1230 Consecutive Months Of NOAA Increasingly Upwards Adjustments In Temperature

They have established a precedent where they can keep temperatures “above normal” forever, and establish a new record any time they feel like it – simply by continuing their current scheme of cheating and lying.

Perhaps Paul Ryan will become President of the US Senate and will be in a position to terminate the criminals in charge of the US temperature record.


About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

36 Responses to 1230 Consecutive Months Of NOAA Increasingly Upwards Adjustments In Temperature

  1. Robert of Ottawa says:

    The fraud is breathtaking in its audacity and scope.

  2. GevenStoddard says:

    You think Romney has a snowball’s chance in hell of winning the election? Right now he’s at a 20% chance of winning. Ryan will not be VP anytime soon, that’s for sure.

    • suyts says:

      Lol, watch his numbers jump next week.

      • GevenStoddard says:

        His numbers are going to either remain the same or sink. Ryan’s plans are too controversial and both he and Romney will be destroyed in debates. One of the biggest issues, the ACA, will be brought up and explode in Romney’s face because ‘Obamacare’ was originally ‘Romneycare’. Also, once it gets out that Ryan wanted to destroy medicare he’ll likely lose a lot of the senior vote.

        Romney needs at least 4 swing states to win. The best odds he had at picking one up was Ohio, and if he chose Portman he’d have that chance. As of now, he won’t get Ohio, and he probably won’t get any swing states.

        Obama has the home field advantage. He’s got a good track record. He was able to get things passed. He was able to get Bin Laden. The voters will remember that at the polls. Romney doesn’t stand a chance at this point. Watch Obama walk away with 300-330 electoral votes.

        • Obama barely beat a mumbling bumbling old man in the last round of debates. This time he faces a very articulate challenger and carries the albatross of a catastrophic four years and the fact that everyone knows know that he is a liar. He will be lucky to crawl off the debate floor.

      • GevenStoddard says:

        Only in your mind. Obama walked away with 370 electoral votes and picked up states that weren’t expected to go blue. McCains numbers tanked after he picked Palin, and tanked further after the debates.

        History disagrees with you.

      • GevenStoddard says:

        That’s a really stupid argument, SG. Most of the counties in this country have few people in them. We don’t have many counties with more than 100,000 or 1,000,000 people, so naturally they will be weighted. Plus urbanized areas are more likely to vote D.

        The electoral college is weighted by the number of people in the state, not the average size of the counties.

        It is YOU who doesn’t know how the electoral college works, apparently.

        • The only thing that is stupid here is you. Obama is repeating the 1980 Carter election strategy of fear, and it will collapse in the weeks before the election. No one wants to be scared for four more years.

    • Robert Austin says:

      Who is GevenStoddard, stevengoddard’s Bizarro doppelganger?

    • GevenStoddard says:

      There are more people in NYC than there are in my state, and it’s not a small state. By your logic their votes should count less?

      Each person who can vote gets one vote. Each state gets a share of the electoral college votes by how many people are in that state. Since NY, TX, and CA have the most people, they will have more electoral college votes. Even in TX, most of the population is in and around the very large cities that are in the state like San Antonio, Austin, Dallas, Houston, and Fort Worth.

      By your logic since there are so many rural/large/unpopulated counties out west than they should get more electoral votes?

      I’m sure also if you dug around long enough you could find out that 90% of Obama/Mccain voters were right handed too, but it’s irrelevant.

    • GevenStoddard says:

      No he isn’t. He’s running on a positive message of hope rather than fear. The only people running on fear are the GOP. Wasn’t it Ryan today who claimed that another 4 years would be awful and terrible? Wasn’t he scaring people into voting for him because if they didn’t they’d lose all their freedoms and god powers and whatnots?

      Wasn’t it Bush in 2004 who ran on a campaign of fear, too? Fear of the ‘terrists’? What about McCain in 2008? He ran on a campain of fear, too.

      You’re talking about the GOP playbook – and whether you like it or not Obama got most of the popular vote in 2008 and most of the electoral college votes.

      • Bullshit His message is that Romney is going to ship your job overseas.

        Obama had four years of the anti-midas touch and left a massive mess of debt unemployment and division.

      • GevenStoddard says:

        He already has shipped jobs overseas. Romney is just another fat cat who is going to take more money and trickle it up.

        As far as the unemployment – it’s improving. My IRA can reflect that. The DOW bounced back to 13,000. And if you don’t like the debts, then why aren’t you putting the blame where it needs to be – the Bush tax cuts and two foreign wars?

        Thanks for changing the subject though. Bottom line (and back to the original point), Romney has a horrible chance right now and it’ll get even worse. Ryan won’t be enough for him to get Wisconsin – and Wisconsin isn’t a swing state. It’s solidly blue right now. He needed Ohio to even remotely have a chance, and he blew his chance to grab it.

