The Science Fraud

[ChemEngineer]

Primarily by Arabs and other African tribes. Even the Indians that were in the US practiced slavery.

It was a global system, that predates history itself. Aesop in around 600 BCE was a slave. Diogenes was a slave. Cicero's secretary Marcus Tiro was a slave. Of course Spartacus was a slave, as was the historian Josephus. And of course it is still commonly practiced in Africa to this day. Trying to blame anybody for it is a fallacy, it is simply how things have been since humans existed.

Just a few years ago, National Geographic published an article on slavery and categorically stated that TODAY there are more slaves worldwide than ever before in history.!!!!

I wondered what country had the highest number of slaves, and that country is.... India. When I asked Indian friends about the caste system there and said "It's almost as bad as slavery," they corrected me and said "It's worse!"

 

[Mushroom]

Just a few years ago, National Geographic published an article on slavery and categorically stated that TODAY there are more slaves worldwide than ever before in history.!!!!

Of course it is, because the population has grown exponentially.

The population of the entire planet in 1865 when the US Civil War ended was around 1.2 billion. And the US population at the start was just over 31 million, just under 4 million of which were slaves.

Today, the planet has a population that in another week is predicted to pass 8 billion people. Africa alone has a population of over 1.4 billion. That is more people than the entire planet had 150 years ago. And of those 1.4 billion in Africa, it is estimated that around 9.2 million are slaves to this day. So yes, I easily believe that is correct, because slavery has never died. And the simple expansion of the human population means that you can have a lower percentage that are slaves, and still have more slaves than any time in history prior.

Think about those numbers a moment, over twice the number of people are slaves in Africa today than there was in the US before the Civil War. Because it will never be ended, and we have over 8 times the population now than we did then.

 

[ChemEngineer]

More science fraud:


WRITTEN BY BJORN LOMBORG ON NOV 5, 2022.


Climate Change And The Lancet’s Duplicitous ‘Heat Death’ Study

As the United Nations’ annual global climate summit, COP27, nears, it’s important to look with skepticism at the academic reports many news outlets cite as evidence supporting radical climate policies.

Too often, they use highly skewed data that seem to have been carefully selected to support aggressive environmental regulations. One recent and much-cited Lancet report appears deliberately deceptive.

The study offers a frightening statistic: Rapidly rising temperatures have increased annual global heat deaths among older people by 68% in less than two decades.

That stark figure has been cited all over, from the BBC and Time to the Washington Post and the Times of India, the world’s largest-selling English-language daily.

U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres publicized the report, tweeting a link with a grave statement of his own, “The climate crisis is killing us. #COP27 must deliver a down-payment on climate solutions that match the scale of the problem.”

But while their model for heat deaths is based on solid academic research, the report commits an amateur statistical fallacy by blaming the increase in heat deaths on “rapidly increasing temperatures.”


Annual heat deaths have increased significantly among people 65 and older worldwide. The average [number of deaths] per year increased by 68% from the early 2000s to the late 2010s.

But that is almost entirely because there are so many more older people today than there were 20 years ago, in no small part thanks to medical innovations that keep us alive longer.

Measured across the same timespan the Lancet maps heat deaths, the number of people 65 and older has risen by 60% or almost as much as heat deaths.

When the increase in heat mortality is adjusted for this population growth, the actual rise that can be attributed to rising temperatures is only 5%.

It is hard not to see the Lancet study’s failure to adjust this figure as a deliberate act of deception. Any academic who works with statistics would know to adjust the deaths to account for population growth.

I’ve actually raised this issue to the Lancet before. Last September, the journal published a study with the same fallacious argument, and I sent the editor a detailed letter explaining the problem. The Lancet never corrected it and here it is, over a year later, committing the same error.

This year’s study also cherry-picks data by discussing only heat deaths. Around the world, far more people die each year from cold than heat.

In the U.S. and Canada between 2000 and 2019, an average of 20,000 people died from heat annually and more than 170,000 from cold.

This omission matters even more because cold deaths are decreasing with rising temperatures.

