It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The GIG is up on the IPCC and the tweaked NASA data

page: 1
19
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+5 more 
posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 10:19 PM
link   
Ok this will make alarmist heads just explode but here goes.

I am sure we are being lied to about the data. I as an Environmental Scientist who collects ambient pollution data am concerned dearly for my profession. It is nothing without the truth of the data. How can I claim the high road when my so called peers cheat and lie about data for greedy or selfish purposes?

www.telegraph.co.uk... (friends of this idea please feel free to find more like this)


This vehicle listed below was built over 20 years ago and wins the Grand Prize every single time it is entered. Not once that I know of did it not win. They drove it across America and the news told us about it, but now, crickets.
ttp://www.local8now.com/home/headlines/Cross-country-car-trip-used-only-solar-hydrogen-198746181.html

Here is the movie that pits the IPCC against itself. I find it witty and it has excerpts from the Congressional Hearing where Al Gore gets embarrassed and the Cadre from the IPCC states here exactly why the summary by Dr Mann DID NOT match their conclusions of the data . Plus, the 97% consensus gets thoroughly debunked. Hell, these are the real data sources Mann uses and they disagree.

exhibition.thefreestylelife.com...


Only one logical conclusion for me after I connect these dots:
• Fiddling with the raw data that would have me arrested if my data were not raw and un-tweaked
• Keeping back the co-authors of the IPCC’s report who actually collected the data from explaining why they didn’t get a say in THEIR OWN DATA.
• The silent American media on the Congressional hearings that literally embarrassed Al Gore.
• The fact Al predicted an ice free Arctic by 2012 and is simply wrong
• The new taxes funding the cult of alarmism
• The ridicule of legitimate challenges by real climatologist and Physicists
• The violation of the “Scientific Process” so eloquently laid out by Richard Feynman


Someone wants to use oil and coal to get riches and power by promoting this lie. I ask the philosophical ones who dare to think for themselves a simple question, who gives up power they have obtained willingly? There are plenty of you who know the reason is to transfer wealth.

edit on 9-2-2015 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-2-2015 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-2-2015 by Justoneman because: So that my Language Teachers and class mates would be happy with me for making every effort at editing the piece!!




posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 10:27 PM
link   
You can't convince the climate change nuts that they are being lied too. They love it, and want it sooo bad.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 10:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: caterpillage
You can't convince the climate change nuts that they are being lied too. They love it, and want it sooo bad.


I think everyone is just tired of banging their heads against the wall.

No proof will ever be enough to convince them it is not catastrophic or caused primarily by man.

They just know, they can feel it.

You know like the religious folks.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 10:32 PM
link   
a reply to: caterpillage

I will be "guilty by association" when they come with the pitchforks if I don't do my due diligence in vetting these liars.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 10:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman
I don't suppose you've actually read the IPCC reports. If you had you might know that it isn't really a secret that the raw data has been adjusted. Nor is it a secret why.

Most sites exhibit poor current siting as assessed against official WMO siting guidance, and may be expected to suffer potentially large siting-induced absolute biases (Fall et al., 2011). However, overall biases for the network since the 1980s are likely dominated by instrument type (owing to replacement of Stevenson screens with maximum minimum temperature systems (MMTS) in the 1980s at the majority of sites), rather than siting biases (Menne et al., 2010; Williams et al., 2012). A new automated homogeneity assessment approach (also used in GHCNv3, Menne and Williams, 2009) was developed that has been shown to perform as well or better than other contemporary approaches (Venema et al., 2012). This homogenization procedure likely removes much of the bias related to the network-wide changes in the 1980s (Menne et al., 2010; Fall et al., 2011; Williams et al., 2012). Williams et al. (2012) produced an ensemble of data set realizations using perturbed settings of this procedure and concluded through assessment against plausible test cases that there existed a propensity to under-estimate adjustments. This propensity is critically dependent upon the (unknown) nature of the inhomogeneities in the raw data records. Their homogenization increases both minimum temperature and maximum temperature centennial-time-scale USA average LSAT trends. Since 1979 these adjusted data agree with a range of reanalysis products whereas the raw records do not (Fall et al., 2010; Vose et al., 2012a).


You see, it is known that many stations are not well situated. It is know than the stations themselves have problems. These biases have been studied and taken into account. These biases are the reason for the adjustment of the raw data because the raw data is not reliable.

www.ipcc.ch... (Sec 2.4.1.1)

You may want to actually read the report(s) rather than relying on some blogging "whistle blower."

edit on 2/9/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 10:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Justoneman
a reply to: caterpillage

I will be "guilty by association" when they come with the pitchforks if I don't do my due diligence in vetting these liars. Phage and i have been on about this in another thread and i feel he KNOWS he is going to lose this debate because i am the real guy that is daily in the trenches .A collector of data that has to locate my equipment properly and report the raw data AS IS.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 10:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Justoneman
I don't suppose you've actually read the IPCC reports. If you had you might know that it isn't really a secret that the raw data has been adjusted. Nor is it a secret why.

