100% Of US Warming Is Due To NOAA Data Tampering

Wake

Electoral Member
Feb 17, 2017
112
0
16
I didn't think you could answer my questions and you haven't. Instead you simply make up "facts" to prove your point. I'm not going to bother with most of your so-called points. They are easy to disprove with a simple Google search. But I will leave you with this link. I don't expect you to read it as it directly contradicts the BS you are spreading over your garden.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...on-increase-due-to-climate-change-study-finds

As I say to all global warming deniers believe what you want, but don't buy any land along the US Gulf coast. And don't expect any thinking person to believe your nonsense.

I also note that once again you are unable to make a post without adding insults, but that is fine, it simply shows that you are not sure of your facts or have no real facts to present. Oh, and good luck with your job at the oil company.
Oh please give me another article from the Guardian.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamest...warming-link-to-extreme-weather/#5d54f08e50c8


Or you can read the complete report: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamest...warming-link-to-extreme-weather/#5d54f08e50c8

But I doubt that you can stand 108 pages telling you you're wrong.

Exactly what do YOU hope to accomplish? Are YOU going to stop using a car? Are you going to stop heating your home? Are you going to start eating your food raw?

What we need is more hypocrites like you telling the rest of us that you know more than we do. Is THAT what your real desire is?
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,337
113
Vancouver Island
How about the parts of the US coast that are now under water at high tide? Did the stupid citizens of the southeast coasts deliberately build their infrastructure so that it would be flooded or is something else happening?

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/04/...used-by-global-warming-has-already-begun.html

You can deny global warming all you like, but the evidence seems to be getting in your face.

You better try reading something factual. Actually your statement about stupid building has some merit. Along with putting massive buildings on what is essentially an estuary they are also drawing down the ground water, both of which cause unstable soil to sink. I once dropped a concrete floor over an inch simply by draining the water accumulated in the foundation.
 

Danbones

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 23, 2015
24,505
2,197
113
when they say "left"
;)
it means what they did with their common sense

the parts of the coastal US now under water are what's called the continental shelf
apparently before the advent of industrial man the water came up 300 feet

good thing we killed of all those methane farting buffalo and stopped the rise
well, maybe a tax would have worked better?

damn minoans
damned minoan factories
they plugged the damn drain and now the water cannot flow off the edges of the earth
damn them!
damn them all!!!
 
Last edited:

Bar Sinister

Executive Branch Member
Jan 17, 2010
8,252
19
38
Edmonton
Oh please give me another article from the Guardian.
Exactly what do YOU hope to accomplish? Are YOU going to stop using a car? Are you going to stop heating your home? Are you going to start eating your food raw?

What we need is more hypocrites like you telling the rest of us that you know more than we do. Is THAT what your real desire is?

The typical stupid answer from an oil lobbyist. I advocated none of those things. But don't worry your little carbon fueled empire is slowly going down the drain. The days of dirty energy are coming to a close and there is nothing you can to to stop that.

You better try reading something factual. Actually your statement about stupid building has some merit. Along with putting massive buildings on what is essentially an estuary they are also drawing down the ground water, both of which cause unstable soil to sink. I once dropped a concrete floor over an inch simply by draining the water accumulated in the foundation.


Gee Taxslave I didn't realize the coal and oil lobby had suckered you as well.

the parts of the coastal US now under water are what's called the continental shelf
apparently before the advent of industrial man the water came up 300 feet

Trust you to completely misinterpret the post. Nothing I said had anything to do with the continental shelf. Rising sea levels mean rising sea levels. Try to understand that. https://www.washingtonpost.com/apps...ls-and-tidal-flooding-threaten-us-coast/1363/
 

Wake

Electoral Member
Feb 17, 2017
112
0
16
I'm not sure why you posted that as a source. It says nothing to counter the argument that global warming is occurring. In fact here is an except from it that supports the idea of climate change:

Scientists are now exploring a few possibilities. First, greenhouse gases probably influenced past climates. Ice cores record past greenhouse gas levels. In the past, when the climate warmed, the change was accompanied by an increase in greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide. When scientists tried to build climate models, they could not get the models to simulate past climate change unless they also added changes in carbon dioxide levels. Though scientists aren’t sure why carbon dioxide levels changed, almost all believe that the shift contributed to altering the climate. Because ice cores also revealed that carbon dioxide levels are much higher today than at any time recorded in the past 750,000 years, pinning down the cause-and-effect relationship between carbon dioxide and climate change continues to be a focal point of modern climate research.
I have asked you several times what YOU are going to do. Are you going to shut off your gas and electricity on your home? Are you going to walk everywhere and junk your car? Are you going to stop using factory-farmed foods and grow your own? Including the grain to feed the chickens as your only source of hard protein?

