Okay, cool. I just wanted to make sure that you knew that most published research findings are false and that claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias.
well here's a study that confirms the Dunning-Kruger effect is real...those who know the least, think they know the most...anti-vaxers, flat earth types, climate deniers https://nationalpost.com/news/canad...-the-least-but-think-they-know-the-most-study
And getting back to the point of this thread...fraud...did you guys see the outcome of that fraud accusation leveled against Karl by Bates? Remember, Bates was the one who at first accused Karl of fraudulently manipulating the NOAA global mean surface temperature dataset. He then accused Karl of deviating from NOAA policy in regards to the review and publication of scientific works. Well, it turns out that not only did Karl not fraudulently manipulate data nor commit any violations of policy, but it was actually Bates who committed all of the wrongdoing that he accused Karl of and then he lied and tried to cover it up. This bombshell was released just last week. https://www.mitre.org/sites/default/files/publications/MITRE-DoC-NOAA-Assessment-Report.pdf
The people in Venice will pay for their trip to Greenland, obviously. Who did you think would pay? Are you daft?
https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Richard_Lindzen.htm You should also compare Lindzen's predictions of the global mean surface temperature with that of the scientific consensus. Hint...Lindzen's predictions suck really bad compared to the consensus.
You mean the tricked up data that the fraudsters use to self-validate?? How many times do they have to be caught before you catch on?? As for Lindzen in that lecture... he's using your numbers... so you can't complain.
What tricked up data are you referring to? Who's been caught? Which numbers? Did you compare Lindzen's predictions with that of the consensus? Which one did better?
How many scientists in the field of climatology has Lindzen convinced? What do scientists in the field of climatology say aboout Linddzen's claims? It's fun and games to listen to some guy dispute a field of science as broad as climatology. But, until we see and fully understand the scientific argument againt Lindzen's ideas we're nowhere.
Watch the lecture. And there are plenty of prominent, decorated scientists who call phooey on your theory - including Nobel Prize winners. Just b/c they don't get air time doesn't mean they're not out there. They don't get air time b/c they speak heresy. Flap your lips to the tune of orthodoxy, and you get coverage.
No, those who get air time are the ones who cause change, because they are right. Einstein is famous, because he trashed much of the world of physics - and he was right. Thousands spouted orthodoxy - and we don't remember their names. Orthodoxy is NOT a good way to go if you plan on being recognized, famous, or get bucks. Einstein isn't famous because he duplicated the work of others or talked "orthodoxy".
While you guys are completely fooled by endlessly shouted mantras, as if yelling loud and often makes something true. Watch the lecture. That's what science is - falsification. Lindzen clearly shows, using the IPCC's own data, that their projections are implausible. Unless you're afraid to watch the lecture. For the indoctrinated, heresy can be hard to hear, especially when it's true.
Global warming is real! We all need to do our bit keep our desktop fans running and turn on the Ac a little higher and leave it on a little longer. #lets fight global warming and help cool the earth together.
I love that quote from Schneider... they have to find "the right balance between being effective, and being honest". LOL... They left being honest by the wayside years ago. Sadly, "scary scenarios" has become the orthodoxy.
I did watch the lecture. The IPCC's own data does not show their projections wrong. In fact, with each passing year their projections are being confirmed. For example, according to Berkeley Earth the Earth has warmed 1.1C since the preindustrial era and is warming at a rate of 0.19C/decade. This puts us on target to hit a transient climate response (TCR) of 2.3C by 2083 when CO2 concentrations hit 560 ppm (a doubling). And since the TCR-to-ECR ratio is about 0.75 that puts the ECR at 3.0C which is right in the middle of the IPCC's range of 1.5C to 4.5C. If you disagree then can you tell us what part of Lindzen's lecture you think shows otherwise?
We should play a game. You find all of the dumb and unprofessional quotes from AGW-advocates and I'll find all the ones from AGW-skeptics. Fair warning...this game is going to be WAY more fun for me than it is for you. You still up for it?
Well, I'll give u that... you certainly like to play games, and understand nothing of science Besides, Schneider's quote wasn't a stupid statement, it was an admission. Poetic justice that he would die while on a plane spewing CO2 into the atmosphere, LOL
I'd be willing to bet my house that you haven't watched the lecture, and you never will. Science has to stand up to falsification, if you can't satisfy that falsification - it's back to the drawing board. Warmists avoid that unpleasantness by never acknowledging the falsification in the first place, lol... Their science is so pristine and beautiful that it needn't be subjected to the tedium of scientific process and proof!!
You'd lose your house then. Lindzen's iris theory has been falsified by observations. Lindzen's predictions of the global mean surface temperature have been falsified by observations. Lindzen's claim that the warming has stopped has been falsified by observations. Anyway, back to the video. What part of the video are you thinking shows that the IPCC's own data shows their projections implausible? Note that Lindzen only presented one slide that came from the IPCC. That was the breakdown of the radiative forcing by mechanism. It did not contain any projections. So what part of the video are you focusing on?
