More record temps

[bigrebnc1775]

Because you cannot refute the real science that we show you ideological fools. We post real scientific articles from peer reviewed scientific journals, and you post nonsense from an undegreed ex-TV weatherman.

AGW Observer

Real science does not discard it's data before it get's peer review.

You wouldn't know 'real science' if it bit you, you poor dumbshit.

Meanwhile, no data was discarded, except in your idiotic denier cult myths. You spew a lot of really lame lies, bigshthd, but you can never seem to back up anything you say with any evidence. You just blow smoke out your ass about subjects you know nothing about.

I know more than you.

 

[saveliberty]

Your numbers have dropped off to insignificance Faithers. Global Warming has become Climate Change. lol

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I guess if he really wanted to help the public and make his science trustworthy, there should have been less shameful manipulation of data and poor scienfitic(sic) study huh?

"shameful manipulation of data and poor scienfitic(sic) study" - never happened, except in your denier cult myths and fantasies.

Climate Skeptic Sponsors New Climate Study, Confirms ‘Global Warming Is Real'
Popular Science
10.24.2011
(excerpts)
Last year, as climate change deniers were up in arms over the so-called “Climategate” controversy involving alleged manipulation of climate data, one skeptical scientist proposed taking a fresh look. Richard Muller, a physicist at the University of California-Berkeley and a self-described climate skeptic, undertook to review the temperature data underlying most global warming studies. Now his team has wrapped up their work, and it apparently solidifies the other studies’ findings. Actually, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project found the Earth is getting even warmer than other climate scientists claim. Muller said earlier this year that he was surprised by his own findings; now he accepts what other groups have been saying for years, that the Earth is getting warmer in most locations over time.

The BEST study is notable for a few reasons aside from Muller’s skepticism and the study’s funding sources, which include the climate-change-denying Charles and David Koch — it’s also a very comprehensive look, examining skeptics’ claims in detail and with a gigantic amount of data points. The study combined 1.6 billion temperature reports from 39,000 temperature stations around the globe, using 15 preexisting data archives. Statisticians developed a new approach that let them use fragmented records, such as those from unreliable monitoring stations, which embiggened the overall data set by about five times. Muller’s team also used satellite images to divide the world into urban and rural areas, which allowed them to correct for heat-island effects. And they ranked the quality of the monitoring stations, and found even poor stations accurately track temperature changes over time. Their conclusion? “Global warming is real.” Very real, if their numbers are to be believed — the BEST analysis found that at the locations that showed warming, temperatures rose by an average 1 to 2 degrees Celsius, much higher than the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimate of 0.64 degrees C.

Global Warming - Global Warming Facts and Global Climate Change Information

 

[RollingThunder]

So using the manipulated data, someone came to the same conclusion. No surprise there. Seriously, what a lame retort.

Your denier cult myths are really stupid and have no foundation in reality. There was no "manipulated data", just good data, competent analysis and sound science, repeated and confirmed by thousand of scientists all around the planet. You're just too retarded and brainwashed by your rightwing puppet masters stooging for the fossil fuel industry to know up from down. You are a pathetic idiot.

 

[RollingThunder]

Real science does not discard it's data before it get's peer review.

You wouldn't know 'real science' if it bit you, you poor dumbshit.

Meanwhile, no data was discarded, except in your idiotic denier cult myths. You spew a lot of really lame lies, bigshthd, but you can never seem to back up anything you say with any evidence. You just blow smoke out your ass about subjects you know nothing about.

I know more than you.

LOLOLOL....in your dreams, you pathetic retard.

 

[saveliberty]

So using the manipulated data, someone came to the same conclusion. No surprise there. Seriously, what a lame retort.

Your denier cult myths are really stupid and have no foundation in reality. There was no "manipulated data", just good data, competent analysis and sound science, repeated and confirmed by thousand of scientists all around the planet. You're just too retarded and brainwashed by your rightwing puppet masters stooging for the fossil fuel industry to know up from down. You are a pathetic idiot.

I'm informed and that threatens you.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So using the manipulated data, someone came to the same conclusion. No surprise there. Seriously, what a lame retort.

Your denier cult myths are really stupid and have no foundation in reality. There was no "manipulated data", just good data, competent analysis and sound science, repeated and confirmed by thousand of scientists all around the planet. You're just too retarded and brainwashed by your rightwing puppet masters stooging for the fossil fuel industry to know up from down. You are a pathetic idiot.

I would say you were a brainwashed warmer, that is if you had a brain. You are only repeating what you are directed to repeat.
Polly want a cracker?

