16 years 9 months, crazy fast global warming

Discussion in 'Politics' started by futurecurrents, Jun 8, 2014.

  1. [​IMG]
     
    #531     Jun 29, 2014
  2. Wow even when confronted with undeniable proof of the total bullshit idiot deniers like you believe, you still believe it. Amazing.

    Try reading jerm you lying sack of shit...

    http://www.politifact.com/punditfact...-global-warmi/
     
    #532     Jun 29, 2014
  3. NASA Rewriting US History

    [​IMG]

    Until about ten years ago, NASA showed the US on an 80 year long cooling trend, with the three hottest years being in the 1920s and 1930s. They have deleted the raw data from their website and blocked archiving, but John Daly captured it. It was originally located at this link :

    http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/update/gistemp/graphs/FigD.txt

    and can now be seen here :

    http://web.archive.org/web/20120124014257/http://www.john-daly.com/usatemps.006

    NASA has since rewritten US history and shows the same period warming – with 1998 as the hottest year.

    data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.D.txt

    James Hansen wrote this in 1999, before he decided to alter US history :

    Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat and drought. The drought of 1999 covered a smaller area than the 1988 drought, when the Mississippi almost dried up. And 1988 was a temporary inconvenience as compared with repeated droughts during the 1930s “Dust Bowl” that caused an exodus from the prairies, as chronicled in Steinbeck’s Grapes of Wrath.

    in the U.S. there has been little temperature change in the past 50 years, the time of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases — in fact, there was a slight cooling throughout much of the country

    This sort of honest assessment was no use for obtaining funding or achieving radical left wing political goals, so Hansen created a hockey stick of adjustments to cool the past and warm the present.

    [​IMG]

    The current version of the US temperature record from NOAA and NASA is a complete fraud, and fundamentally misrepresents changes to the US climate.

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/11/18/nasa-rewriting-us-history/
     
    #533     Jun 29, 2014
  4. jem

    jem

    not only can we be sure politifact will support the left's version with lies 90% of the time. your page does not even exist anymore.

     
    #534     Jun 29, 2014
  5. Yes jerm. Global warming is just a ploy to justify government policies.

    Change your medication.
     
    #535     Jun 29, 2014
  6. One doesn't need politifact for the facts asshole. The fact is that this "manipulation thing " is total right wing denialist bullshit. So of course you believe it. Good little sheep you are.

    Try being a little less of a right wing sheep. Think for yourself for once.
     
    #536     Jun 29, 2014
  7. jem

    jem

    http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/...economic-numbers-are-being-highly-manipulated

    Stone Cold Proof That Government Economic Numbers Are Being Highly Manipulated
    By Michael Snyder, on June 25th, 2014


    Detective - Public DomainHow in the world does the government expect us to trust the economic numbers that they give us anymore? For a long time, many have suspected that they were being manipulated, and as you will see below we now have stone cold proof that this is indeed the case. But first, let's talk about the revised GDP number for the first quarter of 2014 that was just released. Initially, they told us that the U.S. economy only shrank by 0.1 percent in Q1. Then that was revised down to a 1.0 percent contraction, and now we are being informed that the economy actually contracted by a whopping 2.9 percent during the first quarter. So what are we actually supposed to believe? Sometimes I almost get the feeling that government bureaucrats are just throwing darts at a dartboard in order to get these numbers. Of course that is not actually true, but how do we know that we can actually trust the numbers that they give to us?

    Over at shadowstats.com, John Williams publishes alternative economic statistics that he believes are much more realistic than the government numbers. According to his figures, the U.S. economy has actually been continually contracting since 2005. That would mean that we have been in a recession for the last nine years.

    Could it be possible that he is right and the bureaucrats in Washington D.C. are wrong?

    Before you answer that question, read the rest of this article.

    It just might change your thinking a bit.

    Another number that many have accused of being highly manipulated is the inflation rate.

    But we don't have to sit around and wonder if that figure is being manipulated. The truth is that even those that work inside the Federal Reserve admit that it is being manipulated.

    As Robert Wenzel recently pointed out, Mike Bryan, a vice president and senior economist in the Atlanta Fed's research department, has been very open about the fact that the way inflation is calculated has been changed almost every month at times...

    The Economist retells a conversation with Stephen Roach, who in the 1970s worked for the Federal Reserve under Chairman Arthur Burns. Roach remembers that when oil prices surged around 1973, Burns asked Federal Reserve Board economists to strip those prices out of the CPI "to get a less distorted measure. When food prices then rose sharply, they stripped those out too—followed by used cars, children's toys, jewellery, housing and so on, until around half of the CPI basket was excluded because it was supposedly 'distorted'" by forces outside the control of the central bank. The story goes on to say that, at least in part because of these actions, the Fed failed to spot the breadth of the inflationary threat of the 1970s.

