It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


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

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 04:15 AM
Thankyou for the entertainment and a bit of a belly laugh....carry on

posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 04:33 AM
Well thanks for all the winks and secret handshakes guys. I'm glad there are still enough people on ATS who take the time to read carefully and think critically.

Also I love thumbs up gifs. I wish we could replace stars and flags with thumbs up gifs. This one goes back out to all ya'll:

posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 04:45 AM

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: ParasuvO

LoL not sure what to make of such a bizarre statement because in every graph it shows the OPPOSITE of your comment.

I think you need to go back and look again.


Which graphs show more warming over time the adjusted or original?


What does a warming trend show?

I am sure you will catch your mistake.

Yup I used the exact same methodology and links as the original blogger who set off this sh*tstorm of insanity by supposedly discovering all the “tampered” Paraguay data.

Anyone can cross reference my method with his here if they like:
All Of Paraguay’s Temperature Record Has Been Tampered With

Amazing how this “skeptic” only managed to find adjusted warming though huh? I posted about it in the original thread. There I looked at a nearby site in Goya, Argentina and found the same inconsistency with his narrative – adjusted data that had the warming trend actually removed from the raw:

Raw data - warming trend:

Adjusted data - no warming trend:

So in this thread I just wanted to demonstrate how easily you can find these sort of “cooling” results everywhere else too, nbd.

But it’s redonkulous how some of these deniers blogs and media are running with this story and acting like it’s some kind of breaking scientific scandal that they just blew the lid off of. Here's my thumbs up for them:

The temperature adjustments are a completely open and well-documented part of the process. Not only that, but the need for them was largely brought into the spotlight by skeptic bloggers like Anthony Watts complaining that the raw data was unreliable in the first place!

So here’s the raw data being homogenized to appease the critics - and what do they do - turn around and scream it’s all being conveniently adjusted now. Oh the humanity!

All this “scandal” has exposed really is the sort of cherry-picking and data manipulation that actually goes on inside the minds of some very delusional climate deniers.

posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 04:48 AM
You should plug in the data that is correct to the forecast model for changing climate and see if it follows a more predictable curve. One that doesn't show a global climate change. If the data was manipulated then the original data being used should give a different result.

a reply to: mc_squared

posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 04:55 AM

originally posted by: iterationzero
Sir, you haven't won the internet. Which is probably a good thing for you, because Kanye would just jump in front of you* and say that Beyonce should have won it.

LOL honestly I think this is the only thing missing from all these global warming threads at this point - Kanye showing up and telling us what's really going on.

posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 07:36 AM
a reply to: mc_squared


Mark Twain said it best:

"There are 3 kinds of lies: Lies, damned lies, and statistics"


Again, MC, tip o' the hat to ye

posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 08:35 AM
a reply to: mc_squared

I am glad that in all the heated discussions of saving the planet and all, we can find some humor as common ground.
If you just could have posted a polar bear in the OP, I think you would have hit this one out of the park.

posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 08:43 AM

originally posted by: BlackCommander
a reply to: JimNasium

Al Gore did not Invent the internet I think that credit should go to people like : Tim Berners Lee Amongst many others not Al Gore.

Eh, Yes he did and he also invented the Wii.. so there.

posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 09:41 AM

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

Any process that involves throwing money, eg. carbon taxes, at a bunch of greedy psychopaths, to fix the problem they created is simply BS. Can I remind you of the bailouts and "too big to e'ing fail?" Lot of similarities there, they create the problem and we pay for it and now the assclowns are doing it again.

Cheers - Dave

Yes, you've cracked it wide open! Bailouts were built on a Lie!

Lehman Brothers is NOT dead! It's just resting. Adjusting thermometers. And pining for the glaciers.

posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 10:33 AM
a reply to: mc_squared

Blah, blah, blah...