Do you realize the large energy reductions would have immensely fatal effects on the populations of China and India? Or do you simply not care?

Have you registered for the first Mar's colony?

Exactly WHAT are you personally willing to do? My guess is that you are personally willing to do NOTHING but you would like others to do something because you WANT to believe there is such a thing as man-made global warming from a .01% change in an atmospheric gas.
 

Curious Cdn

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 22, 2015
37,070
6
36
Do you realize the large energy reductions would have immensely fatal effects on the populations of China and India? Or do you simply not care?

Exxon? BP? ... maybe, you're the coal industry a55hole that Herr Drumpf just made ambassador to Ottawa ...
 

Cliffy

Standing Member
Nov 19, 2008
44,850
192
63
Nakusp, BC
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,568
11,513
113
Low Earth Orbit
I note that in all of our exchanges you have yet to answer any of my questions, choosing instead to respond with bafflegab, but I'll ask them again just to give you a second chance.

1. The 1980's were the warmest record decade in history. The 1990's broke that record. The 2000's broke the 1990's record. And the current decade is the warmest yet. How do you account for that?
2. Sea levels are rising. Areas that were once dry land at high tide are now threatened by rising water. How do you account for that?
3. Glaciers worldwide are shrinking. How do you account for that?
4. The Greenland icecap is melting. How do you account for that?
5. The Arctic Ocean no longer completely freezes over even in winter. How do you account for that?
6. "Once in a century" violent storms now occur pretty much every year. How do you account for that?

Don't worry I don't really expect a coherent answer to any of these questions.



And you are so lacking in education that you think it doesn't. Ever heard of coal? Over 50% of its weight is carbon. Ditto for wood.

And oil and natural gas are hydrocarbons. Looks like you should go back to school.
Smurfette...


Warmest on record of a record that only dates back 120 years is not the warmest decade in history.

Don't be a fool.


BTW COAL IS A HYDROCARBON...


Black Coal
Coal was discovered in the fire pits of cave dwellings, supplying evidence it has been used as a source of energy throughout man’s history. The Chinese considered coal a ‘stone that could burn’ and were mining it over 3000 years ago. The Greek scientist, Theophrastus, recorded the use of coal for smelting metal around 300 BC and the Romans used coal to heat their public baths. The increased use of coal for power generation in Britain in the 18th century fuelled the global Industrial Revolution.

Coal is now one of the world’s largest sources of energy. Global coal consumption grew by 7.6% in 2010, with Asia Pacific countries accounting for 79.7% of the increase.
What is black coal made from?
Coal is a combustible sedimentary rock found in layers under the earth known as coal seams or coal beds. Considered a fossil fuel, coal is formed when the build-up of organic material and fossil remains is pressurised over millions of years by layers of sediment, causing a breakdown of this material into hydrocarbons (referred to as ‘coalification’).

During its formation over millions of years, coal matures from a soft peat, through to its hardest form, graphite. Depending on both its colour and composition, the product is classified as brown coal or black coal. Black coal is the highest grade of coal and includes sub-bituminous and bituminous coal, through to shiny black anthracite. Graphite is technically the hardest form of coal, however, it does not easily ignite and is used in pencils and lubricants, rather than energy production.

Coal is primarily composed of carbon (from 50 to 98 per cent) and hydrogen (3 to 13 percent) with the remainder comprised of varying amounts of oxygen, sulphur and nitrogen. Black coal has a relatively high carbon content (71 to 91 percent) and low moisture content (under 10 percent).
 

Bar Sinister

Executive Branch Member
Jan 17, 2010
8,252
19
38
Edmonton
Smurfette...


Warmest on record of a record that only dates back 120 years is not the warmest decade in history.

Don't be a fool.


BTW COAL IS A HYDROCARBON...

I'm not a fool, but I think I may be replying to one. Obviously modern temperatures only refer to recorded history, but that does not detract from the fact that the last decade was the warmest in recorded history.

