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

a reply to: amazing

Did you actually read any of the "what the science says" in responses to Salby's statements. Same old tripe spouted by MSM? that hardly touched on what he said. Watch Salby's video if nothing else.

originally posted by: kennyb72
a reply to: amazing

Did you actually read any of the "what the science says" in responses to Salby's statements. Same old tripe spouted by MSM? that hardly touched on what he said. Watch Salby's video if nothing else.

I've seen that one before. I did read the what science says. I'm fairly intelligence. not a scientist by any means, and I'm still thinking that there is man made global warming. I read a lot of articles on this.

a reply to: amazing

I've seen that one before.

Then could you explain, what it is that you disagree with Salby about, as it is pretty conclusive?

ETA

and I'm still thinking that there is man made global warming. I read a lot of articles on this.

And did you read that there has been no warming this century?

originally posted by: kennyb72
a reply to: amazing

I've seen that one before.

Then could you explain, what it is that you disagree with Salby about, as it is pretty conclusive?

So are you saying that he is the ultimate authority on Global warming and climate science and based on that video....that's it. Case closed? What about all the thousands of other real scientists (NOT the MSM) that disagree with him? They can't all be in cahoots in the biggest conspiracy in the history of the world. Or maybe they haven't seen this video.

Do you see what I'm saying? I'm not here to discuss or argue the details. I'm not a scientist. I'll lose every time even if I'm right. But it's the meta data that troubles me. The big picture. Why are there so many papers and articles and documents and scientists and scientific organizations promoting as fact that man is warming the earth with his pollution?

a reply to: amazing

What about all the thousands of other real scientists (NOT the MSM) that disagree with him?

I watched a senate testimony recently on Climate Change, and many of the scientists giving evidence, particularly denying that any recent weather events could be attributed to CC. They where vehemently stating that their names where used as endorsing AGW science, when they said no such thing. They answered questionnaires such as "Do you believe that mankind can influence the weather" to which they replied yes. And so their name was printed on the list. Non of their objections where even considered.

The questions where loaded and they where not asked if they believed current warming was due to human emissions. Even during the senate hearing you could palpably see the pressure that was being put on the scientist to answer the way the committee wanted them to answer. One scientist was asked a question completely unrelated to CC in an attempt to discredit his opinion on Climate Change. It was like an attorney asking a question and then cutting off the reply "thats all thank you" before the scientist qualified his statement. Manipulation at its finest.




Here watch for yourself.

The big picture. Why are there so many papers and articles and documents and scientists and scientific organizations promoting as fact that man is warming the earth with his pollution?

Sorry, I didn't address this question. There is an agenda to transfer the responsibility of Corporate pollution to the rest of humanity by blaming CO2, something that we can't deny because we exhale it. It is a huge scam and will ultimately transfer the wealth of the ordinary working man to the wealthiest 1%. Nothing addresses the real issues because they are deflecting the truth, that they are polluting the earth with radiation, PCB's, Chemicals, Herbicides and Pesticides and continue with the deforestation of our planet. CO2 is the least of our problems, but the only one that we can each be held culpable for.

a reply to: mbkennel

That's an interesting date 1850, hmm, I didn't know we had accurate CO2 analyzers back then. I know we did in the 80's because I was regional engineer for canada for probably the largest analytical instrumentation firm in world. I designed almost every new EPA research system for the NRC, ORF, Consumer and Corporate Affairs, etc. between 1980 and 1985, oh and guess what we were analyzing apart from particulate matter, oxides of nitrogen, H2SO3/4... we measured CO2 using FIDs (Flame Ionization Detectors).

In some cases we performed direct carbon analysis using TOCAs (Total Organic Carbon Analysis) with onboard FIDs and two separate chamber sample reduction burners. In some cases we used GC's and I even packed my own columns for special apps for other neat measurements like cupric oxide to measure hydrogen in fluidized beds for colleges and universities. Our head office built the GC that went to Mars and my offices, engineering and panel shops helped float their operation for years.

Now, add to this that I did research for another company that had private sector, SR&ED as well as NRC funding in industrial agricultural robotics. We bathed our plant chambers in CO2, 2% to 5% (different experiments, didn't change the growing speed as we were above saturation) of the chamber atmosphere was CO2 and you know what? We were growing Romaine Lettuce from seedlings to maturity and 18" in diameter in 14 days. You could almost see them growing. Course I changed the lighting from my water cooled HPS bulbs to a mix of 450nm, 650nm and 710nm HP LED's and I got the grow time down to 11 days, same start/finish sizes/volumes.

