Bitcoin Forum
November 18, 2024, 07:54:36 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 28.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 ... 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 [144] 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 ... 230 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers.  (Read 636456 times)
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 4760
Merit: 1282


View Profile
December 17, 2015, 10:31:49 PM
 #2861

Fingers crossed for fusion reactors in the not too distant future :

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/germany-w7-x-fusion-reactor-011227059.html




Fusion would be as big a disaster at this point as adding sugar to a vat of bacteria.  Human populations would explode and devastate the earth.  I suspect that fusion is fairly well developed in certain circles and I've heard (on this board I think) of reports of it coming to the fore out of China or Russia or both.

'We' need a one-world government with proven methods of population control before the Kracken can be released.  Of course such a construct could be useful for a wide variety of enterprises as well.


sig spam anywhere and self-moderated threads on the pol&soc board are for losers.
notbatman
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2212
Merit: 1038



View Profile
December 17, 2015, 10:57:13 PM
 #2862

Fingers crossed for fusion reactors in the not too distant future :

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/germany-w7-x-fusion-reactor-011227059.html




Fusion would be as big a disaster at this point as adding sugar to a vat of bacteria.  Human populations would explode and devastate the earth.  I suspect that fusion is fairly well developed in certain circles and I've heard (on this board I think) of reports of it coming to the fore out of China or Russia or both.

'We' need a one-world government with proven methods of population control before the Kracken can be released.  Of course such a construct could be useful for a wide variety of enterprises as well.

That's slop people aren't bacteria, this is typical elitist propaganda.
flagpara
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 756
Merit: 100


View Profile
December 17, 2015, 10:59:30 PM
 #2863

Fingers crossed for fusion reactors in the not too distant future :

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/germany-w7-x-fusion-reactor-011227059.html




Fusion would be as big a disaster at this point as adding sugar to a vat of bacteria.  Human populations would explode and devastate the earth.  I suspect that fusion is fairly well developed in certain circles and I've heard (on this board I think) of reports of it coming to the fore out of China or Russia or both.

'We' need a one-world government with proven methods of population control before the Kracken can be released.  Of course such a construct could be useful for a wide variety of enterprises as well.



Not a stupid way of seeing things...

Though I would say we would much more easily find a solution with nearly free and unlimited energy than without. Maslow pyramid: if your basic neds are fulfilled then only you'll start thinking in a more global way!

Spendulus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2926
Merit: 1386



View Profile
December 18, 2015, 01:00:13 AM
 #2864

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/12/16/greenland-has-lost-a-staggering-amount-of-ice-and-its-only-getting-worse/?postshare=6131450289470412&tid=ss_tw

“We find that 2003–2010 mass loss not only more than doubled relative to the 1983–2003 period, but also relative to the net mass loss rate throughout the twentieth century,” the study notes. It states that mass loss in this most recent period, ending in 2010, was 186 gigatons per year on average, though other estimates have put that number even higher for the most recent years. NASA currently states that Greenland is losing 287 billion tons of ice per year.

The fact that Greenland was losing mass throughout the entirety of the 20th century may seem surprising. But the paper suggests that we are coming out of the Little Ice Age, a cooler period, and so glacier retreat was more or less kicked off around 1900 — and then accelerated as major human-caused global warming kicked in.


Here is a phenomena under observation by scientists.  They would ascribe causation to two factors, natural and man made.  To the credit of these scientists, they acknowledge the Little Ice Age.  James Hanson, and his collaborator in alarmism, Al Gore, tried for a long time to claim that there was no LIA, and no Medival Warming Period, either.  These natural variations got in the way of the false hypothesis they wished to put over on people.  These scientist state there was a LIA, and it was a big factor in the studied melt of Greenland.

But is the man made effect insignificant, moderate, or severe?

That is the direct result of what scientists call "climate sensitivity."
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 4760
Merit: 1282


View Profile
December 18, 2015, 06:44:37 AM
 #2865


Fusion would be as big a disaster at this point as adding sugar to a vat of bacteria.  Human populations would explode and devastate the earth.  I suspect that fusion is fairly well developed in certain circles and I've heard (on this board I think) of reports of it coming to the fore out of China or Russia or both.

