Global warming err Climate change HOAX

[row_33]

30 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

Tucker Carlson responds to a leaked interview with Rutger Bregman:

 

"There is some profanity, and I apologize for that. On the other hand, it was genuinely heartfelt. I meant it with total sincerity."

 

good to have some truth for a change from the media

 

[B-Man]

CLAIM: Heat Records Huge Data Manipulation... 

 

 

.

[DC Tom]

1 minute ago, B-Man said:

CLAIM: Heat Records Huge Data Manipulation... 

 

 

.

 

Point of note: scientific data is ALWAYS manipulated.  It has to be, to sort "signal" from "noise."  The question shouldn't be "Is this data manipulated?" but "Is this data PROPERLY manipulated?"

[row_33]

6 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Point of note: scientific data is ALWAYS manipulated.  It has to be, to sort "signal" from "noise."  The question shouldn't be "Is this data manipulated?" but "Is this data PROPERLY manipulated?"

 

The scientist sets the parameters and definitions, always suitable for the findings to work out

 

the hilarity is the left says science is another dominant-party construct then tries to sell global warming as perfect and settled fact 

 

 

[Nanker]

 

That's a whole lot of campfires the Neanderthals must have made to melt all that ice.

 

[DC Tom]

21 minutes ago, row_33 said:

 

The scientist sets the parameters and definitions, always suitable for the findings to work out

 

 

The scientist then publishes them, for others to reproduce and prove or disprove.  The problem with Global Warming - again - is that those parameters are forbidden from being disproven.  It's why - again - Global Warming is religion, not science, because the concept of "falsifiability" has been eliminated from the methodology.

 

Which, again, is why the proper question isn't "Is the data manipulated?"  Manipulating the data is scientific.  So yes, it is.  But if you can't ask if it's being properly manipulated, and hypothesize and test that it's being improperly manipulated, then the theory is unscientific.  

[DC Tom]

 

[Gary M]

On 2/21/2019 at 5:15 PM, Nanker said:

 

That's a whole lot of campfires the Neanderthals must have made to melt all that ice.

 

 

Maybe woolly mammoth farts contributed?

[Foxx]

8 minutes ago, Gary M said:

 

Maybe woolly mammoth farts contributed?

why do you think they're extinct now?

[bilzfancy]

21 minutes ago, Foxx said:

why do you think they're extinct now?

Saw a program last night that scientists are using mammoth DNA and try to bring them back

[/dev/null]

2 hours ago, bilzfancy said:

Saw a program last night that scientists are using mammoth DNA and try to bring them back

That's alot of DNA

[DC Tom]

2 hours ago, bilzfancy said:

Saw a program last night that scientists are using mammoth DNA and try to bring them back

 

That'll be interesting, considering their internal microbiome likely can't be duplicated.

[bilzfancy]

Just now, DC Tom said:

 

That'll be interesting, considering their internal microbiome likely can't be duplicated.

The mammoth DNA they are using came from one that was pretty much intact as it was dug up from permafrost and what ever strands it might be missing they can fill with a strand from an elephant, it was pretty interesting, they believe it can be done in the next year or 2

[Nanker]

They’d probably have to do several generations that way, continuing to add back more mammoth DNA each time if they can. 

This reminds me somewhat of when people tried crossing the Bison with cows to get “Beefalo.”  It took a long time but eventually was successful. 

 

Elephants are incredible social animals and it’s hard to see how an elephant cow would treat a genetic mutant even if she gave birth to it. Maybe if her name isn’t Cuomo the little mammoth would stand a chance.

 

[Buffalo_Gal]

22 minutes ago, bilzfancy said:

The mammoth DNA they are using came from one that was pretty much intact as it was dug up from permafrost and what ever strands it might be missing they can fill with a strand from an elephant, it was pretty interesting, they believe it can be done in the next year or 2

Sounds like a Jurassic Park movie waiting to happen.

[IDBillzFan]

1 hour ago, bilzfancy said:

The mammoth DNA they are using came from one that was pretty much intact as it was dug up from permafrost and what ever strands it might be missing they can fill with a strand from an elephant, it was pretty interesting, they believe it can be done in the next year or 2

 

Provided they don't send Marty Feldman to pick up the elephant DNA.

 

"So, that DNA you got. That wasn't from an elephant, was it..."

 

"No."

 

"And who's was it...?"

 

"You won't be angry?"

 

"I will NOT be angry."

[TH3]

https://apple.news/AdzWCLKmzTe6YC6ZVoo57PA

[B-Man]

2 hours ago, TH3 said:

https://apple.news/AdzWCLKmzTe6YC6ZVoo57PA

 

 

Oh well, as long as they have reached the doubleplusgood standard  ..........................okay then

 

?

 

 

 

[KRC]

13 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

 

Oh well, as long as they have reached the doubleplusgood standard  ..........................okay then

 

?

