All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. Science? We don't have no science! We don't have to show you no stinkin' science! --not me
  3. I ran through Billy's original version of this thread, and copy and pasted several of the times that I asked my questions: ----- Um, Billy, don't interpret or spin my words. Read them. Understand them. I'm saying exactly what I mean. As I wrote: "I ask to be able to review the science and to evaluate the success or failure of its predictions. Give me all of the information. What was the hypothesis, precisely what predictions were made, when were they made, what potential results were identified ahead of time as falsifying or invalidating the hypothesis, what were the start and finish dates of the experiment, what is the unmolested data, the untainted control, and the unmanipulated historical record?" Provide the above, and then also demonstrate that it is reliably repeatable. --- Um, do you understand why the scientific method needs to be followed? Do you understand the fact that, regardless of how well-informed someone's hypothesis night be, there are always unknowns that might affect the system and the experiment? Each year we hear about new discoveries that scientists had no clue about, and new technologies that are improving our ability to track and model various phenomena which previously had been impossible. And yet there are still many things that we don't know, and many known phenomena that we are nowhere near to being able to isolate as not having significant effects. That's especially true in the realm of climatology. Show me the repeatable, successful predictions. Identify specifically what was the hypothesis, precisely what predictions were made, when were they made, what potential results were identified ahead of time as falsifying or invalidating the hypothesis, what the start and finish dates of the experiment were, provide the unmolested data, the untainted control, and the unmanipulated historical record. Nothing else is relevant. Pissing and moaning won't change that reality. --- Yeah, I don't know how to bridge the communication gap here. I'm not asking to be educated. I'm not asking for you to determine what you'll need to teach me, what holes in my knowledge you need to show me how to fill, what learning disabilities you'll need to detect in me and remedy, etc. I'm not asking you to guide me and nurture me. I'm not in need of anything like this: "Let's see, hmmm, do you know what molecules are? You've heard of those? Okay, well, that's wonderful, and maybe we can move along a little faster in your education than I had anticipated. Energy? Have you ever heard of that? Tell me what you think the term 'energy' means, and that might help me in gauging where I should start in your little education..." The resolution being debated in the world today is that significant global warming is currently happening, that it is caused primarily, if not completely, by human activities, that it is very dangerous, and perhaps even catastrophic. I'm not asking to see 'the science' which led people to hypothesize the above. Here's a colloquial version of the hypothesis as you seem to want me to learn it: "Scientist X discovered in 1904 that Y causes badness in certain amounts under certain conditions, therefore it logically follows that, since mankind is producing piles of Y, mankind is responsible for the levels of badness that we've adjusted our raw data to report, and The Doom™ is imminent." Such statements are not the end of science, but the beginning. They are the point where testing happens via a very well-defined, controlled method which conforms to the questions that I've repeatedly asked, and which is open to review and is inviting and welcoming of criticism. I'm asking to see 'the science' which puts the hypothesis to the test, and succeeds reliably and repeatedly. I'm asking for open access to all of the information. What was the hypothesis, precisely what predictions were made, when were they made, what potential results were identified ahead of time as falsifying or invalidating the hypothesis, what were the start and finish dates of the experiment, what are the unmolested data, the untainted control, and the unmanipulated historical record? --- On this thread, I've been hoping to move beyond the panic ploys. Please convince me with the science, I request. Here is what I'll need to see, I say. I've looked for it myself, and haven't succeeded. After following the issue for decades, I've also seen past failed predictions disappear, never to be mentioned again, and others become altered mid-experiment. I've seen the press report blatant untruths, and scientists not correct them -- and I've seen brave individual scientists then step forward to correct the record, earning them vitriol from fellow scientists who were silent about the untruths. Let's cut through all of that and have a grown up conversation. Show me what I ask to see. It's what I need to be convinced. I need to see the science, not a substitute and some tee hee hees. I need to see reliably repeatable successful predictions, including all of the details that I've listed several times here. I'll wait. I'll continue to laugh at the non-responsive responses, the silent treatment games, the tee hee heeing, and the panic ploys. I'll