• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is NASA (and Our Government) Outright Lying To Us?

Glitch said:
So now destroying an irrigation field some ~2,000 years ago completely and irrevocably altered the climate of an entire planet. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the sun or Earth's orbit, it can only be humanity's fault.

Well, now I know for certain that you have completely lost it. I understand Lithium comes in strawberry these days.
Click to expand...

The orbit hasn't changed enough over 2,000 years to do squat. The greatest impact we have is particulate pollution and land use changes. If the irrigated area was large enough, it could have a climate effect.

I still want to flood Death Valley to sea level...
 
Threegoofs said:
If you can’t figure it out, than you’re definitely incapable of addressing the substance on the chart. [emoji849]
Click to expand...
I know the source of the graph is not NASA, you just need to admit it!
 
vegas giants said:
6 Claims Made by Climate Change Skeptics—and How to Respond | Rainforest Alliance
Click to expand...

It amazes me how people can take little snippet and make fun of them, when it is out of the context intended. Worse yet, those who spin this stuff has an audience, that includes people like you who trust the lies given to them.

Here is the First thing listed with the snowball, in full context. I know you are so biased, you will refuse to listen to the few minutes that follows the few seconds that the leftist lying pundits would show.

This video is 6:18 long.

User Clip: Inhofe speech | C-SPAN.org
 
Lord of Planar said:
It amazes me how people can take little snippet and make fun of them, when it is out of the context intended. Worse yet, those who spin this stuff has an audience, that includes people like you who trust the lies given to them.

Here is the First thing listed with the snowball, in full context. I know you are so biased, you will refuse to listen to the few minutes that follows the few seconds that the leftist lying pundits would show.

This video is 6:18 long.

User Clip: Inhofe speech | C-SPAN.org
Click to expand...

Yeah I won't listen to that
 
Lord of Planar said:
OMG. You thing a rouge group given link space on NASA speaks for NASA?

LOL...
Click to expand...

It’s funnier that you think NASA is fine with people posting in their name and not representing them.

In fact, it’s so absurd, it’s clearly an explanation you imagined to assuage your increasingly painful cognitive dissonance, no doubt.
 
Threegoofs said:
You can’t even figure out the source of the graph when it’s clearly on there, yet somehow you ‘know’ who DIDNT create it?

Hilarious.
Click to expand...
I just want you to cite the source of the graph correctly!
You are not because citing the source of the graph, will prove I am correct.
 
longview said:
I just want you to cite the source of the graph correctly!
You are not because citing the source of the graph, will prove I am correct.
Click to expand...

Jesus, dude.

It’s clear- the source is directly from Gavin Schmidt, head of NASA GISS.

It’s written right on there.
 
Threegoofs said:
Jesus, dude.

It’s clear- the source is directly from Gavin Schmidt, head of NASA GISS.

It’s written right on there.
Click to expand...
but was the page sourced from NASA, or Gavin's personal twitter account?
 
longview said:
No it is not, the graph details what data sources, but does not say who made the graph or it's source.
Click to expand...

Don't hold your breath ..... I suspect its another cartoonist special hence the reticence to provide the link :wink:
 
Threegoofs said:
This isn’t hard.

It’s referenced on the graph!
Click to expand...

The graph in #230 carries no sourcing information. It's also interesting that it includes the word "realisation." Not an American spelling. That would be odd at NASA.
 
Jack Hays said:
The graph in #230 carries no sourcing information. It's also interesting that it includes the word "realisation." Not an American spelling. That would be odd at NASA.
Click to expand...

Oops. I was thinking of the wrong graph.

Obviously, it’s an update of the RC comparison project, which I’ve posted around here several times and you all have whined incessantly about, because actual working climate scientists curate it.


Climate model projections compared to observations << RealClimate
 
Threegoofs said:
Oops. I was thinking of the wrong graph.

Obviously, it’s an update of the RC comparison project, which I’ve posted around here several times and you all have whined incessantly about, because actual working climate scientists curate it.


Climate model projections compared to observations << RealClimate
Click to expand...
There can be no "Obviously" because your posted graph did not include a link to it's source, and you still have not provided a link to the posted graph.
Also realclimate.org, IS NOT a NASA site as you claimed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom