Go Back   AzBilliards.com > Main Category > Non Pool Related
Reload this Page Take Your "Scientific Study" & Shove It, Or "Science For Dummies"
Reply
Page 3 of 4 123 4
 
Share Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 6 votes, 5.00 average.
Old
  (#31)
chefjeff
No sides, only players
chefjeff has a reputation beyond reputechefjeff has a reputation beyond reputechefjeff has a reputation beyond reputechefjeff has a reputation beyond reputechefjeff has a reputation beyond reputechefjeff has a reputation beyond reputechefjeff has a reputation beyond reputechefjeff has a reputation beyond reputechefjeff has a reputation beyond reputechefjeff has a reputation beyond reputechefjeff has a reputation beyond repute
 
chefjeff's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 52,834
vCash: 500
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Des Moines, Iowa
   
08-18-2015, 11:47 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by TX Poolnut View Post
If you're going to keep resurrecting this thread, the least you could do is sprinkle it with more boobs.
How about a study on fake boobs vs. real boobs and the consequences of those differences?

I'd be willing to volunteer to be on the study board.


Jeff Livingston
  
Reply With Quote

Careful what you wish for....
Old
  (#32)
jimmyg
Mook! What's a Mook?
jimmyg has a reputation beyond reputejimmyg has a reputation beyond reputejimmyg has a reputation beyond reputejimmyg has a reputation beyond reputejimmyg has a reputation beyond reputejimmyg has a reputation beyond reputejimmyg has a reputation beyond reputejimmyg has a reputation beyond reputejimmyg has a reputation beyond reputejimmyg has a reputation beyond reputejimmyg has a reputation beyond repute
 
jimmyg's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 32,244
vCash: 500
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Join Date: Jun 2006
   
Careful what you wish for.... - 08-18-2015, 12:22 PM

  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#33)
LAMas
AzB Silver Member
LAMas has a reputation beyond reputeLAMas has a reputation beyond reputeLAMas has a reputation beyond reputeLAMas has a reputation beyond reputeLAMas has a reputation beyond reputeLAMas has a reputation beyond reputeLAMas has a reputation beyond reputeLAMas has a reputation beyond reputeLAMas has a reputation beyond reputeLAMas has a reputation beyond reputeLAMas has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 34,834
vCash: 1700
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Los Angeles
   
08-18-2015, 02:02 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmyg View Post
Thin is in...someone's MILF?


dumluk
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#34)
Sofla
AzB Silver Member
Sofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond repute
 
Sofla's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 43,412
vCash: 500
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Sunshine State
   
08-18-2015, 02:09 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by LAMas View Post
Thin is in...someone's MILF?
I think it was an old Mike Hammer line...

She came into the office pointing her twin 38s right at me. She also had two guns!


The point of modern propaganda isn't only to misinform or push an agenda. It is to exhaust your critical thinking, to annihilate truth.

― Garry Kasparov

... the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either -- but right through every human heart -- and through all human hearts.

― Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#35)
chefjeff
No sides, only players
chefjeff has a reputation beyond reputechefjeff has a reputation beyond reputechefjeff has a reputation beyond reputechefjeff has a reputation beyond reputechefjeff has a reputation beyond reputechefjeff has a reputation beyond reputechefjeff has a reputation beyond reputechefjeff has a reputation beyond reputechefjeff has a reputation beyond reputechefjeff has a reputation beyond reputechefjeff has a reputation beyond repute
 
chefjeff's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 52,834
vCash: 500
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Des Moines, Iowa
   
08-18-2015, 03:34 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmyg View Post
I wish she had better eyesight.

Coz now I don't!

MY EYES!!!!!!!!!!!....MY EYES!!!!!!!!!!!



