Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Bri, jumping in to deflect from Billy's outright data faking makes you an accomplice to it.
Just how low will you go in the name of your cult? Is there any level of outright fraud you won't support?
is your graph using raw data or massaged data? Also, why is the line on 57.5 degree F? And why is 1880 warmer with less CO2?You keep spouting that lie over and over again, when I have on multiple occasions given you the exact site and where that site get's its data from. It is empirical fact.
This is your faked graph.
Now, this is what NOAA says temperatures actually look like.
You can look at the image source info and see my image comes right from NOAA. It doesn't even remotely resemble your faked data. Yes, the CO2 line matches, but the temps are wildly different. So what was the original source of your faked image, the one you keep pretending comes from NOAA?
what known errors are they correcting, I don't know of any errors. Hmmmm, how convenient for them to make a temperature anything they want eh? Your data is fake tooth.Of course Billy's data is fake. I showed the real data, and it looks nothing like Billy's data. Billy has never explained the difference, or told us where he got his graph.
Meanwhile, the homogenization algorithims are public domain and accepted as valid by everyone who isn't a cult loon. They are necessary to correct known errors in the data. By demanding errors not be fixed and bad data be put out instead, jc and Bri are advocating for data faking.
The funniest part is that the corrections make the warming look _smaller_. That totally destroys the kook conspiracy theory. According to the jc and Bri theory, scientists are faking data to make it look like _less_ warming is going on.
hear that noise? that is another pac man death!what known errors are they correcting, I don't know of any errors. Hmmmm, how convenient for them to make a temperature anything they want eh? Your data is fake tooth.Of course Billy's data is fake. I showed the real data, and it looks nothing like Billy's data. Billy has never explained the difference, or told us where he got his graph.
Meanwhile, the homogenization algorithims are public domain and accepted as valid by everyone who isn't a cult loon. They are necessary to correct known errors in the data. By demanding errors not be fixed and bad data be put out instead, jc and Bri are advocating for data faking.
The funniest part is that the corrections make the warming look _smaller_. That totally destroys the kook conspiracy theory. According to the jc and Bri theory, scientists are faking data to make it look like _less_ warming is going on.
jc, we went over this in detail the last time you jumped on this conspiracy crazy train. You were active on that thread, so you have no excuse for your ignorance.
Forget Climategate this global warming scandal is much bigger Page 11 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
I'm glad to educate anyone who is willing to learn, but your attitude towards learning is actively hostile and contemptuous. And the good book says I should not cast my pearls before swine.
Bri, your nonsense was laughed at and debunked 6 weeks ago. You're late to the party. Go check the old thread. Nobody is interested in going over the same debunked stupidity yet another time. Find some new material.
Goddard is the one who uncovered the faked data. NASA and Jim Hansen are the ones who doctored the data. The evidence is too overwhelming to deny.Thank you Bri. I asked you to put up Goddard's fudged graph, and you didn't disappoint. I'm proud of you, and your cult masters are pleased with you as well. Mucho cult brownie points for you.
Yes, it's all faked data, but that doesn't bother a true believer like you. For a cultist, the ends always justify the means. Faking data advances the agenda of your cult, therefore you define the data-faking as good and holy.
However, your cult masters did ask me to pass along to you that your sissyboy bedwetting routine is embarrassing the cult. They'd like you to stop with all the high-pitched hysterical squealing, being it's causing all the dogs in the neighborhood to howl.
Oh, you know I'm a dude, so please stop hitting on me. I don't swing that way.
June 2014, Goddard attracted considerable media attention for his claims that NASA had manipulated temperature data to make it appear that 1998 was the hottest year in United States history. In fact, he claimed, it was 1934, but NASA had started incorrectly citing 1998 as the hottest year beginning in 2000.[6] Goddard had been promoting these claims for years before this, including in a chapter of a book by Don Easterbrook,[7] but the mainstream media had not paid significant attention to it before then.[8] Those who promoted the claim included Christopher Booker, in a June 21 article in the Daily Telegraph,[9] and Fox News Channel host Steve Doocy three days later in a Fox and Friends segment.
The claim was dismissed by Politifact.com, which rated it as "pants on fire"—its lowest possible rating. Politifact contacted Berkeley Earth scientist Zeke Hausfather, who told them that the problem with Goddard's analysis was that it ignored the changes the network of U.S. weather stations had undergone over the last eighty years.[10] Goddard's claims were also criticized by fellow climate skeptic Anthony Watts, who argued that his assertions of data fabrication were "wrong", and criticized him for using absolute temperatures rather than anomalies in his analysis.[11]
In a response to Politifact on his blog, Goddard argued that while NASA has official reasons for the adjustments they make to temperature data, "their adjustments are highly subjective, and are subject to software and algorithm errors."[12]
Noted climate change skeptic Judith Curry characterized Goddard's analysis of NASA's data as "bogus." [13]
Bri, jumping in to deflect from Billy's outright data faking makes you an accomplice to it.
Just how low will you go in the name of your cult? Is there any level of outright fraud you won't support?
No. I obviously wouldn't stoop to the same level as you. What "fake data" has billy posted? You calling it "fake" doesn't make it fake. And, of course, you happily post the "homogenized" and "adjusted" NCDC data.
Of course Billy's data is fake. I showed the real data, and it looks nothing like Billy's data. Billy has never explained the difference, or told us where he got his graph.
Meanwhile, the homogenization algorithims are public domain and accepted as valid by everyone who isn't a cult loon. They are necessary to correct known errors in the data. By demanding errors not be fixed and bad data be put out instead, jc and Bri are advocating for data faking.
The funniest part is that the corrections make the warming look _smaller_. That totally destroys the kook conspiracy theory. According to the jc and Bri theory, scientists are faking data to make it look like _less_ warming is going on.
