Everything Climate Change

[Bendit]

Quite plausible. And this phenomena extends also to the political sphere big time where sometimes outright untruths create a distorted view of positions held.

My larger beef is institutional funding with large dollar amts. and keeping it anonymous. This is a fundamentally unethical posture to adopt. While the social media efforts may also be purposefully started in some instances the large scale secret funding of the denial movement is just wrong on so many levels.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...denial-effort/

[Miekenstien]

How scientific misinformation spreads throughout the internet:



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b0cad15e63279d

Quite plausible. And this phenomena extends also to the political sphere big time where sometimes outright untruths create a distorted view of positions held.

My larger beef is institutional funding with large dollar amts. and keeping it anonymous. This is a fundamentally unethical posture to adopt. While the social media efforts may also be purposefully started in some instances the large scale secret funding of the denial movement is just wrong on so many levels.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...denial-effort/

this works both ways

[Bendit]

this works both ways

Please explain.

[Miekenstien]

the idea that like minded people group together to push an agenda. it is never going to be "just the other side of the aisle does this because i/we know the truth"

[Nilanka]

the idea that like minded people group together to push an agenda. it is never going to be "just the other side of the aisle does this because i/we know the truth"

That's the beauty of empirical evidence. It doesn't have an agenda. You can sort through the BS by looking at the collective data.

[SkywalkerAC]

That's the beauty of empirical evidence. It doesn't have an agenda. You can sort through the BS by looking at the collective data.

Exactly. And you see the same issues with some groups of liberal-minded people leading themselves astray, adrift from the science. We can see this with the anti-vax and (much of the) anti-GMO movements, and with health fads and alternative medicines.

[mcHAPPY]

That's the beauty of empirical evidence. It doesn't have an agenda. You can sort through the BS by looking at the collective data.

You mean the empirical evidence that has been adjusted numerous times over the years?

You mean the empirical evidence which today is approximately 50% comprised of fictional data that has been obtained through models (which have never been correct)?



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/eart...ndal-ever.html

[Nilanka]

You mean the empirical evidence that has been adjusted numerous times over the years?

You mean the empirical evidence which today is approximately 50% comprised of fictional data that has been obtained through models (which have never been correct)?



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/eart...ndal-ever.html

Referencing an op-ed by a renowned science denier (Chris Booker), who gives talks at the Heartland Institute. The same guy who doesn't believe asbestos is a health risk. He's not even sold on evolution, lol.

[mcHAPPY]

Referencing an op-ed by a renowned science denier (Chris Booker), who gives talks at the Heartland Institute. The same guy who doesn't believe asbestos is a health risk. He's not even sold on evolution, lol.

Hey Don,

You don't like the presenter but the facts speak for themselves.

But you don't like to discuss facts. Instead you prefer to tarnish the person presenting them and follow the herd.


Bravo indeed.

[Superjudge]

I always wondered.... what is the liberal agenda?

What is the Scientific agenda?

What is the Capitalist conservative agenda?

[Miekenstien]

I always wondered.... what is the liberal agenda?

What is the Scientific agenda?

What is the Capitalist conservative agenda?

1)make everyone a minority on welfare and then the world is peaceful
2)kill god because reason
3)make all minorities slaves so they can have yachts

i think that sums up the agendas

[Superjudge]

Yeah?

Then it would seem that this discussion has become an easy one.

[Nilanka]

Hey Don,

You don't like the presenter but the facts speak for themselves.

But you don't like to discuss facts. Instead you prefer to tarnish the person presenting them and follow the herd.


Bravo indeed.

Don loves facts. Don loves science.

Don hates propaganda pieces, funded by oil companies, resulting from campaigns designed to cast doubt on science.

Seriously, this "debate" is as noteworthy as "if evolution is true, why are there still monkeys"?

[mcHAPPY]

Don loves facts. Don loves science.

Don hates propaganda pieces, funded by oil companies, resulting from campaigns designed to cast doubt on science.

Seriously, this "debate" is as noteworthy as "if evolution is true, why are there still monkeys"?

One of the first examples of these “adjustments” was exposed in 2007 by the statistician Steve McIntyre, when he discovered a paper published in 1987 by James Hansen, the scientist (later turned fanatical climate activist) who for many years ran Giss. Hansen’s original graph showed temperatures in the Arctic as having been much higher around 1940 than at any time since. But as Homewood reveals in his blog post, “Temperature adjustments transform Arctic history”, Giss has turned this upside down. Arctic temperatures from that time have been lowered so much that that they are now dwarfed by those of the past 20 years.

From the link above.

Need your climate adjusted? – call Dr. James Hansen at GISS. Below is a chronology of the destruction and politicization of the US and global temperature record. The Northern Hemisphere used to have a broken hockey stick problem. According to the National Academy Of Sciences in 1975, the hemisphere had cooled 0.7C since the 1930s, and was colder than it was at the turn of century.

The figure below shows Hansen’s remarkable changes to the pre-1975 temperature data. He simply removed that pesky warm period from 1890 to 1940.

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/...-chiropractor/



All sorts of examples of data changes out there. The above is just one.


Of course, I look forward to the inevitable.... "yeah well skeptical science did a post and everything was found to be legit."

It is hilarious that the very people who are being funded billions to show climate change are the same people who are looked to 'correct' or 'disprove' anything to the contrary. It is no different than the police officer who shot a suspect being assigned to investigate the shooting.



But hey, lets keep rolling with the 6000 stations (most of which are in urban areas and distorted by things such as heat absorbed by rooftops and ashphalt) vs previous 12000 data.....oh and the data that can't be found or is not reliable, lets just put in to our models (which have never been proven correct...on anything) and lets make half the data not actual recordings but what our models (with our biased calculations) think it should be.


Baaaaaa.

[Bendit]

Comparing journalists/authors...I offer Naomi Klein....a lecture about her recent book........