Climate and Weather

EvilGoalie 21 said:
The antecedent is post 4908, which links to Breitbart, which links to the paper in question, which is published in a soon to be defunct journal called GeoResJ. So, if I understand your question, the "it" is either the journal or the paper in question. The paper is an open source freebie that will pop up in your browser if you clink the link in the Breitbart article. The paper, in my opinion, has some issues......for starters, they obtain their input data using UN-SCAN-IT rather than actual data set values. That's a new one. Crap in, crap out....
Click to expand...


So....you're countering all the False data that NASA and other Scientists used ?

Do you have a New hypotheses coupled with a different Ponzi scheme that you can share with us all ?
 
nononono said:
So....you're countering all the False data that NASA and other Scientists used ?
Click to expand...

I am "countering" the paper referenced earlier. I suspect the cross currents are because I'm the only one who read the damn thing. Which is just as well. Waste of time. What's false-intellectually dishonest might be a better term-is "researchers" whose stated position seems similar to yours, namely that climate data, in some uselessly broad sense, is cooked, fabricated whatever. But then they use that exact same primary data as a starting point for their own work. Even, in this case, if they just scan and digitize graphs that they presumably think are crap.

nononono said:
Do you have a New hypotheses
Click to expand...

Yes. There is an inverse correlation between unfocused criticism of climate data and the ability to generate it.

nononono said:
A different Ponzi scheme that you can share with us all ?
Click to expand...

I have no reason to believe funding for the work in question represents a Ponzi scheme. I cannot image what aspect of it would attract investors. In this case the work was funded by the B. Macfie Family Foundation which contributes to a think tank called the Institute of Public Affairs, which in Australia is akin to something like the Heartland Institute here in the states. The senior author on the study worked at IPA and the money seemed to flow with her in an interesting way when she took a faculty position at Queensland. So not a Ponzi scheme. Just a simple quid pro quo.

Just wear the beautiful shirt and everything will be fine. Wovoka was in the desert last night, extracting Tumors and performing Cures.
 
Hüsker Dü said:
Again, we are all judgmental or prejudice in our thinking to some extent . . . how far you take it, to which extent, is the issue.
Click to expand...
Again? Issue?
I was talking with X10...and I know he's not racist.
That's why I asked him if that's what he was going for.
Perhaps you should allow him to answer for himself?
Have a great day ratman
 
Hüsker Dü said:
What about Blockbusters?
Click to expand...

I always look for motive. Like why would I lie to a bunch of strangers who don't know who I am? Or how about "why would people deny science? Who benefits by denying the scientific consensus?" Well, just look at Fortune 500 companies, see how many are "energy" and look at who funds the anti-consensus research and media campaigns.
 
EvilGoalie 21 said:
I am "countering" the paper referenced earlier. I suspect the cross currents are because I'm the only one who read the damn thing. Which is just as well. Waste of time. What's false-intellectually dishonest might be a better term-is "researchers" whose stated position seems similar to yours, namely that climate data, in some uselessly broad sense, is cooked, fabricated whatever. But then they use that exact same primary data as a starting point for their own work. Even, in this case, if they just scan and digitize graphs that they presumably think are crap.



Yes. There is an inverse correlation between unfocused criticism of climate data and the ability to generate it.



I have no reason to believe funding for the work in question represents a Ponzi scheme. I cannot image what aspect of it would attract investors. In this case the work was funded by the B. Macfie Family Foundation which contributes to a think tank called the Institute of Public Affairs, which in Australia is akin to something like the Heartland Institute here in the states. The senior author on the study worked at IPA and the money seemed to flow with her in an interesting way when she took a faculty position at Queensland. So not a Ponzi scheme. Just a simple quid pro quo.

Just wear the beautiful shirt and everything will be fine. Wovoka was in the desert last night, extracting Tumors and performing Cures.
Click to expand...

The Global Warming " Carbon Tax " is / was a Ponzi scheme.

Your long winded post doesn't even rise to the level of High School Intelligence.
Go back and do the proper research, as you haven't a clue what you're talking about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top