A Tale Of Two NASAs

Fifty years ago today, thousands of engineers, scientists and astronauts put a man on the moon.  This required near perfection, honesty and integrity from everyone involved.

But NASA is no longer able to put people in space, and rely on the Russians to do it for them. Instead they focus on tampering with climate data for political purposes, and making Muslims feel good.

NASA 1998

NASA 2019

Barack Obama: Nasa must try to make Muslims ‘feel good’ – Telegraph

The Challenger disaster in 1986 was the beginning of the end for NASA – engineers were overruled by administrators, who tried to cover up their malfeasance with lies.

The author of this book is no relation the James E Hansen of NASA, who created another long term disaster for the agency in 1988.

Global Warming Has Begun, Expert Tells Senate – The New York Times

If climate scientists were in charge of the space program, no rocket would ever make it to the launch pad, much less get off the ground. You can’t run a space program based on incompetence, lies and tampered data. Which is why the people who took us to the moon fifty years ago, want NASA to stop lying about climate.

NASA Global Warming Stance Blasted By 49 Astronauts, Scientists Who Once Worked At Agency

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

28 Responses to A Tale Of Two NASAs

  1. Jeffk says:

    Challenger disaster was in 1986, not ‘88. But certainly NASA needed a new PR mission to “save the world” by ‘88, since real science wasn’t working out too well for them, then. Only political science took over.

  2. arn says:

    The only other real science besides global warming is
    make muslims feel good science.
    And just as AGW and data adjustnents became reality
    the “religion of peace”-mantra BS became reality for scientists as they want to keeo their jobs.
    This is what scientism is all about.

    But besides Obamas blatant racism that he only cared about muslims feeling good,but not bhuddists,hindhus etc,
    Obama did care so much about muslims feeling good that he did nothing
    to stop muslim on black slavery which is going on right now and has probably more slaves than during peak slavery in the USA.

  3. rah says:

    Well, lets hope they’re getting their manned flight mojo back, because they’re going to need it. I will say that though that although they have been relying on the Russians to get to the ISS and back, they have pulled off some wonderful unmanned missions in the interim. We can get back in the game. It’s just a matter of will and leadership.

    • Jason Calley says:

      Hey rah! You are right that the robotic missions have been amazing, but I am sad to say that there seems to be no real support for manned missions. I think that the resistance to manned missions is essentially 100% political. There have been multiple promises to return to the moon, to go to Mars, to build a US space station, etc., but they never seem to happen. There are always a few days worth of headlines, some basic start-up funding, and then the programs are cut after a few years. Heck, I remember when Bush Sr. promised to “send a manned mission to Mars!” Never happened…

  4. Jimmy Haigh says:

    It will have to be a “Personned” visit to Mars by the time we get around to it.

  5. John F. Hultquist says:

    Below, some random thoughts that might cause you to go “Hmm!” regarding NASA.

    May 25, 1961, President John F. Kennedy announced the goal of sending an American safely to the Moon before the end of the decade.

    I remember that, but most Americans — I think — would not.
    Apollo 17 (the last), was December 11, 1972.
    One needs to have been born prior to 1960 (more or less) to remember these missions, except as seen as film and video.

    “The Great War” (WWI) was initiated on 28 June 1914. By the time I first learned of that event, I was likely in a high school history class.
    This seemed like ancient history.


    Thank you for everything that you do!
    From a dedicated fan in France.
    Where we are being hi-jacked by the fraudsters.

  7. Psalmon says:

    Chuck Yeager posted this link on Twitter…I listened to the first couple interviews so far.

    Anyone who prefers the first NASA, will absolutely looove this. These guys, these test pilots were a very special group. Many were veterans of air combat. Most were engineers. All were great pilots with a huge reservoir for learning and improving design. And they were interesting people.


  8. Billyjack says:

    NASA since Apollo has become nothing more than another corrupt bureaucracy in the DC swamp.

    • Disillusioned says:

      Yeah, definitely nobody at GISS.

