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

a reply to: kennyb72

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.

Where is the money in that?

a reply to: jrod

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.

You all appear to be delusional, carried away in a rhetorical psychosis, of (radiative forcing, acidic oceans, run away greenhouse gasses - run away, run away aaraargh...)

Here let me show you.

1,000,000 compared to 400. There!, you can say it till you are blue in the face, but 400 can barely be seen if you where to put these two numbers together on a scale.

it is a TRACE element, get it. I would draw a pie chart for you but what is the point, as it would look like a circle with a thin line running from the centre. It is an insignificant and most likely a beneficial trend. If you where to tell me that oxygen was a green house gas, I would feel some cause for concern, but even then I wouldn't be running round screaming the sky is burning, the sky is burning.

Just stop with your stupid mantra's and calm down, then perhaps you will see the logic. Can't you see that somebody is pushing every button on you that is pushable, and conjuring up nightmares of polar bears flapping around looking for land, and green and pleasant valley turned to desserts. You are being programmed to see it.

No Warming, I repeat No Warming for over 18 yrs, every climate model is wrong, WAKE THE FU.

a reply to: deadeyedick

Where is the money in that?

Nail on head, I am afraid!

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
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.

No it hasn't been proven. It's literally libel. And it makes no sense, at all!

All numbers, in all the charts for 50 years, and all the physics, everywhere, in the world, across thousands of scientists and dozens of nations? Where is the evidence? How are all the lab experiments manipulated? How were all the studies of radiative transfer for the Air Force and Navy all manipulated forty years ago? And all to make one single coherent scientific theory and broad experimental result that fits together?

And the political agenda? All scientists all have the same political agenda, from which they benefit nothing?

Why didn't the scientists all lie about vaccines? And harm from power lines?

And if everybody was going to start lying for no reason decades ago, why on earth would they all lie about something which would challenge the wealthiest and most powerful industries on the planet???

[or maybe the wealthiest and most powerful industries on the planet might have motivation to fund people who do actually lie]

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,

They still do trade pollution credits and it has turned out to be an effective system.

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.

That's literally hysterical assertions. Is the same thing true with the enormous evidence supporting evolution?

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.

A few. Hardly everybody, for decades over all the planet.

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.

So, because bankers can pay off economists to make papers about one problem so it can be used as sales material, that means that XXXXX can pay off the entire community of geophysicists for decades to say something entirely contrary to observations? And for what? And where is the money?

And nothing prevents others from making refuations.

originally posted by: kennyb72
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.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Venus must have populations of trillions!

And our oceans are rising because of all those billions of people pissing, right?

originally posted by: kennyb72


You all appear to be delusional, carried away in a rhetorical psychosis, of (radiative forcing, acidic oceans, run away greenhouse gasses - run away, run away aaraargh...)

Here let me show you.

1,000,000 compared to 400. There!, you can say it till you are blue in the face, but 400 can barely be seen if you where to put these two numbers together on a scale.

it is a TRACE element, get it...

You have resorted to ad hominum attacks, that shows you are the one who is frustrated with the way this 'debate' is going.

CO2 is not an element, it is a molecule. This shows a lack of understanding of basic chemistry on your behalf.

I do not even know where to begin with the claim that 400ppm is not significant. There are about 7 billion people on this planet, saying the 400ppm would be the same as saying about 2.8 million people of this planet are not significant, that is larger than the US military, so using your logic the US military is not a significant force on this planet.

Are you going to tell me that 280million people of the world are simply not significant?

Also CO2 concentrations have increased by 40%.....that is a significant jump. No sane person will argue the 40% increase of CO2 is insignificant.

originally posted by: jrod

originally posted by: kennyb72


You all appear to be delusional, carried away in a rhetorical psychosis, of (radiative forcing, acidic oceans, run away greenhouse gasses - run away, run away aaraargh...)

Here let me show you.

1,000,000 compared to 400. There!, you can say it till you are blue in the face, but 400 can barely be seen if you where to put these two numbers together on a scale.

it is a TRACE element, get it...

You have resorted to ad hominum attacks, that shows you are the one who is frustrated with the way this 'debate' is going.

CO2 is not an element, it is a molecule. This shows a lack of understanding of basic chemistry on your behalf.

I do not even know where to begin with the claim that 400ppm is not significant. There are about 7 billion people on this planet, saying the 400ppm would be the same as saying about 2.8 million people of this planet are not significant, that is larger than the US military, so using your logic the US military is not a significant force on this planet.

