Skip to main content

It Was All a Lie! German Scientist Confirms NASA Fiddled with Climate Data

PROOF that NASA is faking global temperature data to push the false “global warming” science fraud

 

Natural News) No, the planet isn’t warming, and here’s why: A handful of climate lunatics has actually been altering global temperature data in secret to make it seem like the outdoor thermostat has been rising over the years, when in fact the exact opposite is true.

As part of what some are describing as “The Greatest Scientific Fraud Of All Time,” the climate lobby, which includes government employees both in the United States and the United Kingdom, has been making slight alterations to climate datasets to lower temperatures early in the record, and raise them later on, making it appear as though the planet has been progressively warming.

The truth is that global temperatures have actually been going down, but the climate crazies don’t want you to know this because they continue to push the conspiracy theory that “global warming” is real – and the only way to stop it is to pay your carbon credits and participate in the Paris Climate Accord.

“Despite what you might think from reading the mainstream press, the past few years in world temperatures have not been particularly good for the continuation of climate alarm,” writes Francis Menton for Manhattan Contrarian, exposing the global warming and climate change frauds as acts of political terrorism designed to implement globalism.

“No matter how you measure them (the main methods being ground thermometers, weather balloons, and satellites), world atmospheric temperatures have gone down for more than three years since a peak reached in early 2016,” he adds.

Get more news like this without being censored: Get the Natural News app for your mobile devices. Enjoy uncensored news, lab test results, videos, podcasts and more. Bypass all the unfair censorship by Google, Facebook, YouTube and Twitter. Get your daily news and videos directly from the source! Download here.

 For more related news, be sure to check out ClimateScienceNews.com.

Global temperature peaks have dropped by one-third since satellite records began in 1979

According to Menton, the satellite-based measurements taken by The University of Alabama in Huntsville, which he considers to be the most accurate, reveal that global temperature peaks have been progressively dropping ever since they first started to be collected back in 1979.

The most recent +0.47 degree Celsius temperature “extreme” that NASA, NOAA, and many others have been citing as evidence that we just went through the “hottest” June on record is actually lower than the +0.88 deg. C peak that occurred in early 2016. And this +0.88 deg. C peak in 2016 was about 33 percent lower than the one captured back in 1979, revealing that the planet is cooling, not warming.

“In a real ‘long warming trend,’ shouldn’t each year be successively warmer than the previous year?” asks Menton, referring to the alarmist headlines routinely put out by climate conspiracy theorists who love to spread fear about such-and-such month or year being the “hottest on record.”

Even in NASA’s latest “version 4” GISTEMP model, which looks at surface-thermometer-based temperatures, historical data is still being manipulated to bring the older temperatures down, and the more recent temperatures up – creating the illusion that global warming is real, when it’s actually not.

So NASA is essentially lying about climate data to push an agenda, which probably won’t come as much of a surprise to Natural News readers who should recognize by now that most global warming and climate change “news” is simply a “dog whistle” intended to convince the scared and gullible “sheep” that something must be done to stop it, or else the world is going to end in 12 years.

“It may not seem like much, but remember, they ‘adjust’ these things regularly, and every adjustment results in a little bit more of the ongoing artificial enhancement of the supposed warming,” Menton warns about the long-term impact of all this data tampering taking place at the hands of climate lunatics with an agenda to push.

Be sure to read Menton’s full analysis of the global warming hoax, which includes 22 other corresponding articles, at Manhattan Contrarian.

---------------

Breitbart.com reported:

A German professor has confirmed what skeptics from Britain to the US have long suspected: that NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies has largely invented “global warming” by tampering with the raw temperature data records.

Professor Dr. Friedrich Karl Ewert is a retired geologist and data computation expert. He has painstakingly examined and tabulated all NASA GISS’s temperature data series, taken from 1153 stations and going back to 1881. His conclusion: that if you look at the raw data, as opposed to NASA’s revisions, you’ll find that since 1940 the planet has been cooling, not warming.

According to Günter Ederer, the German journalist who has reported on Ewert’s findings:

From the publicly available data, Ewert made an unbelievable discovery: Between the years 2010 and 2012 the data measured since 1881 were altered so that they showed a significant warming, especially after 1950. […] A comparison of the data from 2010 with the data of 2012 shows that NASA-GISS had altered its own datasets so that especially after WWII a clear warming appears – although it never existed.

Apart from Australia, the planet has in fact been on a cooling trend:

Using the NASA data from 2010 the surface temperature globally from 1940 until today has fallen by 1.110°C, and since 2000 it has fallen 0.4223°C […]. The cooling has hit every continent except for Australia, which warmed by 0.6339°C since 2000. The figures for Europe: From 1940 to 2010, using the data from 2010, there was a cooling of 0.5465°C and a cooling of 0.3739°C since 2000.

But the activist scientists at NASA GISS – initially led by James Hansen (pictured above), later by Gavin Schmidt – wanted the records they are in charge of maintaining to show warming not cooling, so they began systematically adjusting the data for various spurious reasons using ten different methods.

https://www.naturalnews.com/20...emperature-data.html

 

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

“Overall, we rate Natural News a Questionable source based on promotion of quackery level pseudoscience and conspiracy theories, as well as extreme right wing bias. This is one of the most discredited sources on the internet.”

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/natural-news/

“NaturalNews.com[note 1] and its sister site WakingScience.com are websites run by Mike Adams (self-labeled "The Health Ranger") which promotes alternative medicine and related conspiracy theories.[2] Even other quacks think it's a quack site.[3] The site particularly specializes in vaccine denialism and the alleged vaccines-autism link,[4] AIDS/HIV denialism,[5]quack cancer treatments,[6] and conspiracy theories about "Big Pharma".[7] If there's an alternative medicine or alternative medical treatment out there, you can guarantee that NaturalNews has one article singing its praises to the sky and one more bashing the stupid "skeptics".

In short: If you cite NaturalNews on any matter whatsoever, you are almost certainly wrong.” [Emphasis added]

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/NaturalNews

 

OldSalt posted:
Jutu posted:

SSDD with the left. I have zero interest in saving anything for liberals...so even IF climate change was  detrimental to the planet I wouldn't care.

Yes, everyone knows you have "zero interest."  And yet, here you are commenting.

Seeing as how this isn't your thread...and seeing as how I wasn't talking to you...and seeing as how if Jack objects to my post he can tell me himself...maybe you can just go ahead and shut up for us.

HIFLYER2 posted:

It is a know fact that NASA and NOAA have adjusted the raw data!  The ral question is are the assumptions they made and how they had the assumptions are accurate or to support the "man made" climate change theory.  You can simply google to find out yes they manipulate the data.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/j...s-year/#1d2558e26184

https://www.carbonbrief.org/ex...-temperature-records

Jutu posted:
OldSalt posted:
Jutu posted:

SSDD with the left. I have zero interest in saving anything for liberals...so even IF climate change was  detrimental to the planet I wouldn't care.

Yes, everyone knows you have "zero interest."  And yet, here you are commenting.

Seeing as how this isn't your thread...and seeing as how I wasn't talking to you...and seeing as how if Jack objects to my post he can tell me himself...maybe you can just go ahead and shut up for us.

No.

As to adjusting temperature, Florida State notes that for the Southeast that NOAA adjusted temperatures about 0.5 degrees F lower than observed for temperatures in the 20th Century:

I have attached a graph of average annual temperature for the Southeast that compares the new Climate Division (black line) data with the older version (grey line). What we see is that the early part of the record has been adjusted downward (cooler) by over half a degree F! The adjustments are greatest from the 1930's through the 1950's, during what were known to be very hot decades in the Southeast and other regions.

https://climatecenter.fsu.edu/images/news/20140701-noaa-data-big.png

https://climatecenter.fsu.edu/...torical-climate-data

 

https://www.carbonbrief.org/ex...-temperature-records

"Raw data shows more global warming

Land and ocean temperatures are adjusted separately to correct for changes to measurement methods over time. All the original temperature readings from both land-based weather stations and ocean-going ships and buoys are publically available and can be used to create a “raw” global temperature record.

The figure below shows the global surface temperature record created from only raw temperature readings with no adjustments applied (blue line). The red line is the adjusted land and ocean temperature record produced using adjusted data from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), with the difference between the two in grey.

[see the ref'd website for a better illustration of the chart]

Global mean adjusted and raw surface temperature. See note at the end for technical details on this analysis. Anomalies plotted with respect to a 1961-1990 baseline. Chart by Carbon Brief using Highcharts."

"With almost 200 years of raw data to work with, adjustments are a necessary part of the methodology for scientists constructing long-term global temperature records. But most of these adjustments are small and they have relatively little impact on temperature records over the past few decades.

The most significant account for the shift from buckets to ship intakes in ocean temperature records in the 1930s and 1940s, and these changes are well-understood by scientists. And, contrary to popular belief, adjustments actually reduce, rather than increase, the amount of warming experienced globally over the past century."

OldSalt posted:
Jutu posted:
OldSalt posted:
Jutu posted:

SSDD with the left. I have zero interest in saving anything for liberals...so even IF climate change was  detrimental to the planet I wouldn't care.

Yes, everyone knows you have "zero interest."  And yet, here you are commenting.

Seeing as how this isn't your thread...and seeing as how I wasn't talking to you...and seeing as how if Jack objects to my post he can tell me himself...maybe you can just go ahead and shut up for us.

No.