wait. --- Cool. It really shouldn't be a difficult thing to figure out. Just answer the questions. Or tell us why you think that the questions are not valid, if that's the case. Do you not like the scientific method? Do you reject it as being silly or old-fashioned or something? If so, explain why, and then identify what you propose to replace it with. --- Show me the repeatable, successful predictions. Identify specifically what was the hypothesis, precisely what predictions were made, when were they made, what potential results were identified ahead of time as falsifying or invalidating the hypothesis, what the start and finish dates of the experiment were, provide the unmolested data, the untainted control, and the unmanipulated historical record. --- What Brad is doing is trying to bog down the discussion by overwhelming it with minutiae. The game is that we asked for repeatable, so Brad is going to pretend to not understand the context, and give all sorts of examples of repeatable in regard to noncontroversial pieces of the puzzle, while hoping that we didn't notice that he switched to talking about pieces when we were specifically asking for repeatable entire picture. It's like someone saying that granite floats on air. You ask for proof via repeatable experiments, and douchebag then goes into the repeatable science of the mineralogical composition of granite, and what evidence there is to label it felsic. Do you know what felsic means? Huh, stupid? No? But yet you have your big important opinions about rocks not floating! Science denier! That, and another tack is bickering about how badly Brad's being treated, and who said what. Boo hoo hoo. Brad has lots of time for all of that, but no time for answering my questions. That's fanboy/activist stuff, not science. Science is actually the mindset that the alarmist fanboy/activists ridicule: critical thinking, skepticism, caution, testing, etc. A truly scientific mindset is that of trying as hard as one can to find flaws in any theory. I don't get the impression that Brad, Meatball2, or Billy have ever taken that approach. Their mindset seems to be that of confirmation bias, heroically fighting the silly "denier" rubes, tee hee heeing, and high-fiving. But maybe I'm wrong. I guess Meatball2 is gone, but I'd like to ask Brad and Billy to tell us about their critical examination of the idea of anthropogenic climate change. What are your biggest criticisms? Do you have any? What holes have you found in the theory? What are the biggest weaknesses in whatever theory you have the most confidence? Do you feel that you have to hide them? Show us your critical scientific side rather than just the fanboy side. After all, even the IPCC identifies severe weaknesses. It admits to significant limitations. Anyway, there's no need for the trick of trying to obscure the forest with leaves. It's really as simple as X amount of CO2 over time period Y should equal temperature Z. Sounding like a broken record: In regard to the big picture issue of anthropogenic climate change (and not isolated, smaller pieces of the picture), show us the repeatable, successful predictions. Identify specifically what was the hypothesis, precisely what predictions were made, when were they made, what potential results were identified ahead of time as falsifying or invalidating the hypothesis, what the start and finish dates of the experiment were, provide the unmolested data, the untainted control, and the unmanipulated historical record. --- Great. Let's start with time and falsifiability. How long of a time period must we observe temperatures rising, without leveling off or falling, in order to conclude not only that temperatures are indeed rising enough so as to be considered climactic change, but also primarily caused by human activities? Which models/experiments have identified this timeframe prior to the models' predictions being made, and prior to reality then being observed? Where may I find the details of these types of ground rules? We already know that some scientists are asserting that a 12 to 15 year "pause/hiatus," or even a 15 to 18 year one, is not sufficient to falsify their favorite models. With such assertions, determining exactly when the ground rules were established becomes very important. Without these details, it can seem that people are just making it up as they go along. What are the specific conditions of falsifiability? What results in reality would invalidate the hypothesis? And why? And let's add just one more question. Which single model is the settled science model? I've seen a range of models with a range of predictions. Some have fallen by the wayside over the decades, and we don't hear about them anymore, but, anyway, which of the differing and competing current models settled it once and for all, and what date was it officially determined by the consensus scientists that that single model nailed it? --- And here, again, are the questions that your surrogate/ringer-wannabe, disappearing Brad, couldn't answer: How long of a time period must we observe temperatures rising, without leveling off or falling, in order to conclude not only that temperatures are indeed rising enough so as to be considered climactic change, but also primarily caused by human activities? Which models/experiments have