 

[RollingThunder]

Your numbers have dropped off to insignificance Faithers. Global Warming has become Climate Change. lol

You poor, poor delusional retard. How did you get your head that far up your ass, anyway?

Worldwide, Gallup surveys in 111 countries found that the percentage of people who view global warming as a serious threat rose from 41% in 2007 to 42% in 2010.

Also there's this poll.
Poll Finds Worldwide Agreement That Climate Change is a Threat

Of course, public opinion polls have no bearing on the scientific reality of the situation. The only 'opinion polls' that mean anything are the ones taken of climate scientists, who are almost unanimous in affirming the reality and dangers of AGW/CC.

Surveys of scientists' views on climate change
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

STATS, 2007
In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. The survey found 97% agreed that global temperatures have increased during the past 100 years; 84% say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that “currently available scientific evidence” substantiates its occurrence. Only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; and 84% believe global climate change poses a moderate to very great danger.[8] [9]

Bray and von Storch, 2008
Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch conducted a survey in August 2008 of 2058 climate scientists from 34 different countries.[10] A web link with a unique identifier was given to each respondent to eliminate multiple responses. A total of 373 responses were received giving an overall response rate of 18.2%. No paper on climate change consensus based on this survey has been published yet (February 2010), but one on another subject has been published based on the survey.[11]

The survey was composed of 76 questions split into a number of sections. There were sections on the demographics of the respondents, their assessment of the state of climate science, how good the science is, climate change impacts, adaptation and mitigation, their opinion of the IPCC, and how well climate science was being communicated to the public. Most of the answers were on a scale from 1 to 7 from 'not at all' to 'very much'.

Edited, read entire article from the link provided

 

[RollingThunder]

I guess if he really wanted to help the public and make his science trustworthy, there should have been less shameful manipulation of data and poor scienfitic(sic) study huh?

"shameful manipulation of data and poor scienfitic(sic) study" - never happened, except in your denier cult myths and fantasies.

Climate Skeptic Sponsors New Climate Study, Confirms ‘Global Warming Is Real'
Popular Science
10.24.2011
(excerpts)
Last year, as climate change deniers were up in arms over the so-called “Climategate” controversy involving alleged manipulation of climate data, one skeptical scientist proposed taking a fresh look. Richard Muller, a physicist at the University of California-Berkeley and a self-described climate skeptic, undertook to review the temperature data underlying most global warming studies. Now his team has wrapped up their work, and it apparently solidifies the other studies’ findings. Actually, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project found the Earth is getting even warmer than other climate scientists claim. Muller said earlier this year that he was surprised by his own findings; now he accepts what other groups have been saying for years, that the Earth is getting warmer in most locations over time.

The BEST study is notable for a few reasons aside from Muller’s skepticism and the study’s funding sources, which include the climate-change-denying Charles and David Koch — it’s also a very comprehensive look, examining skeptics’ claims in detail and with a gigantic amount of data points. The study combined 1.6 billion temperature reports from 39,000 temperature stations around the globe, using 15 preexisting data archives. Statisticians developed a new approach that let them use fragmented records, such as those from unreliable monitoring stations, which embiggened the overall data set by about five times. Muller’s team also used satellite images to divide the world into urban and rural areas, which allowed them to correct for heat-island effects. And they ranked the quality of the monitoring stations, and found even poor stations accurately track temperature changes over time. Their conclusion? “Global warming is real.” Very real, if their numbers are to be believed — the BEST analysis found that at the locations that showed warming, temperatures rose by an average 1 to 2 degrees Celsius, much higher than the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimate of 0.64 degrees C.

Global Warming - Global Warming Facts and Global Climate Change Information

I pretty much figured that a retard like you would be getting his misinformation from some lame-ass denier cult blog like that one but thanks for confirming it. LOL. You really are sooooo clueless. Other people (like me) cite NASA, NOAA, the NSIDC, UCAR, Scientific American, papers from reputable peer-reviewed science journals and scientists at major universities. Retards like you and your denier cult butt-buddies cite nonsense and drivel written by non-climate scientists stooging for the fossil fuel industry that you scrape off of denier cult blogs and Exxon funded 'think-tanks'/propaganda outlets. LOL.

 

[RollingThunder]

So using the manipulated data, someone came to the same conclusion. No surprise there. Seriously, what a lame retort.

Your denier cult myths are really stupid and have no foundation in reality. There was no "manipulated data", just good data, competent analysis and sound science, repeated and confirmed by thousand of scientists all around the planet. You're just too retarded and brainwashed by your rightwing puppet masters stooging for the fossil fuel industry to know up from down. You are a pathetic idiot.

I'm informed and that threatens you.

