NASA GISS temperature data: TOTALLY RIGGED!!!

[skookerasbil]

The alarmist k00ks will say this guy isn't a real sciecntist.....we know the alarmist knee-jerk reaction to getting pwned. But numbers are numbers s0ns last I checked!!!



"Professor Dr. Friedrich Karl Ewert is a retired geologist and data computation expert. He has painstakingly examined and tabulated all NASA GISS’s temperature data series, taken from 1153 stations and going back to 1881. His conclusion: that if you look at the raw data, as opposed to NASA’s revisions, you’ll find that since 1940 the planet has been cooling, not warming."

German Professor: NASA Has Fiddled Climate Data On 'Unbelievable' Scale


DUH

What most of us have known for decades.......a complete and total hoax!!

 

[skookerasbil]

oh.....ummm.........have we been talking about a "confession" in here lately??

 

[Freewill]

Why would they "rig" it? Mistake? Intentional? A difference in the technique used to crunch the numbers?

 

[depotoo]

Why would they "rig" it? Mistake? Intentional? A difference in the technique used to crunch the numbers?

To keep their bread buttered

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Too many times it's being discovered the data is being fudged. Wake up, people

 

[Freewill]

Why would they "rig" it? Mistake? Intentional? A difference in the technique used to crunch the numbers?

To keep their bread buttered

I can understand this with a University and grants but not so much with a government agency. Unless you are implying they were ordered to do so. And if that is the claim then since this has been going on since the Clinton years, who is doing the ordering?

 

[Freewill]

Too many times it's being discovered the data is being fudged. Wake up, people

Honestly, what is your real opinion on why they would fudge the data.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Why would they "rig" it? Mistake? Intentional? A difference in the technique used to crunch the numbers?

To keep their bread buttered

I can understand this with a University and grants but not so much with a government agency. Unless you are implying they were ordered to do so. And if that is the claim then since this has been going on since the Clinton years, who is doing the ordering?

Obungles, he's trying to defeat ISIS by fixing gloBULL waming

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Too many times it's being discovered the data is being fudged. Wake up, people

Honestly, what is your real opinion on why they would fudge the data.

It's about the money, as soon as they started with carbon credits it was obvious. That and more regulations, control freaks love regulations

 

[Freewill]

Why would they "rig" it? Mistake? Intentional? A difference in the technique used to crunch the numbers?

To keep their bread buttered

I can understand this with a University and grants but not so much with a government agency. Unless you are implying they were ordered to do so. And if that is the claim then since this has been going on since the Clinton years, who is doing the ordering?

Obungles, he's trying to defeat ISIS by fixing gloBULL waming

Too many times it's being discovered the data is being fudged. Wake up, people

Honestly, what is your real opinion on why they would fudge the data.

It's about the money, as soon as they started with carbon credits it was obvious. That and more regulations, control freaks love regulations

So, your opinion is that this is nothing but a money making scheme?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Clearly, the "raw data" is a DENIER!!!! and must be adjusted. The Koch Brothers must have gotten to the "raw data" maybe Exxon! ZOMG! Exxon put the "raw data" there to deny manmade global climate warming change!

Crick

mamooth

Old Rocks

Tell us how Exxon made the "Raw data" DENY!!!! AGW!!

What other explanation is there?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Why would they "rig" it? Mistake? Intentional? A difference in the technique used to crunch the numbers?

To keep their bread buttered

I can understand this with a University and grants but not so much with a government agency. Unless you are implying they were ordered to do so. And if that is the claim then since this has been going on since the Clinton years, who is doing the ordering?

Obungles, he's trying to defeat ISIS by fixing gloBULL waming

Too many times it's being discovered the data is being fudged. Wake up, people

Honestly, what is your real opinion on why they would fudge the data.

It's about the money, as soon as they started with carbon credits it was obvious. That and more regulations, control freaks love regulations

So, your opinion is that this is nothing but a money making scheme?

That's it, money and control.

 

[Freewill]

Why would they "rig" it? Mistake? Intentional? A difference in the technique used to crunch the numbers?

To keep their bread buttered

I can understand this with a University and grants but not so much with a government agency. Unless you are implying they were ordered to do so. And if that is the claim then since this has been going on since the Clinton years, who is doing the ordering?

Obungles, he's trying to defeat ISIS by fixing gloBULL waming

Too many times it's being discovered the data is being fudged. Wake up, people

Honestly, what is your real opinion on why they would fudge the data.

It's about the money, as soon as they started with carbon credits it was obvious. That and more regulations, control freaks love regulations

So, your opinion is that this is nothing but a money making scheme?

That's it, money and control.

I am thinking it has more to do with hubris then money.

 

[jc456]

Too many times it's being discovered the data is being fudged. Wake up, people

Honestly, what is your real opinion on why they would fudge the data.

why does it matter? The facts are many like the professor in the OP, know the difference between raw data, actual data that is, and altered/ fudged data. does it matter why when it is?

 

[Freewill]

Too many times it's being discovered the data is being fudged. Wake up, people

Honestly, what is your real opinion on why they would fudge the data.

why does it matter? The facts are many like the professor in the OP, know the difference between raw data, actual data that is, and altered/ fudged data. does it matter why when it is?

Those of us who do not have access to the raw data have nothing to go on but taking the word of someone else. If you want to believe that NOAA didn't fudge the data I am thinking that is perfectly logical if you can't come up with a valid reason for them to fudge the data. If you want to believe they did then you need to take the word of this one man who says they did, at least as far as this thread is concerned.

the options are, NOAA made a mistake in "adjusting the data."

NOAA willingly "adjusted the data" to make it appear the world is warming.

Of the two which do you feel is the most logical? And on what do you base your conclusion?