    I have a similar story. I remember a morning in 1991 at a meeting of the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland's board of directors. I was welcomed to the lectern with, "Now it's time to see what Mike is going to throw out of the CPI this month." It was an uncomfortable moment for me that had a lasting influence. It was my motivation for constructing the Cleveland Fed's median CPI.

    I am a reasonably skilled reader of a monthly CPI release. And since I approached each monthly report with a pretty clear idea of what the actual rate of inflation was, it was always pretty easy for me to look across the items in the CPI market basket and identify any offending—or "distorted"—price change. Stripping these items from the price statistic revealed the truth—and confirmed that I was right all along about the actual rate of inflation.

    Right now, the Federal Reserve tells us that the inflation rate is sitting at about 2 percent.

    But according to John Williams, if the inflation rate was calculated the same way that it was in 1990 it would be nearly 6 percent.

    And if the inflation rate was calculated the same way that it was in 1980 it would be nearly 10 percent.

    So which number are we supposed to believe?

    The one that makes us feel the best?

    And without a doubt, "2 percent inflation" sounds a whole lot better than "10 percent inflation" does.

    But anyone that does any grocery shopping knows that we are definitely not in a low inflation environment. For much more on this, please see my previous article entitled "Inflation? Only If You Look At Food, Water, Gas, Electricity And Everything Else".

    Of course the unemployment rate is being manipulated as well. Just consider the following excerpt from a recent New York Post article...

    In case you are just joining this ongoing drama, the Labor Department pays Census to conduct the monthly Household Survey that produces the national unemployment rate, which despite numerous failings is — inexplicably — still very important to the Federal Reserve and others.

    One of the problems with the report is that Census field representatives — the folks who knock on doors to conduct the surveys — and their supervisors have, according to my sources, been shortcutting the interview process.

    Rather than collect fresh data each month as they are supposed to do, Census workers have been filling in the blanks with past months’ data. This helps them meet the strict quota of successful interviews set by Labor.

    That’s just one of the ways the surveys are falsified.

    The Federal Reserve would have us believe that the unemployment rate in the U.S. has fallen from a peak of 10.0 percent during the recession all the way down to 6.3 percent now.

    But according to shadowstats.com, the broadest measure of unemployment is well over 20 percent and has kept rising since the end of the last recession.

    And according to the Federal Reserve's own numbers, the percentage of working age Americans with a job has barely increased over the past four years...

    Employment Population Ratio 2014

    The chart above looks like a long-term employment decline to me.

    But that is not the story that the government bureaucrats are selling to us.

    So where does the truth lie?

    What numbers are we actually supposed to believe?

    Please feel free to share your thoughts by posting a comment below...













     
    #538     Jun 29, 2014
  8. The sad thing is that all these media outlets/sources relied on the word of one blogger who is not even a climate scientist.

    "a number of conservative news outlets have made much in recent days of a blog post from a man who writes under the pseudonym Steven Goddard. " So who is Steve Goddard?

    "So what are his qualifications to post on climate issues? Who has/does he work for? How credible should he be taken?

    According to a question asked in one of his own postings Mr Goddard says;
    “I have a Bachelor of Science in Geology and a Masters In Electrical Engineering”
    So academically he is about as qualified as myself and about as qualified as my cat to post his own analysis’s climate change. "

    "
    Goddard is known for a 2008 article in The Register where he posited that Arctic Sea ice is not receding and claimed that data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) showing the opposite was incorrect. Goddard later issued a retraction on his statement. [3], [4]
    Goddard operates a blog titled “Real Science” blog, originally Real-Science.com, and now as the Wordpress blog Real Science. Goddard has gone to some lengths to keep his identity hidden and his blog's web domain has been blocked from any identifying WhoIs information."

    "
    June, 2012
    Goddard was quoted by Heartland senior fellow James Taylor as having showed “how dramatically the NOAA and NASA bureaucrats have doctored the U.S. temperature data during the past several decades.” [6]
    Goddard's only previous connection to the heartland institute is a 2008 'analysis', A Tale of Two Thermometers (PDF) where he claims to have found cooling in the HadCrut temperature record."
     
    #539     Jun 29, 2014
  9. jem

    jem

    these are the facts below, fraudcurrents. you can see the old IPCC charts and hansens old charts. your team lies are causing it to lose credibility by the week.
    hansen was kicked out of NASA. there is no science showing man made co2 is causing warming.

    You are cheerleading for the pre-fascist team. A team which is doing so poorly it has to lie at ever opportunity.

     
    #540     Jun 29, 2014