Most sites exhibit poor current siting as assessed against official WMO siting guidance, and may be expected to suffer potentially large siting-induced absolute biases (Fall et al., 2011). However, overall biases for the network since the 1980s are likely dominated by instrument type (owing to replacement of Stevenson screens with maximum minimum temperature systems (MMTS) in the 1980s at the majority of sites), rather than siting biases (Menne et al., 2010; Williams et al., 2012). A new automated homogeneity assessment approach (also used in GHCNv3, Menne and Williams, 2009) was developed that has been shown to perform as well or better than other contemporary approaches (Venema et al., 2012). This homogenization procedure likely removes much of the bias related to the network-wide changes in the 1980s (Menne et al., 2010; Fall et al., 2011; Williams et al., 2012). Williams et al. (2012) produced an ensemble of data set realizations using perturbed settings of this procedure and concluded through assessment against plausible test cases that there existed a propensity to under-estimate adjustments. This propensity is critically dependent upon the (unknown) nature of the inhomogeneities in the raw data records. Their homogenization increases both minimum temperature and maximum temperature centennial-time-scale USA average LSAT trends. Since 1979 these adjusted data agree with a range of reanalysis products whereas the raw records do not (Fall et al., 2010; Vose et al., 2012a).


You see, it is known that many stations are not well situated. It is know than the stations themselves have problems. These biases have been studied and taken into account. These biases are the reason for the adjustment of the raw data because the raw data is not reliable.

www.ipcc.ch... (Sec 2.4.1.1)

You may want to actually read the report(s) rather than relying on some blogging "whistle blower."


I did phage you are just not going to win on this. This is MY lively hood under attack old pal!



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 10:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman


I did phage you are just not going to win on this.

If you were aware of it, why do you say this?

I am sure we are being lied to about the data.



Win what, exactly? Getting someone to actually read the source material instead of just listening to denier "whistle blowers" who "reveal" that the data is adjusted when it is clearly stated and explained in the reports?

You're probably right. They won't read it.


edit on 2/9/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 10:44 PM
link   
I will not sit by and let this happen any longer. Phage you have not seen the movie or that car in person. It will rock your world when you do so come up with your spectacular reasons it won't fly with me as I have 1st hand knowledge you do not nor seem to actually be really willing to entertain.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 10:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Justoneman


I did phage you are just not going to win on this.

If you were aware of it, why do you say this?

I am sure we are being lied to about the data.



Win what, exactly? Getting someone to actually read the source material instead of just listening to deniers? You're probably right. They won't read it.



Ok your scientific side has to look at the data I am showing you or you wont have a horse in this race. I have it locked down tight now unlike a few months back.
edit on 9-2-2015 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 10:46 PM
link   
Already posted... which you commented on.

Link
Your comments



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 10:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

I see this a new thread to really hash it out as I know it deserves a real vetting for all to see. Who cares what we said besides about 4 people maybe 5. Besides I will prove proverbial THE GIG IS UP of this paradigm if you follow my links with the new one from the today.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 10:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Justoneman


I did phage you are just not going to win on this.

If you were aware of it, why do you say this?

I am sure we are being lied to about the data.



Win what, exactly? Getting someone to actually read the source material instead of just listening to denier "whistle blowers" who "reveal" that the data is adjusted when it is clearly stated and explained in the reports?

You're probably right. They won't read it.



If you DARE to see this movie where the Physicists and Climate experts explain their reasons that they disagree with how their data was used and abused, this will be easier for you to absorb Phage.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 10:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman

Your links are funded by the oil industry. The temperature data is openly adjusted as Phage just showed you and explained why... NOAA also states that the data is adjusted and why.

You can hop and scream all you like but the data will remain valid.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 10:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman
I don't do movies.
Got anything in writing?



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 11:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Justoneman

Your links are funded by the oil industry. The temperature data is openly adjusted as Phage just showed you and explained why... NOAA also states that the data is adjusted and why.

You can hop and scream all you like but the data will remain valid.


Ha I call BS on you, You didn't read that thread or you already forgot I said OIL IS BAD, COAL IS BAD.. Shilling for Al Gore is what you appear to be doing by giving that reply.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 11:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman

So far all I've seen is a link to an article by some crackpot, hack columnist in the Telegraph, a meandering list of crap about Al Gore and vague posturing about your dubious credentials.

You're going to prove that the "proverbial gig is up?"

You're already seven nine posts in, when's this supposed to happen?
edit on 2015-2-9 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 11:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Justoneman
I don't do movies.
Got anything in writing?



You are a piece of work Phage! It is documentary of the Hearings and the Authors of the data being questioned and freely answering the questions concerning the data. Famous Physicist and Climate experts are given a chance to speak for more than mass media time limits. I suspect you already know what is there and are grossly afraid to not be able to deny it.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 11:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman

Oil and coal are bad but you're willing to use their sources to debunk the thing that states it's time for their industry to go? And you want us all to trust your logic? I don't think so.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 11:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Justoneman

So far all I've seen is a link to an article by some crackpot, hack columnist in the Telegraph, a meandering list of crap about Al Gore and vague posturing about your dubious credentials.

You're going to prove that the "proverbial gig is up?"

You're already seven nine posts in, when's this supposed to happen?


Ha ha,, check out the car and the documentary on the hearings.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join