Goddard is the one who uncovered the faked data. NASA and Jim Hansen are the ones who doctored the data. The evidence is too overwhelming to deny.Thank you Bri. I asked you to put up Goddard's fudged graph, and you didn't disappoint. I'm proud of you, and your cult masters are pleased with you as well. Mucho cult brownie points for you.
Yes, it's all faked data, but that doesn't bother a true believer like you. For a cultist, the ends always justify the means. Faking data advances the agenda of your cult, therefore you define the data-faking as good and holy.
However, your cult masters did ask me to pass along to you that your sissyboy bedwetting routine is embarrassing the cult. They'd like you to stop with all the high-pitched hysterical squealing, being it's causing all the dogs in the neighborhood to howl.
Oh, you know I'm a dude, so please stop hitting on me. I don't swing that way.
I see the Heartland Institute still attracts losers like Toney Heller, aka Steven Goddard.
Steven Goddard - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
June 2014, Goddard attracted considerable media attention for his claims that NASA had manipulated temperature data to make it appear that 1998 was the hottest year in United States history. In fact, he claimed, it was 1934, but NASA had started incorrectly citing 1998 as the hottest year beginning in 2000.[6] Goddard had been promoting these claims for years before this, including in a chapter of a book by Don Easterbrook,[7] but the mainstream media had not paid significant attention to it before then.[8] Those who promoted the claim included Christopher Booker, in a June 21 article in the Daily Telegraph,[9] and Fox News Channel host Steve Doocy three days later in a Fox and Friends segment.
The claim was dismissed by Politifact.com, which rated it as "pants on fire"—its lowest possible rating. Politifact contacted Berkeley Earth scientist Zeke Hausfather, who told them that the problem with Goddard's analysis was that it ignored the changes the network of U.S. weather stations had undergone over the last eighty years.[10] Goddard's claims were also criticized by fellow climate skeptic Anthony Watts, who argued that his assertions of data fabrication were "wrong", and criticized him for using absolute temperatures rather than anomalies in his analysis.[11]
In a response to Politifact on his blog, Goddard argued that while NASA has official reasons for the adjustments they make to temperature data, "their adjustments are highly subjective, and are subject to software and algorithm errors."[12]
Noted climate change skeptic Judith Curry characterized Goddard's analysis of NASA's data as "bogus." [13]
His own deniertard buddies called him on his bs.
Mantooth has had its ass beat so many times that lying is all it has left.. pathetic..So Bri, Billy and jc literally have nothing left now but idiot conspiracy theories.
We can end the thread now. There's nothing more to learn.
Mantooth has had its ass beat so many times that lying is all it has left.. pathetic..So Bri, Billy and jc literally have nothing left now but idiot conspiracy theories.
We can end the thread now. There's nothing more to learn.
if you haven't noticed.
It is a worthless person, an agitator creep with little to nothing to say except hate!! Let's call it what it really is, it's pure unadulterated hate.Mantooth has had its ass beat so many times that lying is all it has left.. pathetic..So Bri, Billy and jc literally have nothing left now but idiot conspiracy theories.
We can end the thread now. There's nothing more to learn.
Goddard is the one who uncovered the faked data. NASA and Jim Hansen are the ones who doctored the data. The evidence is too overwhelming to deny.Thank you Bri. I asked you to put up Goddard's fudged graph, and you didn't disappoint. I'm proud of you, and your cult masters are pleased with you as well. Mucho cult brownie points for you.
Yes, it's all faked data, but that doesn't bother a true believer like you. For a cultist, the ends always justify the means. Faking data advances the agenda of your cult, therefore you define the data-faking as good and holy.
However, your cult masters did ask me to pass along to you that your sissyboy bedwetting routine is embarrassing the cult. They'd like you to stop with all the high-pitched hysterical squealing, being it's causing all the dogs in the neighborhood to howl.
Oh, you know I'm a dude, so please stop hitting on me. I don't swing that way.
I see the Heartland Institute still attracts losers like Toney Heller, aka Steven Goddard.
Steven Goddard - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
June 2014, Goddard attracted considerable media attention for his claims that NASA had manipulated temperature data to make it appear that 1998 was the hottest year in United States history. In fact, he claimed, it was 1934, but NASA had started incorrectly citing 1998 as the hottest year beginning in 2000.[6] Goddard had been promoting these claims for years before this, including in a chapter of a book by Don Easterbrook,[7] but the mainstream media had not paid significant attention to it before then.[8] Those who promoted the claim included Christopher Booker, in a June 21 article in the Daily Telegraph,[9] and Fox News Channel host Steve Doocy three days later in a Fox and Friends segment.
The claim was dismissed by Politifact.com, which rated it as "pants on fire"—its lowest possible rating. Politifact contacted Berkeley Earth scientist Zeke Hausfather, who told them that the problem with Goddard's analysis was that it ignored the changes the network of U.S. weather stations had undergone over the last eighty years.[10] Goddard's claims were also criticized by fellow climate skeptic Anthony Watts, who argued that his assertions of data fabrication were "wrong", and criticized him for using absolute temperatures rather than anomalies in his analysis.[11]
In a response to Politifact on his blog, Goddard argued that while NASA has official reasons for the adjustments they make to temperature data, "their adjustments are highly subjective, and are subject to software and algorithm errors."[12]
Noted climate change skeptic Judith Curry characterized Goddard's analysis of NASA's data as "bogus." [13]
His own deniertard buddies called him on his bs.
Only the most gullible morons think Wiki entries that are even the slightest bit political are credible. It's well known that environmental wackos have gone through all the entries related to global warming and edited them to make them politically correct - that is, they now all support the AGW hocu-pocus, regardless of the facts.
