Scientific Fraud

[El Kabong]

Now that Hurricane Matthew is making landfall in Florida (1st major hurricane hitting the US in 11 years) the Global Warming Alarmists are out en masse.

Hillary Clinton


The sincerity with which she speaks is uncanny...."2015 was the hottest year on record (dramatic pause) and the science is clear"


Barack Obama has made it known that the Syrian Civil War wasn't caused by Assad being a bad guy...it was Anthropogenic Global Warming caused droughts


According to Al Gore we're already past the point of no return so why even listen to him anymore?


But no there's a hurricane so it MUST be the fault of humanity .....fucking ridiculous

[TitoFan]

Quit picking the Hillary Clintons and the Al Gores as the poster child for Climate Change!

Hillary and Al together know as much about climate science as my next door neighbor's dog.

[El Kabong]

Quit picking the Hillary Clintons and the Al Gores as the poster child for Climate Change!

Hillary and Al together know as much about climate science as my next door neighbor's dog.

If they are bringing it up for political gain I'm going to hammer them with it.

Remember when hurricanes were just "weather"?

[TitoFan]

Quit picking the Hillary Clintons and the Al Gores as the poster child for Climate Change!

Hillary and Al together know as much about climate science as my next door neighbor's dog.

If they are bringing it up for political gain I'm going to hammer them with it.

Remember when hurricanes were just "weather"?

Well they do deserve it (the hammering). It's too bad tho that like with any other issue, the sensible folks get obscured by these morons who nothing about the subject, but use it as a political football. All it does is polarize people and detract attention to those who are really serious and really knowledgeable.

[El Kabong]

"Subject: Re: Energy infrastructure fact sheet & KXL oped

Recirculating both the fact sheet and op-ed reflecting edits and comments from Jake, Nikki, and Joel. In answer to research: changed 20 to 40, and Trevor can provide calculations based on EIA data, if reporters need it, on the Mexico/Canada trade point. It isn't written up neatly in one place online, unfortunately. Joel, we pumped up the climate impacts but in discussing with Jake decided we do still need to address why she's making her position known, when she has previously said she will wait for the President to make a decision. Added a line about wanting to let voters know where she stands, and added a more expansive graf about making the US the leader in fighting climate change and becoming a clean energy superpower. Nipped and tucked elsewhere to keep the word count down. Knowing we are still working out rollout timing - comms, policy, political, do you clear these to go forward to the book? Thanks all."


https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/8440


Seems legit

[bcollins]

Should We Be Having Kids In The Age Of Climate Change? : NPR


SCIENCE!

What do you call a person who doesn't have the first inkling about science, yet disputes claims made by professional scientists using "facts" mostly gleaned from non-scientific media sources (who also know little about science, in general), quotes from politicians (and we all know the average intelligence level of that crew, now don't we?), and anti-science propaganda sources?

This may or may not be a rhetorical question. It's been over a year (close to two? I've been busy...) since I challenged Lyle to do a basic, high school level regression analysis based on publicly available data. I don't think he understand linear regression (which is not hard), yet he certainly has a greater understanding of something as complex as climatology than world experts in the field.

That's like me getting on here and claiming that I know more about boxing than everyone in the Hall of Fame. It's a joke.

Yep, complex dynamical systems and the numerical and computational methods needed to analyze them are no problem for Lyle, especially since he avoids anything even vaguely resembling something of substance. Instead the response we typically get is a flood of questionable, clearly biased links to the types of sources mentioned earlier along with copious amounts of eye-rolling at the ignorance of everyone who doesn't agree with him. Not once has he provided anything even resembling a scientific counter-argument - that I would respect, and pay attention to. Instead, we get more propaganda and posturing.

Simple linear regression. The freshman in my college algebra classes can roll into class so hungover they don't know their name and still do a linear regression. My 2-year old can probably do one. My wife, who hates math, can do one. I can teach a freaking monkey to do one.

But Lyle, who understands climate science (and the systems of stochastic partial differential equations used in the models) better than Ph.D.s in the field, can't.

Hmm.

Seems legit.

[walrus]

It doesn't matter half of everything is fake and all of what you see is false. It's all moot

[El Kabong]

Should We Be Having Kids In The Age Of Climate Change? : NPR


SCIENCE!

What do you call a person who doesn't have the first inkling about science, yet disputes claims made by professional scientists using "facts" mostly gleaned from non-scientific media sources (who also know little about science, in general), quotes from politicians (and we all know the average intelligence level of that crew, now don't we?), and anti-science propaganda sources?

This may or may not be a rhetorical question. It's been over a year (close to two? I've been busy...) since I challenged Lyle to do a basic, high school level regression analysis based on publicly available data. I don't think he understand linear regression (which is not hard), yet he certainly has a greater understanding of something as complex as climatology than world experts in the field.