identified this timeframe prior to the models' predictions being made, and prior to reality then being observed? Where may I find the details of these types of ground rules? We already know that some scientists are asserting that a 12 to 15 year "pause/hiatus," or even a 15 to 18 year one, is not sufficient to falsify their favorite models. With such assertions, determining exactly when the ground rules were established becomes very important. Without these details, it can seem that people are just making it up as they go along. What are the specific conditions of falsifiability? What results in reality would invalidate the hypothesis? And why? And let's add just one more question. Which single model is the settled science model? I've seen a range of models with a range of predictions. Some have fallen by the wayside over the decades, and we don't hear about them anymore, but, anyway, which of the differing and competing current models settled it once and for all, and what date was it officially determined by the consensus scientists that that single model nailed it? ----- J
  4. Billy has closed further comments on his "Placeholder for GW/CC 'How I got here’” climate doom thread, and just when I thought that he might finally be interested in actual discussion. So, I’m starting this thread to answer some of the responses that he gave in his last post — and thanks, Billy, for those responses, instead of your typical non-responsiveness. Billy replied to me: My understanding is that Tyndall's testing of his hypotheses were well-defined and carefully controlled, and his results were and are repeatable. I’ve been asking you to provide the same in regard to hypotheses of man-made climate change. Do you understand that Tyndall’s work does not answer my questions? Billy: You reap what you sow, Billy. Heh. Don’t like being accused and psychoanalyzed? Hmmm. Maybe consider not doing it to others. Let’s have a conversation. I’ve been asking for one for years. I’ve been asking the same questions, and you’ve been ignoring them, dodging them, and serving “tasty steamed octopus” (in other words, posting everything but answers to my questions while acting as if you’re answering the questions). I’ve also asked if you have a problem with my requests for you to show me the science, and, if so, to explain why you think that my questions are invalid, improper, not applicable, or whatever. No response. No explanation. Instead of having a discussion, you decide to ignore questions, and then devise ways of testing what I know about Tyndall or Weart, or whomever else. You don’t need to know how much I know. Science isn’t about establishing authority. He who knows the most doesn’t become right just by having the most knowledge. All that matters is repeatable results of successfully tested predictions of hypotheses. That’s what I’ve been asking you -- over and over and over again -- to provide. That’s the question that I’ve been asking you to provide the answers to. Show me the science. I’ve displayed the patience of a saint. I’ve asked countless times in regard to the hypothesis of anthropogenic climate change: "Show me the repeatable, successful predictions. Identify specifically what was the hypothesis, precisely what predictions were made, when were they made, what potential results were identified ahead of time as falsifying or invalidating the hypothesis, what the start and finish dates of the experiment were, provide the unmolested data, the untainted control, and the unmanipulated historical record." My belief and understanding is that you have not answered my questions. Nor did Brad when he was here, nor the second meatball. I’m not interested in suspecting what will happen in regard to "predictions of global warming to come.” Predictions are not the end of science. For the billionth fucking time, I’m interested in the predictions of the past having come true in reality after having been precisely defined. I'm interested in climatology following the requirements of the scientific method. As I’ve asked ad nauseam: "I'm asking to see 'the science' which puts the hypothesis to the test, and succeeds reliably and repeatedly. I'm asking for open access to all of the information. What was the hypothesis, precisely what predictions were made, when were they made, what potential results were identified ahead of time as falsifying or invalidating the hypothesis, what were the start and finish dates of the experiment, what are the unmolested data, the untainted control, and the unmanipulated historical record?” "How long of a time period must we observe temperatures rising, without leveling off or falling, in order to conclude not only that temperatures are indeed rising enough so as to be considered climactic change, but also primarily caused by human activities? Which models/experiments have identified this timeframe prior to the models' predictions being made, and prior to reality then being observed? Where may I find the details of these types of ground rules? We already know that some scientists are asserting that a 12 to 15 year "pause/hiatus," or even a 15 to 18 year one, is not sufficient to falsify their favorite models. With such assertions, determining exactly when the ground rules were established becomes very important. Without these details, it can seem that people