Jeff Livingston
  
Reply With Quote
So much for "peer reviews"...just more "creative science" BS..
Old
  (#36)
jimmyg
Mook! What's a Mook?
jimmyg has a reputation beyond reputejimmyg has a reputation beyond reputejimmyg has a reputation beyond reputejimmyg has a reputation beyond reputejimmyg has a reputation beyond reputejimmyg has a reputation beyond reputejimmyg has a reputation beyond reputejimmyg has a reputation beyond reputejimmyg has a reputation beyond reputejimmyg has a reputation beyond reputejimmyg has a reputation beyond repute
 
jimmyg's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 32,244
vCash: 500
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Join Date: Jun 2006
   
So much for "peer reviews"...just more "creative science" BS.. - 08-25-2015, 05:59 AM

Faked Peer Reviews Prompt 64 Retractions

August 24th, 2015

Via: Nature:

A leading scientific publisher has retracted 64 articles in 10 journals, after an internal investigation discovered fabricated peer-review reports linked to the articles’ publication.


Berlin-based Springer announced the retractions in an 18 August statement. In May, Springer merged with parts of Macmillan Science and Education — which publishes Nature — to form the new company Springer Nature.

The cull comes after similar discoveries of ‘fake peer review’ by several other major publishers, including London-based BioMed Central, an arm of Springer, which began retracting 43 articles in March citing “reviews from fabricated reviewers”. The practice can occur when researchers submitting a paper for publication suggest reviewers, but supply contact details for them that actually route requests for review back to the researchers themselves.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#37)
PoolBum
Abracadabra!

PoolBum has a reputation beyond reputePoolBum has a reputation beyond reputePoolBum has a reputation beyond reputePoolBum has a reputation beyond reputePoolBum has a reputation beyond reputePoolBum has a reputation beyond reputePoolBum has a reputation beyond reputePoolBum has a reputation beyond reputePoolBum has a reputation beyond reputePoolBum has a reputation beyond reputePoolBum has a reputation beyond repute
 
PoolBum's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 12,691
vCash: 1190
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Headed for Andromeda
   
08-25-2015, 10:46 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmyg View Post
Faked Peer Reviews Prompt 64 Retractions
For a second there I was really worried. I thought it said, "Faked Beer Reviews."


"He knew what those jubilant crowds did not know, but could have learned from books; that the plague bacillus never dies or disappears for good...and that perhaps the day would come when, for the bane and the enlightening of men, it would rouse up its rats again and send them forth to die in a happy city."
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#38)
jimmyg
Mook! What's a Mook?
jimmyg has a reputation beyond reputejimmyg has a reputation beyond reputejimmyg has a reputation beyond reputejimmyg has a reputation beyond reputejimmyg has a reputation beyond reputejimmyg has a reputation beyond reputejimmyg has a reputation beyond reputejimmyg has a reputation beyond reputejimmyg has a reputation beyond reputejimmyg has a reputation beyond reputejimmyg has a reputation beyond repute
 
jimmyg's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 32,244
vCash: 500
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Join Date: Jun 2006
   
09-13-2015, 07:44 AM

Arctic Has Gained Hundreds Of Miles Of Ice The Last Three Years


Posted on 12th September 2015 by Administrator in Economy |Politics |Social Issues

Via Real Science by stevengoddard



Red shows the September 2012 minimum extent. Green shows the current extent, which is likely the minimum for 2015. The Arctic has gained hundreds of miles of ice over the past three years, much of which is thick, multi-year ice.

Nobel Prize winning climate experts and journalists tell us that the Arctic is ice-free, because they are propagandists pushing an agenda, not actual scientists or journalists.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The psychopaths and their "Scientific Studies" using fudged, fraudulent, and manipulated, data to support their self-serving agendas













The Argus-Press – Jun 24, 2008
  
Reply With Quote
A totally fraudulent and corrupt, self-serving, system....
Old
  (#39)
jimmyg
Mook! What's a Mook?
jimmyg has a reputation beyond reputejimmyg has a reputation beyond reputejimmyg has a reputation beyond reputejimmyg has a reputation beyond reputejimmyg has a reputation beyond reputejimmyg has a reputation beyond reputejimmyg has a reputation beyond reputejimmyg has a reputation beyond reputejimmyg has a reputation beyond reputejimmyg has a reputation beyond reputejimmyg has a reputation beyond repute
 
jimmyg's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 32,244
vCash: 500
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Join Date: Jun 2006
   
