![]() |
SUBSIM: The Web's #1 resource for all submarine & naval simulations since 1997 |
|
![]() |
#1 |
Soaring
|
![]()
Or was it the other way around...
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...nts_costs.html http://www.ccfsh.org/climate/climate...tish-columbia/ Not the first of its kind. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/02/...the-backstory/ The Greta is not amused. Political and ideological consensus is the death of scientific curiosity. Doubts are no heresy, but tools of enlightenment. And little school girls bunking off school lessons, are no climate experts.
__________________
If you feel nuts, consult an expert. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
In the Brig
![]() |
![]()
http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=9125
A sceptic’s guide to global temperatures Posted on August 29, 2019 by Clive Best Climate change may well turn out to be a benign problem rather than the severe problem or “emergency” it is claimed to be. This will eventually depend on just how much the earth’s climate is warming due to our transient but relatively large increase in atmospheric CO2 levels. This is why it is so important to accurately and impartially measure the earth’s average temperature rise since 1850. It turns out that such a measurement is neither straightforward, independent nor easy. For some climate scientists there sometimes appears to be a slight temptation to exaggerate recent warming, perhaps because their careers and status improve the higher temperatures rise. They are human like the rest of us. Similarly the green energy lobby welcome each scarier temperature increase to push ever more funding for their unproven solutions, never really explaining how they could possibly work better than a rapid expansion in nuclear energy instead... |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Soaring
|
![]()
While I see climate chnage as a reality and humanity as one factor amongst several attributing to it, I am pissed by the IPCC hysteria rousing which gives a very strong impression of that what it really is about is wealth transfer from haves to have-nots and from Western corrupt regimes to third world corrupt regimes, abusing climate as an excuse for in principle inter-state plundering and its legalization.
Reminds me of how health arguments and their sometimes extremely weak foundations serve as a strawman for propagating ideological bio-food demands and vegan food ideology, or artifically reset health definitions for exmaple for blood pressure or cholesterine levels serve as an excuse to boost the sale of according drugs: by defining more healthy people as now "ill" and in need of treatment. When I then read additionally that they maintain a list of hundreds of climate-sceptical scientists who refuse the IPCC "reports" so that science magazinse should use these name lists to know which scientists they shall no more publish, so that these scientists and their data and conclusions remain unheard, then I am really done with it all. The scientific methodology is the most superior tool we have, but the academic every-day-business routine is rotten and corrupted to the very core.
__________________
If you feel nuts, consult an expert. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Lucky Jack
![]() |
![]()
Mann's research has been reproduced a number of times, the end result has been more or less the same each time.
EDIT: Mann's attorney states that the court made no decision either way since it was Ball who asked it to be terminated due to it dragging on and his health being poor. He didn't win a thing and neither was this a blow against Mann's 'Hockey Stick'. Said statement: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EC1R41CW4AAt959.jpg Last edited by Dowly; 09-03-19 at 06:55 AM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Soaring
|
![]()
Has it? It has always been "confirmed" by the same campers, and objecitng data and models are actively being oppressed.
It seems you miss the main implication of all this. The perception and debate is highly biased and is being tuned. The court certainly did not buy Mann's excuses why he refuses to release his raw data. But that would be what science does: rechecking claims, models, theories and data. since Mann has always refused to release his raw data, it cannot be rechecked: it cannot be confirmed or falsified. In other words: from a strictly methodological point of view, Mann's statements are just claims, nothing mre. He would not be the first prominent scientist forging data or theories. There have been quite some highly prolific scandals of this kind in the history of science. As I pointed out, there are very strong financial and economic interests in having only this wanted version of the narraiton told in public, and staying silent on what contradicts the "official" version. The IPCC in my eyes has lost any trustworthiness and credibility, there have eben more scandals about it and dubious figures at its helm than I have kept track of.
__________________
If you feel nuts, consult an expert. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 | |
Lucky Jack
![]() |
![]()
Yes, here's a list of some of them:
http://environmentalforest.blogspot....-for-team.html Quote:
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/pu...ch/MANNETAL98/ |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Soaring
|
![]()
I refer back to my first link.
__________________
If you feel nuts, consult an expert. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
Dipped Squirrel Operative
|
![]()
"The American Thinker"?
I'll spare me reading that.
__________________
>^..^<*)))>{ All generalizations are wrong. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|