are just making it up as they go along." "What are the specific conditions of falsifiability? What results in reality would invalidate the hypothesis? And why? "Which single model is the settled science model? I've seen a range of models with a range of predictions. Some have fallen by the wayside over the decades, and we don't hear about them anymore, but, anyway, which of the differing and competing current models settled it once and for all, and what date was it officially determined by the consensus scientists that that single model nailed it?" It isn’t a card game. Science isn’t about seeing the other guys' cards. It’s about identifying reality via a specific process. You seem to want to believe that I have beliefs that you need to counter. I don’t. I’m asking to see the science. No other method will work. I don’t accept substitutes, and all you’ve been focusing on is substitutes. Focus on the science. Focus on answering my questions rather than trying to guess my beliefs so that you can formulate a strategy to counter them. I haven’t read it. I’ve come across references to it, and quotes from it. I’m neither excited about reading it, nor opposed. Does it answer my questions? If so, please just cut to the chase and say so. Cite the relevant passages. There’s Billy doing exactly what he complains about when the Others™ do it right back to him. Anyway, to answer your question, no, your recommendation isn’t the kiss of death. Why are you so passionate about getting me to read it? Does it address the questions that I’ve been asking for years? If not, why would I find it worth reading? Are you hoping that, since it convinced you, it will do the same for me, and make me forget all about the questions that I’ve asked that you can’t answer? You poor darling. Victims who can’t take what they dish out are the most victimized of all victims. It's do damned unfair that people treat you almost as poorly as you treat them. Yes, please do come back if you learn that new material, especially if it answers my questions. We really don't need any more of your new material that doesn't answer the questions, or doesn't explain why you won't answer the questions. J
  5. Today
  6. William, No. What those guys did was set up pages and accounts under different names. (Also, Epoch Times is a piker at this compared to Media Matters and other Dem operations.) This has nothing to do with dark ads on Facebook. A dark ad is a technical term for an unpublished (invisible) Facebook post (like on a fan page, group feed, etc.) that can be used as a "sponsored post ad" within Facebook's normal advertising system. (Invisible is not totally accurate since a person with the url can see the post.) The purpose of dark posts is to not junk up a fan page or group with so many ads it looks like spam, but instead, keep ads limited to the main news feed going to targeted viewers. Think about it. An audience is being created to discuss, say, knitting. The audience grew and engagement is high among the expert knitters and knitting lovers. Suddenly, one day constant posts appear selling smartphones, health products, business opportunities, etc. Before too long, the old ladies will move on to other places that are free from all that spam. (A good marketer likes to advertise a lot and often does not have the time to run a separate audience-growing group or page for each area of product he sells.) Since "sponsored posts" perform really well, better than normal ads, dark posts to serve as the model for dark ads are really popular. This has been around at least since 2013 (probably before). On the other hand, anytime one uses the term "dark" with an activity, especially in politics, it gives the person an aura of being an insider and expert about something sinister. So it's a good word to use to fake it 'til you make it. Unfortunately, this sinister quality has nothing to do with Facebook dark ads. The "dark" merely refers to the fact that a fan page reader or group member will not be able to see the invisible post used for creating "sponsored post" ads (also called dark ads when made with such unpublished posts). Michael
  7. "Former Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates may not be able to escape Epstein-gate after all, after it was revealed last week that the billionaire traveled with Jeffrey Epstein on his infamous 'Lolita Express' Boeing 727 in 2013 - four years after Epstein served time for pedophilia. "In addition to Gates - other famous figures who flew aboard the Lolita Express include legendary newsman Walter Cronkite, architect Peter Marino, and of course Bill Clinton, Naomi Campbell, Kevin Spacey, Chris Tucker and Prince Andrew. " https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-08-22/why-did-bill-gates-fly-epsteins-lolita-express-after-pedophiles-prison-stint
  8. This will not stand. Zadrozny is one of the authors of the so-called exposé linked above; earlier today another "is this what they call dark advertising?" update on the story from yesterday ...
  9. Yesterday
  10. Falun Gong promote Q’s message? I’ll be damned. They have been oppressed, jailed, tortured and murdered by the communists for decades, right? I suppose it should be no surprise that victims of your political ideology would be excited about a global purge of corruption and evil.
