Town Square

Post a New Topic

NASA Data Worse Than Climate-Gate Data, Space Agency Admits

Original post made by Kelly on Mar 30, 2010

This is a VERY good article that lamestream media won't cover:

Click on the link below to read full story!
Web Link By Blake Snow

NASA can put a man on the moon, but the space agency can't tell you what the temperature was back then? Hmmmm.... This whole global warming scheming and climate change which has turned into a religeon for environmental extremists is so ridiculous. All the biased climate change scheming and scare, needs to be removed from the classrooms immediatley.

NASA / Goddard Institute for Space Studies

Maps from NASA's GISS reveal temperatures where no data exist, thanks to mathematical extrapolation of data.
NASA was able to put a man on the moon, but the space agency can't tell you what the temperature was when it did. By its own admission, NASA's temperature records are in even worse shape than the besmirched Climate-gate data.

E-mail messages obtained by a Freedom of Information Act request reveal that NASA concluded that its own climate findings were inferior to those maintained by both the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) -- the scandalized source of the leaked Climate-gate e-mails -- and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center.

The e-mails from 2007 reveal that when a USA Today reporter asked if NASA's data "was more accurate" than other climate-change data sets, NASA's Dr. Reto A. Ruedy replied with an unequivocal no. He said "the National Climatic Data Center's procedure of only using the best stations is more accurate," admitting that some of his own procedures led to less accurate readings.

"My recommendation to you is to continue using NCDC's data for the U.S. means and [East Anglia] data for the global means," Ruedy told the reporter.

"NASA's temperature data is worse than the Climate-gate temperature data. According to NASA," wrote Christopher Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute who uncovered the e-mails. Horner is skeptical of NCDC's data as well, stating plainly: "Three out of the four temperature data sets stink."

Global warming critics call this a crucial blow to advocates' arguments that minor flaws in the "Climate-gate" data are unimportant, since all the major data sets arrive at the same conclusion -- that the Earth is getting warmer. But there's a good reason for that, the skeptics say: They all use the same data.

"There is far too much overlap among the surface temperature data sets to assert with a straight face that they independently verify each other's results," says James M. Taylor, senior fellow of environment policy at The Heartland Institute.

...."Until surface temperature data sets are truly independent of one another and are entrusted to scientists whose objectivity is beyond question, the satellite temperature record alone will not have any credibility," he said.

Here are some additional links regarding the debate against the scheme of global warming now rebranded as climate change.

Climate change scare = Cap n Trade, tax schemers: Web Link

Is there really a global warming consensus? Web Link

Greenpeace Leader Admits Arctic Ice Exaggeration
Web Link

Every individual should watch the movie "Not Evil Just Wrong" at noteviljustwrong.com

'The Dark Side of Green' Phelim McAleer
Web Link

Comments (7)

Posted by Cletus, a resident of West of Foothill
on Mar 30, 2010 at 3:41 pm

Whut I done noticed too is that every one of NASA's pho-to-graphs of Earth is flat!

Why ain't the lamestream teevee people talkin' bout THAT?


Posted by Repleasnacrat, a resident of Stoneridge
on Mar 30, 2010 at 4:30 pm

5 more Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power plants and we would have the meter-less electricity. $0.02 a Kw! Oh, and that renewable energy would be greener than al gore on the the deck of SV Rainbow Princess ( I think that is what Greenpeace calls the ship!)


Posted by Patriot, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Mar 30, 2010 at 9:48 pm

"we would have the meter-less electricity. $0.02 a Kw"

How do you figure that?


Posted by drdoug, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Mar 31, 2010 at 8:36 am

What! Only 5 more multi-billion plants with no plan for waste disposal and millions in clean up and we can have $ .02/Kw...Wow what another great idea?

Wind, Water, Solar are the 100% renewable and safe solutions...all this other stuff is unnecessary high stakes poker.


Posted by SteveP, a resident of Parkside
on Mar 31, 2010 at 8:57 am

SteveP is a registered user.

Despite all the utopian wishes for current applications of renewable energy, there's no getting around the undeniable fact that you need oil and nuclear power for the foreseeable future.
Wishing them away won't power your computer. The wind does'nt always blow when you need it to, the sun shines only during the day and water? really?

If you think storing the meager power provided by these so-called renewable sources is the answer, think again. The batteries required will create an incredible amount of unrecyclable waste. Attach a generator to your bike and see how far that energy gets you...then you'll understand my point.
But, keep trying..............


Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore
on Mar 31, 2010 at 11:41 am

i try to unnner stan you point essssssteveie PP...ok?

i so escair maybe no energy to watch tv...tee hee hee, tee hee hee...


Posted by Recycler, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 1, 2010 at 9:09 pm

Sorry doug, you must be STUCK in the last century. You act like the cavemen afraid of the miracles of fire. Nuclear is all-clean, safe, and renewable. Diable Canyon has provide PG&E 24% of our power for 30 years with just 2 reactors, that are still providing. When finished then we will REcycle, REprocess, and REUSE ! !Then we we start a cycle of decades again with that old REcycled residue. Waste is a word from those trapped in the last century, now we know that residue will continue to be recycled and reprocessed over and over. 50 years of power becomes 500 years of power, reducing in size in each cycle until it's a tiny bit.


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: *

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

A Norman Rockwell Town
By Roz Rogoff | 7 comments | 1,301 views

David Brooks at his Best and Worst
By Tom Cushing | 8 comments | 843 views

Anti-fracking folks rail against railroads
By Tim Hunt | 23 comments | 739 views