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

a reply to: deadeyedick

Ponzi scheme is not applicable.

A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation where the operator, an individual or organization, pays returns to its investors from new capital paid to the operators by new investors, rather than from profit earned by the operator.

originally posted by: deadeyedick

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: deadeyedick





Umm...no. I said my wife's legs were warmer than my feet.



It was humor....sticking with the OP.



What does a head covering have to do with the price of eggs in China?

obviously it is something you lack the capicity to phathom.

Alrighty then. I will go fathom other things I am more adept at fathoming. Like...crayons and pudding.

I have never actually phathomed anything, so you are absolutely correct.

Your insult fails on multiple levels.

a reply to: bbracken677

Your eagerness to disagree yet again has undermined your ability to grasp the point.


btw
none were ment as insults

Your data seems rather thorough on the surface, OP, and is a good writeup.

Have you personally or publicly asked NASA for an explaination as to why you see these results?
Before calling any kind of conspiracy on it, it would be nice to see an official response. They may be adjusting parameters for a reason you know nothing about.

a reply to: charlyv

I think (it's just a theory, mind you) that the adjustments are being made by aliens to further their agenda of terraforming to earth to suit them prior to invasion.

a reply to: deadeyedick

Not really..

The OP is a joke, sarcasm... satire perhaps would be closer to the mark.

My reference to my cold feet, my wife's warm legs with regards to warming and cooling trends was a joke. Humor... jocularity.

you....did...not...get....it.

Which was fine, but for some reason you focused on my wife as being hot... and when I explained my humor, you still persisted. And brought in the head covering thing. I know. Something along the line of a head scarf or burka. Which had zippo to do with anything posted so far.

a reply to: charlyv

lol... You may be deserving of a prize.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Ok, so you are an armchair expert who thinks the notion of climate change is nothing but a ponzi scheme? That explains a lot, you probably know more than the coach of your favorite ball team too.

There is a difference between weather and climate, since this topic is about climate yet you feel the need to rant about us not being able to stop tornadoes I feel you may need to know the difference.

There is no rant LOL, we have no control over weather or the climate, a fact. We are not even a Type 1 civilization, another fact. All schemes/scams of taking taxes for imaginary problems have always ended in wealth transfer, ooops, another fact. Almost any situation allowing government to use private value has ended in malfeasance, nepotism, fraud or misappropriation, hmmm, damn those facts keep getting in the way.

Having made a career in engineering and physics for 40 years, I think I can have an opinion ;-) My opinion is man-made climate change, ACC, etc. is BS.

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: Kali74

Whelp: You are the High Priestess! Give him a prize!!

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: deadeyedick



Not really..



The OP is a joke, sarcasm... satire perhaps would be closer to the mark.



My reference to my cold feet, my wife's warm legs with regards to warming and cooling trends was a joke. Humor... jocularity.



you....did...not...get....it.



Which was fine, but for some reason you focused on my wife as being hot... and when I explained my humor, you still persisted. And brought in the head covering thing. I know. Something along the line of a head scarf or burka. Which had zippo to do with anything posted so far.

very odd
i was also joking in my post but you missed the humor.

you made reference to warmness of a female i turned that into them being hot and causing global warming by there hottness thereby giving the ned to cover up their hotness to cool the planet back. perrhaps not funny but in no way ill intended.


the comment about the movement being hijacked from the start and is now a full fledged money scam is not a joke. it is real

eta i got your joke from the start but the op is not a joke

a reply to: mc_squared

You really do like to muddy the waters with silly threads like this don’t you?.

Let us just introduce a little reality shall we.

Pretend for a moment that we where not aware of any study having been done to investigate world temperatures.

If you where tasked with the challenge of establishing measurements over such a large body, to be able to compare temperature over a large scales of time and to confidently be able to establish cause and affect of variations in temperatures. You would first have to look at all the external variables that could Impact your measurements.

Things such as variations in the Suns output, radiation of all wavelengths entering into the atmosphere from solar activity and space, The solars systems movement through the galaxy, varying temperatures of gas clouds the solar system passes through and of course ‘X’ possible unknown factors, that may or may not impact data, because we don’t know about it, so therefore have no way to build it into a model.

Next we would have to consider the internal influences such as the Earths core temperature, temperature variables caused by tectonic plate movements, undersea venting, volcanic activity, accurately measured atmospheric composition and of course any possible influence that human activity may contribute to overall temperatures, Oh, and ants, lets not forget about ants, as there are a lot of them.