  11. Jonathan, Based on her public statement of disappointment, I bet a buttload of money that other deals went down the toilet with the canceled visit. People pay for their mouth. Condescending idiots like that lady get surprised when that happens, too. MAGA. Michael
  12. What happened to Denmark? Trudeau coulda learned Prime Minister Nastyass on how to get along with the elephant/ally, yes? We haven't had a curse-out in a good long while. Cross your fingers for the final signatures on the USMCA. In other words, Don't Poke It! Or your Queen will suffer .... Nothing much happened to Denmark. Nothing happened to Greenland. The 'nasty' remarks are to one's taste, in comic opera perhaps. Denmark is one of those small smug EU socialist hellholes where almost everyone lies about quality of life on surveys, and rides around on bicycles. The Danish crown is on a boring Margrethe II, pictured wearing swag above. State visit postponement till whenever. Ho and hum. The Danish PM has at least a few common goals with the Trump administration in a few areas hereinafter not discussed at the seniormost political level, for the moment. The nasty Danish thing has had an interesting political career, and may have a long run. I bet those two could have had and will have an interesting side-talk about immigration and demographic destiny. To the other notion. A serious play for Greenland (which I would support 150%) needs Greenlandish buy-in, mostly, and 'sloping in.' Greenlanders might prefer the NATO embrace under familiar rule and processes, rather than as a giant icy Puerto Rico. Who knows? The cool aspect of US sovereignty over Greenland is that the various pan-arctic polities and linguistic relations (in Alaska, Nunavut, North West Territories, Nunavik, Labrador, Greenland) have mutual interests and preexisting connections. The unique native-majority society in Greenland might be better bonded to Canada and the USA ... yet as they are presently European citizens with all the rights of Danish nationals, would they give that up? Would today's West-Greenlandic-speaking citizens have to accept a different passport regime? The worst that can be said about the blurts from the White House was that they foreclosed on even exploratory talks about purchase for the immediate future. If it had already made sense three times in history to extend sovereignty to the icy island, there'll come another opportunity to chat. Denmark and the USA are longtime allies. For the US president to scorn and abjure the government of Denmark is good. Shake 'em up, keep 'em on a defensive footing. If the nasty thing had not said the words "absurd" and "not for sale" ... nothing would have happened except a whole lotta not much. The boring queen can get out of her girdles. Much state dinner seafood will go uneaten. Bicycles will be ridden in grim-faced pseudo-happiness. Li Hongzhi is the leader of the Falun Gong in the USA. Epoch Times is the newspaper and website. You can click the photo-link above to read the details in the NBC 'news' story. The Edge of Wonder is a popular Youtube channel produced by the movement's larger media production arm. Click to discover! Q is being quite effectively promoted by Edge of Wonder. We differ on our views of the Q and QAnon phenomena. You could perhaps quietly celebrate a new set of allies with audiences and cultural dissemination potential ... As for not knowing much about the Falun Gong or its various media empires and domains, it doesn't mean nothing can be known. Less pithily ... Questions arose. Answers were sought. Research was indicated. Reporters went in. Facts or so-called facts came out.
  13. We could, sure. But I really can's say I know what you think you know about Tyndall's scientific work. Same old usual, I expect. Someone might respond: "I know all that, pedophile." Another might respond with abrasive what-have-you. Another might affix yet another label to my psyche and morality. I disregard posturing and wonder what you know. As far as I know you have never discussed the GHE, radiative physics, or shown any comprehension of the researches of Tyndall, Arrhenius, Fourier, nor show any comprehension of the scope of climatology as it matured. I will just add one more plug for Weart's book online. I know how I got to my beliefs about climate change ... in a nutshell, I 'discovered' that the central question was 'how does the Earth maintain its temperature over time?' How does the atmosphere radiate heat energy? What molecules -- which physical processes in the atmosphere are responsible for the maintenance of the 'blanket' effect? How did all that shit work? Is CO2 a key essential for the whole shmear? Does the prediction that increasing atmospheric CO2 in a relatively short term will result in an a relatively-quick increase of the Earth's temperature? Billy says hi. Billy wonders if you would explain how you got here, what your beliefs and understandings are. Billy says he isn't interested in your opinion about him, but is instead interested in, 'what Jonathan believes/knows/suspects/rejects, whether about the basic "Tyndall Gases Effect" and the basic prediction of global warming to come. I restart at the relative beginning, because I don't see the other guys' cards. If you or you or you or you do not set aside being all personality, you probably on't get what you want. I exclude Brant because his one-liners are memorable, if not apposite. The William he psychologically-profiles should probably be locked up. Here's my one actual question to, say, Jonathan: have any of you ever delved into the Weart book (either in hardback or via the American Institute of Physics website)? If the Examining Magistrate will allow follow-ups put to the witness: if not, why not? Is Billy's recommendation a kiss of death? Too many examining magistrates and psychologists can really make the soup hot! [ NB, I am almost ready to let this thread die a proper death, by giving it over to the inevitable drift and disappearance. Maybe once a year, during Arctic melt season, I can come back to check if anyone has changed their costumes or learned some new material.] [Yes, I am going to lock the topic just to annoy you. Store up that bile for Friday!]
