More On The CU Sea Level Screw Up


2004 version: sl_cu2004_rel1.2.pdf     2015 version: 2015_rel2

Based on comments yesterday, I am not sure that everyone recognized the gravity of this CU sea level disaster. Not only don’t the years line up on the X-Axis between the two versions, but in the 2004 version the Jason data begins an annual cycle earlier than in the 2015 version.

I have tried to figure out what sort of error could lead to this type of mess, and can’t fathom how it could have happened. It looks like they are just making data up.

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to More On The CU Sea Level Screw Up

  1. omanuel says:

    The courage of government scientists to lie or make up data has increased over time.

    1. Lies were beyond comprehension in 1969 when the Apollo Mission to the Moon returned with lunar dirt in which solar-wind-implanted light mass xenon isotopes were systematically enriched by 3.5% per mass unit over twelve mass units, from 124 amu to 136 amu.

    2. That finding and others allowed us in SEPT 1983 to confidently state the interior of the Sun is mostly iron and to predict the Galileo Mission would find “strange xenon” in Jupiter. The Galileo probe entered Jupiter’s atmosphere in DEC 1995, observed evidence of “strange xenon,” and hid the data from the public until publicly confronted while being video-recorded by CSPAN News in 1998.

    3. In MAR 2001 at the Lunar Science Conference we explained how NEUTRON REPULSION in the Sun’s pulsar core explained solar energy and solved the “Solar neutrino puzzle.” Within three months, one hundred and seventy-eight (178) “scientists” at the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory reported in Phys Rev Letters that they had just discovered solar neutrinos magically oscillate away before reaching neutrino detectors here on Earth!

    Unfortunately, experimental data from government scientists are no longer trustworthy.

  2. Peter Ellis put out a thesis with far-reaching consequences for the understanding of published climate science.

    The graphs of climate scientists are inconsequential images and should not be trusted. It’s reasonable to treat them as display errors and not attribute any meaning to them. If I understand Peter right, the scientists are to be considered mere data collectors and their interpretations and conclusions are worthless.

    Everybody has to download their text files and work out the results himself. I just hope Peter contacted the scientists to make sure they know they are also not qualified to screw with the original data since they don’t seem to understand it much.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *