How to lie statistically?

Only report the data that fits you desired theory.
www.climatedepot.com...

How much more of this nonsense are we going to allow the Chicken Littles to squawk over before sanity prevails and we collectively stop all this AGW scheme in its tracks? It's all BS... the Earth's climate changes in cycles and believing mankind is driving any of it is not only the most arrogant idea going, it also only can be demonstrated using heavily manipulated and highly selective data. When will this shrinking number of average citizens get tired of buying AL Gore more stocks and get tired of handing more control in their lives over for little more than a brief warm fuzzy feeling?

I can hear the cries of outrage already ... but but but .. that is just ignorant.

What I find ignorant is that we just dismiss so much of our architectural history that shows our planet has been much different in the past. From deserts that were once oasis with palm trees and plentiful water to all of the megaliths that are under our oceans. I also agree that the climate changes, but thinking that we are the instigator of that change is pure hubris.

(might be off topic a little) ... but they have to keep up with the lies because it supports their creation of history. If they admitted they have no clue or if they acknowledged a lot of these discoveries, people might start questioning the official narrative of our history.

I keep on looking for the official narrative of how these can be possible:





blog.world-mysteries.com...

&

Franck Goddio with the intact and inscribed Heracleion stele (1.90 m). It was commissioned by Nectanebo I (378-362 BC) and is almost identical to the Naukratis Stele in the Egyptian Museum in Cairo. The place where it was to be situated is clearly named: Thonis-Heracleion. ©Franck Goddio/Hilti Foundation, photo: Christoph Gerigk

Climate change, global warming and extreme weather are deflections from the real issue, environmental pollution.

You want to affect change , stop driving your gas guzzling car, buying products transported by ship, air and rail, turn off your utilities, rise and sleep with the sun, grow your own food, walk or ride a bike.

Rage against the machine all you want, but keep on earning, pay your tax and consume ever more resources.

Gotta keep up appearances.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

When will this shrinking number of average citizens get tired of buying AL Gore more stocks and get tired of handing more control in their lives over for little more than a brief warm fuzzy feeling?

maybe if people took the same intelligence bypass and started believing the oil industry's mantra they keep crying.

its understandable those of little intellect latch onto conspiracies like this, no doubt you still believe the tobacco lobby claims smoking doesn't cause lung cancer.

captain 'murica, single digit iq matching his shoe size.

The real issue is that we are lied to about everything! The way that government works is to scare us so it can become even more powerful. Scared people look to a leader and relaxed people ask questions. It's not just climate change! Power corrupts everyone PERIOD! Why is it that we hold these elite to such a high standards, why does everyone have so much trust in these people, they are human just the same as you or I.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

It truly does seem like a religion sometimes. Science has always been a work in progress, but now we have people trying to bend it to support their pet narrative while ignoring all logic and evidence to the contrary.

a reply to: growler

Because the scientists paid to produce research by the government don't have an agenda preference?

Everyone knows Eisenhower warned us against the military-industrial complex, but look at what he also warned us against:

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite.

In other words, he saw danger in the prospect of academic research being overshadowed by the chasing of government grants and thus the need to fulfill the government agenda.

How is that any different from any perceived need of private corporate scientests to fulfill the needs of the corporations they work for?

So ask yourself what the government's main agenda is, and it is not benevolent stewardship. It's power and control.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
It's all BS... the Earth's climate changes in cycles and believing mankind is driving any of it is not only the most arrogant idea going, it also only can be demonstrated using heavily manipulated and highly selective data.

Well, we don't actually even need to collect weather data or observe the climate to make the inference of human-induced changes from burning fossil fuels.

A simple lab experiment would suffice to demonstrate the basic problem. Child's play...

www.youtube.com...

But time will tell, eh? (:

a reply to: ClovenSky

I also agree that the climate changes, but thinking that we are the instigator of that change is pure hubris.

I think that we've done a lot to affect climate change, but not in the way they're telling us. For example, I remember when they told us to stop using aerosols, because they were making a hole in the ozone layer. I never bought that rot then or now, not with all the military rockets, missles and nuclear tests they have done on earth and in the atmosphere. "Bitch Please!"

[

originally posted by: growler
captain 'murica, single digit iq matching his shoe size.

Cute... Im a licensed professional Civil Engineer, son. I've done more with the "science" behind the AGW scam than you'd believe. But go ahead and keep playing the game and thinking mankind has an impact.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
this AGW scheme

I'm still wondering where they pulled that stat of "97% of Scientists". Did they spell it scientists ... with a little "s" ... indicating only scientists unconstrained by Scientific Method?

I'd sure like to know. I was never asked. The question has never been hinted in my general direction by a 'pollster'.

If I wasn't asked ... who was? Quacks like bill nye the vajaja guy?

You're right burdman. It's a scheme and a scam.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

An issue that is often ignored is that there may be "hundreds" or "thousands' of studies.

But those studies rely on data collected. These studies share the same data collection.

And if the data collected has issues, then that contaminates all the studies that follow.

How was the data collected? Who collected the data? When was it collected? Was it done at the same time every day? Did they use the same equipment? Was the equipment calibrated? Who did the calibration? What are the variances on the equipment? Where are the papers on variance research?


We should always question and be skeptical.


If you want to operate on 100% faith, then go to church.

Well, my mind is changed

Thank God for those benevolent fossil fuel companies for showing us their products aren't having an effect on our climate.

a reply to: Snarl

Are you a climate scientist?

If not, you would not have been asked. Why should we really care about the opinions of those who don't actually research climate?

Would you ask a proctologist for advice on a heart bypass?

a reply to: melatonin

ummm, because these select few, government funded scientists are creating fictional stories that will affect us all.

This should concern every single one of us.

originally posted by: melatonin
Are you a climate scientist?

Are you asking me if, "I'm the weatherman?"

ROFL. Listen to how stoopid that sounds. How often does the weatherman get it wrong?

"Are you a climate scientist?" All one has to be is aware of the Scientific Method. The first time you see adjustments being made to the recorded data ... as a Scientist ... you call Bullsnip.

a reply to: Snarl

That was a parody, surely.

Weatherman =/= climate scientist.

And, yeah, just follow the scientific method and you're suddenly a scientist, haha. Dunning-Kruger effect.

I'm sure burdman would agree that all you'd have to do is buy a box of lego and you're suddenly a civil engineer D:

a reply to: ClovenSky

Uh-huh. All those dastardly scientists conspiring to take your moneys and freedom. Boo!

a reply to: burdman30ott6

I agree that cherry picking is 'bad science' however bad science is wholly different from fraudulent science.

EDIT - another marker for 'bad science' is not validating your data and the sources of that data.

In addition, I find it hard to trust anything from a Rupert Murdock owned 'quasi-news' outlet without other verifying sources. So pardon by skepticism.

The Australian is a national broadsheet newspaper published by the News Corporation subsidiary, News Limited. It was first published in July 1964 at the instigation of Rupert Murdoch. "The editorial values focus on leading and shaping public opinion on the issues that affect Australia," it states on its website.[1]

The newspaper promotes climate change denial in a way that is "sometimes...so astonishing as to be entertaining",[2][3] leading some to dub it "The Australian's War on Science".[4]

www.sourcewatch.org...

NOTE the sources in my quote (with links for you to check into) - none were listed in either the aggregate source of the OP nor the underlying source of the Murdock rag.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

If you were a Civil Engineer in South Florida where seasonal high tides cause coastal flooding every year, I think your opinion would be different.

Do you think the elevated CO2 levels that human activity caused and continues to add, will have no consequences?

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: burdman30ott6

If you were a Civil Engineer in South Florida where seasonal high tides cause coastal flooding every year, I think your opinion would be different.

Do you think the elevated CO2 levels that human activity caused and continues to add, will have no consequences?

edit on 6-8-2017 by jrod because: PS, Climatedepot is a biased source that sells doubt and ignores science

I don't know. It's hard to take it seriously when I am sitting here during what is traditionally the hottest, driest time of year with my windows open, my AC off and we've had 9" of rain over the past two weeks.

I know; I know ... it's just weather.

But at the same time, when the weather confirms the confirmation bias of global warming, it suddenly becomes climate change too.