        • Bain Capital has financed businesses which employ many thousands of Americans, compared to Obama’s companies which employ exactly zero people.

          Unemployment has more than doubled since the Dems took control of Congress in 2007.

      • GevenStoddard says:

        But the economic recovery plan and the bank bailouts and the auto bailouts didn’t save jobs or allow new jobs to be created? Your logic is strange.

        Romney used tax havens. Romney had his 77,000 dollar horse as a tax write off. If you seriously think he cares about the middle class, then you’re sadly mistaken.

        Back to the original point – Ryan and Romney do not have the math/numbers to win the election. Period.

      • GevenStoddard says:

        So you said he didn’t create any jobs, then you say it does create jobs. Doublespeak much?

    • GevenStoddard says:

      Besides, if you don’t like how the electoral college works and want to go on the popular vote (which is unconstitutional) then Gore would have won in 2000.

      You can’t have it both ways.

  3. Andy DC says:

    It is interesting that Obama may be benefiting from the bad economy. There are then more people desperate for Government assistance. Sad but true.

    • GevenStoddard says:

      Well we let the richest 1% do whatever they wanted and that didn’t help anything. We deregulated the banks in the late 90s and look where it got us. The banks gave us the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. The fault was all with the banks. It’s obvious that what we’ve been doing over the last 30 years has not helped the middle class, and has only taken more money from the low and middle classes to give to the top. Middle class wages versus inflation have been stagnant, yet the top 1 and 10% of all income earners have increased. If the economy has been growing, then it means with a finite amount of money at any one point in time, more and more money has been going to the top. The math simply does not allow everyone to be millionaires, or even make 100,000 dollars a year.

      Back to the topic at hand, let’s let the math do the talking:

      Obama has a 71% chance of winning the election and is forecasted to get 301 electoral points. A good many simulations have him winning about 330 depending on one or two swing states. The larger swing states such as Ohio, Florida and Virginia are not going to be won by Romney. Romney simply doesn’t have the numbers to win the election.

      • The economy was doing great until Nancy, Harry and Barry took control of Congress in 2007. Unemployment was 4.7% when the Dems took over – promising “change.”

      • GevenStoddard says:

        No it wasn’t, SG. The Banking Industry was corrupt long before 2007. We didn’t find out about it completely until 2008. Also, the markets and economy tanked pretty badly post 9/11 in 2001.

        • Yea, we found out about it in September 2008 right after McCain took the lead and the big Obama multi-trillion payola was threatened.

          Citibank reported a profit in December 2008, because they were sooooo…. desperate.

      • GevenStoddard says:

        One we realized the economy was tanking, that’s when McCain’s numbers tanked. People didn’t trust the GOP with our economy after what they did over the last 8 years – and they were right.

  4. slimething says:

    What was it the GOP did again? I must have asked this question on 20 different forums and blogs. The most common reply is “Bush tax cuts for the rich”, but how did that cause the crash? I looked at the numbers and revenue increased to the Treasury the most in any three year period after the tax cuts went into effect.

    So Geven, I really want to know and maybe you can be precise; what exactly was the GOP policy that brought us to the 2008 housing bubble crash? What caused it? Wasn’t it Bill Clinton that accelerated the ‘Community Reinvestment Act’ which in turn resulted in overvalued real estate? Why yes, I believe it was.

    BTW, Peter Schiff accurately predicted the crash in 2006.

    Congress doesn’t like him very much

  5. slimething says:

    Hearing entitled “Oversight of Federal Housing Administration’s Multifamily Insurance Programs”. Peter Schiff speaks at 50:00, 1:07:00, 1:09:35, 1:36:17, 1:46:00, 1:50:00.

  6. Shooter says:

    I find this funny because NOAA’s own satellites disagree with them.

  7. gator69 says:

    Slimething says…

    “Wasn’t it Bill Clinton that accelerated the ‘Community Reinvestment Act’ which in turn resulted in overvalued real estate?”

    Bingo! The banks had a gun held to their heads by congress, they were told to make bad loans to risky debtors, something banks would never do on their own. As a matter of survival, banks found a way to make this idiotic scheme work, for a while.

    For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, government meddling in private finance trying to create ‘fairness’ (not found in nature) caused this mess. This is why I am a small government Libertarian.

    • GevenStoddard says:

      Not exactly. The repeal of the Glass-Steagall act was very bad, but congress didn’t force banks to make bad loans. The banks did this themselves:


      Why? Because they felt housing prices would always rise, and so it wasn’t a risk. They felt that they could always foreclose and make more money. When housing prices started to tank, that’s when the fraud committed by the banks became evident.

      If you think the banks were innocent in all of that, then you are gullible:

      • gator69 says:

        Bullcrap! The banks were told by congress, that if they did not make those risky loans, they would be put out of business. Period. The banks had no choice but to develop a product, or go out of business. Obviously you do not work in the finance industry, or any field science.

        Spin some more…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s