Scientific Fraud

[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 until there is DIRECT EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that proves me wrong. We're not there yet, and we won't ever get there.

[killersheep]

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?

[El Kabong]

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

[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?

[SlimTrae]

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!

[El Kabong]

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

[El Kabong]

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.

[TitoFan]

Although a few months old (March 2015), there is an interesting article on that edition of National Geographic magazine on science, called "The War on Science". It made for very interesting reading, and of course I thought a lot about this particular thread while reading the article. (Yes... I read the entire article and found it very interesting). The basic thread of the article is about today's skepticism about scientific theories and studies. Of course, this skepticism has always existed in some form or another throughout time... but as the article states... with the advent of the Internet, Google, and the smorgasbord of information now available to everyone... it seems more prevalent now.

I found the article to be well-written, without a huge slant one way or another. It's basically designed to make one think about things in a more objective, less critical manner.

Unless of course, it's just a massive conspiracy and undertaking by the scientific community to attack the skeptics.