'We' need a one-world government with proven methods of population control before the Kracken can be released.  Of course such a construct could be useful for a wide variety of enterprises as well.

That's slop people aren't bacteria, this is typical elitist propaganda.

Know your enemy.

and:


Not a stupid way of seeing things...

Though I would say we would much more easily find a solution with nearly free and unlimited energy than without. Maslow pyramid: if your basic neds are fulfilled then only you'll start thinking in a more global way!

There actually is an unfortunate kernel of legitimacy to my statement in straight thermodynamics and population-dynamics terms.  Probably.  I really have no very good solution to the problem.  I know who does NOT have a very good solution, though, and that would be precisely the people who are most fixated on and likely to become the leaders of a so-called 'new world order.'  I would literally rather humanity go back to the stone age and spend a few thousand years getting back to where we are now than to shift to a one-world totalitarian framework under these freaks though that is not a practical possibility.  It is harder to forget things than it is to discover things in the first place.


sig spam anywhere and self-moderated threads on the pol&soc board are for losers.
Wilikon (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176
Merit: 1001


minds.com/Wilikon


View Profile
December 18, 2015, 06:14:16 PM
 #2866




EXCLUSIVE: NOAA Relies On ‘Compromised’ Thermometers That Inflate US Warming Trend




The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s reliance on poorly-sited weather stations to calculate surface temperatures is inflating the warming trend of the U.S. and maybe even the rest of the world, according to a landmark study looking at three decades of data.

“The majority of weather stations used by NOAA to detect climate change temperature signal have been compromised by encroachment of artificial surfaces like concrete, asphalt, and heat sources like air conditioner exhausts,” Anthony Watts, a seasoned meteorologist and lead author of the study, said in a statement Thursday.

These “compromised” weather stations run hotter than stations that are well-sited, and are used by NOAA as a benchmark to make upward adjustments for other weather stations that are part of the agency’s official temperature record.

Watts and his fellow researchers found only 410 “unperturbed” weather stations out of the 1,218 stations used by NOAA to determine U.S. climate trends. These “unperturbed” stations don’t need to be adjusted by NOAA because they had not been moved, had any equipment changes, or change in the time temperatures were observed.

Watts found well-sited stations show significantly less warming than poorly-sited stations from 1979 to 2008 — the time period was chosen in order to respond to NOAA papers from 2009 and 2010 justifying its weather station adjustments. Now, Watts has years of evidence showing NOAA is relying on shoddy weather stations to make its temperature adjustments.

“This study demonstrates conclusively that this issue affects temperature trend and that NOAA’s methods are not correcting for this problem, resulting in an inflated temperature trend. It suggests that the trend for U.S. temperature will need to be corrected.” Watts said.


http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/17/exclusive-noaa-relies-on-compromised-thermometers-that-inflate-u-s-warming-trend/


Spendulus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2926
Merit: 1386



View Profile
December 18, 2015, 07:33:01 PM
 #2867




EXCLUSIVE: NOAA Relies On ‘Compromised’ Thermometers That Inflate US Warming Trend




The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s reliance on poorly-sited weather stations to calculate surface temperatures is inflating the warming trend of the U.S. and maybe even the rest of the world, according to a landmark study looking at three decades of data.

“The majority of weather stations used by NOAA to detect climate change temperature signal have been compromised by encroachment of artificial surfaces like concrete, asphalt, and heat sources like air conditioner exhausts,” Anthony Watts, a seasoned meteorologist and lead author of the study, said in a statement Thursday.

These “compromised” weather stations run hotter than stations that are well-sited, and are used by NOAA as a benchmark to make upward adjustments for other weather stations that are part of the agency’s official temperature record.

Watts and his fellow researchers found only 410 “unperturbed” weather stations out of the 1,218 stations used by NOAA to determine U.S. climate trends. These “unperturbed” stations don’t need to be adjusted by NOAA because they had not been moved, had any equipment changes, or change in the time temperatures were observed.

