Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.

This proves you have no idea what you are talking about and you are not reading what I post, you fly by wire fool

All of our sun data is imaging.

His work on Kirchhoff's law has been PROVEN, he even wrote a paper showing scientists how to prove it wrong themselves, this is recognised as fact. Peer reviewed, he's written over 100 peer reviewed papers. You'll find those that have staked careers on popular theory are the ones who have a go at him, for example the radiology experts were the ones that called him a fraud prior to him smashing their record

Now logically can assme that if certain theories were formed using a law of physics that was not correct, is it not possible that the claim they are wrong might have some creditability? Moreover, if by working on this premise he did what everyone said was impossible, is that not also further indication that he is on the right track.

What you can't seem to get is he is an expert on imagining and an engineer. This means that any sceintific data obtained by imaging methods ARE his field, this is how he could say with certainty that the WMAP results were not right.

Again with solar theory, all of our data, is imaging data, we scan the sun. We use similar technology and techniques that we use in imaging in radiology. Spectrum analysis and so on. So it ain't like he is doing Neil deGrasse Tyson and talking about GMO, Robitaille is actually dealing in areas of his expertise, but you can;t see that cos one, you have no idea how the data is retrieved concerning WMAP and the sun and two you actually don't know anything about RObitaille, I bet the best you've done is search for stuff that says he is wrong, you see some links pop up and your beliefs are confirmed without reading a single page. You are showing the form of the average internet boob Astro, average. I think you are best sticking to yor combating with Tobes, this kind of thing is just not suited to your bollocks.

 

Also worth mentioning, Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) has been ‘fudging’ historical temperature records to fit a warming narrative.
Add to this NASA and NOAA in the US caught red handed altering historical temperature data to fit global warming claims (both charts online for 8 days) Here's a gif of the alterations from old to new chart.
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com...-altered-us-temperatures-after-the-year-2000/
#fraud

please log in to view this image

Lets look at EPA data

please log in to view this image

matches the old chart from NASA before they altered it after 2000.
#epicfraud


http://news.heartland.org/newspaper...gists-caught-fudging-temperature-measurements
#fraud


None of this made the news

 

Come on, I was only joking. I do disagree with your stance a lot of the time, but when I do I try to make a counter argument, I don't just ridicule for the sake of it. It was only a bit of banter.

 

Also Sis, aren't you yourself merely cherry-picking data to suit your argument, in the way you accuse others?
Where is the proof, as opposed to the accusation, that people have been fudging data to make it fit a warming model?
What would be their motive for doing this?

Also, I'd like to repeat something I posted earlier, something that you didn't think worthy of a reply-but a point which I think is far more relevant than professional handbags between scientists.

 

Here are some other cooked graphs from the C(lie)mate people.

please log in to view this image

please log in to view this image

please log in to view this image

Visualizing How USHCN Hides The Decline In US Temperatures

please log in to view this image

You can think of USHCN as being the Enron of US temperature data. The graph below shows the total adjustment. Note the massive cheat going on in 2012, which is needed to proclaim 2012 as the hottest year ever.

please log in to view this image

#biggestfraudinhistory
A full listing of the fraudulent stats from the UN
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/tracking-us-temperature-fraud/

 

- Encyclopedia Britannica


Abrupt climate change not new. And all without man made CO2 as well

#IPCCfraud

 

You'll enjoy this

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe...ignores-17-years-of-flat-global-temperatures/

 

I've been saying this since from around the time that article was written though I hadn't read that one till today. The cat is actually starting to come out of the bag on the IPCC fraud but it's a UN sledge hammer now so stopping it is another matter entirely, then there's teh followers.. did I mention the folowers?

It boggles the mind that it is sceintifically shown through analysis that CO2 was between 2000 and 4000ppm this article puts them between 1600 and 3200ppm. Which is still significant enough to show that if the CO2 causes heating and our current levels are causing the temperature increases, that would mean the earth must have been a steaming ball of sweat at 3200ppm, a runaway cycle SHOULD have occurred leaving earth like a sweaty beanbag shrouded in a thick atmosphere and ever increasing temperature. But.. this was also during glacial periods CO2 was that high, and that blows the CO2 heating argument out of the water, when you have someone who is pro c(lie)mate and you ask them to explain that they just change the topic.

When you ask them why natural CO2 is not factored in, again ****. I mean natural CO2 is only 95%+ of the CO2 like

 

The thing about this IPCC crap is, no environmental effort has ever had such problems and derision.
Whether it be air land or sea campaigns. When have sceintists come out and say this is complete bollocks and a waste of time and a fraud? Even if people weren't bothered doing anything they agreed it was the right thing to do at least, but this climate bollocks, the media hide it but there is massive dissent by scientists and any member of the public with the ability to read some historical research records and the littany of cheats by the IPCC, iincluding letting policy makers personally edit the report summaries for whatever policies they want to implement which only dictate economic factors after all. Example from the article

"There has been a discernible human influence on global climate." meaning an alleged noticeable effect.. became "“Most of the observed warming over the past 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" in two edits.
#fraud

We know for a fact that every time economy and climate go head to head, economy wins, Cameron would allow fracking in a maternity ward ffs, US and Kyoto for example, China can raise their CO2 every year till 2030

But the followers will tell you we have to act now and avoid totally explaining the logic of allowing China to pump out as much as they can till 2030 and remain at that level thereafter.. if I thought CO2 was evil I'd be all WTF and but I don't give a ****, it's china's other pollution that is the actual problem, in air soil and water! Not ****ing CO2.