Remind me if I have forgotten anything, would you!

THE NARRATIVE

Ok now we have a complete handle on all that, lets get about measuring the temperature shall we.

Well, first we will need several million, perfectly calibrated probes, laid out in a grid of about 25 miles apart (not really that accurate, but any more and this could get quite expensive)

Now somehow we have to repeat our sensor grid up and out through the 300 miles of atmosphere, tricky I know but don’t worry we’ll figure it out somehow.

Now, we have to place all of these probes very accurately so that they are not influenced by local hot/cold spots.

Just a little time later.

Ok, check list time

• Space temperatures along trajectory of solar system through galaxy over 1000 yr period - Check
• Hourly record of gamma ray emissions striking Earth and collated data of temperature affect though increasing and decreasing cloud cover over 1000 year period - Check
• Data from all geological activity for all parameters for last 1000yrs - Check
• Solar radiation emissions for entire spectrum of wavelength over 1000 yr period - Check
• Calculations of Earth precession, correlated against each of the other measurements and calculated collectively- Check
• Data from the millions of carefully calibrated temperature probes for surface, water and atmosphere over 1000 yr period Check

Phew, now all we have to do is analyse it all.

Now, have you got those computer models ready I asked you for?
You know, the ones correlated from data from those highly accurate sensors that where carefully developed from analysing the past 100million years of climate data. These are very very long cycles and have to be taken into account, otherwise any conclusions we arrive at will be meaningless. YOU DO! Ok, - Check

Well now we certainly have something to work with, although once we factor in tolerance I can’t be certain we can get any better than +/- 1 degree Centigrade but given the task I don't think anyone would be too worried.

What do you mean, I have waisted thousand of year of my time and trillions of dollars.

YOU SAY NASA HAS ALREADY DONE THIS STUDY FOR A FRACTION OF THE COST AND THEY ACHIEVED IT WITH DATA OVER - HOW LONG A PERIOD??? AND THEY ACHIEVED IT USING WHAT EQUIPMENT? OVER WHAT SAMPLING GRANULARITY???

AND THEY CONFIDENTLY STATE THAT THE EARTH HAS WARMED BY 0.85ºC over 135 yrs

Well it is NASA I guess, they must have got all the data from those aliens, who have been monitoring us for millions of years or something!

Your thread wasn't entirely futile though was it? after all, it did earn you over fifty valuable flags. Don't spend them all in the same shop will you!

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

Any process that involves throwing money, eg. carbon taxes, at a bunch of greedy psychopaths, to fix the problem they created is simply BS. Can I remind you of the bailouts and "too big to e'ing fail?" Lot of similarities there, they create the problem and we pay for it and now the assclowns are doing it again.

Cheers - Dave

Yes, you've cracked it wide open! Bailouts were built on a Lie!

Lehman Brothers is NOT dead! It's just resting. Adjusting thermometers. And pining for the glaciers.

Maybe you'd like to try responding in context? That might be a plan huh?

I believe I did, humorously.

The bailouts were extortion based on the failings and greed of those who control the ponzi scam. Global warming, eg climate change, are just another kind of scam.

What is the evidence for this global warming "scam"? The facts showing evidence of the phenomena which caused the financial bubble and crash were contemporaneously discovered and exposed immediately.

Why compare the sociology and herd behaviors of people in a financial market to phenomena governed by timeless laws of physics?

It's entirely illogical, equivalent to saying "Hey the top 40 songs are different every year so we shouldn't believe the chemists about cyanide!"

There's no relationship. The physics and study of human-induced global warming has been in play since the mid 1960's, continuously with a major scientific effort.

Both the bailouts and the alleged "climate change" involve all of us bailing out big corp and bankers again, and for what?

In what way does cilmate change "bail out big corp and bankers again"?

And "for what"? Given that mass extinction of species and civilizations is highly correlated with climate changes the "for what" is self-evident: preservation of anything like decent human civilization on the Earth.

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

Any process that involves throwing money, eg. carbon taxes, at a bunch of greedy psychopaths, to fix the problem they created is simply BS. Can I remind you of the bailouts and "too big to e'ing fail?" Lot of similarities there, they create the problem and we pay for it and now the assclowns are doing it again.

Cheers - Dave

Yes, you've cracked it wide open! Bailouts were built on a Lie!

Lehman Brothers is NOT dead! It's just resting. Adjusting thermometers. And pining for the glaciers.

