Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (897656)	10/31/2015 10:50:40 AM
From: Brumar89	1 Recommendation Recommended By FJB Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573988

NASA Mann-ufactured half a degree of warming between 2005 and 2015: New Ways To Visualize NASA Temperature Fraud Posted on October 29, 2015 by stevengoddard I’m trying out some new ways to help people visualize how NASA data tampering has nearly doubled 1883-2003 warming since 2005, and how they made the hiatus disappear in 2015. The next graph shows only the five year means at the same scale, but normalized the three graphs to the 1880s. Note how they have adjusted the data nearly an order of magnitude out of their own error bars. A smoking gun of incompetence and fraud by the criminals who are behind the biggest scam in history. Jason Calley says: October 30, 2015 at 12:06 pm Hey gregole! That is the $100,000 question. Actually, that is the $100 billion dollar question — and it is the one question that the CAGW faithful don’t even see as an issue. The official statistics keep changing and morphing. Year after year, the climate history shifts and what was is forgotten and replaced by what they are telling us today. What was one measurement when the scientists spoke ten years ago has now mysteriously become something different and no one can explain how or why it changed. When pressed, there may be some vague and completely unverifiable response like, “we changed our adjustment algorithm to better account for time of observation errors”, or “the new program is more aggressive at detecting and correcting for outliers and transcription mistakes.” Translated into more common language, both those so-called explanations can be given as “we changed the numbers but we are not saying what our criteria were or by how much we altered them. We did what we did, and we did it on purpose.” How can the CAGW faithful not see through the vague response? Tony points out the smoking guns over and over and over, but how to the warmists respond? “But, but, but, they are SCIENTISTS! How can YOU be right when all the SCIENTISTS say different?!” Warmists are like a four year old child who jerks his arm away when the doctor tries to bandage a wound. “Mommy! The bad man is hurting me! Make him go away!”