You're rather stupid and very ignorant, and that amuses me.

 

[RollingThunder]

So using the manipulated data, someone came to the same conclusion. No surprise there. Seriously, what a lame retort.

Your denier cult myths are really stupid and have no foundation in reality. There was no "manipulated data", just good data, competent analysis and sound science, repeated and confirmed by thousand of scientists all around the planet. You're just too retarded and brainwashed by your rightwing puppet masters stooging for the fossil fuel industry to know up from down. You are a pathetic idiot.

I would say you were a brainwashed warmer, that is if you had a brain. You are only repeating what you are directed to repeat.
Polly want a cracker?

If you had a brain, you might actually contribute something that is supported by some evidence to the debate instead of just always more meaningless unsupported nonsense and random bullshit.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Your numbers have dropped off to insignificance Faithers. Global Warming has become Climate Change. lol

You poor, poor delusional retard. How did you get your head that far up your ass, anyway?

Worldwide, Gallup surveys in 111 countries found that the percentage of people who view global warming as a serious threat rose from 41% in 2007 to 42% in 2010.

Also there's this poll.
Poll Finds Worldwide Agreement That Climate Change is a Threat

Of course, public opinion polls have no bearing on the scientific reality of the situation. The only 'opinion polls' that mean anything are the ones taken of climate scientists, who are almost unanimous in affirming the reality and dangers of AGW/CC.

Surveys of scientists' views on climate change
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

STATS, 2007
In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. The survey found 97% agreed that global temperatures have increased during the past 100 years; 84% say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that “currently available scientific evidence” substantiates its occurrence. Only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; and 84% believe global climate change poses a moderate to very great danger.[8] [9]

Bray and von Storch, 2008
Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch conducted a survey in August 2008 of 2058 climate scientists from 34 different countries.[10] A web link with a unique identifier was given to each respondent to eliminate multiple responses. A total of 373 responses were received giving an overall response rate of 18.2%. No paper on climate change consensus based on this survey has been published yet (February 2010), but one on another subject has been published based on the survey.[11]

The survey was composed of 76 questions split into a number of sections. There were sections on the demographics of the respondents, their assessment of the state of climate science, how good the science is, climate change impacts, adaptation and mitigation, their opinion of the IPCC, and how well climate science was being communicated to the public. Most of the answers were on a scale from 1 to 7 from 'not at all' to 'very much'.

Edited
And BTW, savestupidity, as I told you before, the term 'climate change' has been in use for the last three decades at least. I guess you're going to hold on to your silly little myth about the name changing, like the truly retarded idiot that you are, even after the myth has been debunked. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was established in 1988, moron.


***

Stupid your religion is a myth, you swallowed the bullshit and asked for more. What proof you have given has been shot down.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Your denier cult myths are really stupid and have no foundation in reality. There was no "manipulated data", just good data, competent analysis and sound science, repeated and confirmed by thousand of scientists all around the planet. You're just too retarded and brainwashed by your rightwing puppet masters stooging for the fossil fuel industry to know up from down. You are a pathetic idiot.

I would say you were a brainwashed warmer, that is if you had a brain. You are only repeating what you are directed to repeat.
Polly want a cracker?

If you had a brain, you might actually contribute something that is supported by some evidence to the debate instead of just always more meaningless unsupported nonsense and random bullshit.

Did you get that butt hurt feeling when you found out that the global warming myth was busted? Do you have that butt hurt feeling because no one wants to join your religion?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

"shameful manipulation of data and poor scienfitic(sic) study" - never happened, except in your denier cult myths and fantasies.

Climate Skeptic Sponsors New Climate Study, Confirms ‘Global Warming Is Real'
Popular Science
10.24.2011
(excerpts)
Last year, as climate change deniers were up in arms over the so-called “Climategate” controversy involving alleged manipulation of climate data, one skeptical scientist proposed taking a fresh look. Richard Muller, a physicist at the University of California-Berkeley and a self-described climate skeptic, undertook to review the temperature data underlying most global warming studies. Now his team has wrapped up their work, and it apparently solidifies the other studies’ findings. Actually, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project found the Earth is getting even warmer than other climate scientists claim. Muller said earlier this year that he was surprised by his own findings; now he accepts what other groups have been saying for years, that the Earth is getting warmer in most locations over time.