  14. Wow Billy, that Official Trump Approval Poll sounds important. What are EpicTimes, Teacher Lee and the edges of wonder, anyway? Is this how you all plan to attack Q from now on — by attacking people no one has heard of? 😆 Too bad there isn't a poll on impeachment. Oh, wait, there is! Just last month, the House voted 332-95-1 to kill the impeachment measure. But keep bitching about Greenland's wee feelings and responding to every poll, Loser.
  15. What happened to Denmark? Trump made a suggestion. Mette Frederiksen responded publicly with snarky anger, snooty superiority, and delved into imagining the evil of unwashed monster parvenu Trump's motivations. Trump described her response as "nasty." Rather understated, I'd say. Then he postponed his visit to Denmark. So, what's the tee hee hee that I'm missing? Denmark is somehow now a massive pile of bloody victims in this? Oh, my Lord Jesus, look what happened to Denmark! J
  16. We generally keep our opinions to ourselves, Canadians, with obvious exceptions. Look what happened to Denmark. -- this item, what passes for an expose these days, could have been posted in about five different threads. From some folks at NBC ... -- reading that story is its own reward (just click the image above), in the sense of updating your shelf of conspiracy/mistrust/distrust/bias knowledge. In the story and in subsequent reports the writers' research suggests that the organization is targeting a solid bloc of voters via the Largest Ad Rotation at Facebook. Connect the dots: End-times America-based 'cult' or movement led by Teacher Li, a broadcast arm, a hardcopy paper, a massive web presence, an early load of promotion for the 2020 showdown in November, and ... well, the one dot that really impressed me was the broadcast/audio-visual production arm of Li's movement producing a Youtube channel called Edge of Wonder. In which, the co-hosts range freely over the world of, well, wonders. Q and the QAnon fantasy-movement of course, but also just about everything on the plate for 'alternative' media in the Age of Trump. Aliens, secret space programs, MMS, Antarctic civilizations and Nazi space bases, Vaccines as a tool of Them, SRA, hollow Earth, Flat Earth, David Wilcock and the Blue Avians and more! So much more Here's a sample, part of the bottom of the Li communications pyramid. Should I have posted this elsewhere? The intertwined story skeins at this channel feature a little bit Trump, a little bit conspiracy, a little bit woo, a little bit Q, a little bit of climate change plots ... along with the bread and butter Aliens and free energy, electric sun. The fellows are so darn cheerful. Does it help to know that they belong to the 'movement' and take their cues from Li the leader?
  17. Has there ever been charges of aggressive sexual oppression or aggression among the Communist elite? They were all loyal family men, I spoof ya! Even Adolph had just one bimbo. Mao? Was his Little Red Book a place to keep the phone numbers of hot chicks? Hell no. Even Wittle Kim has just one wife. No harems for him. His famous 100 babe, chanting choir is just rote learning for the populace. They either have *morals* or people who don’t keep their mouth’s shut are tortured and killed but how likely is that? On our side, I don't think Jimmy, Ronald, Gerald, George, or George, Barrack, or Donald have had illicit nookie. While Clinton's wife probably had to get 450 shots for the clap.
