When Did NASA Become A Bastion Of Liberal Propaganda?

[Procrustes Stretched]

one graph? that settles it for me. you win.

NASA...

please get an almighty rightie to point out one error on NASA'a web site concerning climate change and global warming

Actually, you need to find one thing that is correct with what they say.

not being anti science, I couldn't disagree more
go figure

 

[bripat9643]

No matter how many times you prove to these turds that the data is doctored, they will continue to cite NASA, NCDC and the HCRU as valid sources of climate data. they just don't care, and they are counting on the public being to apathetic to check it.

Pattycake, you have yet to present proof of anything.

The indisputable truth was just posted to you, moron.

 

[wirebender]

Man has little to no effect on the biosphere? you really want to go with that line of reasoning?

You know dante, the more I talk to you guys (warmists) the more I understand how it is that you have been hoaxed so completely. The fact is that you guys knowledge base is so shallow that most of the time you don't have a clue what you are saying, much less what you are being told. The biosphere and the climate are two entirely different things. While the biosphere may be affected by the climate, they are not the same thing. We certainly can alter the biosphere but CO2 emissions from fossil fuels are not altering the global climate.

Facts are we in the USA dealt with acid rain and auto pollution and factory pollution and the evidence is in -- the EPA and state rules have cleaned up the air in many states. The west coast beaches are coming back. Lakes and rivers and mountains...

Acid rain? Seriously? So you fell for another hoax. Completely unsurprising. Have you noticed that only the real wackos even mention acid rain any more? Acid rain has been swept into the historical dustbin with the likes of eugenics. Enough peer reviewed material has been published since the 70's dealing with the myth of acid rain that to even mention the topic seriously labels you as a nut ball.

And you make the typical mistake of believing that polution is somehow climate. Different topics, different, consequences, different solutions. AGW is a non problem that does not require a solution.

when people like you put your head in the sand because of ideological positions, your critical thinking skills go haywire.

Far from putting my head in the sand, people like me actually grasp the science and read the literature and hold a fact based position.

For example, you listed nasa as a good source of science regarding man made climate change. I asked you to point out a single bit of hard, observed, repeatable information on nasa's site that established a real link between the activites of man and the changing global climate. In completely unsurprising fashion, you dodged the question and made no comment because there was no comment to be made. There is simply no such data in existence at nasa or any other so called climate science site. You hold man made climate change as an article of faith then attempt to deride me because I don't have the same faith. Show me data or acknowledge the fact that you are simply spouting your faith.

Anecdotal evidence and intuitive reasoning alone would be enough to convince even a non-partisan moron that man's actions are affecting the planet, but there is also scientific evidence galore of this 'theory'

Anecdotal evidence is useless because it routinely confuses effect with cause or assumes cause to effect. As to intuitive reasoning, again, mostly useless. People like ian intuit that some radiation must reach the ground from the atmosphere as the hypothesis of AGW claims but that intuition is torn to shreds by the second law of thermodynamics. Intuition is not science and neither is anecdote.

Hard observable evidence and repeatable experimental data are science and neither exist on the side of AGW. If they did, you could certainly point to it. And again, agw is not a theory. As I have stated, even as a hypothesis, it is piss poor.

Here, have a gander at the defintions of theory and hypothesis:

Theory - A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena. Most theories that are accepted by scientists have been repeatedly tested by experiments and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Hypothesis - A statement that explains or makes generalizations about a set of facts or principles, usually forming a basis for possible experiments to confirm its viability.

Now I invite you to show me any hard, observable data that would elevate the idea of man made climate change even to the level of a hypothesis, much less a theory. By the way, computer models do not constitute experiments as they are presently based on little more than blind assumptions of how the earth's energy budget operates. If you are going to point to computer models as experiments, you will need to point to hard experimental data that supports the basis upon which computer models are written. Again, there is none.

Arguing that the climate has always changed is a red herring. There is NO counter argument to this fact. The argument is that man is affecting the change in harmful ways.

And once again, you demonstrate that in most areas of knowledge, you simply don't have a clue. Here, from the Nizkor Project, is what constitutes a red herring:

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue.

Since the topic is climate change and it is an indisuputable fact that the climate has always been changing, there is no red herring. Further, the change we are presently experiencing is in no way unprecedented. If the change were unprecedented, you might have a leg to stand on but you can't name a single factor relevant to the current climate in which I can't provide multiple, documented historical examples. Your belief in man made climate change finds its roots in your political leanings, not any hard evidence that has convinced you.

