COVID-19 RESOURCES
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

The Greatest Scientic Fraud of All Time

So, that's no you haven't made any cogent points in the thread. I just wanted to make sure I had not missed it if you would happen to have made one.
 


Report back when you finish reading:
http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/upload/climate-seminar-transcript.pdf


...the meeting's purpose is to explore through expert presentations and discussion the state of climate science, both the consensus view as expressed by several thousand pages of the IPCC AR5 Working Group 1 report that came out three months ago, but also the views of experts who credibly take significant issue with several aspects of the consensus picture.

In doing this, the subcommittee hopes to illuminate the certainties and the gaps in our understanding of the physical basis of climate change for the subcommittee itself, for the APS leadership who are present here as observers, and, through a transcript, for the APS membership and the broader public... ​





"In private, climate scientists are much less certain than they tell the public."
– Rupert Darwall​

“It’s clouds that prevent us from fundamentally in some reductive fashion understanding the climate system,” Princeton Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences Professor Isaac Held, senior research scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, declared from the IPCC climate consensus bench. Collins made a similar point toward the end of the session. “My sense, to be honest with you, is that, and I think this all makes us a little bit nervous,” he said; “climate is not a problem that is amenable necessarily to reductionist treatment.”

Yet the IPCC’s top-line judgment in its Fifth Assessment Report—that it is “extremely likely” that the human emissions of greenhouse gases are the dominant cause of the warming since the mid-20th century—was described by Dr. Ben Santer of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory as likely to be conservative. The basis for this claim? General circulation models... ​


​
 
trysail said:


Report back when you finish reading:
http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/upload/climate-seminar-transcript.pdf


...the meeting's purpose is to explore through expert presentations and discussion the state of climate science, both the consensus view as expressed by several thousand pages of the IPCC AR5 Working Group 1 report that came out three months ago, but also the views of experts who credibly take significant issue with several aspects of the consensus picture.

In doing this, the subcommittee hopes to illuminate the certainties and the gaps in our understanding of the physical basis of climate change for the subcommittee itself, for the APS leadership who are present here as observers, and, through a transcript, for the APS membership and the broader public... ​





"In private, climate scientists are much less certain than they tell the public."
– Rupert Darwall​

“It’s clouds that prevent us from fundamentally in some reductive fashion understanding the climate system,” Princeton Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences Professor Isaac Held, senior research scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, declared from the IPCC climate consensus bench. Collins made a similar point toward the end of the session. “My sense, to be honest with you, is that, and I think this all makes us a little bit nervous,” he said; “climate is not a problem that is amenable necessarily to reductionist treatment.”

Yet the IPCC’s top-line judgment in its Fifth Assessment Report—that it is “extremely likely” that the human emissions of greenhouse gases are the dominant cause of the warming since the mid-20th century—was described by Dr. Ben Santer of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory as likely to be conservative. The basis for this claim? General circulation models... ​


​
Click to expand...
https://www.scientificamerican.com/...-of-incontrovertible-in-global-warming-fight/

Scientists use words that have precise meanings, and you do not.
 
It's funny that tryfail points to these two excerpts as though they support his argument, whatever that may be.
 



The man has committed frickin' heresy on NPR!!
They'll never let David N. Schwartz on NPR again !!




From NPR's 13.7 Cosmos & Culture:
Commentary on Science and Society

What Would Enrico Fermi Think of Science Today?
by David N. Schwartz
https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2...hat-would-enrico-fermi-think-of-science-today

December 5, 2017


"...At the intersection of science and public policy, on issues like climate change and genetic engineering, Fermi would almost certainly be more reticent. He never enjoyed debating the complex issues of his own day involving science and public policy. He served reluctantly as a government adviser on science policy, but he was always happier in the lab or in the classroom where the physics issues were simpler and answers were either right or wrong.


It's hard to say whether Fermi would be persuaded by the science behind climate change. The models used to simulate climate change are extremely complex and have embedded within them uncertainties that have made some very bright physicists, like Princeton's Freeman Dyson, skeptical of the models themselves..."






​



​
 



"The whole topic [dangerous anthropogenic global warming] has all the speculative qualities of epidemiology and cosmology…..the similarities in the three topics are that they all start with assumptions not founded on evidence, ignore the huge uncertainties in available data and those inherent in the processes used and depend on calculations not based on proven methods for the purpose. Each then makes definitive statements of results, often to extreme degrees of precision."​

-Kip Hansen​



​
 



ceres-cor-surface-sun-temperature.png



​
 
Trysail seems to be standing atop a mountain of slain invading leftist, armed with weapons of mass destruction known as climate change and global warming.:D
 
Richard_P_Feynman said:
It's funny that tryfail points to these two excerpts as though they support his argument, whatever that may be.
Click to expand...