  18. You are obligated, as a Canadian, to leave that circle bland. I mean black. oops. I mean blank.
  19. Sarah is a great addition to The A Team. I see they are coming out with a movie about Roger Ailes starring the "A List of dumb blonds." That is a joke. I don't see why they need a movie about it but I am glad to see the scoundrels get trashed for what they are. Initiators of force. Perverts. Invaders. Low Life's. Capitalist Pigs. Notice that Capitalization. That means a lot. Sometimes the market and justice are not in sync.
  20. I get mail. You can use this link to go do your duty ... https://action.donaldjtrump.com/official-trump-approval-poll
  21. So, below I offer my first 'finding' for our platform on the foundation on the boulevard of agreement. I've posted this previously here on OL, back when it first came out. Billy, you had asked if there is an agreed-upon set of 'findings,' even for people who may disagree mightily on entailments. Do you agree that the article below offers an argument that is devastating to the falsehood that it refutes? Do you agree that the article is correct that the method used to arrive at the 97% conclusion is fatally flawed? Libertarian Group Demands NASA Remove False '97 Percent Consensus' Global Warming Claim BY TYLER O'NEIL JULY 10, 2019 CHAT 302 COMMENTS (Shutterstock) On Tuesday, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) sent NASA a formal complaint, asking the agency to withdraw the false claim that 97 percent of climate scientists agree that humans are the primary cause of global warming and climate change. The 2013 study purporting to demonstrate that number was fatally flawed and proved no such thing. "The claim that 97% of climate scientists believe humans are the primary cause of global warming is simply false," CEI attorney Devin Watkins said in a statement. "That figure was created only by ignoring many climate scientists’ views, including those of undecided scientists. It is time that NASA correct the record and present unbiased figures to the public." According to the CEI complaint, NASA's decision to repeat the false claim violated the Information Quality Act (IQA). Specifically, NASA claimed that "[n]inety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities." The claim appears on the NASA website on the page "Climate Change: How Do We Know?" The claim traces back to a study led by John Cook entitled "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature" and published in the journal Environmental Research Letters in 2013. The study is fundamentally dishonest, as the CEI complaint explains. The study analyzed all published peer-reviewed academic research papers from 1991 to 2011 that use the terms "global warming" or "global climate change." The study placed the papers into seven categories: explicit endorsement with quantification, saying humans are responsible for 50+ percent of climate change; explicit endorsement without quantification; implicit endorsement; no position or uncertain; implicit rejection; explicit rejection with qualification; and explicit rejection without qualification. The study found: 64 papers had explicitly endorsed anthropogenic global warming (AGW) with quantification (attributing at least half of climate change to humans); 922 papers had explicitly endorsed AGW without quantifying how much humans contribute; 2,910 papers had implicitly endorsed AGW; 7,930 papers did not state a position and 40 papers were uncertain; 54 papers implicitly rejected AGW by affirming the possibility that natural causes explain climate change; 15 papers explicitly rejected AGW without qualification; and 9 papers explicitly rejected AGW with quantification, saying human contributions to global warming are negligible. So how did Cook and his team come up with the 97 percent number? They added up the first three categories (3,896 papers), compared them to the last three categories (78 papers) and the papers expressing uncertainty (40 papers), and completely ignored the nearly 8,000 papers that did not state a position. Of the papers Cook's team characterized as stating a position, 97 percent (3,896 of the 4,014 papers) favored the idea of man-made global warming. See the problem? The study completely discounted the majority of the papers it analyzed (66.4 percent — 7,930 of the 11,944 papers analyzed). With those papers included, only 32.6 percent of the papers explicitly or implicitly endorsed AGW (3,896 of 11,944 papers). But it gets worse. Many of the scientists who wrote the original papers Cooks' team analyzed complained that this study mischaracterized their research. The survey "included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral," complained Dr. Richard Tol, professor of the economics of climate change at Vrije Universiteit. He argued that of the 112 omitted papers, only 1 strongly endorses man-made global warming. "That is not an accurate representation of my paper," wrote geography Ph.D. Craig Idso. "Nope ... it is not an accurate representation," Nir Shaviv, associate professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, wrote. Ph.D. physicist Nicola Scafetta complained that "Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AAGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission." Cook's team categorized his paper as one that "explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%." Scafetta countered, "What my papers say is that the IPCC view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun." Even including Scafetta's incorrectly categorized study, Cook's team only found 64 papers that explicitly endorsed man-made global warming and attributed more than 50 percent of it to human activity. That represents a minuscule 0.5 percent of the 11,944 papers. Even excluding the 66.4 percent of the papers that did not take a position, the 50 percent plus approach only accounts for 1.6 percent of all papers in the Cook study. The study — and the 97 percent figure that depends on it — is fatally flawed, and NASA has 120 days to respond to the CEI complaint. It is far past time people reject this false claim.
