HikerGuy83
Diamond Member
- Dec 26, 2021
- 18,743
- 14,931
- 2,288
Yes, we know manufactured "science" when we see it.
Your entrenched stance only shows someone is pulling your strings.
Has the United States surrendered to anthropogenic climate change?
- Thread starter schmidlap
- Start date
Your entrenched stance only shows someone is pulling your strings.
HikerGuy83
Diamond Member
- Dec 26, 2021
- 18,743
- 14,931
- 2,288
A conclusion born of ideology and a narrative that has been manufactured and spoon fed to morons like you.
- Sep 16, 2012
- 75,380
- 72,449
- 3,605
It looks like the U.S. surrendered back in the 80s?
In other words you.
You present NO science. You present the opinions of high priests, peddling their dogma.
- Sep 16, 2012
- 75,380
- 72,449
- 3,605
Unbelievable that you can't recognize a fraud when the evidence is presented to you.
schmidlap
Platinum Member
- Oct 30, 2020
- 14,157
- 9,063
- 1,138
- Thread starter
- #388
So, in the minds of hardcore MAGAs, there is a vast conspiracy by all the world's climatologists, scientific authorities, and virtually all nations, to falsely claim that the empirical data confirms that spewing thousands of tonnes of industrial greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere impacts the atmosphere, contributing significantly to the planet's warming.
Unbelievable that you can't recognize a fraud when the evidence is presented to you.
Please cite your alternative climatological studies.
A lot of it's a hoax. It's a hoax.
I mean, it's a money-making industry,
OK? It's a hoax, a lot of it."
EMH
Diamond Member
- Apr 5, 2021
- 30,743
- 18,138
- 2,788
REFUTES, not CONFIRMS...
Sincerely,
highly correlated satellite and balloon data
hurricane data
surface air pressure
no ocean rise
WHY does this sick treasonous parrot keep lying?
Your problem is you lie constantly about AGW. Take for instance your claim about empirical data.
The simple fact is you have none. The empirical data fundamentally REPUDIATES what you claim.
And now the whole world knows it. That's why the only people pushing this garbage are corrupt politicians and scientists who don't want to lose their gravy train of tax dollars.
Don't have to. You have to support your claims.
You can't.
That's how science actually works.
Yeah, you will go with fantasy pushed by your high priests. Typical anti science denier behavior.
You religious nutjobs are all the same, scripture over science.
EMH
Diamond Member
- Apr 5, 2021
- 30,743
- 18,138
- 2,788
A "study" is NOT DATA.
A "study" is used to FUDGE DATA.
Case point - atmospheric temps...
THE ACTUAL DATA SHOWED NO WARMING IN THE ATMOSPHERE
Key claim against global warming evaporates
Satellite and weather balloon data used to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening turns out to be based on faulty analyses, according to three new studies.
www.nbcnews.com
THE EMPIRICAL DATA FROM THE INSTRUMENTS = "satellite and weather balloon data have actually suggested the opposite, that the atmosphere was cooling."
"according to three new studies" there was a "need" to FUDGE the data...
This is the problem of Government "practicing science" instead of JUST publishing data...
"Scientists were left with two choices: either the atmosphere wasn't warming up, or something was wrong with the data."
NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST THERE.... LOL!!!
- Sep 16, 2012
- 75,380
- 72,449
- 3,605
Whenever the government incentivizes a particular narrative or behavior, that narrative will be pushed for the $$$$.
Thus, the narrative or behavior will increase.
No conspiracy is necessary.
How do you not know this?
Is the Government Buying Science or Support? A Framework Analysis of Federal Funding-induced Biases
What we have found
"The statistical results of this analysis are dramatic. For the total of all 15 AGW centric stem words we found a range of about 7 to 9 occurrences per page on average. Specifically we found a total of 644 occurrences in 78 pages (8.3 per page) for FY 2016, then 340 occurrences in 49 pages (6.9 per page) for FY 2014 and 482 occurrences in 53 pages (9.1 per page) for FY 2012.
In contrast we found just 0.1 occurrences per page for the attribution problem centric stem words. For the total of all 15 attribution problem centric words we found just 7 occurrences in 78 pages (0.1 per page) for FY 2016, just 5 occurrences in 49 pages (0.1 per page) for FY 2014, and just 4 occurrences in 53 pages (0.1 per page) for FY 2012.
In short there appears to be virtually no discussion of the natural variability attribution idea. In contrast there appears to be extensive coverage of AGW issues. The ratio of occurrences is roughly 80 to one. This extreme lack of balance between considerations of the two competing paradigms certainly suggests that paradigm protection is occurring. Apparently it is not just NSF that is ignoring the attribution problem; rather it is the entire USGCRP.. . "
Measuring bias in the U.S. federally-funded climate research - Climate Etc.
by David Wojick Semantic analysis of U.S. Federal budget documents indicates that the climate science research budget is heavily biased in favor of the paradigm of human-induced climate change. For decades climate research has been dominated by a paradigm that … Continue reading →
judithcurry.com
schmidlap
Platinum Member
- Oct 30, 2020
- 14,157
- 9,063
- 1,138
- Thread starter
- #399
The dirty fuel profiteers are delighted by MAGA science denial.Whenever the government incentivizes a particular narrative or behavior, that narrative will be pushed for the $$$$.
Thus, the narrative or behavior will increase.
No conspiracy is necessary.
How do you not know this?
Is the Government Buying Science or Support? A Framework Analysis of Federal Funding-induced Biases
What we have found
"The statistical results of this analysis are dramatic. For the total of all 15 AGW centric stem words we found a range of about 7 to 9 occurrences per page on average. Specifically we found a total of 644 occurrences in 78 pages (8.3 per page) for FY 2016, then 340 occurrences in 49 pages (6.9 per page) for FY 2014 and 482 occurrences in 53 pages (9.1 per page) for FY 2012.
In contrast we found just 0.1 occurrences per page for the attribution problem centric stem words. For the total of all 15 attribution problem centric words we found just 7 occurrences in 78 pages (0.1 per page) for FY 2016, just 5 occurrences in 49 pages (0.1 per page) for FY 2014, and just 4 occurrences in 53 pages (0.1 per page) for FY 2012.
In short there appears to be virtually no discussion of the natural variability attribution idea. In contrast there appears to be extensive coverage of AGW issues. The ratio of occurrences is roughly 80 to one. This extreme lack of balance between considerations of the two competing paradigms certainly suggests that paradigm protection is occurring. Apparently it is not just NSF that is ignoring the attribution problem; rather it is the entire USGCRP.. . "
Measuring bias in the U.S. federally-funded climate research - Climate Etc.
by David Wojick Semantic analysis of U.S. Federal budget documents indicates that the climate science research budget is heavily biased in favor of the paradigm of human-induced climate change. For decades climate research has been dominated by a paradigm that … Continue reading →
EMH
Diamond Member
- Apr 5, 2021
- 30,743
- 18,138
- 2,788
CO2 FRAUD is a treasonous conspiracy to harm America.
EVERYONE who pushes it, or claims Earth is warming via something else, is pushing TREASONOUS FRAUD on America.
EARTH IS NOT WARMING.
THERE IS ZERO EVIDENCE EARTH IS WARMING.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
Cuba Knows What Time It Is!!!🇺🇸🇨🇺🥳🥳🥳- Started by excalibur
- Replies: 1
-
-
-
NYC burning $81K per homeless person — with nothing to show for it
- Started by excalibur
- Replies: 1