A round and round we go.

posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 11:45 AM
only did one cheak. Texes temple.
raw data says it 1 deg hotter!

posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 12:10 PM
Okay the globe is warming, All Bore told us that by now the north west passage would be open all winter, is it?
Sea ice is at its greatest extent, north and south, since 1988, yet the globe is warming.
NASA satellites tell us the globe has stayed the same mean temperature for the last 16 years, but the globe is warming.
Snow in strange places, such as the Sphinx, Egypt. Christchurch, New Zealand, first time in 75 years. Namib desert, Namibia. West coast, southern Africa. Brazil. (All over the last 3 years) but the globe is warming.
Someone needs to tell the American green house growers not to use the CO2 producers they use in their greenhouses to grow better crops, I bet that makes a huge difference to global warming.

posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 01:43 PM
a reply to: jrod

Really, guess what??? The rest of the world accepts that God exists, do you agree??? Fallacy much?


posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 01:52 PM
Nice work! Soon we'll have Al Gore tell us that the upcoming Ice Age is all part of Global warming!! a reply to: mc_squared

posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 04:35 PM

originally posted by: Baddogma
Dry sarcasm can, and does, frequently elude those most targeted by it.

But it is nice to have those already on your side of an argument to wink and feel fuzzy...

You still need to be as wary as a Meerkat though, agendas are always thing you know, someone, some entity, will tell you that 2014 was the hottest year on record!

What a load of Schmidt, see below,

"Given the intensity of the discourse on global warming, including relatively routine annual climate announcements, it's unlikely that most skeptics will be convinced that 2014 was the warmest year. "
(Sigh!..there's more)

"At the end of the day, the discussion about a single calendar year obscures the more important long-term trend of warming air temperatures, warming and acidifying oceans along with melting ice sheets, all of which are hallmarks of manmade global warming. Including 2014, 14 of the top 15 warmest years have all occurred since 2000."

See it? there's no measure, it's not GW, CC, it's back to good old AGW why talk about the the other acronyms..ever!
edit on 11-2-2015 by smurfy because: Text.

posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 04:40 PM
a reply to: mc_squared

So, again to clarify.

Are you claiming that the RAW data shows higher temps than the adjusted data ??

Because that is not the case, in any of the graphs.

In every graph the ADJUSTED data shows higher temps across the board, all spikes higher by 0.5-1 Celsius.

And who are you referring to as "Climate Deniers" ??

Very confusing way of writing used here, nothing hidden just weird really.

LoL those graphs also do nothing to show for the last years of which they all claim it is getting hotter.

Forgive me if I do not see the relevance of this discussion.

edit on 11-2-2015 by ParasuvO because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 05:36 PM
the he said she said argumentation will just take you in circles, because science is for sale when ideology trumps the scientific method

science isn't that difficult folks - unfortunately, stupid people define it all the time and even get elected to office

for the record:

I have changed my mind several times on the issue (I blame the learning curve and jumping to conclusions due to being excited after breakthroughs in understanding)

currently I am not a denier, I am a realist - it is obvious to me that climate is changing, oceans are changing - I see it as driven by natural cyclical causes, mostly solar influences and earth changes that started about a thousand years ago that is in line with past geological changes and also ties into the current mass extinction underway

I believe our human activities are exasperating the problem but are not the primary cause - I think the C02 argument is a red herring and that we are pumping massive amounts of toxins and trash all over the place and to narrow our focus to a trace gas is an absurd result of decades of study and falls tremendously short of what should be done about the damaging activities to our life support system