  22. The following comment isn't about President Trump per se, but it perfectly depicts the essence of rabid anti-Trumpers, left and right. btw - I got the comment somewhere out there in the Interwebs. This is one I wish I had come up with. Here goes. If you talk about poverty and the hardship of inner city life, you are noble. If you do something about it, you are a racist. Michael
  23. Warning. The following is in extremely bad taste. From the Dis-Associative Press. Lovely Mette Frederiksen is a Danish politician who has been Prime Minister of Denmark since June 2019. Tall and sexy, she has been the Leader of the Social Democrats since June 2015. She is the second woman to hold either office, and she is also the youngest Prime Minister in Danish history. Today, getting in on the fun she said in her splendid English, “I will swap Greenland for Puerto Rico and a billion dollars, President Trump.’ Former White House Communications Director Anthony Scaramucci, trying to get back at the President was reported as saying, “Watch out Melania. Tall and willowy AND with an accent. Ha Donald! Don’t eat any Danish. Ha, Ha!” Later he is reported as saying, “The President had me, The Scaramooch arrested by the FBI and charged with meddling in affairs of state . . . uh, maybe I should NOT say “affairs. It was a joke!” Scarface said as he was led away in handcuffs.
  24. From the news. That PM of Denmark is tall like a model though I could not find what her height was. Men from Denmark are 6 foot on average which is 3 inches taller than American men. Perhaps she is around five ten? Nice looking lady. Too bad El Presidente stepped in it, with his sort of a joke / sort of serious comment. I don‘t think there are 6000 residents in Greenland. As I have mentioned, we have an airbase in Thule, Greenland. The comment could come back to haunt us. Living on Mars would not be easy. It would be colder than Thule, except for Mar’s equatorial region. Are there diamonds on Mars? Not without carbon lifeforms perhaps to lay down some coal over millenniums. I don’t think an exercise and rowing machine would counteract the lower gravity either, Ba’al. Now a space elevator that went up to a round, rotating space station might have some value. Perhaps the elevator would rise to orbital heights where humans could enter another vehicle to avoid damage from Mars quakes or sabotage. Then the rotational living quarters would create artificial gravity. Centripetal or centrifugal force might keep our bones strong and healthy. And chocolate milk. Society for cows on Mars President, and singer of that song, ‘Stairway to Heaven,” Osteo-Peiter Notes. Centripetal [senˈtripədl] ADJECTIVE physics moving or tending to move toward a center. The opposite of centrifugal. Dec 16, 2016 · Mars Compared to Earth: On top that, the gravity on Mars’ surface is much lower than it is here on Earth – 62% lower to be precise. At just 0.376 of the Earth standard (or 0.376 g), a person who weighs 100 kg on Earth would weigh only 38 kg on Mars. Mars has about 38 percent as much gravity as the Earth. This means that a man weighing 220 pounds on Earth would only weigh 80 pounds. While being light enough to bounce around like a child may sound fun, in actuality, gravity is important for much more than determining one's weight. Without enough gravity, human health would quickly deteriorate. Dr. Weird Medicine. Life On Mars: How The Caustic Dust, Atmospheric Pressure, And Low Gravity May Alter The Human Body
  25. Last week
  26. Zero g over the long term is fatal to humans. Our bodies evolved to function in a one g environment. In zero g the bones start to decompose.
  1. Load more activity