Thread: Scientific Fraud

� Video: UN Climate Change Official Says “We Should Make Every Effort” To Depopulate The Planet Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!


Yeah because that's a GREAT idea

NOAA Tampers With Data To Erase The Global Warming 'Hiatus' | The Daily Caller


I know we put out data before and it showed a hiatus....but for serious, we like totally went back over the data and yeah sure we adjusted and tweaked some things and now it looks like we were continuing to warm, but for real I mean this is legitimate sciencey stuff and now Global Warming is worse than ever.....we're being super serial!


......and yet people will STILL buy this horse shit, people won't question having their fucking rights trampled all over because of a fucking hoax because "the world depends on us to change".....this whole thing is asinine!

So according to Bill Nye it's the JOB of the government to redistribute wealth. So he's advocating saving the environment via totalitarian government.....which of course means China has a brilliant flourishing environ.....wait a second

Ive noticed on social media people are using the term global warming less and are going for climate change tag instead which is more just I think.

Lyle, which part of the model do you believe to be the cause of the hoax issues?

Nobel-winning physicist who backed Obama: Prez 'dead wrong' on global warming - Washington Times





.....but you know people will be out killing this guy's character in no time!

Originally Posted by killersheep

Lyle, which part of the model do you believe to be the cause of the hoax issues?

Well which models are the right ones for starters? Is it the first edition or the revision or the revision of the revision? Do you not question when "scientists" go back and change the data....to me that's not science, that's moving the goalposts in order to help your hypothesis.

Why would someone do that? Grant money....funding....if there is no problem, then nobody needs to be paid to solve the problem, and that is a problem for the people who depend on this money. Now people will of course say "oil companies, big gas, those guys have money invested in proving this wrong, what about them" ....how's it any different from the government trying to prove it right? Do you think the government has our best interests at heart on this issue?

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Originally Posted by killersheep

Lyle, which part of the model do you believe to be the cause of the hoax issues?

Well which models are the right ones for starters? Is it the first edition or the revision or the revision of the revision? Do you not question when "scientists" go back and change the data....to me that's not science, that's moving the goalposts in order to help your hypothesis.

Why would someone do that? Grant money....funding....if there is no problem, then nobody needs to be paid to solve the problem, and that is a problem for the people who depend on this money. Now people will of course say "oil companies, big gas, those guys have money invested in proving this wrong, what about them" ....how's it any different from the government trying to prove it right? Do you think the government has our best interests at heart on this issue?

Science is self correcting as more data becomes more available and in most cases just more accessible. Yes there have been cases of intentional bad data being entered, this is the case in anything that humans are involved in.

As for specific models, let's break it down...........do you believe the greenhouse effect is quantifiable as a mathematical model?

Start here for current views
NASA Estimates 'Liquid Assets' of World's Water Budget | NASA

Scientists attempt to correct science to get more accurate information...or at least they should, but there's ample reason to believe otherwise. The emails from East Anglia should have at least raised some eyebrows, or at the very least had everyone calling for more oversight into these climate issues. Those at East Anglia can hardly be a one off, they can not be the ONLY "scientists" looking for more funding rather than legitimate data but even to pose that question seems to shake those who buy into Anthropogenic Global Climate Change to the very core that they "...just can't even" and end any and all debates.


Greenhouse gas effect as a quantifiable model? Well we can get rough estimates of how much of what kinds of gases are in the atmosphere but it won't be absolute.




Before Global Warming came about there was great concern over Global Cooling and The Population Bomb and so on....there's a part of "science" that is fatalistic, agenda driven, and worshiped as religion and Anthropogenic Climate Change IS JUST THAT...it's a catch all #1, if it rains too much it's the reason, if it rains too little it's the reason, if it snows, if it doesn't snow, if there's a hurricane, if there are no hurricanes, if there's tornadoes or not etc Anthropogenic Climate Change is the cause and frankly I've been sick as fuck of it for a long time and I'll question the absolute Hell out of it up until there is DIRECT EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that proves me wrong. We're not there yet, and we won't ever get there.

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Scientists attempt to correct science to get more accurate information...or at least they should, but there's ample reason to believe otherwise. The emails from East Anglia should have at least raised some eyebrows, or at the very least had everyone calling for more oversight into these climate issues. Those at East Anglia can hardly be a one off, they can not be the ONLY "scientists" looking for more funding rather than legitimate data but even to pose that question seems to shake those who buy into Anthropogenic Global Climate Change to the very core that they "...just can't even" and end any and all debates.