Also I am not a chemist, but are you trying to tell me that the carbon in coal, oil, and gas, does not become part of a chemical reaction? Not according to this article:

Environmental Decision Making, Science, and Technology
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,568
11,513
113
Low Earth Orbit
Warmest in 120 years of train stations recording temperatures. You do know that 159 years ago was the coldest point in civilized man's history we still haven't returned to average for the past 6000 years after the being the coldest.

Ignore fact all you want but your ignorance is by choice and that just isn't cool.
 

Bar Sinister

Executive Branch Member
Jan 17, 2010
8,252
19
38
Edmonton
Warmest in 120 years of train stations recording temperatures. You do know that 159 years ago was the coldest point in civilized man's history we still haven't returned to average for the past 6000 years after the being the coldest.

Ignore fact all you want but your ignorance is by choice and that just isn't cool.

You do realize that all the info in that post was irrelevant. No, I guess you don't..
 

Wake

Electoral Member
Feb 17, 2017
112
0
16
One thing that stood out from your posting - you didn't volunteer any credentials and attempted to impune mine.

I'm a VFW from Vietnam and to see silly comments like yours does give me a giggle. You probably didn't even know that Canada had military troops in Vietnam. Were you of age you'd have been too busy hiding under your bed to protect the war.


Why do you repeat utter rubbish because you WANT to be right and not have to work at being smart?

Climate Change: No, It

There is no climate change and there is no such thing as greenhouse gases. What is being passed about from hand to hand among a very small minority of leftist politicians that have simply bought off the management of places like NOAA that have chosen to tell us that everything they have is backed by "real scientists" such as the American Medical Association and the ladies auxiliary.

Consensus is not science and never has been. Quoting the laws of physics and then misrepresenting entire data sets and then discovering that almost the entire IPCC is politicians with no scientific training whatsoever should have rang a very loud bell.

If you are going to argue about this please give me some of your credentials. And I'm not speaking about any college degrees. I am a high school dropout that is entirely self taught. And yet I have worked for Lawrence Laboratories on improving the linear particle accelerator and programming poison gas detectors for those WMD that supposedly didn't exist. I automated the chemical analysis to discover HIV that was in the blood banking system and then to analyze DNA that brought the chief chemist a Nobel Prize. I even worked on the first base computer of the Pacific coast leg of the Internet that had 33 1/3rd times the capacity and speed as the best IBM supercomputer of the time. I could write accomplishments all day long so if you consider one paper written by one True Believer to be an education that won't pass. But if you have honestly studied physics and chemistry and have arguments of worth I'm more than ready to listen to them.

But the usual True Believer line is to claim a PhD in physics and then repeat a line of hogwash 6' deep.

NOAA and NASA have tampered with the data. How? By using almost unaltered ground based temperatures gathered in areas that had rapid and large urban growth. They did add corrections, but they purposely under corrected these because Obama wanted to say that he had hard science to back up his previous claims to the IPCC. The Satellite data gathered since about 1988 has shown records of world wide temperatures that do not even get close to matching the NOAA claims. And the disparity has not been broadly reported either by NASA or the media.

There is no such thing as a greenhouse gas. The only thing that is occurring is a blanketing effect that we have astronomical evidence that occurs up to the .1 Bar region on every planet and satellite with an atmosphere. And all these planets and satellites have wildly differing atmospheric compositions and base densities.

So you're welcome to place arguments but the usual "u dum" is only showing your own worth.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
55,720
7,151
113
Washington DC
There is no climate change and there is no such thing as greenhouse gases. What is being passed about from hand to hand among a very small minority of leftist politicians that have simply bought off the management of places like NOAA that have chosen to tell us that everything they have is backed by "real scientists" such as the American Medical Association and the ladies auxiliary.
CO2, methane, and water vapor are greenhouse gases. That's why Venus is hotter than Mercury.

Consensus is not science and never has been. Quoting the laws of physics and then misrepresenting entire data sets and then discovering that almost the entire IPCC is politicians with no scientific training whatsoever should have rang a very loud bell.
That part is correct. "Right" ain't up for a vote.

If you are going to argue about this please give me some of your credentials. And I'm not speaking about any college degrees. I am a high school dropout that is entirely self taught. And yet I have worked for Lawrence Laboratories on improving the linear particle accelerator and programming poison gas detectors for those WMD that supposedly didn't exist. I automated the chemical analysis to discover HIV that was in the blood banking system and then to analyze DNA that brought the chief chemist a Nobel Prize. I even worked on the first base computer of the Pacific coast leg of the Internet that had 33 1/3rd times the capacity and speed as the best IBM supercomputer of the time. I could write accomplishments all day long so if you consider one paper written by one True Believer to be an education that won't pass. But if you have honestly studied physics and chemistry and have arguments of worth I'm more than ready to listen to them.
Berkeley or Livermore?