Now, the nominal composition of our atmosphere is about 0.039% CO2, so I was running our CO2 chamber percentages at 50 to 130 times the normal amount of CO2 plants are used to processing in the atmosphere. It didn't hurt them, it helped them.

So anyway, I have a bit of history with CO2, how its measured and how it can be used. And the current BS that CO2 is a toxic gas is just that, BS. Any gas by 100% volume or that can "push out" the oxygen must be a toxic gas (to most animals) including all Noble gases like Argon, Neon, Xenon, Krypton, Radon and Helium (which are all low reactivity monotonic).

Do plants suck up CO2 and the more you give them (within usability saturation limits) the more they grow? You're damn right they do. More healthy plankton in the oceans equates to more carbon sequestration, but corporations pollute the oceans, so as I said, the corporations need to sort out their mess, or die trying, either way is good ;-)

People are not the problem, greed and the unsustainable cycle of rabid consumerism promoted by corporations and governments is the problem. Now if you don't mind, I need to go to the corner store in my 5.7 litre V8 4x4 truck and do my part in feeding some plants in third world countries, since it's snowing here ;-)

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Ok, lets just use some overly technical jargon to make it appear to the common man like an expert in this topic.

We have observed a 40% increase of CO2 over the past half century. This sharp increase correlates with the industrial age.

Can we at least agree that

1.) CO2 levels are on the rise

2.) A large chunk of the 40% is caused by our addiction to burning stuff for fuel/enery, a chemical reaction that releases CO2 and sinks atmosphere 02.




ps,

I would like to know the name and part # of the device that you use for the analysis that you presented.

a reply to: jrod

1.) CO2 levels are on the rise

2.) A large chunk of the 40% is caused by our addiction to burning stuff for fuel/enery, a chemical reaction that releases CO2 and sinks atmosphere 02.

Jrod, please invest 1 hour of your time and watch Professor Murray Salby on the previous page and his explanation on CO2.

After which, you will no longer suffer from your extreme paranoia regarding 400ppm. I am sure you will understand him although it is a technical presentation. His sources are (IPCC) indisputable, his logic is indisputable. His conclusions are indisputable.

Here, I'll post it again to save you the trouble.

OP.....did you even read your own charts?? Cause according to those the raw data is even more evident of global warming than the adjusted charts are............

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Ok, lets just use some overly technical jargon to make it appear to the common man like an expert in this topic.

We have observed a 40% increase of CO2 over the past half century. This sharp increase correlates with the industrial age.

Can we at least agree that

1.) CO2 levels are on the rise

2.) A large chunk of the 40% is caused by our addiction to burning stuff for fuel/enery, a chemical reaction that releases CO2 and sinks atmosphere 02.




ps,

I would like to know the name and part # of the device that you use for the analysis that you presented.

On your PS, I listed them in the last post, just not the manufacturer. I used Beckman Instruments FIDs, TOCAs and Gas Chromatographs. If you want the actual part/serial numbers I would have to go into my storage container, so that's unlikely LOL. We all have a history, mine through happenstance, coincidence or just dumb luck happens to be in engineering and physics and I have come to understand from close up and personal experience how corrupt some (many) "people" of the world can be, especially those in power and positions of public trust.

There is a (your) statement floating around that atmospheric CO2 has increased by 40%, since I don't trust the IPCC or most people in universities, NGOs or government to tell the truth (and we all know what liars the UN can be, can you say WHO or Agenda 21?), I would have to have access to the daily/weekly/monthly/yearly physical records and calibration data before I could make any comment either way or agree with that statement. I do know that a 40% increase would give a present day atmospheric CO2 average of 0.0546% (if 0.039% is the correct starting point) and I have seen no numbers that correspond with that amount of averaged CO2 measured in the atmosphere.

I would posit that CO2 measurement is driven by political agenda, meaning that placement of monitoring systems would be more in line with maintaining the fallacy rather than discounting it in order to derive agenda supportive results. Maintenance would be simple, make sure the majority of monitoring systems are close to urban areas and/or derate rural area monitoring (fudge the numbers, like that hasn't happened LOL). We have already seen number fudging and downright scientific fraud in the temperature analysis, why not in CO2, after all it is the trend. Just extort scientists to maintain the "party line" and lie to get/maintain grants/position?