Then you will just have to grin and bear it knowing you can't run the show and tell me what I can or can't comment about.

Climate is warming faster than it has in the last 2,000 years

In contrast to pre-industrial climate fluctuations, current, anthropogenic climate change is occurring across the whole world at the same time, according to new studies. In addition, the speed of global warming is higher than it has been in at least 2,000 years.

Many people have a clear picture of the "Little Ice Age" (from approx. 1300 to 1850). It's characterized by paintings showing people skating on Dutch canals and glaciers advancing far into the alpine valleys. That it was extraordinarily cool in Europe for several centuries is proven by a large number of temperature reconstructions using tree rings, for example, not just by historical paintings. As there are also similar reconstructions for North America, it was assumed that the "Little Ice Age" and the similarly famous "Medieval Warm Period" (approx. 700 -- 1400) were global phenomena. But now an international group led by Raphael Neukom of the Oeschger Center for Climate Change Research at the University of Bern is painting a very different picture of these alleged global climate fluctuations. In a study which has just appeared in the well-known scientific journal Nature, and in a supplementary publication in Nature Geoscience, the team shows that there is no evidence that there were uniform warm and cold periods across the globe over the last 2,000 years.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/r.../07/190724131624.htm

Last edited by OldSalt
L. Cranston posted:
Jutu posted:

SSDD with the left. I have zero interest in saving anything for liberals...so even IF climate change was  detrimental to the planet I wouldn't care.

Hitler had the same 'scorched earth' policy. I'm glad you finally found place to let your hate shine.

Why don't you give your hate a rest and stop trying to call people names? What she said is nothing like your scorched earth claim, but you aren't the brightest blub in the box anyway. Get a life other than coming in here to  personally attack people that you don't agree with. You're just hateful and you have to pop off like your opinion of them matters. It doesn't. 

giftedamateur posted:
L. Cranston posted:
Jutu posted:

SSDD with the left. I have zero interest in saving anything for liberals...so even IF climate change was  detrimental to the planet I wouldn't care.

Hitler had the same 'scorched earth' policy. I'm glad you finally found place to let your hate shine.

Why don't you give your hate a rest and stop trying to call people names? What she said is nothing like your scorched earth claim, but you aren't the brightest blub in the box anyway. Get a life other than coming in here to  personally attack people that you don't agree with. You're just hateful and you have to pop off like your opinion of them matters. It doesn't. 

You are either a complete moron, or just the biggest crybaby on the forums. Her claims are EXACTLY like Hitler's scorched earth policy. "If my people of choice can't rule the earth, then lets destroy it." EXACTLY like Hitler. 

As to opinions... If my opinion doesn't matter to you, why address me with your opinion? Wouldn't that mean my opinion mattered enough to you for you to comment?

I have no idea what a 'blub' consists of, but seeing the standards for what you consider 'bright', I'll consider that a compliment.

L. Cranston posted:
giftedamateur posted:
L. Cranston posted:
Jutu posted:

SSDD with the left. I have zero interest in saving anything for liberals...so even IF climate change was  detrimental to the planet I wouldn't care.

Hitler had the same 'scorched earth' policy. I'm glad you finally found place to let your hate shine.

Why don't you give your hate a rest and stop trying to call people names? What she said is nothing like your scorched earth claim, but you aren't the brightest blub in the box anyway. Get a life other than coming in here to  personally attack people that you don't agree with. You're just hateful and you have to pop off like your opinion of them matters. It doesn't. 

You are either a complete moron, or just the biggest crybaby on the forums. Her claims are EXACTLY like Hitler's scorched earth policy. "If my people of choice can't rule the earth, then lets destroy it." EXACTLY like Hitler. 

As to opinions... If my opinion doesn't matter to you, why address me with your opinion? Wouldn't that mean my opinion mattered enough to you for you to comment?

I have no idea what a 'blub' consists of, but seeing the standards for what you consider 'bright', I'll consider that a compliment.

I replied to you to tell you what a jerk you are and you provided us with more proof of what a jerk you truly are. I read you because even though I block you I must have missed this name you have now, after all your other 100 IDs have been banned. You couldn't figure out that the word was bulb, yet you call someone else a moron? Ha! No, scorched earth is something done intentionally, a military action if you will. Not wanting to save something is not intentionally destroying it. Yet again, you're not very bright.

Last edited by giftedamateur
giftedamateur posted:
L. Cranston posted:
giftedamateur posted:
L. Cranston posted:
Jutu posted:

SSDD with the left. I have zero interest in saving anything for liberals...so even IF climate change was  detrimental to the planet I wouldn't care.

Hitler had the same 'scorched earth' policy. I'm glad you finally found place to let your hate shine.