Maybe you'd like to try responding in context? That might be a plan huh?

I believe I did, humorously.

The bailouts were extortion based on the failings and greed of those who control the ponzi scam. Global warming, eg climate change, are just another kind of scam.

What is the evidence for this global warming "scam"? The facts showing evidence of the phenomena which caused the financial bubble and crash were contemporaneously discovered and exposed immediately.

Why compare the sociology and herd behaviors of people in a financial market to phenomena governed by timeless laws of physics?

It's entirely illogical, equivalent to saying "Hey the top 40 songs are different every year so we shouldn't believe the chemists about cyanide!"

There's no relationship. The physics and study of human-induced global warming has been in play since the mid 1960's, continuously with a major scientific effort.

Both the bailouts and the alleged "climate change" involve all of us bailing out big corp and bankers again, and for what?

In what way does cilmate change "bail out big corp and bankers again"?

And "for what"? Given that mass extinction of species and civilizations is highly correlated with climate changes the "for what" is self-evident: preservation of anything like decent human civilization on the Earth.

It's already been proven over and over again, the numbers and charts have been fudged, it's a clear case of scientific fraud to meet a political agenda. It has nothing to do with maintaining a decent level of human society for 90% of us, maybe 10% of us LOL. As far as bailing out corps, government and banks, well yeah, they'll trade carbon credits just like they did pollution credits, it's already started and the speculation is running high. Face it, the whole thing is a scam and you can't change that using manipulated numbers to produce questionable "scientific" results to meet a top down result that fits an agenda.

Oh, I know the excuse that, that many scientists wouldn't lie or use lies of omission. You're wrong, they can be easily controlled through simple instruments, like grants, tenure and employment. As I said in another thread, my partners did it at the university by donating money to create tenured "Chairs" so they would be bought and paid for to produce specific scientific statements for investment purposes and they used to refer to the students that were working on our projects as "thinking meat." In many ways (but not in all cases) the scientific community are just as big a set of whores as the financial community.

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Are you trying to tell the people of ATS that we are not responsible for the ~40% rise of CO2 we have experienced in the past half century or so?

Since you claim career experience in physics , could you perhaps show a good residence time calculation of CO2 in the atmosphere?

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Are you trying to tell the people of ATS that we are not responsible for the ~40% rise of CO2 we have experienced in the past half century or so?

Since you claim career experience in physics , could you perhaps show a good residence time calculation of CO2 in the atmosphere?

Yes, I would claim that CO2 increases are predicated by temperature increases, NOT the other way around and that the initiator is not terrestrial. We see these temperature effects in one form or another on almost every planet past earth orbit.

As far as a CO2 series, if I had the time... Physics LOL, I'll show you my reactor if you'll show me yours (and yes, I have a small reactor for BEC experimentation).

Cheers - Dave

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?

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

I think you still missed the point of that thread a bit. If we’re going to frame this in the context of a Ponzi scheme - our economy as it stands today is already a giant Ponzi scheme.

The system is exploited mainly through unbridled consumerism to produce short-sighted returns that are not realistic or sustainable in the long haul both economically and environmentally. This is what happened in 2008 – everything was exploited to the brink financially and the whole thing almost completely caved.

Similarly, we are leveraging the same out-of-control debt on our environment. And just like certain economists were warning us about the financial consequences of that reckless overconsumption, scientists are warning us about the looming environmental catastrophe.

In both cases, a specific segment of the establishment has continuously attempted to undermine these warnings by labeling it “alarmism” or junk science, and smothering the facts with propaganda (e.g. like fake temperature data scandals). These are the deniers and their agenda is to maintain the status quo (and thus keep the current Ponzi scheme intact), because it’s working just great for them as is. This is why virtually all the global warming skepticism you read about comes not from legitimate scientific organizations, but from “free-market think tanks” that represent the interests of the 1%.

…

The idea that global warming and carbon taxes are somehow part of this Ponzi scheme doesn’t even make any sense. Carbon taxes are designed to reduce consumption and encourage conservation and efficiency. Remember – if you keep a minimal carbon footprint, you don’t actually pay a tax. This idea runs 180 degrees opposite to the plutocrat agenda, which is to have everyone shopping, spending, consuming and wasting as much as possible - because each of these “economic activities” carries a profit margin associated with it.

The only place where a carbon tax fits into this agenda is in the minds of the tinfoil crowd unfortunately, who seem to think the revenues go straight into the pockets of the elite somehow. This is far from reality however – a revenue-neutral carbon tax system actually returns the money directly to the taxpayer, through deductions in other channels such as your income taxes.