A totally fraudulent and corrupt, self-serving, system.... - 10-03-2015, 05:45 AM

Dirty Money, Dirty Science

October 1st, 2015

by Doug Gurian-Sherman


Source: Capt. Spaulding

The biotech industry’s web of attempts to buy credibility, by laundering its messages through supposedly independent academic scientists, is unraveling and beginning to reveal the influence of huge amount of industry money on the independence of academic agricultural science.
Some of this process was revealed recently in The New York Times. Many of these efforts to influence policy or public opinion start with industry staff emails, including suggested topics, points, and themes, which are then laundered through the credibility of academic scientists. It is a matter of academic scientists promoting positions and arguments of the industry, not merely a sharing of positions that each party already held and were acting on.

The emails from several academic scientists linked in the NYT article show numerous instances of industry personnel, such as Eric Sachs of Monsanto
, in ongoing dialogue with academic scientists, including strategizing about how to influence policy and how academic scientists can carry out industry desires.

A deeper dive into the emails coming forward through this article and from U.S. Right to Know public disclosure efforts shows a broader and more troubling picture of influence peddling in the agricultural sciences.

The overriding issue is the huge amount of money from the biotech and industrial agriculture industries pouring into public universities, and the corrosive effect all that money is having on the independence of science.
Evidence suggests that biotech industry influence is a pervasive problem, corrupting science and distorting public discussion. It extends much farther than the specific examples provided by the New York Times article. As with the climate change debate, where a powerful fossil fuel industry is slowing response to an environmental and social disaster, the biotech industry and industrial agriculture more broadly is delaying choices that would move us toward an urgently needed sustainable and just food and agriculture system.

The emails linked to the New York Times article also reveals some of the many other academic scientists, who have vocally supported biotech or panned biotech critics, were copied on industry emails. We should not implicate scientists in greenwashing or collusion with the biotech industry simply for being copied on emails, or even some communication with companies. It is not clear from these emails whether those other scientists have also engaged in collaboration with the industry, or accepted industry money. But the efforts of many of these scientists to vigorously defend biotechnology or even attack critics have been documented elsewhere.

There is no reason to think this money buys less influence in academia than the widely recognized corrupting influence that money has on politics.
Unlike academic science though, no one has illusions that our political process is objective. The perceived objectivity of academic scientists presents a huge opportunity for the biotech industry to influence public opinion in ways it could not accomplish otherwise.

A Tangled Web

Since the NYT article was published, several of these scientists have doubled down, saying that they have been proud to serve a cause they believe in.
And I have no reason to doubt their sincerity. These scientists are effective in their spokesperson roles in part because of their backgrounds in molecular biology, the deep interest in which preceded their involvement with the ag biotech industry.

But this misses the point, which is that the collaboration with industry, its public relations machines, such as Ketchum,
and access to industry dollars, allows these scientists to amplify their voices with the journalists and the media, the public, and policymakers way beyond what could otherwise occur.

As one small example, Bruce Chassy, an emeritus professor at the University of Illinois, bemoans the challenges of flying economy class (all he can afford, he says) to participate as an invited speaker at a biotech conference in New Delhi. He strongly implies he would not endure such tribulations, and would skip the meeting without industry support. In an August 29, 2011 email to Eric Sachs of Monsanto, he suggests that the ag industry trade group CropLife, of which Monsanto and other biotech companies are members, pay his way (Chassy was listed as a speaker at the event). In a separate email, Monsanto’s Sachs also suggests to Chassy that he participate in an American Medical Association meeting to try to dissuade the AMA from supporting mandatory labeling of GE foods.