Are you going to tell me that 280million people of the world are simply not significant?

Also CO2 concentrations have increased by 40%.....that is a significant jump. No sane person will argue the 40% increase of CO2 is insignificant.

Don't you know? Essential minerals and vitamins and the libel against nerve gases are just a DOCTOR SCAM! Their concentrations are sooo much smaller than 400 parts per million! They can't possibly have any effect at parts per billion!

Those supposed mythical "dIseases of vitamin deficiency" and those faked toxicity reports are all just more lies from the Big Doctor Pharmaceutical Complex who want to pump you full of filthy dirty chemicals which are disgustingly dangerous, unlike the perfectly healthy organophosphates from our strapping capitalist all American chemical Job Creators! Why do liberals love collectivist mosquitos?

a reply to: jrod

Nice little example there jrod, I guess if CO2 was as toxic as aforementioned we may have an issue but it’s not is it. It’s what makes my garden grow

And go and learn what 'ad hominum' means, will you “You all appear to be” is a generalisation not a personal attack. Another stupid overused “Oh look I can speak latin” expression. Get a life!!!

Also CO2 concentrations have increased by 40%.....that is a significant jump. No sane person will argue the 40% increase of CO2 is insignificant.

No sane person would compare a trained army with bombs, with an innocent likkle molecule.

And it’s not a significant jump, its a very slow creep that seems perfectly in sync with the addition of another 5.7 billion people, All apparently breathing.

That's all of course if you even accept, that science is capable of being able to measure accurately the CO2 component of the entire atmosphere of the Earth. It is a proposterous idea. It’s laughable in fact. Have you even thought about the volume we are talking about, and the hardware that would be necessary to come even close to an accurate figure. In fact, work that backwards, and tell me how they performed that amazing fete back in 1880.

Here, I drew a little diagram for you so you can put things into perspective.

CO2 is not an element, it is a molecule. This shows a lack of understanding of basic chemistry on your behalf.

I know what a compound is my friend, It is not a trained army!

ETA: Actually that is a very good point isn’t it!
If all of humanity where to rebel at the same time, there would not be an army on the planet that could stop them. Armies would be crushed in a heartbeat. Hmmm, 'NO MORE WAR' wonderful thought!

I repeat 0.04% is insignificant on this scale.

a reply to: mbkennel

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Venus must have populations of trillions!

And our oceans are rising because of all those billions of people pissing, right?

Yes, comparing 96% directly with 0.04% is very intelligent, Maybe it's your little part of the world that is sinking, dunno, it's not happening here.

Let face it, Venus is screwed, If only Al Gore had been around to save them.

originally posted by: kennyb72


You all appear to be delusional, carried away in a rhetorical psychosis, of (radiative forcing, acidic oceans, run away greenhouse gasses - run away, run away aaraargh...)

Here let me show you....

This is an example of an ad hominum style attack against a poster, that poster being me. Then you go on to deny it with another ad hominum style attack by suggesting I do not know what an ad hominum is. yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

Essentially when you write something in an attempt to belittle someone's intelligent to get a 'point' for you in a debate, you are committing an ad hominum attack. You are also using ridicule over evidence to make your point in this thread. Not exactly scientific nor a logical way to prove your point.

Amazing, it is like trying to argue over what color the sky is with you guys. As soon as we call out one of the climate change denying types, another pops up and continues trying to post the pseudo-science that 'prove' climate change has nothing to do with human activity.

a reply to: jrod

This is an example of an ad hominum style attack against a poster, that poster being me. Then you go on to deny it with another ad hominum style attack by suggesting I do not know what an ad hominum is. yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

Oh, you mean like this

The folly of your argument shows you lack the understanding of basic chemistry.

and

This shows a lack of understanding of basic chemistry on your behalf.

Your example made me smile

Example: After Sally presents an eloquent and compelling case for a more equitable taxation system, Sam asks the audience whether we should believe anything from a woman who isn’t married, was once arrested, and smells a bit weird.

WELL!!! WOULD YOU ????

a reply to: kennyb72

Well buddy, if you trying to have a debate on Chemistry and Atmosphere Science/Physics, it is necessary to have a good understanding of the sciences involved.

Given the rhetoric of your posts, it is obvious that you lack some discipline in the subject at hand. Instead of taking the criticism and showing that you do indeed have at least Chem 101 understanding of what is going on in the atmosphere, you just rant about stuff that has nothing to do with this subject. I think the fallacy you are grasping at now is of the Tu quoque variety. Respond to criticism with criticism...