But the usual True Believer line is to claim a PhD in physics and then repeat a line of hogwash 6' deep.
I have a Ph.D. in hogwash, with a specialty in quantum bullshit.

NOAA and NASA have tampered with the data. How? By using almost unaltered ground based temperatures gathered in areas that had rapid and large urban growth. They did add corrections, but they purposely under corrected these because Obama wanted to say that he had hard science to back up his previous claims to the IPCC. The Satellite data gathered since about 1988 has shown records of world wide temperatures that do not even get close to matching the NOAA claims. And the disparity has not been broadly reported either by NASA or the media.

There is no such thing as a greenhouse gas. The only thing that is occurring is a blanketing effect that we have astronomical evidence that occurs up to the .1 Bar region on every planet and satellite with an atmosphere. And all these planets and satellites have wildly differing atmospheric compositions and base densities.

So you're welcome to place arguments but the usual "u dum" is only showing your own worth.
What's their nefarious purpose?
 

Danbones

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 23, 2015
24,505
2,197
113
carbon taxes are something they can spend when they visit at Epstein's pedo island
;)

CO2, methane, and water vapor are greenhouse gases. That's why Venus is hotter than Mercury.
hahaha
jeeez....someone is nutz

Venus is hotter than Mercury because of its thick atmosphere. According to NASA, Venus' atmosphere is 96 percent carbon dioxide, which holds in heat. Mercury has a very thin atmosphere that does not keep heat on the planet.
https://www.reference.com/science/venus-hotter-mercury-2bd7f872ae670190

the earth is definitely in scary space today
:(

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an important trace gas in Earth's atmosphere. Currently it constitutes about 0.04% (equal to 400 parts per million; ppm) by volume of the atmosphere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
100% Of US Warming Is Due To NOAA Data Tampering
It's been warming for 15,000 years, steadily, which is why there isn't a kilometer or two of ice on top of your head.

No it hasn't ever been steadily warming but it does constantly change. The end of the last ice age is thought to be 12500 to 12800 years ago this was a rather abrupt change to climate and geography and is thought to have decimated human populations and ended every established culture. Look on You Tube for ancient underground cities which were very popular at one time because of the heavy and regular incoming hot oil baths, gravel showers, boulders showers and plasma showers. All that is written in stone.
 

Bar Sinister

Executive Branch Member
Jan 17, 2010
8,252
19
38
Edmonton
Look on You Tube for ancient underground cities which were very popular at one time because of the heavy and regular incoming hot oil baths, gravel showers, boulders showers and plasma showers. All that is written in stone.

What the hell does that even mean?

CO2, methane, and water vapor are greenhouse gases. That's why Venus is hotter than Mercury.

Actually that is probably due to Venus's very dense atmosphere and the fact that Mercury has no atmosphere and thus cannot retain any heat.

There is no climate change and there is no such thing as greenhouse gases. What is being passed about from hand to hand among a very small minority of leftist politicians that have simply bought off the management of places like NOAA that have chosen to tell us that everything they have is backed by "real scientists" such as the American Medical Association and the ladies auxiliary.

Consensus is not science and never has been. Quoting the laws of physics and then misrepresenting entire data sets and then discovering that almost the entire IPCC is politicians with no scientific training whatsoever should have rang a very loud bell.

If you are going to argue about this please give me some of your credentials. And I'm not speaking about any college degrees. I am a high school dropout that is entirely self taught. And yet I have worked for Lawrence Laboratories on improving the linear particle accelerator and programming poison gas detectors for those WMD that supposedly didn't exist. I automated the chemical analysis to discover HIV that was in the blood banking system and then to analyze DNA that brought the chief chemist a Nobel Prize. I even worked on the first base computer of the Pacific coast leg of the Internet that had 33 1/3rd times the capacity and speed as the best IBM supercomputer of the time. I could write accomplishments all day long so if you consider one paper written by one True Believer to be an education that won't pass. But if you have honestly studied physics and chemistry and have arguments of worth I'm more than ready to listen to them.

But the usual True Believer line is to claim a PhD in physics and then repeat a line of hogwash 6' deep.

