Global Warming 'Fabricated' by NASA and NOAA

Scientists at two of the world’s leading climate centres - NASA and NOAA - have been caught out manipulating temperature data to overstate the extent of the 20th century "global warming".

The evidence of their tinkering can clearly be seen at Real Science, where blogger Steven Goddard has posted a series of graphs which show "climate change" before and after the adjustments.

When the raw data is used, there is little if any evidence of global warming and some evidence of global cooling. However, once the data has been adjusted - ie fabricated by computer models - 20th century 'global warming' suddenly looks much more dramatic.

This is especially noticeable on the US temperature records. Before 2000, it was generally accepted

Global Warming 'Fabricated' by NASA and NOAA

Caught with their finger in the cookie jar, Nasa and Noaa actually reset the climate data back to setting 1936 as the hottest year on record... rocking the world of Global warming... and hopefully skewing the result of the new ATS poll just started on this list..
Further sources...
dailycaller.com...

www.thenewamerican.com...

Irregardless of this new information and the fact that this year in Europe and America has been a cool one..... the viligent should note that methane releases in the arctic have been spewing vast amounts of gas into the atmosphere... and watch all other sources on both sides..

Note that Elton (below) has added the following Geotimes article which may have relevance to the discussion
www.geotimes.org...

See my avatar?

a reply to: Mamatus

Yes... many times... and I trully love it .... big hug

Um... this is great... 14 stars in five minutes without any comments.....

I am feeling the love.... (or is it I hit on something a shill cohort group loves)... Either way, it is nice to feel the stars raining down upon me

a reply to: R_Clark

This is what many have been saying all along about man-made climate change. It comes as no surprise to me. Garbage in garbage out has long been my contention. I just didn't have proof that the garbage data was manipulated before it was thrown through the 'climate models' before this article.

Now we KNOW it is the BS we thought it was.

the stars are from people who already replied in the OTHER thread of the same topic,
they just don't want to post again.

Oh almost forgot S+F too. lol

According to another article it was from an error...

GeoTimes

Error in NASA climate data sparks debate

Due to an error in calculations of mean U.S. temperatures, 1934, not 1998 as previously reported, is the hottest year on record in the United States. NASA scientists contend that the error has little effect on overall U.S. temperature trends and no effect on global mean temperatures, with 2005 still the hottest year worldwide by far, followed by 1998. The data corrections have added new fuel to the climate change debate, however — and could spell more public relations woes for NASA.

Climate scientists, however, are asserting that the uproar over the data corrections is nothing more than a tempest in a teapot. NASA GISS scientist Jim Hansen, who helped devise the algorithm used to correct for the various climate factors, wrote in an Aug. 10 e-mail that the errors were introduced when the U.S. stations switched between two different datasets in 2000, with the faulty assumption that the second dataset also included the necessary corrections, an error that was recognized and fixed, Hansen said. Acknowledging that 1934 now appears to have been slightly hotter than 1998 in the United States, he noted that the difference in the mean between the two years, of 0.02 degrees Celsius, was and always had been smaller than the uncertainty, although their relative positions are now flipflopped. Globally, however, the changes had no effect on rankings, and 1998 was still by far the warmest year on record before 2005, he says. "For two days I have been besieged by rants that I have wronged the president, that I must 'step down,' or that I must 'vanish,'" he wrote.

So I am not sure what the truth is on this one, but I figure we should at least be looking at all the relevant articles.

a reply to: nrd101


Well said....rofl

I just want to say its not about co2 and methane, it should be about the poisons and toxic substances. we will
all die of cancer from all the radiation and chemicals before the global temperature of the planet affects us in any way. some people think it is already too late.

a reply to: Elton

Elton, thanks for the balanced adjustment... I will try to edit the top article to include

This is not breaking news.

Already being discussed here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: R_Clark

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it"
Joseph Goebbels - Nazi Propaganda Minister.

Hmmm, I wonder what else NASA has fabricated and lied about?

I'm not climatologist, but I'd be wary of drawing conclusions based on graphs with such a limited data set. First, 1880-2000, although 120 years, is in fact a short period of time, and one which does not include the last ~14 years. I do suppose that is standard for these calculations, but I am skeptical of such small time frames... Force of habit. Second, those graphs are based on temperature anomalies. Notice the Y-axis is labeled not in degrees, but +1 to -1. A negative number indicates cooler than a reference value while positive is higher (hotter). The general trend is in the positive, with likely seasonal variations. Do note the climate change is not just global warming, different regions will have different results.

Edit:
I should also say, before I get eaten alive by you megalodons of the society ;D, graphs can be made to say whatever you want. They can provide support for climate change and they can be made to show evidence against it. How data is used is the key, and regardless of the claims made by a person, reading the charts and seeing what they say is what is important.

a reply to: Sublimecraft

400ppm of CO2 and rising at 20ppm per decade is no fabrication.

Those numbers are real. We have seen a 40%+ increase in CO2 as a result of the industrial revolution.

We know they have been manipulating the data..

CLIMATEGATE comes to mind, and we have had MANY THREADS and discussions on this..

We can post all re-lated articles but that should be up to the OP..

This is just another blow to the lying cap and trade carbon tax monkeys
and AL GORES BS infamous Hockey Stick Charts.

hahah bunch of lyers..

now i'm not saying the climate has not been changing but we did have an ICE AGE before all over the world..
of course climates change

Is this climategate number 4 now? I've lost count how many times "scientists" have been caught manipulating data and blackballing opposing ideas.

And here I was hoping for my ocean front property in Minnesota...

a reply to: rockn82

I've lost count how many times "scientists" have been caught manipulating data and blackballing opposing ideas.

Me too. They change the name as often as they do the theories. First its Global Warming, then Climate Change.

What will they call it next, "Weather gone Wild"?

Like chemtrails, Imo its designed to distract us from the real, right now issue of global pollution.

The Second global warming died is when politicians hijacked it.

And then try to sell snake oil to the masses how it needs 'more' power to regulate the entire planet.

LOL

Global Warming is the epitome of 'neoconservatism'.

Hell they have moved from social engineering to geo engineering.

Global warming data faked ?

Yep.

a reply to: neo96

Well said.... A commissioned loss of cred.... via the internet..

originally posted by: intrptr
...
Me too. They change the name as often as they do the theories. First its Global Warming, then Climate Change.

What will they call it next, "Weather gone Wild"?
...

Um yeah about that....

National Geographic

As much as I wanted to laugh when you said that...