New Video : NASA Confirms Their Own “Conspiracy Theory”

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

30 Responses to New Video : NASA Confirms Their Own “Conspiracy Theory”

  1. johnbuk says:

    Thanks once again Tony, comprehensive as always.

  2. Robert Gipson says:

    Financial Times says dictatorship is needed for immediate climate action:
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/01/06/ft-democracies-are-ill-suited-to-deal-with-climate-change/

  3. Brian S says:

    Comments are turned off for this video on You Tube. Intentional?

  4. Nuts Bolts says:

    I see comments now turned off too!

  5. Phil. says:

    NASA make it very clear where the data comes from on the GISS site:

    “Beginning in June 2019, with the release of GISTEMP v4, we are using the adjusted monthly mean data of NOAA/NCEI’s Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) version 4 and NOAA/NCEI’s Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature (ERSST) v5 data. Before June 2019, in GISTEMP v3, we had been using NOAA/NCEI’s GHCN version 3 adjusted monthly mean data augmented by Antarctic data collated by the UK Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) for land meterological station input.

    The raw data that are the ultimate source for our analyses can be accessed via the ISTI databank (on land) and ICOADS databank (over the ocean)”

    “GISS uses temperature data for long-term climate studies. For station data to be useful for such studies, it is essential that the time series of observations are consistent, and that any non-climatic temperature jumps are eliminated; those may be introduced by station moves or equipment updates or by combining reports from different sources into a single series. In the adjusted data the effect of such non-climatic influences is eliminated whenever possible. Originally, only documented cases were adjusted, however the current procedure used by NOAA/NCEI applies an automated system that uses systematic comparisons with neighboring stations to deal with documented and undocumented instances of artificial changes.”

    • Gator says:

      What is the UHI adjustment Phil?

      • Phil. says:

        “Because some parts of some cities may be hotter than their surroundings, concerns have been raised that the effects of urban sprawl might be misinterpreted as an increase in global temperature. Such effects are removed by homogenization from the raw climate record by comparing urban stations with surrounding stations. While the “heat island” warming is an important local effect, there is no evidence that it biases trends in the homogenized historical temperature record. For example, urban and rural trends are very similar.”

        • Gator says:

          Phail, we have been through this before. Homogenization does not remove anything, it only incorporates and employs. Why don’t your alarmist priests use homogenization to remove TOBS. and station moves?

          Just how f@cking stupid are you Phail?

      • Phil. says:

        Apparently I’m not allowed to answer that question!

        • Gator says:

          Apparently you are a liar.

          • Phil. says:

            No apparently after rejecting my post for a couple of days after moderation Tony changed his mind.

          • Gator says:

            No Phail, you are a liar. Or would you prefer to be known as stupid?

            There is a very good reason why you cannot tell us what the adjustment is for UHI. And that reason is that there is no adjustment for UHI. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

            But if you want us to believe that you are stupid enough to buy into the BS that homogenization removes any signal, OK.

            You are now known as a dumbass.

            ho·mog·e·ni·za·tion
            /həˌmäjənəˈzāSH(ə) – noun – the process of making things uniform or similar

          • Phil. says:

            There is a very good reason why you cannot tell us what the adjustment is for UHI. And that reason is that there is no adjustment for UHI. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

            Well I did tell you what the UHI adjustment was, and according to Hausfather et al:
            “applying the GISTEMP step 2 UHI correction to the USHCN version 2 data has the impact of reducing the mean CONUS temperature trend from 0.73 C to 0.65 C over the period 1900–2009.”

          • Gator says:

            .08 F? LOL

            Zeke is an energy systems analyst and environmental economist with a strong interest in conservation and efficiency. LOL

            You do realized that there is not actually an adjustment? Right? So you still cannot answer my question, but you lied and tried.

            And you do realize that Zeke never studied climatology, and that he has a business that profits off the CAGW scam? Right?

            And what do actual authorities say about UHI?

            The term “heat island” describes built up areas that are hotter than nearby rural areas. The annual mean air temperature of a city with 1 million people or more can be 1.8–5.4°F (1–3°C) warmer than its surroundings. In the evening, the difference can be as high as 22°F (12°C). Heat islands can affect communities by increasing summertime peak energy demand, air conditioning costs, air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, heat-related illness and mortality, and water pollution.

            https://www.epa.gov/heat-islands

            For someone with a terminal case of picking nits, you absolutely missed every single nit in the poorly conceived “adjustments” to actual data.

            Do you really want everyone here to think you are extremely stupid, or extremely dishonest?

          • Phil. says:

            .08 F? LOL

            No 0.08ºC, I guess reptiles have trouble with reading?

            Zeke is an energy systems analyst and environmental economist with a strong interest in conservation and efficiency. LOL

            And co-authors from NOAA/NCEI.

            You do realized that there is not actually an adjustment?

            On the contrary I have given you an example of the UHI adjustment and given you the result of applying such an adjustment to the Continental US. The current version uses the more recent NOAA/NCEI version 4.

            And what do actual authorities say about UHI?

            You mean like NOAA and NASA who’ve actually measured UHI?

          • Gator says:

            Right! Because .08C is not laughable. LOL

            Zeke is a joke who could not debate even me. Odd that you have no nits to pick over an “energy systems analyst” being touted as a climate expert. But I guess it is your MO, to a T. You would never dream of criticizing alarmists, because you are a religious zealot who is willing to sacrifice millions of innocent lives for a clear leftist agenda.

            And liar, you yourself admitted earlier that there is no adjustment, only ‘homogenization”.

            Measuring UHI and adjusting for it are two different things Phail.

            So from your post it is becoming clear that you prefer to be known as both stupid and a liar.

    • kzvx says:

      …so they can adjust the graph however they want then, and blame it on a ‘station move’ or ‘equipment update’. What nonsense

      • Phil. says:

        So when a weather station is moved uphill leading to a change in temperature of 0.7ºC what would you do?

        • Gator says:

          You and yours would homogenize, if it conveniently cooled the past and warmed the present. But it doesn’t, so you adjust it.

          What is the UHI adjustment Phail?

    • Gerald Machnee says:

      **however the current procedure used by NOAA/NCEI applies an automated system that uses systematic comparisons with neighboring stations to deal with documented and undocumented instances of artificial changes.”**
      This must be the result of the AUTOMATED procedure:
      Note the 0.97% correlation.
      https://realclimatescience.com/61-fake-data/

  6. Norilsk says:

    Thank you Tony Heller. This video is a real jewel. To bad this couldn’t go to court to nail those crooks.

  7. Joel Self says:

    NASA and NOAA owe the world a published correction/retraction of the jacked global temperature data since the ENTIRE WORLD has been alarmed by the “accelerated” global warming. Elections have been affected and $billions have been squandered in misdirected programs. When will the restated temperature data appear in major news stories with emphasis that there has been no such acceleration? Science or politics, make up your mind NASA/NOAA.

  8. Jim Allison says:

    Thanks Tony – great video!

    When sharing these and similar videos, I often get push back that the graphs you show could be faked. I’m not familiar enough with the NASA website to quickly find where you get each graph. One thing that would be extremely helpful in passing on your message would be if you included the link to the NASA data either in the video, or in the description at the YouTube link.

    I know you do this often when you write the articles, but people seem more willing to watch videos than read nowadays. Adding those references to your videos would help me out a lot

    Thanks for considering this suggestion

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.