last thread was full of useful idiots claiming that it's "unscientific" to question the recent "adjustment" of temperature because climatologists have a good track record
but they don't.. their track record is piss poor and you always have to take into account political motivation when looking at ANYTHING... just look at the scientific community memeing gender spectrums for example
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_documents
>hockey stick graph it showed was a genuine effect, but he had an "uneasy feeling" about the use of "inappropriate statistical tools" and said that the 1998 study had exaggerated the effect.
>The ICO stated that "the prima facie evidence from the published e-mails indicate an attempt to defeat disclosure by deleting information. It is hard to imagine more cogent prima facie evidence. ... The fact that the elements of a [FOIA] section 77 offence may have been found here, but cannot be acted on because of the elapsed time, is a very serious matter."
>"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."
>I've just completed Mike's Nature trick
if the whole cap and trade scheme invented by enron and the global government style IPCC doesn't make you suspicious you are a certified sheep NPC and you are irrational for having a bias for believing authority
Even im not saying that global warming isn't real but I am saying it's reasonable to suspect exaggeration of the data and predictions of catastrophic economic effects, considering combating climate change would have a demonstrably negative economic impact itself by making energy more expensive (green new deal is lying because the only way solar and wind is cheaper is when the government over regulates other cheaper forms of energy.)
but they don't.. their track record is piss poor and you always have to take into account political motivation when looking at ANYTHING... just look at the scientific community memeing gender spectrums for example
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_documents
>hockey stick graph it showed was a genuine effect, but he had an "uneasy feeling" about the use of "inappropriate statistical tools" and said that the 1998 study had exaggerated the effect.
>The ICO stated that "the prima facie evidence from the published e-mails indicate an attempt to defeat disclosure by deleting information. It is hard to imagine more cogent prima facie evidence. ... The fact that the elements of a [FOIA] section 77 offence may have been found here, but cannot be acted on because of the elapsed time, is a very serious matter."
>"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."
>I've just completed Mike's Nature trick
if the whole cap and trade scheme invented by enron and the global government style IPCC doesn't make you suspicious you are a certified sheep NPC and you are irrational for having a bias for believing authority
Even im not saying that global warming isn't real but I am saying it's reasonable to suspect exaggeration of the data and predictions of catastrophic economic effects, considering combating climate change would have a demonstrably negative economic impact itself by making energy more expensive (green new deal is lying because the only way solar and wind is cheaper is when the government over regulates other cheaper forms of energy.)