NOAA and NASA have tampered with the data. How? By using almost unaltered ground based temperatures gathered in areas that had rapid and large urban growth. They did add corrections, but they purposely under corrected these because Obama wanted to say that he had hard science to back up his previous claims to the IPCC. The Satellite data gathered since about 1988 has shown records of world wide temperatures that do not even get close to matching the NOAA claims. And the disparity has not been broadly reported either by NASA or the media.

There is no such thing as a greenhouse gas. The only thing that is occurring is a blanketing effect that we have astronomical evidence that occurs up to the .1 Bar region on every planet and satellite with an atmosphere. And all these planets and satellites have wildly differing atmospheric compositions and base densities.

So you're welcome to place arguments but the usual "u dum" is only showing your own worth.

You really do like to spout a lot of pseudo-scientific BS don't you? As for your credentials, we only have your word for that, and since you have made up most of the rubbish you have posted previously we have no reason to believe in any of that.

I'm with Joe Rogan on this. To paraphrase: "What I like to believe is what really smart people have thought about for years and then passed on to me." Global warming deniers like you do not fit into that category.
 

Wake

Electoral Member
Feb 17, 2017
112
0
16
CO2, methane, and water vapor are greenhouse gases. That's why Venus is hotter than Mercury.


That part is correct. "Right" ain't up for a vote.


Berkeley or Livermore?


I have a Ph.D. in hogwash, with a specialty in quantum bullshit.


What's their nefarious purpose?
Would you mind explaining what in the hell the fact that Venus is marginally hotter than the day-side of Mercury has to do with the composition of the atmosphere of Venus and not purely the fact that it has one? Earth's atmosphere was originally 40% CO2 and we did not have a run-away "greenhouse effect" - in fact we had dinosaurs roaming the Earth in mild temperatures with 24% CO2.

I worked at Berkeley and Livermore and Sandia. Do you want to argue with that?

If you do not understand that Obama demanded a paper to present to the IPCC proving AGW then perhaps you should catch up.

carbon taxes are something they can spend when they visit at Epstein's pedo island
;)


hahaha
jeeez....someone is nutz

Venus is hotter than Mercury because of its thick atmosphere. According to NASA, Venus' atmosphere is 96 percent carbon dioxide, which holds in heat. Mercury has a very thin atmosphere that does not keep heat on the planet.
https://www.reference.com/science/venus-hotter-mercury-2bd7f872ae670190

the earth is definitely in scary space today
:(

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an important trace gas in Earth's atmosphere. Currently it constitutes about 0.04% (equal to 400 parts per million; ppm) by volume of the atmosphere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere

The composition means nothing. It is purely because of the density of the atmosphere and it's closer orbit.

You really do like to spout a lot of pseudo-scientific BS don't you? As for your credentials, we only have your word for that, and since you have made up most of the rubbish you have posted previously we have no reason to believe in any of that.

I'm with Joe Rogan on this. To paraphrase: "What I like to believe is what really smart people have thought about for years and then passed on to me." Global warming deniers like you do not fit into that category.

So you have no credentials and are doing nothing more than following the "consensus". Einstein was considered a total fool for not following the consensus as well. But I see that you disagree with his work as well.

You mean the. . . gases. . . hold heat?

What do you think the greenhouse effect is?

I didn't think you understood what the argument is over and you just proved it.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
55,720
7,151
113
Washington DC
Would you mind explaining what in the hell the fact that Venus is marginally hotter than the day-side of Mercury has to do with the composition of the atmosphere of Venus and not purely the fact that it has one?
Sure. Different gases have different properties. Some are lighter, some are heavier. Compressibility varies. Ph varies.

Another of these properties that varies is the tendency to hold insolated heat. Gases with high heat retention are called "greenhouse" gases, after the properties of glass and other transparent or translucent materials used in greenhouses. Venus's atmosphere is high in gases that have high heat retention.

Earth's atmosphere was originally 40% CO2 and we did not have a run-away "greenhouse effect"
Define "originally."

- in fact we had dinosaurs roaming the Earth in mild temperatures with 24% CO2.
How'd that work out for them?

I worked at Berkeley and Livermore and Sandia. Do you want to argue with that?
No, when you said "Lawrence Laboratories," I was curious as to whether you meant Berkeley or Livermore. I think your ability to take offense to the question says more about you than it does about me.

Might wanna cut back on the caffeine some, kemo sabe.

If you do not understand that Obama demanded a paper to present to the IPCC proving AGW then perhaps you should catch up.
Wow, you're quite upset.

Juice box?