Why don't you give your hate a rest and stop trying to call people names? What she said is nothing like your scorched earth claim, but you aren't the brightest blub in the box anyway. Get a life other than coming in here to  personally attack people that you don't agree with. You're just hateful and you have to pop off like your opinion of them matters. It doesn't. 

You are either a complete moron, or just the biggest crybaby on the forums. Her claims are EXACTLY like Hitler's scorched earth policy. "If my people of choice can't rule the earth, then lets destroy it." EXACTLY like Hitler. 

As to opinions... If my opinion doesn't matter to you, why address me with your opinion? Wouldn't that mean my opinion mattered enough to you for you to comment?

I have no idea what a 'blub' consists of, but seeing the standards for what you consider 'bright', I'll consider that a compliment.

I replied to you to tell you what a jerk you are and you provided us with more proof of what a jerk you truly are. I read you because even though I block you I must have missed this name you have now, after all your other 100 IDs have been banned. You couldn't figure out that the word was bulb, yet you call someone else a moron? Ha! No, scorched earth is something done intentionally, a military action if you will. Not wanting to save something is not intentionally destroying it. Yet again, you're not very bright.

And yet, here you are again, validating my post with a response. You do realize you're confirming what I said, right?  The choice of not saving the earth is the same as destroying it... You can't be that slow.  Arguing semantics is the last resort of a lost argument. Keep telling me about those "100 IDs" as your friends make repeated comebacks, after being banned. You're so funny.  Why keep giving me your opinion of me, after telling me my opinion has zero value. Do you think your opinion is that important? Please, whine more about my posts and tell me I'm not allowed to voice my opinion, as you voice your opinion.

Last edited by L. Cranston
giftedamateur posted:
L. Cranston posted:
giftedamateur posted:
L. Cranston posted:
Jutu posted:

SSDD with the left. I have zero interest in saving anything for liberals...so even IF climate change was  detrimental to the planet I wouldn't care.

Hitler had the same 'scorched earth' policy. I'm glad you finally found place to let your hate shine.

Why don't you give your hate a rest and stop trying to call people names? What she said is nothing like your scorched earth claim, but you aren't the brightest blub in the box anyway. Get a life other than coming in here to  personally attack people that you don't agree with. You're just hateful and you have to pop off like your opinion of them matters. It doesn't. 

You are either a complete moron, or just the biggest crybaby on the forums. Her claims are EXACTLY like Hitler's scorched earth policy. "If my people of choice can't rule the earth, then lets destroy it." EXACTLY like Hitler. 

As to opinions... If my opinion doesn't matter to you, why address me with your opinion? Wouldn't that mean my opinion mattered enough to you for you to comment?

I have no idea what a 'blub' consists of, but seeing the standards for what you consider 'bright', I'll consider that a compliment.

I replied to you to tell you what a jerk you are and you provided us with more proof of what a jerk you truly are. I read you because even though I block you I must have missed this name you have now, after all your other 100 IDs have been banned. You couldn't figure out that the word was bulb, yet you call someone else a moron? Ha! No, scorched earth is something done intentionally, a military action if you will. Not wanting to save something is not intentionally destroying it. Yet again, you're not very bright.

Yes....that one is best enjoyed on block.

Jutu posted:
giftedamateur posted:
L. Cranston posted:
giftedamateur posted:
L. Cranston posted:
Jutu posted:

SSDD with the left. I have zero interest in saving anything for liberals...so even IF climate change was  detrimental to the planet I wouldn't care.

Hitler had the same 'scorched earth' policy. I'm glad you finally found place to let your hate shine.

Why don't you give your hate a rest and stop trying to call people names? What she said is nothing like your scorched earth claim, but you aren't the brightest blub in the box anyway. Get a life other than coming in here to  personally attack people that you don't agree with. You're just hateful and you have to pop off like your opinion of them matters. It doesn't. 

You are either a complete moron, or just the biggest crybaby on the forums. Her claims are EXACTLY like Hitler's scorched earth policy. "If my people of choice can't rule the earth, then lets destroy it." EXACTLY like Hitler. 

As to opinions... If my opinion doesn't matter to you, why address me with your opinion? Wouldn't that mean my opinion mattered enough to you for you to comment?

I have no idea what a 'blub' consists of, but seeing the standards for what you consider 'bright', I'll consider that a compliment.

I replied to you to tell you what a jerk you are and you provided us with more proof of what a jerk you truly are. I read you because even though I block you I must have missed this name you have now, after all your other 100 IDs have been banned. You couldn't figure out that the word was bulb, yet you call someone else a moron? Ha! No, scorched earth is something done intentionally, a military action if you will. Not wanting to save something is not intentionally destroying it. Yet again, you're not very bright.

Yes....that one is best enjoyed on block.

Blocking the person who calls you out on your lies still won't make your daily drivel any more true.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×