"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." Richard P. Feynman

Tuesday, April 13, 2010

NASA Creates it's Own Climate Change by Altering Data

The Hockey Schtick has shown in the clearest fashion, using NASA's own graphs, how to create out-of-control warming from practically nothing. NASA in true environmentalist fashion has recycled old graphs into shiny new ones to agree with the new philosophy of AGW.
The same crew recycled the old charts showing the Medieval Warm Period to brand new ones with an odd hockey stick shape and no MWP.The Orwellian change in the graphs is breathtaking and shows that the GISS data is just as corrupt as Hadcrut! Hansen's efforts at fudging data make Phil Jones look like a rank amateur!

12 comments:

  1. You mean its not it's.

    ReplyDelete
  2. NASA GISS needs to be renamed "The Ministry of Truth". Winston Smith working for James Hansen.

    ReplyDelete
  3. How does this affect the warming trend? The big uptick to the right on these graphs seems more important. Also, note that the scale of each graph is different as temps have increased over time.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The right hand document is obviously a complete fraud - why point to part of it as true?
    The "uptick" at the start of the first document is obviously larger without the supposed effect of all that extra CO2.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Please don't confuse all of NASA with Hansen's group. Even the former administrator of NASA and Hansen's former boss disagreed with him and his positions. It was other non-NASA connections that overrode those complaints that he did not represent NASA's official position (Gore and several other high officials, and the MSM).

    ReplyDelete
  6. Daganstein,

    False in one false in all. You cant be clearly lying on the temperature reconstruction in the 70s and be given the presumption of honesty for the present.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Check the temp in 1980 against 1940 in all 3 graphs.

    Do they seriously want us to trust them when they say in 1987: "Oops.. got 1980 wrong.." then in 2007 say: "Oops.. we were actually right back in 1980!"?

    How can something as fundamental as temperature records since the computer age be as flaky as they're portraying here, unless they're either incompetent, or misleading?

    Policymakers shouldn't even come close to considering basing whole-of-life-on-earth changing policies based on this nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
  8. These guys should be put before a jury of their peers, and if they can't satisfactorily explain each of the "revisions", given a bit of slammer time. They don't even have to be right, but they do have to provide rational explanations.

    ReplyDelete
  9. New policies are being formed around the world to help create a low-carbon economy, focused on reducing carbon emissions. The challenge however is how to redefine our production of energy and reduce the demand for power, without hindering business developement. The transition will not be easy, but it is essential if we are to tackle the problem of climate change

    ReplyDelete
  10. "False in one false in all."

    Or -- just maybe -- scientists have improved their methodology for measuring temps in the past THIRTY years. Come on guys, this is so lame.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "New policies are being formed around the world to help create a low-carbon economy"

    That is a green pipe-dream. "Green" and "Pipe" as in smoking some previously green stuff.:-)

    The latest breakthrough in green technology has photovoltaic panels producing electricity even at night. We have the Spanish environmental "scientists" to thank for this advancement. See:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/13/the-insanity-of-greenery/

    An low-carbon economy for what? It would make sense if something toxic or harmful was being emitted but it's not. It's carbon dioxide, a harmless and beneficial natural molecule vital for our survival.

    Global Warming has been a brilliant 5-step campaign:

    1) Identify a natural +/-1 degree F variability in our climate for the last 100 years.

    2) Convince people "warmer is bad, colder is good" and convince people "we're all going to die!" if the temperature changes 1 degree F.

    3) Use junk science to claim CO2 causes this temperature change.

    4) Demonize CO2 and claim our lifestyle is to blame.

    5) Tax CO2. Make a lot of money. It doesn't reduce CO2 the slightest but that wasn't the goal. New taxes were the goal.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "Come on guys, this is so lame." Yes, it is, but you just keep f'n that chicken anyway don't you?

    Don't you find it even a little that every time they "improve their methodology foe measuring past temps" [my gosh!! who knew NASA {or at least Hansen} had a functioning time machine? Or did you possibly mean "improve their statistical fiddling in order to get the temps they like"?] the 'data' becomes more supportive of their claims? How incredibly lucky for them.

    I can't decide if you're truly this stupid or if there's something the CO2 hoax for you. [Is that you, Algore?]

    ReplyDelete