Fools and Scammers of the world unite…… or what has happened to mathematic, psysic, biology, geology education? Well one thing is for sure. Some haven’t understood Photosynthesis among other Natural forces, Natural chemical reactions and so on…. up to Archimedes principle
Inserted quote 27 November 2015:
Stefan Edman: Klimatmötet kan bli en vändpunkt, Gästkrönika Ledarsidan GP 27 november 2015 Fools never learn….. nor do they understand: Consensus is a political term with no connection what so ever to Theories of ScienceFacts not fiction
From Swedish Newspapers
• WMO data based on the temperature of the earth. The analyzes were primarily carried out by three institutions: the Hadley Centre and the Climatic Research Unit in Britain, the US Weather Service, NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), as well as the US space agency NASA.
• The analyzes show that the average temperature on Earth has increased by around one degree Celsius since 1880 when the survey started. The increase has been most apparent since 19802015 troligen varmaste året sedan 1880, GP 25 November 2015
Klimathotet samlar världen i Paris, Aftonbladet 26 November 2015 How much CO2 have those persons, politicians, so called scholars, UN and IPCC ”elité” not to mention journalists used to get to Paris by plane, eaten for and so on…… They forgot that neither UN nor IPCC is a World Goverment nor an Academic institution…..
Corrected figures and forgotten Arctic/Antartic history
Claim that this year will be the warmest since 1880 is redicules. Only fools and people trying to scam others would try that one. Simple check question to be remembered and asked: WHO measured temperatures in Arctic and Antarctic BEFORE human reached the Poles?
In fact the first base station within 5 km from open sea in Arctic was at place in 1959…. Who measured and where a figure for the year temperature before that? Btw. As Nansen’s Fram showed in early 1900’s the ice in Arctic aren’t stationary in one place… not for one month, not for one year and certainly not isn’t a station placed in Arctic in same GPS-place from 1880 to 2015… Only fools and scammers might try that one.
Route of Nansen’s Arctic expedition ship Fram’s after being frozen in the Arctic Ice.
Reblogged from Wattsup (link se below my own lines):
Study demonstrates a pattern in ‘how scientists lie about their data’
A few lines from the bloggarticle:
To see if similar patterns exist in scientific academia, Jeff Hancock, a professor of communication at Stanford, and graduate student David Markowitz searched the archives of PubMed, a database of life sciences journals, from 1973 to 2013 for retracted papers. They identified 253, primarily from biomedical journals, that were retracted for documented fraud and compared the writing in these to unretracted papers from the same journals and publication years, and covering the same topics.
The results showed that fraudulent retracted papers scored significantly higher on the obfuscation index than papers retracted for other reasons. For example, fraudulent papers contained approximately 1.5 percent more jargon than unretracted papers.
“Fradulent papers had about 60 more jargon-like words per paper compared to unretracted papers,” Markowitz said. “This is a non-trivial amount.” See link to Study below.
This is unfortunatly only part of the truth when it comes to those calling themselves scholars in subject Climate-threat.
The problem is that not a single study by or for IPCC lives up to the lowest, in other word the basic, level in the way they use Theories of Science, argumentation, retoric and so on.
Climate researchers wouldn’t in old days here in Sweden have been approved even on a D-level (Master Essay/Thesis) less than that thesis. They have far too little knowledge. And that may well be the case. BUT there exist not one single study written by so called scholars of CO2-threat using even half of all the necessary parameters. When I myself, Systemprogrammer 1971 studied to become a teacher in History, Religion, Geography (incl. Geology) and Social Science(Samhällskunskap) I myself for my algoritm re. Waterlevels from peak of the Stone Age up to year 1000 AD all around the world in order to have correct levels in the Sea we Swedes call ”Östersjön” in other words between Sweden and Finland-Baltic-Germany-Denmark, for same periods, I found that one needed at least 43 (FORTY THREE) different parameters. And testing/analysing them one by one before it was possible to write an algoritm….