Watts found well-sited stations show significantly less warming than poorly-sited stations from 1979 to 2008 — the time period was chosen in order to respond to NOAA papers from 2009 and 2010 justifying its weather station adjustments. Now, Watts has years of evidence showing NOAA is relying on shoddy weather stations to make its temperature adjustments.

“This study demonstrates conclusively that this issue affects temperature trend and that NOAA’s methods are not correcting for this problem, resulting in an inflated temperature trend. It suggests that the trend for U.S. temperature will need to be corrected.” Watts said.


http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/17/exclusive-noaa-relies-on-compromised-thermometers-that-inflate-u-s-warming-trend/




I am going to have to report you to the Bureau of Adjustments.

Wilikon (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176
Merit: 1001


minds.com/Wilikon


View Profile
December 18, 2015, 11:05:57 PM
 #2868




EXCLUSIVE: NOAA Relies On ‘Compromised’ Thermometers That Inflate US Warming Trend




The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s reliance on poorly-sited weather stations to calculate surface temperatures is inflating the warming trend of the U.S. and maybe even the rest of the world, according to a landmark study looking at three decades of data.

“The majority of weather stations used by NOAA to detect climate change temperature signal have been compromised by encroachment of artificial surfaces like concrete, asphalt, and heat sources like air conditioner exhausts,” Anthony Watts, a seasoned meteorologist and lead author of the study, said in a statement Thursday.

These “compromised” weather stations run hotter than stations that are well-sited, and are used by NOAA as a benchmark to make upward adjustments for other weather stations that are part of the agency’s official temperature record.

Watts and his fellow researchers found only 410 “unperturbed” weather stations out of the 1,218 stations used by NOAA to determine U.S. climate trends. These “unperturbed” stations don’t need to be adjusted by NOAA because they had not been moved, had any equipment changes, or change in the time temperatures were observed.

Watts found well-sited stations show significantly less warming than poorly-sited stations from 1979 to 2008 — the time period was chosen in order to respond to NOAA papers from 2009 and 2010 justifying its weather station adjustments. Now, Watts has years of evidence showing NOAA is relying on shoddy weather stations to make its temperature adjustments.

“This study demonstrates conclusively that this issue affects temperature trend and that NOAA’s methods are not correcting for this problem, resulting in an inflated temperature trend. It suggests that the trend for U.S. temperature will need to be corrected.” Watts said.


http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/17/exclusive-noaa-relies-on-compromised-thermometers-that-inflate-u-s-warming-trend/




I am going to have to report you to the Bureau of Adjustments.






Wilikon (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176
Merit: 1001


minds.com/Wilikon


View Profile
December 21, 2015, 06:45:02 PM
 #2869




Climate change shock: Burning fossil fuels 'COOLS planet', says NASA






Fossil fuel burning gives of aerosols which reflect sunlight

Major theories about what causes temperatures to rise have been thrown into doubt after NASA found the Earth has cooled in areas of heavy industrialisation where more trees have been lost and more fossil fuel burning takes place.

Environmentalists have long argued the burning of fossil fuels in power stations and for other uses is responsible for global warming and predicted temperature increases because of the high levels of carbon dioxide produced - which causes the global greenhouse effect.

While the findings did not dispute the effects of carbon dioxide on global warming, they found aerosols - also given off by burning fossil fuels - actually cool the local environment, at least temporarily.

The research was carried out to see if current climate change models for calculating future temperatures were taking into account all factors and were accurate.

A NASA spokesman said: "To quantify climate change, researchers need to know the Transient Climate Response (TCR) and Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) of Earth.


http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/628524/Climate-change-shock-Burning-fossil-fuels-COOLs-planet-says-NASA







flagpara
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 756
Merit: 100


View Profile
December 22, 2015, 09:42:38 AM
 #2870




Climate change shock: Burning fossil fuels 'COOLS planet', says NASA






Fossil fuel burning gives of aerosols which reflect sunlight

Major theories about what causes temperatures to rise have been thrown into doubt after NASA found the Earth has cooled in areas of heavy industrialisation where more trees have been lost and more fossil fuel burning takes place.