Modeling from the Global Burden of Disease replicates the relatively small increase in heat deaths shown by the Lancet, but shows a much larger decline in cold deaths from rising temperatures.

Based on today’s population size, the current temperatures cause about 17,000 more heat deaths in older people but also result in more than half a million fewer cold deaths.

Reporting one finding without the other is misleading about the true effect of climate change.

This dishonesty leads to worse policy outcomes. While activists push for extreme and expensive climate policies that threaten economic growth, those aren’t the only or even the best ways to help.

Temperatures rose throughout the 20th century, but the U.S. nonetheless saw a decrease in heat deaths, largely thanks to air-conditioning.

Policies that focus on lifting people out of poverty and providing affordable, reliable sources of energy would allow the rest of the world to reduce heat deaths and live more comfortable lives.

They would also help stave off the much greater threat of cold deaths.

Climate change is a real problem, but academics do themselves and their readers a gross disservice when they put activism above honest scientific inquiry.

Mr. Lomborg is president of the Copenhagen Consensus and a visiting fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. His latest book is “False Alarm: How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet.”

 

[Hollie]

More science fraud:


WRITTEN BY BJORN LOMBORG ON NOV 5, 2022.


Climate Change And The Lancet’s Duplicitous ‘Heat Death’ Study

As the United Nations’ annual global climate summit, COP27, nears, it’s important to look with skepticism at the academic reports many news outlets cite as evidence supporting radical climate policies.

Too often, they use highly skewed data that seem to have been carefully selected to support aggressive environmental regulations. One recent and much-cited Lancet report appears deliberately deceptive.

The study offers a frightening statistic: Rapidly rising temperatures have increased annual global heat deaths among older people by 68% in less than two decades.

That stark figure has been cited all over, from the BBC and Time to the Washington Post and the Times of India, the world’s largest-selling English-language daily.

U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres publicized the report, tweeting a link with a grave statement of his own, “The climate crisis is killing us. #COP27 must deliver a down-payment on climate solutions that match the scale of the problem.”

But while their model for heat deaths is based on solid academic research, the report commits an amateur statistical fallacy by blaming the increase in heat deaths on “rapidly increasing temperatures.”


Annual heat deaths have increased significantly among people 65 and older worldwide. The average [number of deaths] per year increased by 68% from the early 2000s to the late 2010s.

But that is almost entirely because there are so many more older people today than there were 20 years ago, in no small part thanks to medical innovations that keep us alive longer.

Measured across the same timespan the Lancet maps heat deaths, the number of people 65 and older has risen by 60% or almost as much as heat deaths.

When the increase in heat mortality is adjusted for this population growth, the actual rise that can be attributed to rising temperatures is only 5%.

It is hard not to see the Lancet study’s failure to adjust this figure as a deliberate act of deception. Any academic who works with statistics would know to adjust the deaths to account for population growth.

I’ve actually raised this issue to the Lancet before. Last September, the journal published a study with the same fallacious argument, and I sent the editor a detailed letter explaining the problem. The Lancet never corrected it and here it is, over a year later, committing the same error.

This year’s study also cherry-picks data by discussing only heat deaths. Around the world, far more people die each year from cold than heat.

In the U.S. and Canada between 2000 and 2019, an average of 20,000 people died from heat annually and more than 170,000 from cold.

This omission matters even more because cold deaths are decreasing with rising temperatures.

Modeling from the Global Burden of Disease replicates the relatively small increase in heat deaths shown by the Lancet, but shows a much larger decline in cold deaths from rising temperatures.

Based on today’s population size, the current temperatures cause about 17,000 more heat deaths in older people but also result in more than half a million fewer cold deaths.

Reporting one finding without the other is misleading about the true effect of climate change.

This dishonesty leads to worse policy outcomes. While activists push for extreme and expensive climate policies that threaten economic growth, those aren’t the only or even the best ways to help.

Temperatures rose throughout the 20th century, but the U.S. nonetheless saw a decrease in heat deaths, largely thanks to air-conditioning.

Policies that focus on lifting people out of poverty and providing affordable, reliable sources of energy would allow the rest of the world to reduce heat deaths and live more comfortable lives.

