO2 will increase. Historically, CO2 levels and temperatures have been much higher with no adverse effects to the planet or wildlife.

In truth, rapid changes in green house gases & climate change is correlated with mass extinctions. And the current level of CO2 has never been seen during the evolutionary history of homo sapiens, nor has the current rate of increase ever been naturally occurring before.

To play the other side, the question would be, are humans driving temperature increases? It is questionable. Could humans increase CO2 without increasing temperature? Maybe by killing off the forests and jungles. Mabel by destroying CO2 absorption in the oceans through pollution. But from fossil fuel use? I doubt it.

Why do you doubt it? The exhausts can be measured. Where do you think it ends up? Thinking otherwise is like saying if I piss in the toilet, the urine is not likely to go into the sewer.

originally posted by: kennyb72
a reply to: jrod
By who, or more importantly by HOW? - My argument is that the Keeling curve method of establishing this data is flawed, sampling is way too small and prone to error. There are only 159 collection stations around the entire planet to indicate the CO2 content of the entire atmosphere, and this is supposed to be science.

The plaintiff confirms the defense statement, that there are 159 collection stations around the entire planet measuring CO2, and moreover the results are all compatible with the global greenhouse record, in particular the Keeling Curve.

a reply to: mbkennel

The plaintiff confirms the defense statement, that there are 159 collection stations around the entire planet measuring CO2, and moreover the results are all compatible with the global greenhouse record, in particular the Keeling Curve.

And so you confirm that you believe that 159 stations, are an adequate sampling of the Earths 4.2 billion cubic kilometres of atmosphere, to confidently determine a 200ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 since 1885, when we where using exactly how many sampling stations recording CO2 levels?

I declare this case closed, due to lack of corroborating evidence.

Well if there’s one thing this thread has proven, it’s how totally obtuse some deniers are when it comes to satire and hyperbole.

Rep. Ed Orcutt responds, apologizes for ‘confusing’ email

First of all, let me apologize for the carbon emissions line of an e-mail which has caused so much concern within the bicycle community. It was over the top and I admit is not one which should enter into the conversation regarding bicycles.

Second, please understand that I have not proposed, nor do I intend to propose, any tax – and certainly not a carbon tax – on bicyclists.

It’s no wonder they don’t stand a chance when it comes to actual science.

a reply to: mbkennel

Have you noticed lately this seems to be the #1 go-to argument for denialists – that the current CO2 spike isn’t even man-made?

I used to take this meme as a dividing point between the more rational (but still stubborn) class that would at least acknowledge the physics but try to argue low climate sensitivity or whatever, versus the desperately clueless ones.

I think the fact that these particularly absurd memes are now becoming the skeptic bread and butter is indicative of how much polarization has destroyed their own camp. Kind of like what’s happened in the Republican party with them trying to appeal to the extremist tea party nut jobs while still keeping the more sane fiscal conservatives from jumping ship.

I sometimes go to Roy Spencer’s blog for laughs because of this. He’s as denialy as they come, but you should see how much energy he has to spend policing his own comments section from the totally deranged science-denying buffoons he attracts.

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

I don’t think we’ll come to much of an agreement on the solutions here so we can just agree to disagree on that, but I would at least hope you don’t let your cynicism of those solutions cloud your judgment on the shenanigans happening at the other side of the debate.

If this conspiracy was so clear-cut then why are there so many shady people manipulating the skeptic side with false memes and fake scandals like this latest temperature adjustment nonsense? Why are fossil fuel oligarchs hiring PR firms to help them reframe global warming as “theory (not fact)”?



Why are they deliberately targeting stupid, narrow-minded people in their campaigns?



If this whole global warming thing really was just a bunch of overblown bad science, then it stands to reason you would find very good science on the other side proving this to be the case. But you don’t. Not even close. In fact all you find is the exact sort of propaganda, hyperbole and data manipulation they’re accusing the other side of.

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

^So that’s how I ultimately came to the conclusions I did. I don’t post on ATS because I’m some Al Gore worshipping hippie. I post here because I distrust the system as much as anyone else. But when I looked at this situation from both sides, instead of just screaming “ZOMG taxes!!!” like the rest of the tinfoil automatons, I found all the real manipulation happening on the skeptic end.

Literally all of it. Every supposed scandal, every meme about the big global warming hoax turned out to be some complete bastardization of the truth propagated by a bunch of political shills trying to maintain the status quo.