Is there anyone who seen over 12 parameters used by the so called scholars? Let alone they seem to understand that Consensus is a political term with no connection what so ever to Theories of Science.. But they act worse than that. As written in the reblogged article how scholars tend to write when they either know that their data is incorrect or incomplete, in other words what we who studied Theories of Science calls using Fallacies in argumentation they show themselves as worse than a strawman….
But that’s not all
The so-called CO2 measurements never was set up to measure CO2 for CO2-threat ”scholars”. After St Helena exploded the instruments measuring CO2 came to be placed near normally in the windshadow of an Vulcano due to the need of measuring CO2 preasure and quantity changes to be able to make a good forecast of next eruption……
Any vulcano, to be, now active or dead for millions of years, always produce CO2. In fact 92% of all CO2 produced on Earth comes from vulcanos on land or in Sea….. Then we have the percentage from tectonical plates’ collisions and so on. HUMANS only produce less than 1 % of all CO2 produced on Earth entering our Atmosphere…..
When CO2 ”scholars” refer to CO2-measuring they use a Volcano on Hawaii as their standard. Please remember what you read above regarding Volcanos…… not only do they act as When the fox counts the chickens they don’t even meet normal standard presenting raw data. They ”Correct them”…. one of the most used scholars in England’s Academic World thought I was on his side so he sent me his raw data as well as each correction when the so called Computer Models first was presented….. As a Systemprogrammer with Exam 1971 and who followed and learnt Computerlanguage up to present day, I am chocked to say the least of the low quality in their so called models. We used to call such systems and programs – shit in shit out…..
But of course, as You who followed my blogg knows….. in many ways Swedes tend to go to the extrem. We have the longest ungoing Investigation/Study before a law was taken… over 150 years… and in the so called CO2-threat you will find that this hardly isn’t enough…..
”Our reconstruction of the winter and spring temperature variations over half a millennium shown in Figure 1. The measurements for 1860 are adjusted for the artificial warming caused by the city of Stockholm’s growth, so that the curve shows the more natural change.” Source: Research and Advances No. 5, 2008, 500 years of weather. Swedish Journal title: Forskning och Framsteg nr 5 2008, 500 års väder
CO2 scum continues
Nothing new when CO2-”experts” try their best to fill an empty bag with more than air….. That was proven beyond reasonable doubts in Documents suggests that a climate activist shadow organization was behand the Rico20-allegation, Reblogg från Watts up
btw. If you want a real good laugh read this one as well: The ultimate ‘Godwin-effect’ – Science in 1941: ‘Global warming caused Hitler’, Wattsupwiththat 2015/11/24
And some persons calling themselves experts and scholar can’t count neither do a proper analys…..’
Todays Arctic Sea Ice Extent: The latest value： 10,003,709 km2, November 24, 2015
This means that each Polar Bear alone at present have almost as much many km2 as the islands of Seyschellerna. The later have 455 km2 area – Each Polar Bear have to walk alone on 454,7 km2. Might be that they have a hard time finding a partner?Sourcs: A [fat] polar bear is shown on the north slope of Alaska. Credit: Eric Regehr, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Swedish newspapers re. UN:s and IPCC:s CO2-threat meating in Paris will follow at top one by one.
From Stanford University:
Stanford researchers uncover patterns in how scientists lie about their data
When scientists falsify data, they try to cover it up by writing differently in their published works. A pair of Stanford researchers have devised a way of identifying these written clues.
Even the best poker players have ”tells” that give away when they’re bluffing with a weak hand. Scientists who commit fraud have similar, but even more subtle, tells, and a pair of Stanford researchers have cracked the writing patterns of scientists who attempt to pass along falsified data.
The work, published in the Journal of Language and Social Psychology, could eventually help scientists identify falsified research before it is published.
There is a fair amount of research dedicated…
View original post 502 fler ord