That academic scientists recognize the value of their perceived independence is suggested in an email from University of Florida Scientist Kevin Folta to Monsanto’s Keith Reding, Regulatory Policy Lead, on April 17, 2013: “keep me in mind if you ever need a good public interface with no corporate ties. That knows the subject inside out and can think on his feet [emphasis added].”

In another example from the NYT article, Dow reminds David Shaw, a Mississippi State University weed scientist, of its generosity. And an email to Shaw on Jan 17, 2012 from John Jachetta, Government affairs leader at Dow AgroSciences, urges Shaw to submit comments to United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to approve Dow’s Enlist soybeans, and provides three pages of helpful suggestions about topics and arguments. The Enlist crops are resistant to glyphosate and 2,4-D herbicides, and are the industry’s response to the epidemic of glyphosate resistant weeds caused by the first generation of glyphosate resistant crops. This strategy has been criticized as futile and one that will lead to greatly increased herbicide use and more herbicide resistance.

In a February 20, 2012 email from Shaw back to Jachetta, Shaw supplies his draft comments and asks for feedback from Dow.

In several emails in the spring of 2013, John Sorteres of Monsanto coordinates activities with both Shaw and, apparently, Prof. Mike Owen, a weed scientist at Iowa State University, on how to counter public comments to APHIS that argue against approval of Monsanto’s dicamba resistant crops, including detailed arguments and analyses. Dicamba is an herbicide similar to 2,4-D.

An August 30, 2013 email from Mississippi State acknowledges unrestricted gifts from Monsanto to Dr. Shaw and four other faculty members.

I go to some length to describe these interactions because, in addition to their collaboration with the biotech industry, both Shaw and Owens were on the steering committee of the so-called second “weed summit,” held in the spring of 2012, and sponsored by the prestigious National Academy of Sciences. The summit was called to address the crisis in weed control caused by glyphosate herbicide resistant weeds that arose from the use of genetically engineered herbicide resistant crops.

Dr. Shaw contacted the Union of Concerned Scientists, where I was formerly a senior scientist, for input into the meeting. One of our highest priority recommendations was that Penn State University weed scientist David Mortensen be included as a speaker and participant at the meeting.

Mortensen’s research focuses on ecologically-based weed control, and he has been a critic of the reliance on herbicide resistant crops that characterize current weed control in corn and soybeans in the US. He is also one of the best-versed scientists on ecological practices as alternatives to herbicide resistant crops and over-reliance on herbicides. Our request to include Mortensen was not accepted. As a consequence, the critique of the failing herbicide resistant crop strategy at the weed summit, and support for feasible non-herbicide, ecologically-based alternatives, was weakened to the point of ineffectiveness.

Since that time, the USDA has unconditionally approved these new GE crops, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (U.S. EPA) stewardship plan does not require any alternatives to the use of herbicides on these crops.
Serious efforts to implement agroecological alternatives to GE herbicide resistant crops would be a threat to the industry’s bottom line, because these approaches require much lower use of herbicides and expensive herbicide resistant seeds.

While not proof of collusion between the industry and academics, it is part of a bigger pattern of exclusion and intimidation that has been linked to industry influence.

Greatly Increased Flow of “Big Ag” Money is Going to Universities

Even a quick internet search shows numerous “generous” donations from Monsanto to universities, such US$1 million from Monsanto to Iowa State University for the “Monsanto Student Services Wing,” in 2012, Monsanto Student Travel awards, or US$1 million for a community center at the University of Missouri in 2012, among many examples of industry funding of academia.

If these were isolated situations, their overall impact on academic independence and integrity might be negligible. But that is far from the case. The particular situations detailed in the NYT article are undoubtedly the tip of the proverbial iceberg. Since the beginnings of the assault on government funding for public institutions in the 1980s, public, independent, and research funding of agriculture science has stagnated or fallen. Meanwhile, private sector funding, previously a minority of research dollars, is now the majority. This was documented in the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) report on agricultural preparedness and research, in late 2012. PCAST noted that 61 percent of research funding is from the private sector, with 11 percent of that, or about US$957 million, going to universities and other state institutions. And this does not include millions of dollars in gifts for non-research purposes, such as student centers.