Environmentalists have long argued the burning of fossil fuels in power stations and for other uses is responsible for global warming and predicted temperature increases because of the high levels of carbon dioxide produced - which causes the global greenhouse effect.

While the findings did not dispute the effects of carbon dioxide on global warming, they found aerosols - also given off by burning fossil fuels - actually cool the local environment, at least temporarily.

The research was carried out to see if current climate change models for calculating future temperatures were taking into account all factors and were accurate.

A NASA spokesman said: "To quantify climate change, researchers need to know the Transient Climate Response (TCR) and Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) of Earth.


http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/628524/Climate-change-shock-Burning-fossil-fuels-COOLs-planet-says-NASA









"Temporarily". I think that's the key man. You know when you drink a bit too much, you spend a fucking good night and you feel strong and awesome and all.

But you wake up in the morning with a headache strong enough to kill you that's another story.
I'm pretty sure that when you throw a bucket of fuel to someone and set him on fire, you can prove that it first lower their body temperature at first. Not sure it does any good in the long term though!
And they're saying that "aerosols - also given off by burning fossil fuels - actually cool the local environment, at least temporarily.
". Yeah but what amount of aerosols is released by burning fossil fuels? Is it enough to compensate the CO2?

A bit shady and lacking of data for something "scientific" ;-)

notbatman
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2212
Merit: 1038



View Profile
December 22, 2015, 09:59:45 AM
 #2871

To quote a former NASA insider "NASA doesn't just lie about some things, they lie about everything".

Perhaps NASA would like to explain how the reflective fly ash particles end up above our heads when the power plants contain and collect them all? It's time to stop denying the chemtrail geoengineering program.
Spendulus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2926
Merit: 1386



View Profile
December 22, 2015, 03:24:30 PM
 #2872

....

"Temporarily". I think that's the key man. You know when you drink a bit too much, you spend a fucking good night and you feel strong and awesome and all.

But you wake up in the morning with a headache strong enough to kill you that's another story.
I'm pretty sure that when you throw a bucket of fuel to someone and set him on fire, you can prove that it first lower their body temperature at first. Not sure it does any good in the long term though!
And they're saying that "aerosols - also given off by burning fossil fuels - actually cool the local environment, at least temporarily.
". Yeah but what amount of aerosols is released by burning fossil fuels? Is it enough to compensate the CO2?

A bit shady and lacking of data for something "scientific" ;-)

What the article is is one of many efforts to "explain away" the lack of global warming in the last 20 years.  This attempt is to blame it on the aforementioned cooling effect of aerosols, and then to conclude that the future is "hotter than ever."

Very dubious science here - We don't well understand aerosol effects but can quantify them, for example by looking at the effect on climate of volcanoes, then qunatifying the number of coal power plants to match a volcano, and so forth.
hdbuck
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260
Merit: 1002



View Profile
December 22, 2015, 03:47:08 PM
 #2873

To quote a former NASA insider "NASA doesn't just lie about some things, they lie about everything".

Perhaps NASA would like to explain how the reflective fly ash particles end up above our heads when the power plants contain and collect them all? It's time to stop denying the chemtrail geoengineering program.

inb4 stanley kubrick admits faking moon landing  Lips sealed  Grin  Cheesy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rR4pf6pp1kQ

#masterpiece
Wilikon (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176
Merit: 1001


minds.com/Wilikon


View Profile
December 22, 2015, 04:00:50 PM
 #2874

To quote a former NASA insider "NASA doesn't just lie about some things, they lie about everything".