Because the real conspiracy is not coming through some elaborate carbon credit Ponzi scheme to charge you for the air you breathe. The real conspiracy is already here – it’s taking everyone’s money every day simply by encouraging all the peons to be mindless wasteful consuming idiots, devouring the planet of its resources at every turn in the name of profit. Taxing that profit discourages this behaviour, it actually diminishes the Ponzi scheme instead of accelerating it - so if that’s the conspiracy, then it’s frankly the dumbest conspiracy of all time.

a reply to: mc_squared

The tone of your last few posts are mocking and derisory, In fact your whole thread could be described as such, which is standard MO for anybody pushing the CC agenda. Please feel free to continue your assault though, because most intelligent people can see through it.

I found all the real manipulation happening on the skeptic end.
Literally all of it. Every supposed scandal, every meme about the big global warming hoax turned out to be some complete bastardization of the truth propagated by a bunch of political shills trying to maintain the status quo.

I find that amusing, after your own little piece of manipulation and the billions invested in trying to sell this hoax to the population of the planet.

A very affective tactic for the alarmists is, to appeal to the side of human nature that desires to not damage the planet we live on.

Industry is responsible for fouling our planet. Who would you say, invented the machinery and systems that drive industrial profits?. Scientists. Who invented the ticking time bomb of nuclear energy and nuclear power plants that are destroying the Pacific ocean? Scientists.
Who made it possible to use nuclear waste for weapons with depleted uranium to contaminate the Middle East? Scientists
Who invented the herbicides that are destroying our food supply and damaging peoples health around the world? Scientists. Who conducted atmospheric nuclear testing all over the world risking the health of tens of thousands of people and wildlife? Scientists.
The list goes on.

The planet is being destroyed by industry and the Military Industrial Complex, owned by corporations and aided by Scientists who are poisoning the planet with serious toxins and radiation, yet we are expected to accept responsibility for damaging the atmosphere with the minute trace gas that we exhale.

You could't make this stuff up!

We are expected to believe what Scientists tell us(evan after numerous examples of manipulation of data and an admitted agenda discovered from hacked emails) when they appear to have no morals at all when it comes to how science is applied in the real world.

Yes, I use technology, and that is supposed to be how it works, but even those innovations are motivated by greed for profit.

But when I looked at this situation from both sides, instead of just screaming “ZOMG taxes!!!” like the rest of the tinfoil automatons, I found all the real manipulation happening on the skeptic end. Literally all of it. Every supposed scandal, every meme about the big global warming hoax turned out to be some complete bastardization of the truth propagated by a bunch of political shills trying to maintain the status quo.

Nice deflection and misinformation there Mc-squared

People who respond most favorably to such statements are older, less-educated males from large households, who are not typically active information-seekers.[sic]

Textbook example of how to discredit your detractors

Taxing that profit discourages this behaviour, it actually diminishes the Ponzi scheme instead of accelerating it - so if that’s the conspiracy, then it’s frankly the dumbest conspiracy of all time

Except it's not the manufacturer who pays. It's the brainwashed consumer through the employment of manipulative advertising, devised by psychologists (scientists) to convince the average joe to go out and buy their latest piece of junk.

The real conspiracy is already here –it’s taking everyone’s money every day simply by encouraging all the peons to be mindless wasteful consuming idiots, devouring the planet of its resources at every turn in the name of profit.

We are on the same page on this, I could't agree more, except for the angst!

I think the fact that these particularly absurd memes are now becoming the skeptic bread and butter is indicative of how much polarization has destroyed their own camp. Kind of like what’s happened in the Republican party with them trying to appeal to the extremist tea party nut jobs while still keeping the more sane fiscal conservatives from jumping ship.

Did you have a piece of straw hanging from your lips when your typed this.

Apart from the fact that you have bought into this scam hook line and carbon sinker, you come across as quite intelligent, and you present a good argument, but you seem to driven by some kind of psychotic paranoia, pull yourself together!

I love the planet and the people on it, I will not sit back and have the good people of this world demonised and divided by a cynical ploy to enslave us even further than we have already become. A carbon tax is a tax on life, a very Fabian concept, (The wolf in sheep clothing). Whether you have any concept of the length some people will go to bring about social change to the detriment of humanity, or not, the consequences for us will still be the same.

'A brave New World' was supposed to be a piece of fiction, a warning. Not a blueprint for our future.

Read a little Aldous Huxley and get a clue.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: bobs_uruncle


We have never had CO2 levels this high in human history and they continue to go up. Also the CO2 levels in the ocean is going up.

I just do not get how you people continue to deny that this is an issue that needs to be addressed, this along with overfishing, deforestation, the pollution of our waters and the pollution of our aquifers.

Now you guys are off an a tangent and just throwing outrageous tax ideas to see what sticks.

Again, the rising CO2 levels are real! We have observed a 40%+ increase of CO2 in about half a century and the levels continue to rise as we continue to pump CO2 in the atmosphere.