That's like me getting on here and claiming that I know more about boxing than everyone in the Hall of Fame. It's a joke.

Yep, complex dynamical systems and the numerical and computational methods needed to analyze them are no problem for Lyle, especially since he avoids anything even vaguely resembling something of substance. Instead the response we typically get is a flood of questionable, clearly biased links to the types of sources mentioned earlier along with copious amounts of eye-rolling at the ignorance of everyone who doesn't agree with him. Not once has he provided anything even resembling a scientific counter-argument - that I would respect, and pay attention to. Instead, we get more propaganda and posturing.

Simple linear regression. The freshman in my college algebra classes can roll into class so hungover they don't know their name and still do a linear regression. My 2-year old can probably do one. My wife, who hates math, can do one. I can teach a freaking monkey to do one.

But Lyle, who understands climate science (and the systems of stochastic partial differential equations used in the models) better than Ph.D.s in the field, can't.

Hmm.

Seems legit.

Honey...if Anthropogenic Climate Change was real the data wouldn't have to be fudged. Again it's been uncovered that the data IS fudged and here you are "you don't understand science!" How many times must that happen in order for you to understand?

But nah, ooooh hey WE humans made Hurricane Matthew ooooh scary, let's all bow to the great Climate God and repent for our sins.

Fuck right off

[El Kabong]

Post on substance bcollins go ahead....sort your data out, make sure it's catastrophic enough and tell us we're all doomed unless we repent.

Tell me that carbon offsets are different than paying Indulgences.

Tell me the seas will rise and we'll have more hurricanes.


Or use some graphs and charts...and hey who cares if you fake the data, you obviously don't mind.....SCIENCE! !!! It's fake it til you make it these days...sad.

[El Kabong]

The fact that MR SCIENCE bcollins can read "we changed 20 to 40" and "we pumped up the data" and STILL have the fucking gall to try and lecture on the "science" of Anthropogenic Climate Change....it's laughable.

Climate change is a joke and sir YOU are a joke.

Winter will soon be here and if it's mild CLIMATE CHANGE and if we get lots of snow CLIMATE CHANGE and if the sun rises tomorrow CLIMATE CHANGE.


Let me ask you directly, bcollins....what is the PERFECT climate? Because if us humans are negatively impacting things then certainly there must be a baseline of how things SHOULD be. So what is it?

[p4pking]

He's not the one coming across as a joke here.

[El Kabong]

He's not the one coming across as a joke here.

Alright p4pking, buy into Anthropogenic Climate Change despite knowing that the "scientific numbers" are changed on a whim.

That seems like the wisest idea.

[p4pking]

He's not the one coming across as a joke here.

Alright p4pking, buy into Anthropogenic Climate Change despite knowing that the "scientific numbers" are changed on a whim.

That seems like the wisest idea.

I'm not "buying" into anything. I'm not an ideologue, but I'm also not scientifically literate and therefore can't argue with, much less ridicule, people who are in good faith. I don't doubt there are countless examples of skewed numbers to support political beliefs or agendas, but it also seems like there is somewhat of a consensus in the scientific community which doesn't support your stance, which seems to be based on the same things. Asserting that the majority of scientists working in the field are more or less shills, without understanding the subject matter nearly enough to form your own opinion, isn't exactly the wisest idea either, surely?

[TitoFan]

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/20...achenbach-text


I posted a while back on this thread about a great article that came out in NG about climate deniers. This may have been it. It all goes back to extremist points of view. Climate deniers, no matter how solid the research is, or how good the numbers are, can always fall back on the catch-all excuse that everything's fake.... everything's fudged. There's a conspiracy against industry... against good ol' progress. No study will ever be good enough or real enough. On the other hand, there's no shortage of annoying doomsdayers, with whom a 10- minute conversation would be enough for anyone to want to slit their own wrists. Extremists... people with agendas and blinders on.... those are the worst types of people to have involved in any kind of argument. They unwittingly make the strongest cases for the opposite side.

It's a circus, I tell ya.

[El Kabong]

He's not the one coming across as a joke here.

Alright p4pking, buy into Anthropogenic Climate Change despite knowing that the "scientific numbers" are changed on a whim.

That seems like the wisest idea.

I'm not "buying" into anything. I'm not an ideologue, but I'm also not scientifically literate and therefore can't argue with, much less ridicule, people who are in good faith. I don't doubt there are countless examples of skewed numbers to support political beliefs or agendas, but it also seems like there is somewhat of a consensus in the scientific community which doesn't support your stance, which seems to be based on the same things. Asserting that the majority of scientists working in the field are more or less shills, without understanding the subject matter nearly enough to form your own opinion, isn't exactly the wisest idea either, surely?

Yup that's right, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain and listen to the great and powerful Oz.