Perhaps NASA would like to explain how the reflective fly ash particles end up above our heads when the power plants contain and collect them all? It's time to stop denying the chemtrail geoengineering program.

inb4 stanley kubrick admits faking moon landing  Lips sealed  Grin  Cheesy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rR4pf6pp1kQ

#masterpiece




#oscar is an alien lizard

notbatman
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2212
Merit: 1038



View Profile
December 22, 2015, 04:15:47 PM
 #2875

To quote a former NASA insider "NASA doesn't just lie about some things, they lie about everything".

Perhaps NASA would like to explain how the reflective fly ash particles end up above our heads when the power plants contain and collect them all? It's time to stop denying the chemtrail geoengineering program.

inb4 stanley kubrick admits faking moon landing  Lips sealed  Grin  Cheesy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rR4pf6pp1kQ

#masterpiece

The actor in question is named Tom. Way to hoax Kubrick on hoaxing the hoaxed Moon landing hoax; classic obfuscation and disinformation strategy.
hdbuck
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260
Merit: 1002



View Profile
December 22, 2015, 04:26:12 PM
 #2876

To quote a former NASA insider "NASA doesn't just lie about some things, they lie about everything".

Perhaps NASA would like to explain how the reflective fly ash particles end up above our heads when the power plants contain and collect them all? It's time to stop denying the chemtrail geoengineering program.

inb4 stanley kubrick admits faking moon landing  Lips sealed  Grin  Cheesy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rR4pf6pp1kQ

#masterpiece

The actor in question is named Tom. Way to hoax Kubrick on hoaxing the hoaxed Moon landing hoax; classic obfuscation and disinformation strategy.


truth is a hoax. ^^
Wilikon (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176
Merit: 1001


minds.com/Wilikon


View Profile
December 22, 2015, 04:56:20 PM
 #2877




Judicial Watch Sues for Documents Withheld From Congress in New Climate Data Scandal


(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a lawsuit on December 2, 2015, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia seeking records of communications from National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) officials regarding methodology for collecting and interpreting data used in climate models (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Commerce (No 1:15-cv-02088)). The lawsuit sought the same documents unsuccessfully subpoenaed by a House committee.  Less than week after Judicial Watch served its lawsuit on NOAA, the agency finally turned over the targeted documents to Congress.

Judicial Watch sued the Department of Commerce after the agency failed to respond to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request submitted on October 30, 2015 – NOAA is a component of the Department of Commerce.  The timeframe for the requested records is October 30, 2014, through October 30, 2015, and requests all documents and records of communications between NOAA officials, employees, and contractors regarding:

    The methodology and utilization of night marine air temperatures to adjust ship and buoy temperature data;
    The use of other global temperature datasets for both NOAA’s in-house dataset improvements and monthly press releases conveying information to the public about global temperatures;
    The utilization and consideration of satellite bulk atmospheric temperature readings for use in global temperature datasets; and
    A subpoena issued for the aforementioned information by Congressman Lamar Smith on October 13, 2015.

Judicial Watch is investigating how NOAA collects and disseminates climate data that is used in determining global climate change. NOAA collects data in thousands of ways – from temperature gauges on land and buoys at sea, to satellites orbiting Earth.  Considered the “environmental intelligence agency,” NOAA is the nation’s leading collector of climate data.  In July, Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX) asked NOAA for both data and internal communications related to a controversial climate change study.  After the agency refused to comply with the document request, Smith’s committee issued a subpoena on October 13.  According to the Science, Space, and Technology Committee:

    In June, NOAA widely publicized a study as refuting the nearly two-decade pause in climate change. After three letters requesting all communications from the agency surrounding the role of political appointees in the agency’s scientific process, Chairman Smith issued a subpoena for the information. Smith subsequently sent a letter on December 1st offering to accept documents and communications from NOAA political, policy and non-scientific staff as a first step in satisfying the subpoena requirements.

    Information provided to the Committee by whistleblowers appears to show that the study was rushed to publication despite the concerns and objections of a number of NOAA employees.

Judicial Watch sued the agency on December 2 and served the complaint on the agency on December 8.  Less than a week later, on Tuesday, December 15, NOAA finally began to turn over documents to the House committee.  That same day, NOAA called and told Judicial Watch that it would begin searching for documents responsive to Judicial Watch’s FOIA request.