If you believe me to be wrong, then prove it by bringing forward that hard, observable, repeatable evidence that has formed your position.

 

[Old Rocks]

one graph? that settles it for me. you win.

NASA...

please get an almighty rightie to point out one error on NASA'a web site concerning climate change and global warming

Actually, you need to find one thing that is correct with what they say.

Ah yes. Ol' Walleyes know it all, but cannot bring himself to present any of it in a scientific paper. And we all know that the USGS, NASA, NOAA, and every government agency of that type in every nation in the world are in on a conspriracy to fool us all.

These dingbat assholes get more ridiculous by the day.

 

[Old Rocks]

No matter how many times you prove to these turds that the data is doctored, they will continue to cite NASA, NCDC and the HCRU as valid sources of climate data. they just don't care, and they are counting on the public being to apathetic to check it.

Pattycake, you have yet to present proof of anything.

The indisputable truth was just posted to you, moron.

LOL. A dumb fuck like you thinks he knows the truth?

 

[wirebender]

[
NASA...

please get an almighty rightie to point out one error on NASA'a web site concerning climate change and global warming

I already did. Did you miss it or are you just not bright enough to recognize the fact that your challenge has been answered? Here, again for your viewing enjoyment.

There. Multiple examples of nasa tampering with the temperature record in order to fabricate warming where there is none. All climate change claims made by nasa are dependent upon these temperature records which they have blatantly tampered with therefore their claims are in error proportional to the degree to which they have altered the data. The question to you is do you continue to hold your faith or do you start to look at the fact that the data have been altered in order to support the claims and predictions that have been made?

 

[Old Rocks]

Man has little to no effect on the biosphere? you really want to go with that line of reasoning?

You know dante, the more I talk to you guys (warmists) the more I understand how it is that you have been hoaxed so completely. The fact is that you guys knowledge base is so shallow that most of the time you don't have a clue what you are saying, much less what you are being told. The biosphere and the climate are two entirely different things. While the biosphere may be affected by the climate, they are not the same thing. We certainly can alter the biosphere but CO2 emissions from fossil fuels are not altering the global climate.

Facts are we in the USA dealt with acid rain and auto pollution and factory pollution and the evidence is in -- the EPA and state rules have cleaned up the air in many states. The west coast beaches are coming back. Lakes and rivers and mountains...

Acid rain? Seriously? So you fell for another hoax. Completely unsurprising. Have you noticed that only the real wackos even mention acid rain any more? Acid rain has been swept into the historical dustbin with the likes of eugenics. Enough peer reviewed material has been published since the 70's dealing with the myth of acid rain that to even mention the topic seriously labels you as a nut ball.

And you make the typical mistake of believing that polution is somehow climate. Different topics, different, consequences, different solutions. AGW is a non problem that does not require a solution.



Far from putting my head in the sand, people like me actually grasp the science and read the literature and hold a fact based position.

For example, you listed nasa as a good source of science regarding man made climate change. I asked you to point out a single bit of hard, observed, repeatable information on nasa's site that established a real link between the activites of man and the changing global climate. In completely unsurprising fashion, you dodged the question and made no comment because there was no comment to be made. There is simply no such data in existence at nasa or any other so called climate science site. You hold man made climate change as an article of faith then attempt to deride me because I don't have the same faith. Show me data or acknowledge the fact that you are simply spouting your faith.

Anecdotal evidence and intuitive reasoning alone would be enough to convince even a non-partisan moron that man's actions are affecting the planet, but there is also scientific evidence galore of this 'theory'

Anecdotal evidence is useless because it routinely confuses effect with cause or assumes cause to effect. As to intuitive reasoning, again, mostly useless. People like ian intuit that some radiation must reach the ground from the atmosphere as the hypothesis of AGW claims but that intuition is torn to shreds by the second law of thermodynamics. Intuition is not science and neither is anecdote.

Hard observable evidence and repeatable experimental data are science and neither exist on the side of AGW. If they did, you could certainly point to it. And again, agw is not a theory. As I have stated, even as a hypothesis, it is piss poor.

Here, have a gander at the defintions of theory and hypothesis:

Theory - A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena. Most theories that are accepted by scientists have been repeatedly tested by experiments and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Hypothesis - A statement that explains or makes generalizations about a set of facts or principles, usually forming a basis for possible experiments to confirm its viability.