The BEST study is notable for a few reasons aside from Muller’s skepticism and the study’s funding sources, which include the climate-change-denying Charles and David Koch — it’s also a very comprehensive look, examining skeptics’ claims in detail and with a gigantic amount of data points. The study combined 1.6 billion temperature reports from 39,000 temperature stations around the globe, using 15 preexisting data archives. Statisticians developed a new approach that let them use fragmented records, such as those from unreliable monitoring stations, which embiggened the overall data set by about five times. Muller’s team also used satellite images to divide the world into urban and rural areas, which allowed them to correct for heat-island effects. And they ranked the quality of the monitoring stations, and found even poor stations accurately track temperature changes over time. Their conclusion? “Global warming is real.” Very real, if their numbers are to be believed — the BEST analysis found that at the locations that showed warming, temperatures rose by an average 1 to 2 degrees Celsius, much higher than the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimate of 0.64 degrees C.

Global Warming - Global Warming Facts and Global Climate Change Information

I pretty much figured that a retard like you would be getting his misinformation from some lame-ass denier cult blog like that one but thanks for confirming it. LOL. You really are sooooo clueless. Other people (like me) cite NASA, NOAA, the NSIDC, UCAR, Scientific American, papers from reputable peer-reviewed science journals and scientists at major universities. Retards like you and your denier cult butt-buddies cite nonsense and drivel written by non-climate scientists stooging for the fossil fuel industry that you scrape off of denier cult blogs and Exxon funded 'think-tanks'/propaganda outlets. LOL.

Your post show you can't comprehend how to click on a link.
How many post have I made that I used NASA as a source?
Popular Science? You're a joke.

 

[IanC]

The following table lists the highest and lowest temperatures recorded in each state in the United States, in both Fahrenheit and Celsius.

the 30's are massively over-represented. recent times....not so much. of course if you add in Hansen's adjustments then all those hot days just disappear. which is why everyone should take temperature data sets with a large pinch of salt. every new version of every set takes a little more away from the past and adds a little to the recent.

LOLOLOL......you are sooooo clueless.

"the highest and lowest temperatures recorded in each state in the United States" - completely meaningless in the context of this debate or in relation to global warming/climate changes.

BTW, retard, climate scientists like Dr Hansen use a broad array of data from all around the world, not single data points isolated by meaningless geographical boundaries, all within a country, the US, that covers only about 2% of the Earth's surface. Your denier cult myths about deliberate errors in climate science are both moronic and insane. You've been duped by the fossil fuel industry's propaganda into believing a lot of idiotic nonsense with no foundation in reality, you poor gullible fool.

I agree that the high and low temps for individual states are not that important but we seem to be under a barrage of 'new records' everyday. Feynman started a lecture once by saying, "there is a car outside with the license plate xxx xxx, what are the chances of that?". if you look only for records or coincidences you will find them. the only way to get a reasonable idea of the overall picture is to define your parameters before you examine the data. in this case I chose individual States because it has a workable quantity and available information. you could chose something different, like capital cities or cities that start with the letter R, as long as they have records going back 100 years. a big fuss was made over Chicago having a 'record number' of days over 80F in March this year. unfortunately it seems that both 1910 and 1915 had more. how many records are set because of new stations, moved stations, or just laziness in checking out the history?



I also have a problem with the USA being ignored because it only has <2% of the land mass. it has more temperature measurements than any other area, and those measurements are of higher quality than just about anywhere else. and they show that there has been very little warming, especially when you remove the layer after layer of undocumented or un peer reviewed adjustments. if anything the USA just has too much information to get a clear idea about how things are being done and what the results show.

New Zealand is a small country with a long history of scientific accomplishment. their climate trends were based on a long term trend of just seven cities over the last 100+ years. in the 80's the NZ Met was controlled by a PhD who trained under Jones at UEA (univ of east anglia, climategate fame). the adjustments he introduced made the tiny country a star within the CAGW group. unfortunately it also attracted critics who finally made the govt demand to see the methodologies used. instead of opening their books to the public the NZ Met just quit! rather than explain and audit their work they just abandoned it.

perhaps the USA and other places should send auditors in to check out the information being used to influence the direction of programs that will end up spending trillions of dollars in the future.

a graphic example of Hansen's manipulation of US Temps. there have been many more since this graph was made.

 

[IanC]

I am getting anxious to see how the BEST papers have done in peer review. it was months ago that the preliminary data was released. I want to see if their kridging method of cutting and combining the separate data strings has been found acceptable. if it has, expect another big increase in the other data sets, and more "its worse than we thought" articles. and maybe the Urban Heat Island paper will pass too. remember it? it says that concrete, buildings and asphalt actually cool things down. hahahaha

 

[daveman]

Worldwide, Gallup surveys in 111 countries found that the percentage of people who view global warming as a serious threat rose from 41% in 2007 to 42% in 2010.

A thousand years ago, most people thought the world was flat.