      Shortly after becoming disillusioned about anthropogenic CO2-caused warming of the atmosphere [which I had originally accepted as fact] – I began following Dr. David Hathaway of NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center and his solar observations and predictions. He retired in 2016, but he goes on in retirement. He rightly predicted the low of sc24, and now is predicting sc25 to be just as low (or slightly lower). http://solarcyclescience.com/forecasts.html#Cycle24Prediction

      Anyone who is honest knows (and admits) that the hyped-pothesis of AGW is a disaster – ALL of the AGW predictions have failed.

      I predict the majority of CO2 scapegoaters that are not yet running scared already about the failed/failing CO2-based predictions of out-of-control warming will be abandoning the AGW ship just about the time the world is supposed to end from CO2-caused out of control warming in 11.5 years.

      The above prediction comes with a caveat. I also predict that they will latch onto a top-down ‘scientific’ explanation for their failures – but with a new cause for alarm (the fix being what AGW was supposed to accomplish – world government tyranny with the UN at the helm).

      • Simeon B says:

        This is the Grand Solar Minimum that is the primary driver of climate change. From what I’ve read, it looks like the end of Cycle 26 is the start of another mini ice age for another 30 cycles (300 years) or so…

        The AGW tribe have only a few years to peddle ‘Global Warming’, before the reality steps in and the ‘Snake Oil’ runs out…

  9. Gamecock says:

    Although it is challenged vociferously, the theory I find most compelling is ASBESTOSPHOBIA.

    Morton-Thiokol was forced to remove asbestos from the O-rings.

    How’d that work out for you?

    • Jason Calley says:

      Hey Gamecock! I had never heard that about the O-rings. Interesting.

      How many people remember that peeling fuel tank insulation (the cause of the Shuttle Columbia destruction) was caused by the greenies as well. The original tank insulation foam worked well, but the formulation produced some toxic fumes when applied, so the greenies demanded that a new, less toxic formula be used. The new foam did not stick as well, and tended to peel off, striking and damaging the shuttle tiles. At least the fumes were more environmentally acceptable.

  10. The two NASA graphs do have a different y-axis denominator. In 1998 it is degree Fahrenheit in 2019 it is degree Celsius. So you should check for that.
    However Lowess Smoothing is one of these statistical tricks that get always employed if you want to reduce inclination and even reverse a trend that has a number of outliers. It would be interesting to see the 1998 curve in degree Celsius and Lowess Smoothing, shouldn’t be too much of an issue with R oder SPSS.

    • tonyheller says:

      The two graphs have identical scales on both axes.

      • Thanks for your answer.
        I’ve been browsing NASA GISS Data for some time now, but they don’t tell you much about their “raw data”, only about changes from whatever raw data they may use.
        So the “Anomaly” (y-axis) measure in the two graphs is a simple difference calculated like (Mean t+1) – (Mean t) / Mean t+1 for successive years in which case it would be of no consequence, that weather Celsius or Fahrenheit?
        Great Side you run (on YouTube too), by the way.

        • Simeon B says:

          Hey Michael,

          I was discussing online the fraudulent changes to historical data that NASA and NOAA have been found to be doing (as Tony has discussed in various places), and found this little intriguing piece regarding the Y2K bug affecting the 8086 processors that NASA (and NOAA) used to process their climate/temperature data.


          Now, as this blog attempts to explain, although you need to trawl through many discussions, after Y2K bug (in 2000), NASA retroactively adjusted the dataset to make the past colder at a rate of -0.02 degs C (the margin of error, I believe?), and this would have (by extension) not have fixed the faulty future rate by the same amount.

          This is why we see the tale of 2 NASA’s and the data seems to pivot around the year 2000 (changed to be colder before, and hotter afterwards).

  11. Ernest Bush says:

    NASA is proceeding to develop hardware for getting back to the moon at a bureaucracy’s pace. By the time the first capsule arrives at the moon, Musk and others will have established permanent colonies and be on the way to Mars.

  12. Thanks for your answer.
    I’ve been browsing NASA GISS Data for some time now, but they don’t tell you much about their “raw data”, only about changes from whatever raw data they may use.
    So the “Anomaly” (y-axis) measure in the two graphs is a simple difference calculated like (Mean t+1) – (Mean t) / Mean t+1 for successive years in which case it would be of no consequence, that weather Celsius or Fahrenheit?
    Great Side you run (on YouTube too), by the way.

