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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Brumar89 who wrote (875219)7/25/2015 3:56:15 PM
From: i-node4 Recommendations

Recommended By
Brumar89
gamesmistress
Taro
THE WATSONYOUTH

  Respond to of 1584007
 
They hide their code and data (even though taxpayers often paid for it). They scheme to avoid disclosure. They manipulate statistics. They have misused statistics to the point of absolute meaninglessness. By engaging in a public relations campaign they have totally taken the science out of the picture.

The IPCC is an absolute joke with its review process and deadlines and its inherent biases. So-called peer review is a worse joke; with no serious review process at all. Major science journals like Science and Nature have been proved biased in every respect when it comes to GW.

Today, half the people in the US believe in manmade GW and a VERY STRONG component of that belief is political. Democrats believe it. Because, of course, science is beyond most of them.

And there just isn't any compelling evidence at all of man-made Global Warming.

Without a sea of adjustments, fudge factors, fixing, centering, rotation, interpolation, extrapolation, projection, extension, manipulation, smoothing, infilling, proxies, reconstruction, "reduction of error" statistics, divergence, truncation, and every other SWAG (semi-wild-assed-guess) known to man, they have nothing. Nothing at all.



To: Brumar89 who wrote (875219)7/25/2015 4:22:06 PM
From: J_F_Shepard  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1584007
 
What part of those curves give you a problem......and why are you focused on the last 12 years, the data there show a negative slope in all curves......why not look at 1940 to 1980? Doesn't that show a longer period of cooling for you atmospheric scientists? And finally explain that Woods chart, I bet you can't...