At first, I thought you meant they were just presenting it in a way that the following illustrates. This graph is presented by a self promoting reporter in his attack against Wakefield. At first glance, or from a surface reader perspective, it appears that vaccinations rates were cut in half. But when you look at the scale, you notice the total rates only dropped slightly over 10%. Depending upon the "n" value, it may not even be significant. But even assuming it is significant, dropping from the highest of 91.9 to the lowest of 79.9%, would one use the words "fell" or "slumped"? True, they did decline, but if you used a graph with the full scale, you would have to look close to see any difference. However, this isn't fraud (assuming he didn't change the data), but merely presenting the data in a manipulative way to try to exaggerate his point.

But this isn't happening with the weather data. It's just outright changed!

And James just simply ignores that....

OK we'll see. You keep your opinion and I'll keep mine.

You keep your opinion and I'll keep mine? But you never gave your opinion of why historical whether data was just plain changed and why it was permissible to do that.

And James, you talk about conspiracy theories. But you never addressed my response. You probably meant false conspiracy theories.

But why have you fallen for one of the biggest false conspiracy theories of all time: Global Warming caused by man? Is why you think this conspiracy is true and not others is because you believe it?


(You saw bubbles, therefore you know what they are. No need to test.)

I told you that I have done college level experiments on CO2 absorption. Three of my best friends are college level professors. I have a much deeper comprehension on this subject than you obviously do. What have you shared? Your statements go against every major study done in the past ten years. I have quoted NASA and the Jet propulsion laboratory. For you to contradict them without any support is the biggest joke I have ever heard on this website. Are we supposed to just take your word for it? What do we pay NASA for anyways, to lie to us? According to you that is the case which means according to you every major scientist and climatologist in the world are involved in some kind of conspiracy to mislead the public. All of the data has been changed so you say.

I know what I am talking about on this subject and yes in the right atmospheric conditions you can see CO2 absorption in the oceans. Go to any salt water fish tank that uses CO2 to adjust the pH levels and you can see this process for yourself.

And by the way, data is corrected all the time when it is found to be inaccurate!

How do you "correct" raw historical measurements?

And then "re-correct" them?

James, which NASA experts do you believe:

• The ones who originally published the data?
• The ones who "corrected" the data?
• Or the ones who "corrected" the "corrected" data?

Which are the true experts?

And I learned the scientific method covers more than, "I think, therefore it's true". Doesn't it cover measuring and testing rather than believing? Do you know what the scientific method is?

Maybe not. Did you just say that if you have intelligent friends, that makes you intelligent, too?

My statements about you seeing and therefore believing?
Or my statements about questioning what is it permitted to just arbitrarily change historical data?

When NASA or NOAA changed historical whether data, did that go against every major study? Or did you mean just not "in the past ten years"?

By the way, why did you pick and choose ten years? That seems a little.....


Who contradicted them? Themselves? NOAA?

Are we supposed to just take your word that bubbles you see are made up of CO2?

Did I say "all"? Did I say "every"? Do you say "all"? and "every"? Hmmm... Maybe you don't know?

But good point. If all scientists say, or most, or some, that must mean it's true.

Therefore, if you believe everything scientists say, and you don't think they would ever lie to us, then you must believe in evolution.

The amount of data collected by ice cores recently has been the significant reason for any corrected data. In regards to temp data changes, having access to temperature data previously unreleased from our war enemies has made the difference. They need to have access to temps from the whole world to accurately model the temp changes. Now we have all the data.

CO2 levels vary greatly from place to place so when they adjust the data it is usually because more samples have been taken with a higher degree of accuracy from previous singular samples.

They use averages to compile more accurate data, so when they have one sample that says one thing and another 50 are taken after that show slightly different data they compile it into an average.

1930 is when the first core samples were taken but it wasn't until 1990 that we had a reliable way of extracting the data accurately from all the core samples taken. Or do you just suppose that there was no learning curve and they just knew immediately what they were looking at? Then they had to go through all the samples taken to get an accurate estimation of pre modern samples. But just in the time frame since 1990 when they had the same testing techniques they use today, they can prove that CO2 is rising dramatically in step with temps.

Some do get it right:



Destruction by fire has increased. One wildfire burned 9,300 acres in the fire season before GW set up the abomination of desolation on 9/20/01. But in the next fire season, there were four major fires that burned 1,255,276 acres (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wildfires ): more than a 100-fold increase in one year.

But fires vary annually: 386,159 acres burned in the 10-years from 1992-2001.

After 9/20/01 in the 10-year fire seasons from 2002- 2011, 13,515,746 acres burned.

Before GW set up the abomination of desolation, less than half a million acres were burned by wild fires in 10-years: after, the increase was over 13-MILLION acres in 10-years.

And destruction by flooding has increased. There were 13 floods in the USA 1990-2000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floods_in_the_United_States:_1901% E2%80%932000 ).

In 2001, Texas flooded to Louisiana with 41 deaths. 2002 was unremarkable. But after GW reached his hand across the gulf to clasp the hand of the Roman Power (Pope John-Paul II, June 2004), Hurricane Katrina took the lives of 1,836 people and devastated the Gulf Coast.

In the 10-years since 9/20/01, 20 major floods struck America. Each surpassed the destruction and deaths of all the floods in the preceding two decades combined.

And after Massachusetts enacted gay marriage, New England had “a once in 500 year flood event.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floods_in_the_United_States:_2001%E2%80%93present)

And now at least two major floods hit the US every year: floods: along the Mississippi, Red River, and like those from hurricanes – Isaac, Katrina, and Sandi, they have increased. And this flooding is to increase until the end.