There have been greater increases in pre-recorded history as evidenced from ice cores and geological records. Animals and plants stayed alive, apparently quite nicely. I do agree with the pollution, deforestation and ocean fishing problems. It appears the pollution in the ocean (which absorbs about 90% of atmospheric CO2) is decreasing the oceans ability to breed plankton and other CO2 absorbing "animals" and that is a real problem. But, who is doing the polluting in the oceans? Corporations and industry, that's who. So they should be legislated to clean up their mess or go to their ef'ing room. If that requires the ill-begotten and irresponsibly gained profits from corporations and bankers to be used, so be it. They should have built remediation into their business model.

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: kennyb72

Kenny, I too love the planet and want to do something about pollution but the things i see some people failing to grasp in this whole subject (over and over) is what Earth's ideal average temperature should be? And could we expect a system to NOT constantly swing back and forth in an attempt to establish equilibrium of which our geological records have shown scientist who analyze the data for quite some time? Are we supposed to believe that a warmer Earth, well cooler than the warrn periods when Dinosaurs reigned, is somehow bad? ON top of all that, they keep quoting exposed liars with the tweaked data and insist we followers of unaltered data are "deniers of truth". That is the Orwell vision of our future being realized. Huxley the "Brave New World" author was sure we would go through the Big brother phase of manipulation of the news and a police state, but society would end as humanity being willing slaves who did what they were told. If the data denies logic we must deny it's validity no matter how many liars they trot out to convince our lying eyes. And in the case of those who deny Al said we would not have ice what our lying ears heard. I am not falling for it nor are my peers. We have established a way for these 'believers' that the cadre of the IPCC are trying to stop the lie but without these people seeing it on the BBC, BSNBC , CBS, or ABC they appear to have their hands blocking their ears going "LA LA LA LA LA" while we bring them the opportunity to vet the data.

a reply to: mbkennel

Studies indicate that we can go into an ice-age in 10 years, possibly less and it has happened before according to geological records apparently. As far as your toilet analogy, have you ever been piss drunk and tried to piss in the toilet? The money power in our society is piss drunk on power and they rarely piss in the toilet. I do acknowledge what you are saying, however, there would be no problem with CO2 if there wasn't massive deforestation, but more importantly massive amounts of chemical, conventional and nuclear pollution in the oceans (they absorb about 90% of planetary CO2). You can't get rid of the CO2 if you kill off the plankton (and other CO2 sequestering biologicals).

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: mc_squared

The problem with taxing corporations, giving them fines, etc. is that they pass off their bad behavior onto all of us as price increases. Which of course increases the sales tax as well and everyone can get in on the scam. So legislated good behavior from psychopaths isn't going to work, that dog don't hunt here. Personally, I think if a CEO has willfully decided to help destroy the planet through negligence or malice, have him/her charged with crimes against humanity. If found guilty by a jury of normal common people, hang 'em. It's a green solution, you can use the rope again and again until they start getting responsible. I think the same should apply to politicians and bankers because when they screw people, they screw them by the millions.

Cheers - Dave

originally posted by: mc_squared
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

^So that’s how I ultimately came to the conclusions I did. I don’t post on ATS because I’m some Al Gore worshipping hippie. I post here because I distrust the system as much as anyone else. But when I looked at this situation from both sides, instead of just screaming “ZOMG taxes!!!” like the rest of the tinfoil automatons, I found all the real manipulation happening on the skeptic end.

Literally all of it. Every supposed scandal, every meme about the big global warming hoax turned out to be some complete bastardization of the truth propagated by a bunch of political shills trying to maintain the status quo.

Because the real conspiracy is not coming through some elaborate carbon credit Ponzi scheme to charge you for the air you breathe. The real conspiracy is already here – it’s taking everyone’s money every day simply by encouraging all the peons to be mindless wasteful consuming idiots, devouring the planet of its resources at every turn in the name of profit. Taxing that profit discourages this behaviour, it actually diminishes the Ponzi scheme instead of accelerating it - so if that’s the conspiracy, then it’s frankly the dumbest conspiracy of all time.

Ok this comment i can agree with you on most of it. But please check out that movie/documentary called "An Inconsistent Truth" where we all can see the scientist whom the media misquote get a chance to set the record straight. That is all I was really asking phage to do and IF you give that a fair chance you will see why I feel the way I do. I have been disillusioned by the way these discussion have gone and I agree with Kennyb that you have been a bit mocking. Certainly, if we are to actually get a grip on this tweaking of data and various tricks to hide the facts, those of us who DO CARE about our environment can take this to the next reasonable step. There has been evidence presented in these threads that , no conspiracy as the IPCC have stated it openly, there is a move to 'redistribute wealth" using this data that I see as is presented in the official BS, is untrue. That is why i say we are being duped.

a reply to: Justoneman

Hi Again Justoneman, I have just finished reviewing a number of video's you may be interested in watching.

There are so many to pick from which are not what the alarmists could call silly youtube videos, but are scientifically accurate assessments by real NASA Scientists and honest Climate Scientists and supports the conclusion you drew from the movie 'An Inconsistent Truth'.

I urge all the warmists who are so vocal about the "settled science" to watch what real scientists have to say on the matter.

The first one is from a group on NASA scientist at the International Conference on Climate change.



This next one is a very scientific presentation by Professor Murry Salby



For those ATS members parroting the main stream propaganda, If you don't watch these two videos right the way through, then you simply don't want to know the truth.

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: bobs_uruncle


We have never had CO2 levels this high in human history and they continue to go up. Also the CO2 levels in the ocean is going up.

I just do not get how you people continue to deny that this is an issue that needs to be addressed, this along with overfishing, deforestation, the pollution of our waters and the pollution of our aquifers.

Now you guys are off an a tangent and just throwing outrageous tax ideas to see what sticks.

Again, the rising CO2 levels are real! We have observed a 40%+ increase of CO2 in about half a century and the levels continue to rise as we continue to pump CO2 in the atmosphere.

There have been greater increases in pre-recorded history as evidenced from ice cores and geological records. Animals and plants stayed alive, apparently quite nicely.

The higher levels never existed during the entirety of homo sapiens, and probably the homo genus entirely. The speed of the emissions is also unprecedented. Climate change in prehistory, and in human history (locally), is associated with mass extinctions and collapses of previously prosperous civilizations. Global climate change thus is a huge risk.

Obviously animals and plants will stay alive of some sort, nobody questions that. The question is technological human civilization supporting 7 billion people.

I do agree with the pollution, deforestation and ocean fishing problems. It appears the pollution in the ocean (which absorbs about 90% of atmospheric CO2) is decreasing the oceans ability to breed plankton and other CO2 absorbing "animals" and that is a real problem.

What is the evidence in particular that this is true globally? Oceans seem to absorb about 1/3 of extra additional humn-added CO2.

But, who is doing the polluting in the oceans? Corporations and industry, that's who. So they should be legislated to clean up their mess or go to their ef'ing room. If that requires the ill-begotten and irresponsibly gained profits from corporations and bankers to be used, so be it. They should have built remediation into their business model.

And why not for CO2 emissions?

originally posted by: kennyb72
a reply to: Justoneman

Hi Again Justoneman, I have just finished reviewing a number of video's you may be interested in watching.

There are so many to pick from which are not what the alarmists could call silly youtube videos, but are scientifically accurate assessments by real NASA Scientists and honest Climate Scientists and supports the conclusion you drew from the movie 'An Inconsistent Truth'.

I urge all the warmists who are so vocal about the "settled science" to watch what real scientists have to say on the matter.

The first one is from a group on NASA scientist at the International Conference on Climate change.

This next one is a very scientific presentation by Professor Murry Salby

For those ATS members parroting the main stream propaganda, If you don't watch these two videos right the way through, then you simply don't want to know the truth.

Yeah but what about this...serious question. All that leaves me with is more questions. Who to believe.

www.skepticalscience.com...

a reply to: mbkennel

Because CO2 is natural and is required for plant growth. More CO2, more plant growth, which means more natural sequestration.

Cheers - Dave

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
a reply to: mbkennel

Because CO2 is natural and is required for plant growth. More CO2, more plant growth, which means more natural sequestration.

Cheers - Dave

So, why hasn't it happened? Why didn't plants take up all the extra CO2 from 1850 on? Why did the CO2 level go up? [Once upon a time, it was believed that the oceans would of course absorb 100% of CO2 emitted by man, but in the 1950's new understanding of ocean chemistry revealed that this would not happen, and observations show that it doesn't, some CO2 goes into ocean but much does not].

And what happens when plants die? That's right, they decay and the fungi and bacteria eat them and the carbon is re-released. Only if you globally take those plants and somehow massively prevent decay and dig them very deep underground, will this not be a problem.

In the Carboniferous era, when all the coal deposits which are currently being dug up were created, fungi and bacteria had not yet evolved a major enzyme to break down woody plant fibers. Therefore the plants could grow big, die, and NOT re-release their CO2 upon death, and thus over millions (!!!) of years, bring down the CO2 of the atmosphere to a level closer to the pre-industrial level.

Now, the microbes do have that ability so even if the woods start growing like crazy once again, it won't happen like it once did. We will have the CO2 from the Carboniferous era, which was very high, and climate completely different from present, and it may never go down because evolution has changed microbes.

The level of major civilizational risk is really titanic.

a reply to: mbkennel
Can you prove that the microbes changed or didn`t exist in the carboniferous?