"Sometimes when you are saving the planet, you just have to knock 2.1° C off of the 1940 temperature."
Quote by James Spann, American Meteorological Society-certified meteorologist: "Billions of dollars of grant money [over $50 billion] are flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, the money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it. Always follow the money trail and it tells a story."
Quote by Tom McElmurry, meteorologist, former tornado forecaster in Severe Weather Service: “Governmental officials are currently casting trillions down huge rat hole to solve a problem which doesn’t exist....Packs of rats wait in that [rat] hole to reap trillions coming down it to fill advocates pockets....The money we are about to spend on drastically reducing carbon dioxide will line the pockets of the environmentalists....some politicians are standing in line to fill their pockets with kick back money for large grants to the environmental experts....In case you haven’t noticed, it is an expanding profit-making industry, growing in proportion to the horror warnings by government officials and former vice-presidents.”
Follow the money!
This has been brought up on many occasions.
The "best guess" is that it was supposed to be a compensating adjustment for ground-based weather stations readings being influenced by nearby buildings as town and city suburbs expanded around them.
(Many were originally located some distance from cities, but the cities expand & the stations are now close to houses & pick up heat from them).
The compensation should have been a slight, progressive, downward adjustment, relative to the "raw" data graph - but for some reason the adjustment actually applied was upwards, doubling the error rather than cancelling it...
It doesn't. Here is a link to the reason for the temperature adjustments.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-refe...
have to find some way of spending all that money,justifiable
Compared to faking the Apollo moon landings, fudging climate records has to be cake.
How did NASA get the Krauts, the Limies the Frogs, and the Russkies to go along with their data manipulation? To understand that, you'll need to study the moon matrix:
To make sure glaiers melt.
Because it's plot to further enslave you
Turn off Fox.
Go to NASA's webpage http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/ and you will see this data plot of the "rapid" rise in global temperatures: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A.gif . However if you do a little research you can find older graphs that exist but don't have links. I found this one, it's an earlier graph, v2 of the same graph linked above: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v2/Fig.A.gif . Look at 1980. The v2 graph shows temps to be 0.2 deg above "average". The v3 graph shows 1980 to be 0.25 deg above "average". This is a 25% difference. Look at 1990. The v2 graph shows global temps to be at 0.25 deg above "average". The v3 graph shows the same year to be 0.40 deg above ave. This is a 60% difference. in 2000, the v2 graph shows temps to be at 0.55 above ave, the v3 shows this to be 0.65 above ave.
Why did NASA change the data to make warming look worse then the year before? How corrupt in the v2 data? Should we have a congressional investigation?