Greenhouse gas effect as a quantifiable model? Well we can get rough estimates of how much of what kinds of gases are in the atmosphere but it won't be absolute.




Before Global Warming came about there was great concern over Global Cooling and The Population Bomb and so on....there's a part of "science" that is fatalistic, agenda driven, and worshiped as religion and Anthropogenic Climate Change IS JUST THAT...it's a catch all #1, if it rains too much it's the reason, if it rains too little it's the reason, if it snows, if it doesn't snow, if there's a hurricane, if there are no hurricanes, if there's tornadoes or not etc Anthropogenic Climate Change is the cause and frankly I've been sick as fuck of it for a long time and I'll question the absolute Hell out of it up u[B]ntil there is DIRECT EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that proves me wrong. We're not there yet, and we won't ever get there.

Great step one you acknowledge Greenhouse effects are a thing that can be at least approximated by mathematical models (there are no absolutes in real life sorry, that is the domain of religions)

Step two, do you acknowledge that the sun emits an amount solar radiation on the earth that provides energy in the form of heat?

Originally Posted by killersheep

Great step one you acknowledge Greenhouse effects are a thing that can be at least approximated by mathematical models (there are no absolutes in real life sorry, that is the domain of religions)

Step two, do you acknowledge that the sun emits an amount solar radiation on the earth that provides energy in the form of heat?

Oh ffs....


Yes.....now please hurry up and respond with your next question(s) so I can rebut the conclusion you're going to try and steer me towards

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Originally Posted by killersheep

Great step one you acknowledge Greenhouse effects are a thing that can be at least approximated by mathematical models (there are no absolutes in real life sorry, that is the domain of religions)

Step two, do you acknowledge that the sun emits an amount solar radiation on the earth that provides energy in the form of heat?

Oh ffs....


Yes.....now please hurry up and respond with your next question(s) so I can rebut the conclusion you're going to try and steer me towards

I'm waiting for you to tell me which part of the model you disagree with. You keep talking around my question. Therefore, I have to go one step at a time.

Step two, do you acknowledge that the sun emits an amount solar radiation on the earth that provides energy in the form of heat?

Originally Posted by killersheep

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Originally Posted by killersheep

Great step one you acknowledge Greenhouse effects are a thing that can be at least approximated by mathematical models (there are no absolutes in real life sorry, that is the domain of religions)

Step two, do you acknowledge that the sun emits an amount solar radiation on the earth that provides energy in the form of heat?

Oh ffs....


Yes.....now please hurry up and respond with your next question(s) so I can rebut the conclusion you're going to try and steer me towards

I'm waiting for you to tell me which part of the model you disagree with. You keep talking around my question. Therefore, I have to go one step at a time.

Step two, do you acknowledge that the sun emits an amount solar radiation on the earth that provides energy in the form of heat?

Interesting question.
Not sure how far off track I'm taking you when asking this: Do you know much about that dude named Tesla from the early 1900's? Does his work in any fashion coincide to the discussion you are bringing here?
if not, my bad, I'll sit back & learn!

Originally Posted by killersheep

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Originally Posted by killersheep

Great step one you acknowledge Greenhouse effects are a thing that can be at least approximated by mathematical models (there are no absolutes in real life sorry, that is the domain of religions)

Step two, do you acknowledge that the sun emits an amount solar radiation on the earth that provides energy in the form of heat?

Oh ffs....


Yes.....now please hurry up and respond with your next question(s) so I can rebut the conclusion you're going to try and steer me towards

I'm waiting for you to tell me which part of the model you disagree with. You keep talking around my question. Therefore, I have to go one step at a time.

Step two, do you acknowledge that the sun emits an amount solar radiation on the earth that provides energy in the form of heat?

Well we'll get to the partS I disagree with....but I'll continue to play along in hopes that the payoff will be good.

Already answered that question with a simple YES.....and I fail to see how I'm talking around the question.

So for review...
Question 1: Yes
Question 2: Yes

Next question

Claim of UK's 'Hottest Day on Record' Demolished By The Facts - Breitbart

and also....

'Mini ice age' coming in next fifteen years, new model of the Sun's cycle shows - Climate Change - Environment - The Independent


Global Warming hysteria followed by something suggesting Global Cooling might be next in store for us as the SUN....the what? The NOT MAN MADE STAR WE CALL THE SUN has a cycle change.