SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Manmade Global Warming, A hoax? A Scam? or a Doomsday Cult?
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Don Hurst who wrote (4066)7/3/2014 9:31:12 PM
From: sense2 Recommendations

Recommended By
jlallen
weatherguru

   of 4326
 
Without reading the work... just looking at the dates...

His study starts from the little ice age... and shows warming occurring ? LOL!! Go figure. Choose different dates... get different results. That's the "same old" scam we've seen operated often enough by others... that depends on cherry picking specific [bracketed] data points... thus producing statistically invalid results.

Then, more warming over the last 50 years... with dates and numbers that appear they precisely synch with the (recently retracted) NOAA claims ? But, NOAA just RETRACTED their own similar claims because they were based on NOAA's admittedly COOKED DATA that resulted in "proving" the existence of "warming" in that period... when there wasn't any... and, since then, they restored 1937 as their "warmest" year ?

So, you can probably ignore ALL the studies that were done PRIOR to the admission that the database they depend on was (deliberately) corrupted...

Of course, NOAA retracting their data... invalidates EVERY STUDY done prior to now that depended on that cooked data, or on any similarly flawed methodology ? How many studies is that... who is going to identify them for us ? queue <crickets chirping>. And, what did those studies COST ? FWIW... should also point out that the FRAUD being practiced also has HUGE consequences, including LEGAL consequences for those engaged in the manufacture of statistically invalid studies... in terms of that professional malpractice resulting not in "science" but in purposefully wasted $$$... as all the money spent on those "studies" using the fraudulent data or invalid statistical methodology... was money poured down a rat hole. Scientists who don't generate and validate their own data using STATISTICALLY SOUND METHODS... are wasting their time and our $$$.

The requirement for the use of statisitically sound methods... eliminates the use of ANY computer model as a source of "data"... because NONE of the models thus far have proven even remotely close to "correct" in generating functions that can duplicate REAL climate variation.

When you know your model doesn't work... but use the results it generates anyway... that's FRAUD.

The reality is that no study, however well intended, can ever be better than than the data used.

When the data are corrupt... so is any study based on them.

Garbage in, garbage out... wasn't invented for computers... but it sure does MATTER whether you depend on garbage or not... while using computers to excuse not applying ACTUALLY statistically valid methods.

In large swaths of the work done on global warming... the data used was created DELIBERATELY in error...the vast majority of it was generated using statistically invalid methods... intending to skew all those studies that depended on them... to support the POLITICS of those who generated the fraudulent data and advocate for the use of fraudulently generated data...
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News