Did that make it true?

 

[saveliberty]

Your numbers have dropped off to insignificance Faithers. Global Warming has become Climate Change. lol

You poor, poor delusional retard. How did you get your head that far up your ass, anyway?

Worldwide, Gallup surveys in 111 countries found that the percentage of people who view global warming as a serious threat rose from 41% in 2007 to 42% in 2010.

Also there's this poll.
Poll Finds Worldwide Agreement That Climate Change is a Threat

Of course, public opinion polls have no bearing on the scientific reality of the situation. The only 'opinion polls' that mean anything are the ones taken of climate scientists, who are almost unanimous in affirming the reality and dangers of AGW/CC.

Surveys of scientists' views on climate change
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

STATS, 2007
In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. The survey found 97% agreed that global temperatures have increased during the past 100 years; 84% say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that “currently available scientific evidence” substantiates its occurrence. Only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; and 84% believe global climate change poses a moderate to very great danger.[8] [9]

Bray and von Storch, 2008
Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch conducted a survey in August 2008 of 2058 climate scientists from 34 different countries.[10] A web link with a unique identifier was given to each respondent to eliminate multiple responses. A total of 373 responses were received giving an overall response rate of 18.2%. No paper on climate change consensus based on this survey has been published yet (February 2010), but one on another subject has been published based on the survey.[11]

The survey was composed of 76 questions split into a number of sections. There were sections on the demographics of the respondents, their assessment of the state of climate science, how good the science is, climate change impacts, adaptation and mitigation, their opinion of the IPCC, and how well climate science was being communicated to the public. Most of the answers were on a scale from 1 to 7 from 'not at all' to 'very much'.

In the section on climate change impacts questions 20, 21 were relevant to scientific opinion on climate change. Question 20 "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?" got 67.1% very much agree, 26.7% to some large extent (5–6), 6.2% said to some small extent (2–4), none said not at all. Question 21 "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?" received 34.6% very much agree, 48.9% agreeing to a large extent (5–6), 15.1% to a small extent (2–4), and 1.35% not agreeing at all.

Doran and Kendall Zimmerman, 2009
A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believe that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and 75 out of 77 believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement. A summary from the survey states that:

It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.[12]​

Anderegg, Prall, Harold, and Schneider, 2010
A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions:

(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.[13]

Farnsworth and Lichter, 2011
In an October 2011 paper published in the International Journal of Public Opinion Research, researchers from George Mason University analyzed the results of a survey of 489 scientists working in academia, government, and industry. The scientists polled were members of the American Geophysical Union or the American Meteorological Society and listed in the 23rd edition of American Men and Women of Science, a biographical reference work on leading American scientists. Of those surveyed, 97% agreed that that global temperatures have risen over the past century. Moreover, 84% agreed that "human-induced greenhouse warming" is now occurring. Only 5% disagreed with the idea that human activity is a significant cause of global warming.[18][19]


And BTW, savestupidity, as I told you before, the term 'climate change' has been in use for the last three decades at least. I guess you're going to hold on to your silly little myth about the name changing, like the truly retarded idiot that you are, even after the myth has been debunked. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was established in 1988, moron.


***

The only thing that matters is, how many of your 111 countries going to PAY for your science? Maybe a dozen, and the US is less inclined to continue the funding, so you're screwed.

 

[saveliberty]

Worldwide, Gallup surveys in 111 countries found that the percentage of people who view global warming as a serious threat rose from 41% in 2007 to 42% in 2010.

A thousand years ago, most people thought the world was flat.

Did that make it true?

When you lie to poor countries, its just that much worse. Bad Faithers.

 

[RollingThunder]

Global Warming - Global Warming Facts and Global Climate Change Information

I pretty much figured that a retard like you would be getting his misinformation from some lame-ass denier cult blog like that one but thanks for confirming it. LOL. You really are sooooo clueless. Other people (like me) cite NASA, NOAA, the NSIDC, UCAR, Scientific American, papers from reputable peer-reviewed science journals and scientists at major universities. Retards like you and your denier cult butt-buddies cite nonsense and drivel written by non-climate scientists stooging for the fossil fuel industry that you scrape off of denier cult blogs and Exxon funded 'think-tanks'/propaganda outlets. LOL.

Your post show you can't comprehend how to click on a link.
How many post have I made that I used NASA as a source?

LOL. You poor deluded idiot, you've never actually used NASA as a source. You're just too retarded to realize that. You've used denier cult blogs that claimed a "NASA source" but those were lies. As I demonstrated by posting links to the actual NASA website that directly contradicted your stupid drivel, moron.