Climategate Stunner: NASA Heads Knew NASA Data Was Poor

Discussion in 'Environment' started by concept, Mar 11, 2010.

  1. concept
    Offline

    concept Evil Mongering

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Messages:
    2,040
    Thanks Received:
    340
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    West Mi
    Ratings:
    +340
    ... so they used CRU data... :rolleyes:

    Pajamas Media Climategate Stunner: NASA Heads Knew NASA Data Was Poor, Then Used Data from CRU
    So much for the talking point that NASA data is independant from the manipulated Hadley data.

    Here is one of the emails...
    http://pajamasmedia.com/files/2010/03/GISS-says-CRU-Better0001.pdf

    How much more proof is needed that AGW is a massive hoax? :rolleyes:
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. Midnight Marauder
    Offline

    Midnight Marauder BANNED

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2009
    Messages:
    12,404
    Thanks Received:
    1,876
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +1,876
    Warmers? What say you?

    Talking point for this hasn't been issued yet, or what?
     
  3. Baruch Menachem
    Offline

    Baruch Menachem '

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2008
    Messages:
    14,204
    Thanks Received:
    3,235
    Trophy Points:
    185
    Ratings:
    +3,305
    The facts are irrelevant. This is heresy against the religion, and facts have no place in religious discussion.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. CrusaderFrank
    Offline

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    81,269
    Thanks Received:
    14,920
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Ratings:
    +37,076
    NASA intentionally distorted the Face on Mars too, plus they found mind blowing artificats on the Moon as well.

    NASA could teach the CIA how to lie.

    They "lose" contact with space probes for reasons that make absolutely no sense. "Yeah, we built it using the American system, but somehow the way points were in metric system and then there was a swarm of locusts too, yeah, tha'ts the ticket"
     
  5. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    C'mon, it's not the facts, they don't matter. Look at the source, pajamas who? LOL!

    The oceans are rising, mountains sinking, doom is approaching.

    Might all be true, but not based on those numbers that's for freaking sure!
     
  6. code1211
    Offline

    code1211 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    Messages:
    5,999
    Thanks Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +845

    Well, this at least explains why GISS adjusts its data so much.
     
  7. sparky
    Offline

    sparky VIP Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2008
    Messages:
    3,327
    Thanks Received:
    324
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    paradise
    Ratings:
    +341
    they should have hired Anita.....
     
  8. Oddball
    Offline

    Oddball BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    41,428
    Thanks Received:
    8,397
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
    Ratings:
    +8,409
    You...You...You...Self-centered, anti-science, flat-Earth, fuel hog driving, planet raping, consumerist denier! :lol::lol::lol:
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 3
  9. edthecynic
    Offline

    edthecynic Censored for Cynicism

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2008
    Messages:
    26,672
    Thanks Received:
    3,087
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Ratings:
    +5,731
    What more proof is needed that CON$ are pathological liars?

    The emails show nothing that is claimed, that is why there are no quotes from the emails in the above rant. The parts that are marked as quotes are from the PREMEDITATED liars who PARAPHRASED the emails.

    Here is an actual quote from the emails:

    "Our method of analysis has features that are different than the analyses of the other groups. In some
    cases the differences have a substantial impact.
    For example, we extrapolate station measurements as much as 1200 km. This allows us to include
    results for the full Arctic. In 2005 this turned out to be important, as the Arctic had a large positive
    temperature anomaly. We thus found 2005 to be the warmest year in the record, while the British did
    not and initially NOAA also did not. Independent satellite IR measurements showed that our
    extrapolations of anomalies into the Arctic were conservative. I am very confident that our result was
    the correct one in that instance.
    Also, as we show in our 2001 paper, our urban warming correction in the U.S. differs from the NOAA
    correction (we have a larger adjustment, which decreases recent temperatures relative to last century).
    I would not claim that one is superior to the other, but the different results provide one conservative
    measure of uncertainty. In general it has proven very useful to have more than one group do the
    analysis.
    Also it should be noted that the different groups have cooperated in a very friendly way to try to
    understand different conclusions when they arise. You will see that we had co-authors from the other
    groups on our 2001 paper. And in general it is a bad idea to anoint any group as being THE authority."
     
  10. Oddball
    Offline

    Oddball BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    41,428
    Thanks Received:
    8,397
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
    Ratings:
    +8,409
    The wheels are comin' off.....:lol::lol::lol:
     

Share This Page