As I have said in previous posts, I lay the blame for the pollution of the oceans and the deforestation (which may or may not be causing a climate problem or a CO2 problem) squarely on the corporations, but more so on governments for not taking control and executing their moral, ethical and fiduciary obligations on behalf of the people they allegedly represent, and then lying about why they can't change the situation without screwing the rest of us further.

So we should just agree to disagree, because certainly we are not going to change each other's minds on this and you are certainly warranted in having your own opinion. But as far as I am concerned, NO ONE has proven that climate change, global temperature increase or CO2 increases, if they exist, are anthropogenic/anthropomorphic. However, there is an excellent body of evidence in ice and geological records that the climate does change, which is based on cycles and that we are due for another ice-age ;-) Further, as I said before, that CO2 increases follow temperature increases.

Rather than argue about this, why not simply make a secondary (Plan B) or tertiary (Plan C) plan to acquire some land in say Uruguay? Because when the northern hemisphere ices over, the ocean levels will drop, so you'd be pretty safe with beach front property, might even get a few dozen extra acres ;-)

Is the human race at risk due to immoral and unethical behavior run amok by allowing psychopaths access to the reins of society, damn right. Will we go extinct? Maybe, sh*t happens. Maybe a more noble and intelligent species will rise up out of the ashes of our failures.

ETA, On your jargon comment, it's not my fault that I am a technological animal and I really do try to explain myself from a relativistic vantage through history and analogy.

Cheers - Dave

originally posted by: kennyb72


After which, you will no longer suffer from your extreme paranoia regarding 400ppm. I am sure you will understand him although it is a technical presentation. His sources are (IPCC) indisputable, his logic is indisputable. His conclusions are indisputable.

Nice ad hominem there.

I am not paranoid, just stating known facts.

Are you at least agreeing that CO2 is on the rise?

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Ok, lets just use some overly technical jargon to make it appear to the common man like an expert in this topic.

We have observed a 40% increase of CO2 over the past half century. This sharp increase correlates with the industrial age.

Can we at least agree that

1.) CO2 levels are on the rise

2.) A large chunk of the 40% is caused by our addiction to burning stuff for fuel/enery, a chemical reaction that releases CO2 and sinks atmosphere 02.




ps,

I would like to know the name and part # of the device that you use for the analysis that you presented.

So what?CO2 is a plant growth enhancer as has been explained to you over and over again. CO2 AGW proponents are chasing their tails when they should be worried about CH4.

a reply to: Sunwolf

Back to the CO2 is plant food and natural so it can't be bad argument....I think that fallacy is called Appeal to Nature.

CO2 has increased over 40% over the past half century since we have been observing it extensively, from about 280ppm to 400ppm, I've posted links to verify this countless times on here therefore feel it is a waste of my time to do this again. Also we have not seen an explosion in plant growth as a result of this on planet Earth, so there is no observable evidence on the planet that excess CO2 is causing an increase in plant life, in fact the opposite is happening largely due to human greed and ignorance.

The planet and our atmosphere is essentially a closed system chemically.

What happens when one burns a candle in a closed system? (like in a jar with the lid on)

a reply to: mc_squared

Manipulating data to support propaganda is not new when is a lot of money invested in global warming, some people will believe whatever they are told to believe regardless.

Global warming is the new fat, the new bubble even when historical data collected about earth trends of cooling and warming has been documented for many years by those that came before us and didn't had an agenda to fulfill.

But the hoax needs to be kept alive, so much money. . .

a reply to: marg6043

Can you at least agree that CO2 levels are increasing rapidly as a result of human activity and the industrial age?

a reply to: jrod

To tell you the truth I see it as a hype, taking into consideration that our CO2 has been higher before millions of years ago.

But it was not humans in earth at that time and earth was a lot hotter than today

Climate and the Carboniferous Period

geocraft.com...

I will agree that our planet is over populated and with over population it comes repercussions, but we humans will be the decimation of our own species.

But I do not subscribe to the new hype with global warming, specially when money is involved.

As for earth itself warming and cooling trends are not new and historically they come in cycles and many times unexpected and fast.

The propaganda behind clima change aka global warming is working today do to the fact that most people relate their environment to their life span, they seem to forget that earth has been here before us doing its changes for millennia with humans or not and is not stopping, we either survive as a species or die like those species before us.

But those behind the hype will be pocketing a lot of money with their hoaxes.

originally posted by: flice
OP.....did you even read your own charts?? Cause according to those the raw data is even more evident of global warming than the adjusted charts are............

You get +10 points for reading comprehension, but -2 points for sarcasm and satire detection.

Still a good score overall

a reply to: marg6043

That was well before human history, and that argument has been countered over and over again.

Also I do not know of any geological records showing a 40% increase of CO2 in just half a century, this is why the scientists who actually research this are concerned.

Sure we can look at global warming as a red herring, now that the GW is a hoax to raise our taxes and make more laws belief is gaining support, a false dilemma has been created and most are distracted about the global warming vs carbon credit scam while the world continues to burn.

a reply to: jrod

Hi Jrod, it occurs to me after reading many of your posts on this thread, that we share a lot more in common than we disagree with, namely your love for our planet and your natural inclination to defend it from rampant destruction from greedy corporations in the name of profit.

I guess I take it one step further, by not just trying to defend the planet, but also defending C02. I just can't help feel that demonising CO2 equates to demonising life itself. Every life form on the planet is carbon based and so to make CO2 the bad guy seems so counter-intuitive. life on Earth would quickly die without it.

I personally think that the planet is a self regulating system. It is a self evident truth that has proved itself over millions of years. I believe the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is appropriate for the life it supports. I would go as far as to suggest, if mankind completely stopped releasing CO2 into the atmosphere, the planet would auto regulate by releasing more from native sources to balance the equation. We are not separate from the system, we are an integral part of it. As population grows our planet will make adjustments to support it.

Just think about it! would mankind have achieved it's current level of technological and scientific advancement if it wasn't for fossil fuels? without generating power, we would still be living in the stone age. In fact early man would have perished even before it got started by freezing to death without fire. What a betrayal to turn our backs on the very thing that we owe our existence to.

Fossil fuels are Earths gift to humanity, to sustain us until we come up with a better alternative. Science does not have mastery over the Earth and never will. All it will ever achieve is a better understanding of the incredible complexity of the plants and animals, the human body our planet and our universe, also through applied physics, come up with a few things to make our material lives more bearable. Humanity controls nothing in this universe, much to the anguish of many.

My gripe is the foolishness of science to believe it can understand everything. Ask any scientist how much he thinks science knows about the nature of reality. Not one of them could give you an answer and never will be able to. It is all a matter of perspective.

The balance of life is very delicate, yet incredibly robust. Whether you believe we have a purpose to be here, I can't say, but it is my belief, that there are far greater powers controlling our existence than mankind, who is still in its infancy. In short, Earth is here for a purpose, as are we all, and although we screw up all the time, we will not be allowed to damage our Earth in any permanent way. If there was a nuclear holocaust tomorrow, life would be thriving again sometime in the future, it could take millions of years but it would happen.

Unlike evolutionists, I do not believe our conscious existence is just a 1 in a gazillion chance accident, lets face it, the odds are astronomical, that the perfect conditions for life on Earth and the appearance of such a diversity of carbon based creatures that occupy it are just a fluke.

Have a little faith Jrod. In what?.... it doesn't matter, just know that the Sun will continue to rise and set. The Sun will continue to spin around the Earth (joking!!) and life will continue to flourish. That is until the power that controls our existence (not the US Government) decides it's time to move on. Then, there will not be a thing anybody will be able to do about it.

But whatever happens, it will be for the benefit of that, which we call life.... for all of us spiritual beings... and our place in a conscious living universe.

Thank you for your interesting perspective.

a reply to: jrod

Earth will do what earth has done for millennia, get rid of species that are not longer productive in earth and allow new species to evolve.

We humans are arrogant, we believe that we are special, we are told by religion that we are unique that we have given the rights to rule over earth.

At the end earth will get rid of us pesky vermin call humans and life will go on with us or without us.

That is life, many will never understand this, beside that, a global warming compare to a ice age is not what will kill us, an ice age is what will do the deed.

I agree that our clima is changing and will change regardless of how much money the corrupted scammers behind the global warming will reap with the scaremongering.

I always say, live life, enjoy today, because life is short for us human but for earth it will always find a way to go on.