On November 26, Smith published an opinion editorial in The Washington Times, which accused NOAA of tampering with data to help promote global warming alarmism:

    NOAA often fails to consider all available data in its determinations and climate change reports to the public. A recent study by NOAA, published in the journal Science, made “adjustments” to historical temperature records and NOAA trumpeted the findings as refuting the nearly two-decade pause in global warming. The study’s authors claimed these adjustments were supposedly based on new data and new methodology. But the study failed to include satellite data.

“We have little doubt that our lawsuit helped to pry these scandalous climate change report documents from the Obama administration.  The Obama administration seems to care not one whit for a congressional subpoena but knows from prior experience that a Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit cannot be ignored,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.  “Given the lawless refusal to comply with our FOIA request and a congressional subpoena, we have little doubt that the documents will show the Obama administration put politics before science to advance global warming alarmism.”

Judicial Watch previously investigated alleged data manipulation by global warming advocates in the Obama administration.  In 2010, Judicial Watch obtained internal documents from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) related to a controversy that erupted in 2007 when Canadian blogger Stephen McIntyre exposed an error in NASA’s handling of raw temperature data from 2000-2006 that exaggerated the reported rise in temperature readings in the United States. According to multiple press reports, when NASA corrected the error, the new data apparently caused a reshuffling of NASA’s rankings for the hottest years on record in the United States, with 1934 replacing 1998 at the top of the list.

In late 2014, Judicial Watch litigation forced out documents withheld in response to another congressional subpoena – one issued in the Fast and Furious scandal.  Thanks to the Judicial Watch lawsuit, Congress finally obtained the information it had sought for years on Obama’s gun-running scandal.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-sues-for-documents-withheld-from-congress-in-new-climate-data-scandal/


-------------------------------
Good luck dudes! You'll need it with that rat infested regime.

notbatman
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2212
Merit: 1038



View Profile
December 22, 2015, 06:00:03 PM
 #2878

Judicial Watch Sues for Documents Withheld From Congress in New Climate Data Scandal
...snip...

... But the study failed to include satellite data.

...snip...

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-sues-for-documents-withheld-from-congress-in-new-climate-data-scandal/

-------------------------------
Good luck dudes! You'll need it with that rat infested regime.

Bet they pull a "matter of national security" rabbit out of the hat to keep that under wraps.  Roll Eyes
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 4760
Merit: 1282


View Profile
December 22, 2015, 06:14:31 PM
 #2879

Judicial Watch Sues for Documents Withheld From Congress in New Climate Data Scandal
...snip...

... But the study failed to include satellite data.

...snip...

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-sues-for-documents-withheld-from-congress-in-new-climate-data-scandal/

-------------------------------
Good luck dudes! You'll need it with that rat infested regime.

Bet they pull a "matter of national security" rabbit out of the hat to keep that under wraps.  Roll Eyes

From what I've seen out of the Obama admin, I'm surprised that NASA has not replace satellite data feeds with a script that produces whatever readings they want (and protect the program via 'national security' of course.)

Perhaps they have not had the opportunity yet to replace the satalite team with more appropriate personnel.  I suppose that'll be one of Clinton's projects over her eight years.


sig spam anywhere and self-moderated threads on the pol&soc board are for losers.
Spendulus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2926
Merit: 1386



View Profile
December 22, 2015, 06:43:24 PM
 #2880

To quote a former NASA insider "NASA doesn't just lie about some things, they lie about everything".

Perhaps NASA would like to explain how the reflective fly ash particles end up above our heads when the power plants contain and collect them all? It's time to stop denying the chemtrail geoengineering program.

inb4 stanley kubrick admits faking moon landing  Lips sealed  Grin  Cheesy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rR4pf6pp1kQ

#masterpiece
Oh, really?

So what was faked?  Apollo 11?  Apollo 8?  Apollo 13?  The Saturn booster?  The CM?  The LEM?

Pages: « 1 ... 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 [144] 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 ... 230 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!