Now I invite you to show me any hard, observable data that would elevate the idea of man made climate change even to the level of a hypothesis, much less a theory. By the way, computer models do not constitute experiments as they are presently based on little more than blind assumptions of how the earth's energy budget operates. If you are going to point to computer models as experiments, you will need to point to hard experimental data that supports the basis upon which computer models are written. Again, there is none.

Arguing that the climate has always changed is a red herring. There is NO counter argument to this fact. The argument is that man is affecting the change in harmful ways.

And once again, you demonstrate that in most areas of knowledge, you simply don't have a clue. Here, from the Nizkor Project, is what constitutes a red herring:

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue.

Since the topic is climate change and it is an indisuputable fact that the climate has always been changing, there is no red herring. Further, the change we are presently experiencing is in no way unprecedented. If the change were unprecedented, you might have a leg to stand on but you can't name a single factor relevant to the current climate in which I can't provide multiple, documented historical examples. Your belief in man made climate change finds its roots in your political leanings, not any hard evidence that has convinced you.

If you believe me to be wrong, then prove it by bringing forward that hard, observable, repeatable evidence that has formed your position.

Stupid ass Bent has been repeatedly shown where in the geological past a rapid increase in GHGs from natural sources has led to extinction events. Just because it is mankind doing the increasing of the GHGs does not mean that the laws of physics are suspended.

 

[wirebender]

No matter how many times you prove to these turds that the data is doctored, they will continue to cite NASA, NCDC and the HCRU as valid sources of climate data. they just don't care, and they are counting on the public being to apathetic to check it.

Pattycake, you have yet to present proof of anything.

The indisputable truth was just posted to you, moron.

Rocks can't see the evidence of data tampering. His high priests don't allow it. He can look right at it and remain completely unable to see. When I gave him evidence that data tampering has been happening all over the earth, he pointed out that the US is only 2% of the land mass of the earth. I can't imagine what must go through his mind to ilicit such a response but there it is.

 

[Old Rocks]

Has something to do with the fact that about 3 of the 6 graphs have US Temperature written above them.

 

[IanC]

Has something to do with the fact that about 3 of the 6 graphs have US Temperature written above them.

how many examples from each continent do you need Old Rocks? if I produce them will you acknowledge that there has been large 'adjustments' to the GISS record in every part of the world?

 

[Old Rocks]

And are the 'adjustments' based on data? And if they are, then who is challenging the interpretation of the data, and where may we find the articles outlineing the challenges?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

NASA...

please get an almighty rightie to point out one error on NASA'a web site concerning climate change and global warming

Actually, you need to find one thing that is correct with what they say.

Ah yes. Ol' Walleyes know it all, but cannot bring himself to present any of it in a scientific paper. And we all know that the USGS, NASA, NOAA, and every government agency of that type in every nation in the world are in on a conspriracy to fool us all.

These dingbat assholes get more ridiculous by the day.

them dirty rats!

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

[
NASA...

please get an almighty rightie to point out one error on NASA'a web site concerning climate change and global warming

I already did. Did you miss it or are you just not bright enough to recognize the fact that your challenge has been answered? Here, again for your viewing enjoyment.

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a00536b58035970c0168e5f617b8970c-pi[/IMG
[IMG]http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a00536b58035970c013488be5493970c-pi[/IMG
[IMG]http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a01536b58035970c01156f8ab749970c-pi[/IMG
[IMG]http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a00536b58035970c0147e267018f970b-400wi[/IMG
[IMG]http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a00536b58035970c0162fc38ff8b970d-pi[/IMG
[IMG]http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a01536b58035970c0162fc3900c3970d-400wi[/IMG

There. Multiple examples of nasa tampering with the temperature record in order to fabricate warming where there is none. All climate change claims made by nasa are dependent upon these temperature records which they have blatantly tampered with therefore their claims are in error proportional to the degree to which they have altered the data. The question to you is do you continue to hold your faith or do you start to look at the fact that the data have been altered in order to support the claims and predictions that have been made?[/QUOTE]

charts from a blog?

