NASA in Shock New Controversy: Two Global Warming Reasons Why

NASA covered up for forty years proof that the greenhouse gas theory was bogus. But even worse, did the U.S. space agency fudge its numbers on Earth’s energy budget to cover up the facts?  

 NASA: Hiding the Decline of the Greenhouse Gas Theory

Forty years ago the space agency, NASA, proved there was no such thing as a greenhouse gas effect because the ‘blackbody’ numbers supporting the theory didn’t add up in a 3-dimensional universe:

" During lunar day, the lunar regolith absorbs the radiation from the sun and transports it inward and is stored in a layer approximately 50cm thick….in contrast with a precipitous drop in temperature if it was a simple black body, the regolith then proceeds to transport the stored heat back onto the surface, thus warming it up significantly over the black body approximation…"

Thus, the ‘blackbody approximations' were proven to be as useful as a chocolate space helmet; the guesswork of using the Stefan-Boltzmann equations underpinning the man-made global warming theory was long ago debunked. If NASA had made known that Stefan-Boltzmann's numbers were an irrelevant red-herring then the taxpayers of the world would have been spared the $50 billion wasted on global warming research; because it would have removed the only credible scientific basis to support the theory that human emissions of carbon dioxide changed Earth’s climate.

But, until May 24, 2010 these facts remained swept under the carpet. For the Apollo missions NASA had successfully devised new calculations to safely put astronauts on the Moon-based on actual measured temperatures of the lunar surface. But no one appears to have told government climatologists who, to this day, insist their junk science is 'settled' based on their bogus ‘blackbody’ guesswork.

NASA’s Confusion over Earth’s Energy Budget

 But it gets worse: compounding such disarray, NASA, now apparently acting more like a politicized mouthpiece for a socialist one world government, cannot even provide consistent numbers on Earth’s actual energy budget.


Thanks to further discussion with scientist, Alan Siddons, a co-author of the paper, ‘A Greenhouse Effect on the Moon,’ it appears I inadvertently stumbled on a NASA graph that shows the U.S. space agency is unable to tally up the numbers on the supposed greenhouse gas "backradiation." Why would this be?


In its graphic representation of the energy budget of the Earth the agency has conspicuously contradicted itself in its depiction of back-radiation based on its various graphs on Earth's radiation budget.

As Siddons sagely advised me, "This opens the question as to WHICH budget NASA actually endorses, because the one you show is consistent with physics: 70 units of sunlight go in, 70 units of infrared go out, and there’s no back-flow of some ridiculous other magnitude. Interesting."


Climate Sceptic Scientists’ Growing Confidence


Thanks to Siddons and his co-authors of ‘A Greenhouse Effect on the Moon,’ the world now has scientific evidence to show the greenhouse gas theory (GHG) was junk all along.

As the truth now spreads, an increasing number of scientists refute the greenhouse gas theory, many have been prompted by the shocking revelations since the Climategate scandal. The public have also grown more aware of how a clique of government climatologists were deliberately ‘hiding the decline’ in the reliability of their proxy temperature data all along.

But NASA’s lunar temperature readings prove that behind that smoke was real fire. Some experts now boldly go so far as to say the entire global warming theory contravenes the established laws of physics.


How NASA responds to these astonishing revelations may well tell us how politicized the American space agency really is.

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

One response to “NASA in Shock New Controversy: Two Global Warming Reasons Why

  1. Существует ли ответ, что происходит с экосистемой планеты?
    Происходит глобальное потепление или похолодание? Какие факторы могут влиять на этот процесс и как изменить климат в положительную для Человека сторону?
    Что происходит с пустынями,засухами,снегопадами, сильными дождями в отдельных регионах, ледниками, атмосферой,течениями?Каков механизм образования гигантских волн в океане?Каков механизм образования торнадо,смерчей,потоков воздуха? Как повлиять на происходящие процессы?
    От каких факторов зависит погода и как управлять погодой?
    Почему официальная наука не может дать однозначный ответ о прошлом и даже ближайшем будущем?
    Is there an answer, what happens to the ecosystem of the planet?
    Going global warming or cooling? What factors can influence this process and how to change the climate in a positive direction for Man?
    What happens to the deserts, drought, snow, heavy rains in some regions, glaciers, atmosphere, currents? What is the mechanism for the formation of giant waves in the ocean? What is the mechanism of formation of a tornado, tornadoes, the air flow? How to influence the processes?
    What factors depends on the weather and how to control the weather?
    Why is the official science can not give a definite answer about the past and even the near future?

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s