At what point do you run the guy with horse cart and bottles of snake oil out of town with pitchforks

 

More graphs and charts than van Gaal's bedroom.

It's all meaningless unless you know how to interpret the data.

 

Even taking as true the graphs changing, Sisu is expert enough to know that not only was it not done for a legitimate purpose like fixing an error or improved calibration, but is part of a worldwide conspiracy

#sisuknows

 

No it's not. Even being very generous and assuming you meant from electromagnetic radiation would exclude particle detectors and spacecraft measurements of the solar wind.

He had expertise in magnetic resonance imaging. That doesn't mean he knows anything about different forms of radiation produced by different physical processes by material in different physical states. And even if he did he could still be wrong. You think he knows everything about all of imaging because he contributed to one invention 17 years ago and in the meantime every single scientist involved in imaging have all been idiots getting everything wrong?

Has he had anything published in a #legit journal instead of "Progress in Physics" which is about as "peer-reviewed" as this forum #spinelessmods

 

On July 5, 1989, Noel Brown, then the director of the New York office of the United Nations Environment Program, warned of a “10-year window of opportunity to solve” global warming — “entire nations could be wiped off the face of Earth by rising sea levels if the global-warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ‘eco-refugees,’ threatening political chaos.”


In 2007, the chief of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said, “If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment.” It is now 2014 and nothing was done before 2012, so, since it is “too late,” why spend any more time and money fighting global warming?

On Jan. 19, 2009, James Hansen, climate expert who until last year was head of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies, firmly declared that President Obama “has only four years to save the Earth” — which you might have noticed he failed to do. Back in 2006, Al Gore told us that we had only “10 years” to solve the global-warming problem.


#SnakeOil
#fraud

 

They were talking about timescales to put in measures to reduce global warming, not timescales for the apocalypse.

Anyway you do the same thing. You've been ripped apart on Robitaille so now you just move on to another sensationalist claim S(l)i(e)su

 

@astroturfnaut

You dragged out that old chestnut the 97% when I fist brought this subject up and then proceeded to tell me the minority report was a joke because all the signatories were influenced by Oil companies Even the c(lie)mate hystericals didn't accuse them of being influened by Oil.. they claimed the report rubbish because the scientists were not "climate scientists" as if that profession even existed at that time

As for your 97% argument

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/

So to lay it out, IPCC have not been caught doctoring data, stifling dissent, attacking scientists, excluding journalists and publishers, outright lying and allowing policy makers to totally alter the outcome of reports in their summaries to the media and public. And also caught discussing "the public copping on that the planet is not warming for nearly 2 decades.. and how to rephrase their efforts to something else" giving birth to "climate change". It's almost like you want to be fooled, you gullible twat

Add to that every forecast miles away from reality and how on earth anyone believes this crap is beyond me.

Sorry mate, the #fraud cannot be recovered at this point

 

Yet another James Taylor Forbes article against climate change

I'm sure lawyers are all expertly trained in scientific analysis and truth, and not spin just to represent their clients

You'd think he's funded by the oil industry or something. Oh, wait...

 

Uh what's this?
About 11,500 years ago, averaged annual temperatures on the Greenland ice sheet warmed by around 8 °C over 40 years, in three steps of five years where a 5 °C change over 30–40 years is more common.

So, that's some serious increases without man made global warming, was Rafa's rant that bad that he heated up icesheets over 11 thousand years ago.

So, with all the screaming over the antarctic ice sheet melting and the hidden evidence it is active volcanoes underneath it, still omitted from the hysteria today.. we see that temperature increases in those regions may have absolutely nothing to do with the rest of the global temperature at all.


I love the ice melting lie anyway. They say oh the arctic has warmed a degree or two, so, instead of minus 80 it's only minus 78?

Arctic and antarctic temps have **** all to do with our CO2

meteorologists still can't explain our weather systems let alone forecast 5 10 20 years in advance, doesn't stop them trying and getting hysterical about the results of their now proven defunct models, all 73 of them

 

Cool story bro.

How many major cities were located under sea level 11,500 years ago?

 

@astroturfnaut

Scientific data matey, look it up. Greenland and Arctic ice core data


Furthermore. during these periods the nothern hemisphere seen more drastic increases and the southern hemisphere less drastic reversed increases.

THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT WE ARE SEEING NOW, bigger ice losses in summer in the northern. Record ice gains in the southern. Less sea ice in the northern, more sea ice in the southern.

But, lets all beleive the guys who started it on a fraud, have proven nothing , got everything wrong, caught lying their arses off and don't have one model that can account for ANYTHING And they absolutely go nuts when their **** gets debunked, they even wanted dissenters charged with criminal offences some of these nuts

You might as well trade your c(lie)mate bible for a real one mate, I reckon there is more truth and fact in the real bible anyways

 

There's so much conflicting information around this issue that it's hard to pick the bones out of it, and form a solid opinion on the issue.

It seems to me that much of the argument for climate change is based on calculating the amount of CO2 produced and then concluding that it must be having an effect "because it should". When this was married to temperature increases year on year it looked credible, but after what 15-17 years of no plateau despite continued increases in Worldwide production of CO2, it's looking less credible. The attempt to argue that away with some piffle about the increase being absorbed by the oceans sounds like the clutching of straws to me.

I'm firmly in the agnostic camp here.