This information is all readily available to those willing to just research the facts critically and objectively:
What is a Carbon Tax?

All carbon tax revenue is recycled through tax reductions – The government has a legal requirement to present an annual plan to the legislature demonstrating how all of the carbon tax revenue will be returned to taxpayers through tax reductions. The money will not be used to fund government programs.

But this discussion is constantly hijacked instead by all the deniers and tinfoil sensationalists screaming “eeeep they’re tryin to tax muh air I breathe!!”. All this rhetoric is nothing but ignorant, nonsensical jibberish. It’s just paranoia-fodder for the type of conspiracy theorists who wouldn’t know a real conspiracy if it came and abducted them in the middle of the night. You’re above that kind of tinfoil fluff aren’t you?

originally posted by: kennyb72
a reply to: mc_squared

You really do like to muddy the waters with silly threads like this don’t you?.

Me thinks you’re kicking up some pretty muddy water of your own there. Your narrative is indicative of the kind of skeptic mindset that way overcomplicates everything to avoid the simple facts:

We don’t need to sort out every last detail of the temperature record to understand that greenhouse emissions raise temperature. Greenhouse gas forcing is a proven fact based on the physics, period. This has been observed and understood for almost 200 years now. It can be easily demonstrated in a lab and it’s also been directly measured in the real world. No computer model necessary.

The physics alone dictate that if you’re going to trap heat, you’re going to raise the temperature. 1 + 1 = 2.

You’re trying to make it x/x + 6000y/6000y = -sqrt(4z/z)*i^2, but it doesn’t change the fact that 1 + 1 = 2.

a reply to: mc_squared

Me thinks you’re kicking up some pretty muddy water of your own there. Your narrative is indicative of the kind of skeptic mindset that way overcomplicates everything to avoid the simple facts:

0.04 percent of the total atmosphere, a precious little trace element. You want simple facts:
how about an extra 5.7 billion precious souls exhaling since 1885. That should account for your 200ppm easily with some to spare.

How about there being no warming since the last century, and don't give me rubbish about warming hiatus, that simply equates to "oh crap, at least it guarantees us another 15 yrs before we have to come up with more excuses".

The only thing perpetuating this nonsense is people like you who are blinded by their own pseudoscience and a bunch of desperate scientists that don't want to miss out on a good bonus.

Your narrative is indicative of the dogmatic mindset that is going to seriously mess up our planet. Why don't you stop waisting valuable time and energy on this contrived rubbish, and concentrate on the serious damage being done to the planet with Radiation, Deforestation, Herbicides, Pesticides, Sulphides, PCB's the list goes on, pumped onto the land and into the atmosphere. CO2 is the very least of our problems.

All hail CO2 you lovely life giving miracle gas.

You have been brainwashed beyond help, I hope you do realise one day because you are currently misleading a lot of people, and that is not good for the soul I'm afraid.

originally posted by: kennyb72

0.04 percent of the total atmosphere, a precious little trace element. You want simple facts:
how about an extra 5.7 billion precious souls exhaling since 1885. That should account for your 200ppm easily with some to spare.
.....

Your narrative is indicative of the dogmatic mindset that is going to seriously mess up our planet. Why don't you stop waisting valuable time and energy on this contrived rubbish, and concentrate on the serious damage being done to the planet with Radiation, Deforestation, Herbicides, Pesticides, Sulphides, PCB's the list goes on, pumped onto the land and into the atmosphere. CO2 is the very least of our problems.

All hail CO2 you lovely life giving miracle gas.

You have been brainwashed beyond help, I hope you do realise one day because you are currently misleading a lot of people, and that is not good for the soul I'm afraid.

The folly of your argument shows you lack the understanding of basic chemistry. 400ppm is not a trace amount of a substance in the atmosphere and the 40% increase over the last 50 years is a cause for concern. It will change our atmosphere in terms of radiative forcing, and it has changed our oceans in terms of making them more acidic. To claim that 400ppm(and rising) is not significant is flat out lie.

Also there are many other problems we are causing this planet that you hit, they are all our concerns. The ocean and overfishing for example is effected by the CO2 rise. The deforestation takes away a natural sink of CO2, the pollution on our waterways kills phytoplankton, another CO2 sink.

It is the interest of our species to tackle the CO2 problem.

We are being manipulated, and it is not by the scientist who are concerned about the rising CO2 levels.