 

 

 

 

From the article "You may see a certain fingerprint that indicates human influence, but that the actual intensity of the influence is minor (as our satellite data indicate)." Looks like meeting a "Gold Standard" there.

 

I am going to wait for it to upgrade to platinum.

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

Always worth revisiting -

 

Michael Crichton on "Consensus Science", Global Warming (and aliens!), 2003:

 

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. 

In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.

 

In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let's review a few cases.

 

In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth. One woman in six died of this fever.

 

In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no.

 

In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no.

 

In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent "skeptics" around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.

 

(snip)

 

And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy. The list of consensus errors goes on and on.

 

Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough.

 

Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.

 

(snip)

 

The deterioration of the American media is dire loss for our country. When distinguished institutions like the New York Times can no longer differentiate between factual content and editorial opinion, but rather mix both freely on their front page, then who will hold anyone to a higher standard?

 

And so, in this elastic anything-goes world where science-or non-science-is the hand maiden of questionable public policy, we arrive at last at global warming. It is not my purpose here to rehash the details of this most magnificent of the demons haunting the world. I would just remind you of the now-familiar pattern by which these things are established.

 

Evidentiary uncertainties are glossed over in the unseemly rush for an overarching policy, and for grants to support the policy by delivering findings that are desired by the patron.

 

Next, the isolation of those scientists who won't get with the program, and the characterization of those scientists as outsiders and "skeptics" in quotation marks-suspect individuals with suspect motives, industry flunkies, reactionaries, or simply anti-environmental nut-cases.

In short order, debate ends, even though prominent scientists are uncomfortable about how things are being done. When did "skeptic" become a dirty word in science? When did a skeptic require quotation marks around it?

 

To an outsider, the most significant innovation in the global warming controversy is the overt reliance that is being placed on models. Back in the days of nuclear winter, computer models were invoked to add weight to a conclusion: "These results are derived with the help of a computer model."

 

But now, large-scale computer models are seen as generating data in themselves. No longer are models judged by how well they reproduce data from the real world-increasingly, models provide the data.

 

As if they were themselves a reality. And indeed they are, when we are projecting forward. There can be no observational data about the year 2100. There are only model runs. This fascination with computer models is something I understand very well.

 

Richard Feynmann called it a disease. I fear he is right. Because only if you spend a lot of time looking at a computer screen can you arrive at the complex point where the global warming debate now stands. Nobody believes a weather prediction twelve hours ahead. Now we're asked to believe a prediction that goes out 100 years into the future?

 

And make financial investments based on that prediction? Has everybody lost their minds?

 

Stepping back, I have to say the arrogance of the model-makers is breathtaking. There have been, in every century, scientists who say they know it all. Since climate may be a chaotic system-no one is sure-these predictions are inherently doubtful, to be polite. But more to the point, even if the models get the science spot-on, they can never get the sociology. To predict anything about the world a hundred years from now is simply absurd.

 

Look: If I was selling stock in a company that I told you would be profitable in 2100, would you buy it? Or would you think the idea was so crazy that it must be a scam?

 

Let's think back to people in 1900 in, say, New York. If they worried about people in 2000, what would they worry about? Probably: Where would people get enough horses? And what would they do about all the horse****?

 

Horse pollution was bad in 1900, think how much worse it would be a century later, with so many more people riding horses? But of course, within a few years, nobody rode horses except for sport.

 

And in 2000, France was getting 80% its power from an energy source that was unknown in 1900. Germany, Switzerland, Belgium and Japan were getting more than 30% from this source, unknown in 1900. Remember, people in 1900 didn't know what an atom was.

 

They didn't know its structure. They also didn't know what a radio was, or an airport, or a movie, or a television, or a computer, or a cell phone, or a jet, an antibiotic, a rocket, a satellite, an MRI, ICU, IUD, IBM, IRA, ERA, EEG, EPA, IRS, DOD, PCP, HTML, internet. interferon, instant replay, remote sensing, remote control, speed dialing, gene therapy, gene splicing, genes, spot welding, heat-seeking, bipolar, prozac, leotards, lap dancing, email, tape recorder, CDs, airbags, plastic explosive, plastic, robots, cars, liposuction, transduction, superconduction, dish antennas, step aerobics, smoothies, twelve-step, ultrasound, nylon, rayon, teflon, fiber optics, carpal tunnel, laser surgery, laparoscopy, corneal transplant, kidney transplant, AIDS. None of this would have meant anything to a person in the year 1900. They wouldn't know what you are talking about.

 

Now. You tell me you can predict the world of 2100. Tell me it's even worth thinking about. Our models just carry the present into the future. They're bound to be wrong. Everybody who gives a moment's thought knows it.

 

(whole thing here: http://s8int.com/crichton.html )