NASA GISS temperature data: TOTALLY RIGGED!!!

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

Is this like the CO2 model from 2006 you say is more accurate than the satellite readings from 2014?

 

[Freewill]

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.

How can you be so sure the professor isn't wrong?

 

[SSDD]

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?

You don't think funding for government agencies is tied to what they produce?

 

[jc456]

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.

How can you be so sure the professor isn't wrong?

Because he didn't owe anyone anything

 

[mamooth]

Is this like the CO2 model from 2006 you say is more accurate than the satellite readings from 2014?

I certainly never said or implied such an insane thing. That lunatic claim is entirely your invention. Hence, you need to justify it. Why do you say a CO2 model from 2006 is more accurate than satellite readings from 2014?

 

[jc456]

Is this like the CO2 model from 2006 you say is more accurate than the satellite readings from 2014?

I certainly never said or implied such an insane thing. That lunatic claim is entirely your invention. Hence, you need to justify it. Why do you say a CO2 model from 2006 is more accurate than satellite readings from 2014?

Well since it isn't what he said, your guess is as good as any. Go for it

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Is this like the CO2 model from 2006 you say is more accurate than the satellite readings from 2014?

I certainly never said or implied such an insane thing. That lunatic claim is entirely your invention. Hence, you need to justify it. Why do you say a CO2 model from 2006 is more accurate than satellite readings from 2014?

Wow!

That was you exact "Explanation" for this chart.

Remember?

Nasa C02 sattilite 2014 | Page 3 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Then you linked to a model from 2006

 

[mamooth]

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.

All the raw data in the world is held prisoner by NOAA and NASA?

You understand you're living in a weirdass alternate reality, right?

There is one more office, can't remember which one, that also has it, and they all supply the graphs to the world.

Since the raw data is available online, can you inform us of the mechanism by which these 3 nefarious organizations block the rest of the world from getting it? Are they perhaps mind controlling everyone to prevent them from downloading it?

Here's just one place to get it.

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/

---
V3 contains two different dataset files per each of the three elements.
"QCU" files represent the quality controlled unadjusted data, and
"QCA" files represent the quality controlled adjusted data.
---

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.

Given I just showed everyone one place to get the raw data, you got some 'splainin to do concerning why you're telling such a crazy lie.

 

[jc456]

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.

All the raw data in the world is held prisoner by NOAA and NASA?

You understand you're living in a weirdass alternate reality, right?

There is one more office, can't remember which one, that also has it, and they all supply the graphs to the world.

Since the raw data is available online, can you inform us of the mechanism by which these 3 nefarious organizations block the rest of the world from getting it? Are they perhaps mind controlling everyone to prevent them from downloading it?

Here's just one place to get it.

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/

---
V3 contains two different dataset files per each of the three elements.
"QCU" files represent the quality controlled unadjusted data, and
"QCA" files represent the quality controlled adjusted data.
---

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.

Given I just showed everyone one place to get the raw data, you got some 'splainin to do concerning why you're telling such a crazy lie.

I think billy has provided the raw data and it doesn't line up with the NOAA?

 

[mamooth]

That was you exact "Explanation" for this chart.

When you just openly lie about me like that, I'm going to tell you to fuck off.

So fuck off.

If you want to claim you're not lying, quote for everyone my "exact" explanation that supposedly said that completely insane thing you invented.

If you won't, everyone will understand. You were just butthurt about getting humiliated, so you lied.

 

[mamooth]

I think billy has provided the raw data and it doesn't line up with the NOAA?

Wait, you just said the raw data was all locked up. So how did Billy get it?

You need to settle down on one single consistent deranged conspiracy theory.

 

[jc456]

I think billy has provided the raw data and it doesn't line up with the NOAA?

Wait, you just said the raw data was all locked up. So how did Billy get it?

You need to settle down on one single consistent deranged conspiracy theory.

Well which is its? Is it available or not? I'd say you're cornered

 

[mamooth]

jc, you're a moron, I just wanted to demonstrate that, and I have, so buh-bye. Go cry to someone who cares.

 

[jc456]

jc, you're a moron, I just wanted to demonstrate that, and I have, so buh-bye. Go cry to someone who cares.

And that's how you take down a poster on a forum. There either is or isn't raw data. Play a game and win. WIN

 

[mamooth]

I've been very clear and entirely consistent that the raw data is there, and you're an outright liar for saying otherwise. I'll tell you what I told Frank. Fuck off, liar.

Now, you tried pathological dishonesty to deflect the topic away from the humiliating failure of your conspiracy theories, so I'll just return to what you're running from.

First You told us the raw data is locked away.

I pointed you directly to where to get the raw data.

Then you told us Billy has the raw data, meaning isn't locked away.

Your two stories directly contradict each other. They can't both be correct. One of them has to be wrong. Which is the correct story, and which is the fake story, and why did you fake the fake story?

 

[jc456]

I've been very clear and entirely consistent that the raw data is there, and you're an outright liar for saying otherwise. I'll tell you what I told Frank. Fuck off, liar.

Now, you tried pathological dishonesty to deflect the topic away from the humiliating failure of your conspiracy theories, so I'll just return to what you're running from.

First You told us the raw data is locked away.

I pointed you directly to where to get the raw data.

Then you told us Billy has the raw data, meaning isn't locked away.

Your two stories directly contradict each other. They can't both be correct. One of them has to be wrong. Which is the correct story, and which is the fake story, and why did you fake the fake story?

Then why do you question billies graphs?

 

[Billy_Bob]

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?

When your pay is dependent on keeping the CAG lie alive and the political agenda moving, there was no mistake. It was pure unadulterated lies and deception.. That is why it is so easily debunked and shown fraud.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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.

Bull SHIT! piles and piles of it... NOAA and NASA keep their raw data from public view.. Keep on lying your ass off hairball.

 

[depotoo]

I know people that have direct access and they have been telling me that for years. Budgets are driven by fudging.

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?

 

[Billy_Bob]

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.

All the raw data in the world is held prisoner by NOAA and NASA?

You understand you're living in a weirdass alternate reality, right?

There is one more office, can't remember which one, that also has it, and they all supply the graphs to the world.

Since the raw data is available online, can you inform us of the mechanism by which these 3 nefarious organizations block the rest of the world from getting it? Are they perhaps mind controlling everyone to prevent them from downloading it?

Here's just one place to get it.

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/

---
V3 contains two different dataset files per each of the three elements.
"QCU" files represent the quality controlled unadjusted data, and
"QCA" files represent the quality controlled adjusted data.
---

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.

Given I just showed everyone one place to get the raw data, you got some 'splainin to do concerning why you're telling such a crazy lie.

I think billy has provided the raw data and it doesn't line up with the NOAA?

On many occasions i have provided the raw data. And no it does not line up with the adjusted crap NOAA has been spewing.. 1.32 deg C in upward adjustments, it is rather stunning to see how badly we have been lied too.