  13. rah says:

    The NYT tries to revise history: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/ed-dwight-was-set-to-be-the-first-black-astronaut-heres-why-that-never-happened/ar-AAEoVuC?ocid=spartanntp

    Contrary to the impression this article leaves, the fact is that despite tutoring and more breaks than any applicant before had ever had, Ed Dwight just could not hack the tough academic standards of the program. Chuck Yeager took tremendous political heat for not letting Ed Dwight slide by lowering the program standards due to his race. It was Yeager that was the victim in this incident in the real, non New York Times world, and not Ed Dwight. Those that were pushing for Dwight to become a test pilot at all costs took advantage of Yeager’s West Virginia mountain upbringing and his accent to paint him as a racist.

    In fact Yeager had every personal incentive to pass Dwight. Yeager himself had been discriminated against, being given an excessive work load and academic work when he was placed in the program. Being a Mustang and the object of tremendous professional jealousy because he had already flown the X-1 to become the first man to break the sound barrier before the test pilot school had been set up, the cadre went after him and did their best to flunk him out. Yeager made it clear that later as he advanced in rank and had a chance to get even with those that tried to screw him that he took his revenge ruthlessly on them.

  14. Alan says:

    In 2014 Obama also said “denying climate change is like arguing the moon is made of cheese,” see http://appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/ObamasCheese.htm

  15. scott allen says:

    Abu Alfath Alfargaly the leading Islamic cleric in Egypt said the following:
    “Will the laws of physics that are studied in the secular system, like the law of conservation of energy, be taught from a secular perspective, like today, or changed to include an Islamic perspective”
    So I guess when Obama wanted Islam included in NASA program, he wanted physics that will conform to Sharia Law.

    • David of Aussie says:

      I’m confused; what is the difference between Secular and Islamic laws of “conservation of energy” when a Marine sniper fires a 7.62 NATO round into the head of an ISIS Terrorist?

      • Colorado Wellington says:

        Under the first law of thermodynamics, the mechanical energy of a 7.62 NATO round is transformed into 72 virgins in the isolated system.

        Under the second law of thermodynamics, the impact increases the head’s disorder but also causes a local decrease in entropy from perpetual priapism.

        The 72 virgins or 72 houri (/ˈhʊəriz/; from Persian: حُـورِی‎, ḥūrī; plural of ‘ḥaurāʾ’ or’ḥūrīyah’; Arabic: حُـورِيَّـة‎) refers to a celestial being that is an aspect of Heaven or jannah (Arabic: جنّة‎ ‘Jannah’; plural: Jannat). This concept is mentioned in Qur’anic text as a reward to believing men after death. According to the Quran, once in jannah, believers are wed to virgins with “full grown”, “swelling” or “pears-shaped” breasts. The Quran provides a physical and personal description of the houri and denotes them as awards to believers. Sahih (authentic) hadith detail the amount if houris and what they are for.

        Orthodox Muslim theologians such as Al-Ghazali (1058 – 1111 CE) and Al-Ash’ari (874 – 935 CE) have discussed the rewards and pleasures found in heaven. Often scholars refer to hadiths that describe heaven as a slave market where there will be “no buy and sale, but… If any man will wish to have sexual intercourse with a woman, he will do at once.”

        It is quoted by Ibn Kathir, in his Qur’anic Commentary, the Tafsir ibn Kathir, and they are graphically described by Qur’anic commentator and polymath, Al-Suyuti (died 1505), who, echoing a Sahih hadith from Ibn Majah, wrote that the perpetual virgins will all “have appetizing vaginas”, and that the “penis of the Elected never softens. The erection is eternal.”

        The sensual nature of the houri awarded to believers are also confirmed by the two Sahih collections of hadith, namely Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, where we read that they will be virgins who are so beautiful, pure and transparent that “the marrow of the bones of their legs will be seen through the bones and the flesh”, and that “the believers will visit and enjoy them”.


  16. John Collis says:

    Whilst agreeing that there has been data tampering between the two graphs, what is not made very clear is that the 1999 version is in degrees Fahrenheit whilst the later one is in degrees Celsius. This would be jumped on by any alarmists. If you have the original data used for the 1999 plot, it maybe worth converting it into Celsius, or, failing that, convert this years data into Fahrenheit for consistency.

Leave a Reply

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