It's funny how you never have an actual substantive criticism on any of these scientific matters.

It's also funny how RDS never seems to post in these threads anymore. He used to all the time. Admittedly all you ever did was cut and paste from that cheat sheet on climate change of his and it did get a little tedious and redundant but it was certainly more substantive than your posts.

You have any idea why he quit posting these threads at about the time of your arrival? I mean I realized that you never interacted with him back when he used to do that back when you were "merely lurking" wall cataloging in archiving every detail of the last decade plus?
 
Last edited:
Dumpling said:
Yes Trump says no Climate change:eek: well I hope you get lots of Wildfires-Floods -Hurricanes
and Earthquakes where you live !
Click to expand...

We have fires here but it isn't about climate change it's about California environmental policy, immigration, and homeless policy, restrictions on cleaning up the forests and looking the other way when it cones to illegal campfires.
 
thør said:
Trump is a buffoon.

And, nice to see you about.
Click to expand...
Yes we know ;)
We read Reports and News from "other Countries" and we can see what mess "your President" is making:eek:
Instead of building more War Plane's he should be building more Water Bombers ~ when we couldnt handle our Wildfires we "paid" the U S and Australia to send some of theirs over to help us but I guess America is to cheap to do that;)
 


What Is The Greatest Scientific Fraud Of All Time ?
by Francis Menton



Being a fan of scientific fraud and of human depravity generally, I can come up with lots of nominations in this category. If you'd like to be reminded of some of the great ones that you have undoubtedly read about at some time or other, here is a Top Six list from Cracked, and here is a Top Ten list from Listverse. They definitely have some memorable ones, from Jan Hendrik Schon, the rising star at Bell Labs who faked results for some twelve papers published in Science and Nature around the year 2000; to the fake "Tasaday" primitive tribe promoted by a Philippine government minister named Elizalde in the 1970s; to the archeological "discoveries" (planted) of Shinichi Fujimura in Japan in the 1980s; to Ranjit Chandra, who published studies on nutritional allergies of infants, blessing the baby formula products of Nestle and J&J (the studies were never conducted); etc., etc. One of the greatest frauds, making both lists, is the "Piltdown Man" missing link hoax of Charles Dawson in 1912.

But going through these lists also makes clear that none of these frauds comes close to the big one going on right now, which is the world temperature data tampering fraud. This is the fraud by which U.S. government agencies "adjust" temperatures of the past downward in order to make it seem like more recent years are warmer, and thus support the global warming narrative. Now you are going to say, that seems completely ridiculous, they couldn't possibly get away with it, and nobody in their right mind would try such a thing. Well, I'll just give you some evidence, and you decide.

The latest news comes from Joe D'Aleo of the ICECAP website, who reports on a new online tool available from NCDC. That's the National Climatic Data Center of Asheville, NC -- a Federal agency, part of NOAA, in turn part of the Commerce Department. NCDC is headed by Tom Karl, a serious global warming zealot. NOAA has been until recently headed by Jane Lubchenco, another serious global warming zealot. The new tool enables plotting temperature data for cities, states, or regions. So D'Aleo tried plotting the data for New York's Central Park for July, going back to 1885. Meanwhile he happened to know that the National Weather Service (another part of NOAA) had archived data for Central Park for the same time period, so he took the archived NWS data and the new NCDC data and plotted them on the same graph. Result:

Screen_shot_2013-07-14_at_4.37.25_PM.png

​


Hmmmm. In the new version, the warm years of the 1930s have magically become cooler, thus making the most recent years much warmer by comparison.

D'Aleo then calculated the differences between the previous raw data and the new adjusted data. Here is that chart:

Screen_shot_2013-07-14_at_4.38.02_PM.png

​


Hmmmm again. From 1995 to present, the raw and adjusted temperatures are about the same, but before 1995 the temperatures are "adjusted" downward by between 0.5 and 1.5 deg C all the way back to the beginning of the century. What's going on here? And the amazing thing is, they don't say.

much more...



http://manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2013/7/18/what-is-the-greatest-scientific-fraud-of-all-time



​


​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Non-social man wonders where to go to meet the right kind of woman...
Replies
10
Views
404
lifeis2short2b
L
F
Richard Lewis, who mined life and neuroses for dark comedy, dies at 76
Replies
0
Views
78
FL30
F
Stewart_Pidd
How would you spend your last bit of time on Earth?
Replies
13
Views
273
thør
thør
VelvetGentleman
Looking for the title of an old porn flick (bonus anectode within)
Replies
4
Views
1K
VelvetGentleman
VelvetGentleman
B
Boobies part 1
Replies
19
Views
2K
Bigtitsbitch1000x
B
Back
Top