:lol:

again, show us where NASA has an error on their web site.

right now. you can't, can you? :lol:

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

there was an error ::: Thursday, August 16, 2007 http://www.geotimes.org/aug07/article.html?id=WebExtra081607_2.html

shit happens

but why can't a right wing nut here @ USMB answer a simple request? why do they need old corrections fed to them, old corrections that do absolutely nothing to refute the latest data andbtw, the overwhelming amount of data?

Einstein was in error on a few points in his big theory. Are righties now going to refute all of Einstein?

 

[wirebender]

Has something to do with the fact that about 3 of the 6 graphs have US Temperature written above them.

That would mean that 50% of the graphs I provided describe tampering outside of the US. The worldwide temperature database has been corrupted by tampering. In what part of the world do you believe the data has not been tampered with?

 

[wirebender]

charts from a blog?

Do you just not like the source? Prove the data provided by the charts incorrect.

If you would like to follow each graph to its source I would be glad to give you a link if it would make any difference in your thinking. For example:

Here is a link to the source of the graph with hansen's photo on it. The data is taken directly from government sites. The same is true for all of the graphs I provided.

Crying because you don't like the source is one of the most juvenile of all the logical fallacies. If you can prove that there is some problem with the data, by all means, step on up to the plate and prove it. If the best you can do is whine about the source, then you really aren't fit to even be in the discussion.

Here are links to the sources of more of the graphs:

Hansen Tampering Down Under Too | Real Science

C3: ClimateGate Expands To New Zealand: Temperature Data Massively Adjusted To Create "Official" Global Warming

The guys who put this info together aren't manufacturing it. They are exposing the people who are manufacturing it. Do you actually expect nasa et al to advertise their data tampering?

 

[wirebender]

there was an error ::: Thursday, August 16, 2007 Error in NASA climate data sparks debate

shit happens

but why can't a right wing nut here @ USMB answer a simple request? why do they need old corrections fed to them, old corrections that do absolutely nothing to refute the latest data andbtw, the overwhelming amount of data?

Einstein was in error on a few points in his big theory. Are righties now going to refute all of Einstein?

When the data base is tampered with, it corrupts the whole system. If you aren't able to see that lowering past temperatures in an effort to make the present appear warmer is blatantly bad science, then there really is no help for you.

As to that overwhelming amount of data you refer to, why is it that you can't glean a single shred of hard, observable, repeatable evidence that establishes a real connection between the activities of man and the changing global climate.

I can tell you why since you probably don't know the answer yourself. That overwhelming amount of data you refer to is nothing more than the output of computer models that have been documented over and over to be wortless. The programmers don't know how the earth's energy budget works so they write the programs based on assumptions with the goal of generating output to match the predictions. Simple as that. It is why observed data rarely, if ever matches predictions generated by climate simulations.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

charts from a blog?

Do you just not like the source? Prove the data provided by the charts incorrect.

I asked first.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

there was an error ::: Thursday, August 16, 2007 Error in NASA climate data sparks debate

shit happens

but why can't a right wing nut here @ USMB answer a simple request? why do they need old corrections fed to them, old corrections that do absolutely nothing to refute the latest data andbtw, the overwhelming amount of data?

Einstein was in error on a few points in his big theory. Are righties now going to refute all of Einstein?

When the data base is tampered with, it corrupts the whole system. If you aren't able to see that lowering past temperatures in an effort to make the present appear warmer is blatantly bad science, then there really is no help for you.

As to that overwhelming amount of data you refer to, why is it that you can't glean a single shred of hard, observable, repeatable evidence that establishes a real connection between the activities of man and the changing global climate.

I can tell you why since you probably don't know the answer yourself. That overwhelming amount of data you refer to is nothing more than the output of computer models that have been documented over and over to be wortless. The programmers don't know how the earth's energy budget works so they write the programs based on assumptions with the goal of generating output to match the predictions. Simple as that. It is why observed data rarely, if ever matches predictions generated by climate simulations.

repeating a few talking points may make you feel smatah, but believe me, it only makes you look ignorant.

Observable data? NASA is NOT using computer models without hard evidence. Predictions?

You harp on about predictions. Global warming is NOT based on predictions. Maybe you are confused about things? It happens when people rely on talking points they do not fully understand. it's like you're a monkey reproducing what you see your handlers doing.

 

[wirebender]

charts from a blog?

Do you just not like the source? Prove the data provided by the charts incorrect.

I asked first.

The graphs showing data tampering are correct. Feel free to prove them wrong. Your position is based on your political leanings rather than any actual science. Sad really, but there you are.