They would also help stave off the much greater threat of cold deaths.

Climate change is a real problem, but academics do themselves and their readers a gross disservice when they put activism above honest scientific inquiry.

Mr. Lomborg is president of the Copenhagen Consensus and a visiting fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. His latest book is “False Alarm: How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet.”

“I’ve actually raised this issue to the Lancet before. Last September, the journal published a study with the same fallacious argument, and I sent the editor a detailed letter explaining the problem. The Lancet never corrected it and here it is, over a year later, committing the same error.”

Gee, whiz. The Lancet received a letter from an unknown religious crackpot who has no background in climatology, earth science, or atmospherics and they never responded.

And your surprised at that?

 

[Dagosa]

That fraction of homosexual priests is less than one tenth of the number of public school Leftists who have molested school children however

It’s not homosexuality that cause an inordinate number of priests to molest children. Men in prison engage in homosexual activities but most who do are not homosexuals. Neither are priest who do.
To claim otherwise is barking up the wrong tree out of ignorance. But that never stopped you before did it ?

 

[Dagosa]

More science fraud:


WRITTEN BY BJORN LOMBORG ON NOV 5, 2022.


Climate Change And The Lancet’s Duplicitous ‘Heat Death’ Study

As the United Nations’ annual global climate summit, COP27, nears, it’s important to look with skepticism at the academic reports many news outlets cite as evidence supporting radical climate policies.

Too often, they use highly skewed data that seem to have been carefully selected to support aggressive environmental regulations. One recent and much-cited Lancet report appears deliberately deceptive.

The study offers a frightening statistic: Rapidly rising temperatures have increased annual global heat deaths among older people by 68% in less than two decades.

That stark figure has been cited all over, from the BBC and Time to the Washington Post and the Times of India, the world’s largest-selling English-language daily.

U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres publicized the report, tweeting a link with a grave statement of his own, “The climate crisis is killing us. #COP27 must deliver a down-payment on climate solutions that match the scale of the problem.”

But while their model for heat deaths is based on solid academic research, the report commits an amateur statistical fallacy by blaming the increase in heat deaths on “rapidly increasing temperatures.”


Annual heat deaths have increased significantly among people 65 and older worldwide. The average [number of deaths] per year increased by 68% from the early 2000s to the late 2010s.

But that is almost entirely because there are so many more older people today than there were 20 years ago, in no small part thanks to medical innovations that keep us alive longer.

Measured across the same timespan the Lancet maps heat deaths, the number of people 65 and older has risen by 60% or almost as much as heat deaths.

When the increase in heat mortality is adjusted for this population growth, the actual rise that can be attributed to rising temperatures is only 5%.

It is hard not to see the Lancet study’s failure to adjust this figure as a deliberate act of deception. Any academic who works with statistics would know to adjust the deaths to account for population growth.

I’ve actually raised this issue to the Lancet before. Last September, the journal published a study with the same fallacious argument, and I sent the editor a detailed letter explaining the problem. The Lancet never corrected it and here it is, over a year later, committing the same error.

This year’s study also cherry-picks data by discussing only heat deaths. Around the world, far more people die each year from cold than heat.

In the U.S. and Canada between 2000 and 2019, an average of 20,000 people died from heat annually and more than 170,000 from cold.

This omission matters even more because cold deaths are decreasing with rising temperatures.

Modeling from the Global Burden of Disease replicates the relatively small increase in heat deaths shown by the Lancet, but shows a much larger decline in cold deaths from rising temperatures.

Based on today’s population size, the current temperatures cause about 17,000 more heat deaths in older people but also result in more than half a million fewer cold deaths.

Reporting one finding without the other is misleading about the true effect of climate change.

This dishonesty leads to worse policy outcomes. While activists push for extreme and expensive climate policies that threaten economic growth, those aren’t the only or even the best ways to help.

Temperatures rose throughout the 20th century, but the U.S. nonetheless saw a decrease in heat deaths, largely thanks to air-conditioning.

Policies that focus on lifting people out of poverty and providing affordable, reliable sources of energy would allow the rest of the world to reduce heat deaths and live more comfortable lives.

They would also help stave off the much greater threat of cold deaths.

Climate change is a real problem, but academics do themselves and their readers a gross disservice when they put activism above honest scientific inquiry.

Mr. Lomborg is president of the Copenhagen Consensus and a visiting fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. His latest book is “False Alarm: How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet.”

You’re a fraud.

 

[ChemEngineer]

One of the greatest scientists of the Twentieth Century could not help but to associate his brilliant observations
with Nature's God, the Creator of science, matter, energy, and mankind.


The Lord God is subtle, but malicious he is not. - Einstein

God does not play dice with the universe. - Albert Einstein

I want to know God's thoughts. The rest are details. - Albert Einstein

Only morality in our actions can give beauty and dignity to our lives." --Albert Einstein


"Being a lover of freedom, when the (Nazi) revolution came, I looked to the universities to defend it, knowing that they had always boasted of their devotion to the cause of truth; but no, the universities were immediately silenced. Then I looked to the great editors of the newspapers, whose flaming editorials in days gone by had proclaimed their love of freedom; but they, like the universities, were silenced in a few short weeks...Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler's campaign for suppressing truth. I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration for it because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual and moral freedom. I am forced to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly." --Albert Einstein from Kampi und Zeugnis der bekennenden Kirche

The most brilliant scientists of all time pursued research to understand God's Creations.

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. - Galileo Galilei

Our Supreme Court represents the greatest legal thinkers of America, at least until Democrats began politicizing it with imbeciles who don't know men from women.

"No purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people.... This is a Christian nation." --U.S. Supreme Court (1892)

 

[Hollie]

One of the greatest scientists of the Twentieth Century could not help but to associate his brilliant observations
with Nature's God, the Creator of science, matter, energy, and mankind.


The Lord God is subtle, but malicious he is not. - Einstein

God does not play dice with the universe. - Albert Einstein

I want to know God's thoughts. The rest are details. - Albert Einstein

Only morality in our actions can give beauty and dignity to our lives." --Albert Einstein


"Being a lover of freedom, when the (Nazi) revolution came, I looked to the universities to defend it, knowing that they had always boasted of their devotion to the cause of truth; but no, the universities were immediately silenced. Then I looked to the great editors of the newspapers, whose flaming editorials in days gone by had proclaimed their love of freedom; but they, like the universities, were silenced in a few short weeks...Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler's campaign for suppressing truth. I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration for it because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual and moral freedom. I am forced to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly." --Albert Einstein from Kampi und Zeugnis der bekennenden Kirche

The most brilliant scientists of all time pursued research to understand God's Creations.

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. - Galileo Galilei

Our Supreme Court represents the greatest legal thinkers of America, at least until Democrats began politicizing it with imbeciles who don't know men from women.

"No purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people.... This is a Christian nation." --U.S. Supreme Court (1892)

View attachment 737765

View attachment 737766

"If this being is omnipotent, then every occurrence, including every human action, every human thought, and every human feeling and aspiration is also His work; how is it possible to think of holding men responsible for their deeds and thoughts before such an almighty Being? In giving out punishment and rewards He would to a certain extent be passing judgment on Himself. How can this be combined with the goodness and righteousness ascribed to Him?" - Albert Einstein, "Out Of My Later Years"

"A man who is convinced of the truth of his religion is indeed never tolerant. At the least, he is to feel pity for the adherent of another religion but usually it does not stop there. The faithful adherent of a religion will try first of all to convince those that believe in another religion and usually he goes on to hatred if he is not successful. However, hatred then leads to persecution when the might of the majority is behind it. In the case of a Christian clergyman, the tragic-comical is found in this..." - Albert Einstein, Letter to Rabbi Solomon Goldman of Chicago's Anshe Emet Congregation, quoted in: "Einstein's God - Albert Einstein's Quest as a Scientist and as a Jew to Replace a Forsaken God" (1997)

 

[expat_panama]

"A man who is convinced of the truth of his religion is indeed never tolerant. At the least, he is to feel pity for the adherent of another religion but usually it does not stop there. The faithful adherent of a religion will try first of all to convince those that believe in another religion and usually he goes on to hatred if he is not successful. However, hatred then leads to persecution when the might of the majority is behind it. In the case of a Christian clergyman, the tragic-comical is found in this..." - Albert Einstein, Letter to Rabbi Solomon Goldman of Chicago's Anshe Emet Congregation, quoted in: "Einstein's God - Albert Einstein's Quest as a Scientist and as a Jew to Replace a Forsaken God" (1997)

Interesting quotes, but the flaky idea that the constitution only mentions religion twice, both times w/ "no", makes me want to question the other quotes as being specious also.

 

[surada]

Primarily by Arabs and other African tribes. Even the Indians that were in the US practiced slavery.

It was a global system, that predates history itself. Aesop in around 600 BCE was a slave. Diogenes was a slave. Cicero's secretary Marcus Tiro was a slave. Of course Spartacus was a slave, as was the historian Josephus. And of course it is still commonly practiced in Africa to this day. Trying to blame anybody for it is a fallacy, it is simply how things have been since humans existed.

The earliest slaves to come to America came from Africa via Recif, Brazil.

 

[Hollie]

Interesting quotes, but the flaky idea that the constitution only mentions religion twice, both times w/ "no", makes me want to question the other quotes as being specious also.

The Founders knew that religions propagate and they knew that once in control, religious tenets are biased towards themselves and poorly disposed towards competitive belief systems. We don't have to assume their intent -- the intent is clear: the state is precluded from dictating any and all religious conscience to any free people. Hence, the First Amendment

 

[expat_panama]

The Founders knew that religions propagate and they knew that once in control, religious tenets are biased towards themselves and poorly disposed towards competitive belief systems. We don't have to assume their intent -- the intent is clear: the state is precluded from dictating any and all religious conscience to any free people. Hence, the First Amendment

Let's agree on the facts and then see what our common ground is. this is the first amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

What I'm seeing in the constitution is that the only prohibition is the establishment of a state religion. What I see as being protected is free and independent religious activity. Are we together on this?

 

[surada]

Let's agree on the facts and then see what our common ground is. this is the first amendment:

What I'm seeing in the constitution is that the only prohibition is the establishment of a state religion. What I see as being protected is free and independent religious activity. Are we together on this?

The US isn't a theocracy. Secular law applies to all people under US jurisdiction.

 

[expat_panama]

The US isn't a theocracy. Secular law applies to all people under US jurisdiction.

That's interesting but it's veering off from what I asked. Somehow it sounds like either u don't want to work this out together, or ur posting too fast to be clear. Which is it?

 

[ChemEngineer]

The subject of the thread is THE SCIENCE FRAUD.
Atheist zealot, Harridan, stalks me and tries to derail every thread I start.
Moderators should do something, at long last.

 

[Dagosa]

The subject of the thread is THE SCIENCE FRAUD.
Atheist zealot, Harridan, stalks me and tries to derail every thread I start.
Moderators should do something, at long last.

Cause every thread is bogus.

 

[surada]

That's interesting but it's veering off from what I asked. Somehow it sounds like either u don't want to work this out together, or ur posting too fast to be clear. Which is it?

It's pretty simple. We aren't a theocracy. Americans have choices.

 

[Hollie]

Let's agree on the facts and then see what our common ground is. this is the first amendment:

What I'm seeing in the constitution is that the only prohibition is the establishment of a state religion. What I see as being protected is free and independent religious activity. Are we together on this?

I agree. Freedom of religion, (freedom of religious expression absent government interference), is the basic principle.

 

[surada]

The subject of the thread is THE SCIENCE FRAUD.
Atheist zealot, Harridan, stalks me and tries to derail every thread I start.
Moderators should do something, at long last.

You don't have special rights. Live your faith and stop mocking the beliefs of others.

 

[expat_panama]

The subject of the thread is THE SCIENCE FRAUD.
Atheist zealot, Harridan, stalks me and tries to derail every thread I start.
Moderators should do something, at long last.

it's fascinating how atheists can get so filled w/ their religious dogma that they run amock all over the place.