Dear Climate Change Deniers

any1 post about the scientist offering 10k for anyone to prove that global warming or climate change due to fossil fuel abuse isnt real

phyzx should enter he is a wizard just like tehvul
 
These leaps that you somehow support "dirty air and dirty water" just because you dont believe that CO2 is contributing to a [data manipulated] hypothesis thats being trotted about as 'consensus' and 'the science is settled' is pretty comical and extremely stupid.

I'd like to see where people dont approve of good stewardship of our resources. Littering and dumping waste into our resources should be severely punished.
 
Dare is a brain damaged idiot. The kid needs to worry about recovering instead of obsessing over Tribalwar. All bullshit aside. What has he contributed here at TW besides nothing? That's right. Nothing just like the nothing he is.
 
image266.png
 
ICFire go fuck yourself. :sunny:

The scandal of fiddled global warming data - Telegraph

The damning graphs published on the ‘Real Science’ blog by Steven Goddard, the nom de plume of a self-described ‘lifelong environmentalist’ with graduate-level scientific credentials. They show the impact of replacing the real measurements with computer-generated estimates, in an alleged scheme to de-emphasize temperature readings from earlier decades while giving added weight to more recent numbers.
Click to expand...

NOAA And NASA Data Alterations Are Global

Iceland

iceland-1.gif


vestmannaeyja.gif


Australia

alicesprings.gif


the data was over 40% fabricated so far in 2014.
Click to expand...

unnamed.gif


Those fucking guys are a disgrace to Science. Screaming Global Warming knowing damned well it was complete bullshit.

1998changesannotated.gif
 
Last edited:
Shut up stupid.

Those so called Scientist and Al Gore should be burned at the stake for brainwashing an entire generation.

If government employees are going to alter data to reverse measured cooling trends into warming trends, it is absolutely essential that each and every graph is clearly marked as altered. Otherwise, people might accidentally confuse it as being legitimate.

And if you point out that they have altered the data, they use their government funded salaries to publicly say that your analysis is faulty. These aren’t my graphs. They are NASA graphs. It isn’t my analysis, it is NASA’s analysis.

Obviously we should just blindly accept everything government employees say.
Click to expand...
 
Folks got lied to in a major way. On record proven. No doubt about it. The cat is out of the bag. Global Warming was a lie. Better invest in a good coat. Real talk.
 
If you want to read a VERY good analysis of a single station's "adjustments", I would recommend heading over to Paul Homewood's (warmist) site, and reading his write-up on Luling Texas. Unlike Goddard, he goes into detail and provides links directly to all the data, so that you can check his work for yourself.

In other words, the adjustments have added an astonishing 1.35C to the annual temperature for 2013. Note also that I have included the same figures for 1934, which show that the adjustment has reduced temperatures that year by 0.91C. So, the net effect of the adjustments between 1934 and 2013 has been to add 2.26C of warming.
Click to expand...

Massive Temperature Adjustments At Luling, Texas | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
 
This data tampering conversation just exploded this weekend.

It appears that Steven Goddard (probably one of the most radical of conspiracy theorists against AGW) might of hit paydirt. After being attacked by fellow skeptics this week, it appears that many people are now digging into this subject and validating (to some degree) the amount of data corruption that has been systematically been happening to US historical temperature records.

From:John Nielsen-Gammon
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 9:27 AM
To: Anthony
Subject: Re: USHCN station at Luling Texas

Anthony -

I just did a check of all Texas USHCN stations. Thirteen had estimates in place of apparently good data.

410174 Estimated May 2008 thru June 2009

410498 Estimated since Oct 2011

410639 Estimated since July 2012 (exc Feb-Mar 2012, Nov 2012, Mar 2013, and May 2013)

410902 Estimated since Aug 2013

411048 Estimated July 2012 thru Feb 2014

412906 Estimated since Jan 2013

413240 Estimated since March 2013

413280 Estimated since Oct 2012

415018 Estimated since April 2010, defunct since Dec 2012

415429 Estimated since May 2013

416276 Estimated since Nov 2012

417945 Estimated since May 2013

418201 Estimated since April 2013 (except Dec 2013).

What is going on is that the USHCN code is that while the RAW data file has the actual measurements, for some reason the final data they publish doesn’t get the memo that good data is actually present for these stations, so it “infills” it with estimated data using data from surrounding stations. It’s a bug, a big one. And as Zeke did a cursory analysis Thursday night, he discovered it was systemic to the entire record, and up to 10% of stations have “estimated” data spanning over a century:
Click to expand...
 
Vanster said:
Why make the y-axis go to 120?

(I'm not really asking, I know why they did it, I'm just hoping you will think about it)
Click to expand...


probably for the same reason the current administration has been manipulating the X axis for so long.

It's all about perception.
 
brick said:
uh what? weren't you the one clambering about how a concensus doesn't mean anything about CO2 because there wasn't an equation to back up the consensus?
Click to expand...

yes I was.

glad you're paying attention.

a "consensus" on a hypothesis = absolutely jack shit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top