I believe data is being manipulated and lies are being told to herd humanity towards a political end without regard to real tangible problems that are being ignored - political games between big oil and green energies are present of course but there are so many voices it is hard to determine who is saying what so just look at the science alone

this article does a good job of pointing out data manipulation and any excuse could be seen as logical to any layman - belief is a matter of faith - no matter how many are believers - belief and science are mutually exclusive outside of theory

satellite date and the ice cores are pretty much a smoking gun for sure - it is clear that the past has had as much as 8k ppm of C02 in the atmosphere with no run away greenhouse effect nor a Venus like landscape - and largely, this is the claim and cause for alarm in the first place - that's 8000 ppm while we are currently hovering around 400 ppm - many anti-AGW climatologist consider us in a C02 famine period - the weak response from the AGW camp (all I have found) as a rebuttal - if you can call it that - is that the sun was "cooler" back then

there is no science to back this statement up AT ALL - it is like they just made it up

the only thing I could figure is solar theory in terms of the life cycle of a star and even then, the sun, according to current solar dynamic theory will not put out enough heat to create a Venus like planet here on earth until 3.5 gigayears from today - which is kind of damaging to that "different sun" excuse

according to academia - it was hotter - then slowly cooled (ice ages) and the slowly gets hotter again - knowing temps is estimated in huge numbers that wouldn't even come close to finding a climate balance, in fact it is the climate balance that shaped the estimated temps of solar evolution - so it is a pretty silly assertion because most of our sun's past lies in the realm of theory as does solar system formation and much of our current understanding of any cosmological genesis

there is just no available data to chart any historical progression from such a genesis that could account for any balance between C02 and solar activity that long ago in earth's geological record - even then we aren't even sure we are measuring that right - there has been some questioning of carbon 14 dating because of some recent finds that show radioisotopes degrading at a variable rate rather than at a constant

this is the whole basis for using C14 as a yardstick in the first place - the recent finds are that cosmic ray bombardment (particularly from our own sun) have a notable effect on decay rates - all just theory mind you but this means that decay would be directly related to magnetosphere stability and in terms of geological time - there is no stability, only a mean threshold that could be calculated

Radioactive Decay Rates May Not Be Constant After All

it is just such a weak argument in light of the concrete evidence showing C02 hardly being the greenhouse gas that they claim it is - which they finally admitted in one of the final IPCC reports - that the climatologist (only a few, not thousands) who programmed the models with algorithms totally overestimated how much C02 contributes to atmospheric warming by a factor of 4 (one quarter of the warming they said that happened - and that is with their cooked up adjustments to raw data) - it never made it to MSM though - like it never happened

more importantly what is abundantly clear to me is:

with all this new money that has been poured into carbon research over the fear mongering is that new scientific finds are being made in the role carbon plays through out it's spectrum from the outer edges of the atmosphere right near where air ends and space begins - as well as superstates reached under the great pressure of oceans that challenge our understanding of how the carbon cycle even works, much less how it effects climate

there is a larger learning curve here - but if you watch the climate argument evolve and keep up on the new finds from the increasing funding - it starts to become clear that it is sort of a new frontier in science rather than some current scientific paradigm in which "the debate is over"

meanwhile - nothing real gets done over real issues - fukushima being only the latest modifier since the 50s

posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 08:29 PM
a reply to: mc_squared

Bravo my friend!! Its about time someone called them out on this with solid proof that they are lying. I have known it for many long years but didn't have the time to investigate it, especially since the UN Scientist were caught lying already.

posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 08:39 PM
a reply to: _Heretic

currently I am not a denier, I am a realist - it is obvious to me that climate is changing, oceans are changing - I see it as driven by natural cyclical causes, mostly solar influences and earth changes that started about a thousand years ago that is in line with past geological changes and also ties into the current mass extinction underway

I have been screaming this for many years now. Of course its climate change! The Climate naturally gets hotter and colder by itself and it tends to warm up after an Ice age lol. What we see today is some spots are getting colder while others are getting warmer. Why you ask? It is simple, Our planet is tilted. Just about every Indian tribe has come out and said the moon, stars and the sun is not in the right place and they are having big problems navigating using the stars anymore.

A ton of people noticed the moon go completely out of whack in 2010. That is when the big shift happened, the monster quake and Tsunami in Japan was not to long after. Go Figure!

Scientist and Astronomers for the most part are all hush hush about the earth being off kilter to not panic people, cause then they will have to admit why its happening.

posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 08:50 PM

That is for so many reasons but especially for those who do not know how to read graphs.

new topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in