At least now you can not deny that 400ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere is not significant, nor is the 40% rise of CO2 we have observed over the past half century.

a reply to: jrod

you just rant about stuff that has nothing to do with this subject. I think the fallacy you are grasping at now is of the Tu quoque variety. Respond to criticism with criticism...

You really are a clever chap! you speak both latin and french eloquently, Je suis très impressionné

At least now you can not deny that 400ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere is not significant, nor is the 40% rise of CO2 we have observed over the past half century.

And how did you arrive at that conclusion based on anything I have said. My whole point the past few post is that current CO2 levels are insignificant. Now hang on, let me word this correctly. Some people (not anybody specifically) seem to have comprehension difficulties.

a reply to: kennyb72

Your whole point of CO2 levels being insignificant has been shown to be wrong.

Did you actually write your previous posts where you tried to pass the blame on the CO2 increase on human population?(that claim is flawed for many reasons, one important note being that we have caused the extinction and great population reductions of many of our fellow CO2 exhaling organisms, in other words the bio-mass of CO2 exhaling creatures has not increased. If I really get bored I could maybe even run through some numbers to show this to be the case.)

So now what? You are accusing someone of comprehension difficulties.

The 40%+ increase of CO2 is directly related to our burning of natural gas, coal, and oil. Either accept it or remain ignorant.

a reply to: jrod

Your whole point of CO2 levels being insignificant has been shown to be wrong.

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.

"Mauna Loa is often used as an example of rising carbon dioxide levels because its the longest, continuous series of directly measured atmospheric CO2. The reason why it's acceptable to use Mauna Loa as a proxy for global CO2 levels is because CO2 mixes well throughout the atmosphere. Consequently, the trend in Mauna Loa CO2 (1.64 ppm per year) is statistically indistinguishable from the trend in global CO2 levels (1.66 ppm per year). If global CO2 was used in Figure 1 above, the result "hockey stick" shape would be identical."

The yard stick for global CO2 measurement sits on top of a volcanoe, FFS

If I really get bored I could maybe even run through some numbers to show this to be the case

No Please don't do that, I beseech you!!

The 40%+ increase of CO2 is directly related to our burning of natural gas, coal, and oil. Either accept it or remain ignorant.

You have zero evidence for this statement - period. If I see just one more hockey stick, I swear I'll ..!!!!

a reply to: kennyb72

All right, red herring time....

It is almost laughable that you claim there is 'zero evidence' of our pumping CO2 into the atmosphere as a result of using coal, oil, natural gas, among other products increases the observed CO2 in said atmosphere. These CO2 increases correlate with the industrial age...

I am done here....it is futile.

Logical deduction has no place on online forums apparently.

a reply to: jrod

It is almost laughable that you claim there is 'zero evidence' of our pumping CO2 into the atmosphere as a result of using coal, oil, natural gas, among other products increases the observed CO2 in said atmosphere. These CO2 increases correlate with the industrial age...

Measurement of Pre-Industrial CO2 Levels
By Dr Timothy Ball 11/2008 Fields Geography, historical climatology

The pre-industrial CO2 level was not significantly lower than current levels. Neither they nor the present readings are high relatively to the geologic record. The entire output of computer climate models begins with the assumption that pre- industrial levels were measurably lower. Elimination of this assumption further undermines the claim that the warming in the industrial era period was due to human addition of CO2 to the atmosphere. Combined with their assumption that CO2 causes temperature increase when all records show the opposite then it is not surprising that IPCC predictions of temperature increase are consistently wrong.

Logical deduction has no place on online forums apparently.

Nor does fanciful speculation my friend. You are a fighter though jrod, it's just a shame you are fighting on the wrong side.

a reply to: kennyb72




Dr Timothy Ball was a professor of geography for 28 years and retired in 1996 Far as I know Ball has four papers on historical climatology, none on climate and atmosphere, but it is said he has plenty of articles in the likes of gardening magazines, it is a bit far fetched to consider him an authority on climate. So I am wondering where that snippet came from. Without a link it is hard to tell.

a reply to: Grimpachi

More on Tim Ball at Desmog Blog

a reply to: Kali74

Winner winner chicken dinner.


I didn't know he was that much of a piece of work and look he is a bit like Ken Ham to him evolution is a scam as well.


He had me at Heartland Institute. I see why links were not included.