 

[jc456]

Too many times it's being discovered the data is being fudged. Wake up, people

Honestly, what is your real opinion on why they would fudge the data.

why does it matter? The facts are many like the professor in the OP, know the difference between raw data, actual data that is, and altered/ fudged data. does it matter why when it is?

Those of us who do not have access to the raw data have nothing to go on but taking the word of someone else. If you want to believe that NOAA didn't fudge the data I am thinking that is perfectly logical if you can't come up with a valid reason for them to fudge the data. If you want to believe they did then you need to take the word of this one man who says they did, at least as far as this thread is concerned.

the options are, NOAA made a mistake in "adjusting the data."

NOAA willingly "adjusted the data" to make it appear the world is warming.

Of the two which do you feel is the most logical? And on what do you base your conclusion?

s0n,.........s0n.... oh my gawd, how long have you been posting in this forum? perhaps you should do some research in the forum to find the answer to your lame question. But for one of your statements you are correct, getting hands on raw data is the issue. Why are the NOAA, NASA and Michael Mann hiding it? See, that is a more relevant question then what I think. Let congress get to the bottom of why they don't want the public to see the raw data. The fact this professor found it is amazing to me. But his experience most probably helped him in acquiring the data.

you want something from an internet forum that you don't want to ask the actual liars about. Are you afraid of their answers? Seems you have no desire for the truth.

All you need to know is that the NOAA and NASA hide data. Do some research on the subject for a change.

 

[Freewill]

Too many times it's being discovered the data is being fudged. Wake up, people

Honestly, what is your real opinion on why they would fudge the data.

why does it matter? The facts are many like the professor in the OP, know the difference between raw data, actual data that is, and altered/ fudged data. does it matter why when it is?

Those of us who do not have access to the raw data have nothing to go on but taking the word of someone else. If you want to believe that NOAA didn't fudge the data I am thinking that is perfectly logical if you can't come up with a valid reason for them to fudge the data. If you want to believe they did then you need to take the word of this one man who says they did, at least as far as this thread is concerned.

the options are, NOAA made a mistake in "adjusting the data."

NOAA willingly "adjusted the data" to make it appear the world is warming.

Of the two which do you feel is the most logical? And on what do you base your conclusion?

s0n,.........s0n.... oh my gawd, how long have you been posting in this forum? perhaps you should do some research in the forum to find the answer to your lame question. But for one of your statements you are correct, getting hands on raw data is the issue. Why are the NOAA, NASA and Michael Mann hiding it? See, that is a more relevant question then what I think. Let congress get to the bottom of why they don't want the public to see the raw data. The fact this professor found it is amazing to me. But his experience most probably helped him in acquiring the data.

you want something from an internet forum that you don't want to ask the actual liars about. Are you afraid of their answers? Seems you have no desire for the truth.

All you need to know is that the NOAA and NASA hide data. Do some research on the subject for a change.

So the data is available. What would you and I do with the raw data?

 

[jc456]

Too many times it's being discovered the data is being fudged. Wake up, people

Honestly, what is your real opinion on why they would fudge the data.

why does it matter? The facts are many like the professor in the OP, know the difference between raw data, actual data that is, and altered/ fudged data. does it matter why when it is?

Those of us who do not have access to the raw data have nothing to go on but taking the word of someone else. If you want to believe that NOAA didn't fudge the data I am thinking that is perfectly logical if you can't come up with a valid reason for them to fudge the data. If you want to believe they did then you need to take the word of this one man who says they did, at least as far as this thread is concerned.

the options are, NOAA made a mistake in "adjusting the data."

NOAA willingly "adjusted the data" to make it appear the world is warming.

Of the two which do you feel is the most logical? And on what do you base your conclusion?

s0n,.........s0n.... oh my gawd, how long have you been posting in this forum? perhaps you should do some research in the forum to find the answer to your lame question. But for one of your statements you are correct, getting hands on raw data is the issue. Why are the NOAA, NASA and Michael Mann hiding it? See, that is a more relevant question then what I think. Let congress get to the bottom of why they don't want the public to see the raw data. The fact this professor found it is amazing to me. But his experience most probably helped him in acquiring the data.

you want something from an internet forum that you don't want to ask the actual liars about. Are you afraid of their answers? Seems you have no desire for the truth.

All you need to know is that the NOAA and NASA hide data. Do some research on the subject for a change.

So the data is available. What would you and I do with the raw data?

me, I don't have the skill set, it seems the professor did it for me and you. And, guess what? he didn't produce the same figures as the NOAA and NASA avoiding giving their data to congress. That fact alone makes the professor right and the NOAA and NASA guilty of fraud.

 

[mamooth]

The raw data and all processing algorithms are available online. Only proud denier frauds still try to pretend otherwise. We've pointed them to the raw data before, but they refuse to look at it, and then go right back to pretending they were never pointed to it.

Why do so many deniers they keep pushing their fraud? The cult commands, deniers obey. They no longer care if they're telling the truth, they only care about scoring brownie points with the cult.

 

[jc456]

The raw data and all processing algorithms are available online. Only proud denier frauds still try to pretend otherwise. We've pointed them to the raw data before, but they refuse to look at it, and then go right back to pretending they were never pointed to it.

Why do so many deniers they keep pushing their fraud? The cult commands, deniers obey. They no longer care if they're telling the truth, they only care about scoring brownie points with the cult.

no their not. And dude/ dudette, you can post that false statement daily for all i care, but everyone else knows it isn't. So raw data is specially held at the NOAA and NASA offices. There is one more office, can't remember which one, that also has it, and they all supply the graphs to the world. Three sites, that's it for the globe? And getting raw data is impossible. There wouldn't be any court cases if that weren't true.