It was also revealing, as I noted at the time, that the PCAST report seems to consider private sector funding only as a positive, calling it by the favorable and innocuous sounding term, “Public-Private Partnerships,” with virtually no caution about the possible cost to scientific independence that may accompany these funds. But when we examine the participants or advisors for this report, we find it replete with biotech industry representation.

Some of the many connections, and millions of dollars provided by the ag industry to academia, was also documented in the 2012 Food and Water Watch report, “Public Research Private Gain.” It would stretch credulity to suggest that the biotech industry would provide these funds without the expectation of quid pro quos. And the emails revealed by the NYT strongly suggest this.

The organic industry is also implicated by the New York Times article. And of course, influence from the private sector can come from any industry.


However, as the New York Times article notes, the research contributions of the organics industry is miniscule compared to those of the biotech and industrial ag industries. Unfortunately, the extensive highlighting of Charles Benbrook, who performs research on organics supported by the industry, gives the appearance of an equivalence between biotech and organic that isn’t credible. This comparison, in practical terms, is a distraction from the real world issue, which is the corruption of independent agricultural science by biotech, and more broadly, industrial agriculture industries.

​Part one of a two part series on the influence of money in agricultural research.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#40)
jimmyg
Mook! What's a Mook?
jimmyg has a reputation beyond reputejimmyg has a reputation beyond reputejimmyg has a reputation beyond reputejimmyg has a reputation beyond reputejimmyg has a reputation beyond reputejimmyg has a reputation beyond reputejimmyg has a reputation beyond reputejimmyg has a reputation beyond reputejimmyg has a reputation beyond reputejimmyg has a reputation beyond reputejimmyg has a reputation beyond repute
 
jimmyg's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 32,244
vCash: 500
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Join Date: Jun 2006
   
11-21-2015, 01:05 PM

The Demise of Science? Hundreds of Computer Generated Studies Have Been Published in Respected Scientific Journals


Entire article: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/ar..._rid=785726583

Story at-a-glance

In 2005, three MIT graduate students created a program called SCIgen that randomly generates fake scientific papers. Since its inception, over 200 computer generated papers have been published in scientific journals

A French computer scientist has developed a program to detect SCIgen-generated studies, which anyone can use for free to find out if a study might be generated by a computer

Many health care professionals rely on published research to make treatment recommendations, and large numbers of patients can be affected when false findings make their way into otherwise respected journals

The prevalence of anti-scientific science is how we’ve ended up in a world of toxic chemical-based agriculture and subsidized junk food that deteriorates rather than supports health

Independent research, where funding is unrelated to findings, has become a rarity, and the end result is a dramatic deterioration of credible science
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#41)
LAMas
AzB Silver Member
LAMas has a reputation beyond reputeLAMas has a reputation beyond reputeLAMas has a reputation beyond reputeLAMas has a reputation beyond reputeLAMas has a reputation beyond reputeLAMas has a reputation beyond reputeLAMas has a reputation beyond reputeLAMas has a reputation beyond reputeLAMas has a reputation beyond reputeLAMas has a reputation beyond reputeLAMas has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 34,834
vCash: 1700
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Los Angeles
   
11-21-2015, 01:25 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmyg View Post
The Demise of Science? Hundreds of Computer Generated Studies Have Been Published in Respected Scientific Journals


Entire article: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/ar..._rid=785726583

Story at-a-glance

In 2005, three MIT graduate students created a program called SCIgen that randomly generates fake scientific papers. Since its inception, over 200 computer generated papers have been published in scientific journals

A French computer scientist has developed a program to detect SCIgen-generated studies, which anyone can use for free to find out if a study might be generated by a computer

Many health care professionals rely on published research to make treatment recommendations, and large numbers of patients can be affected when false findings make their way into otherwise respected journals

The prevalence of anti-scientific science is how we’ve ended up in a world of toxic chemical-based agriculture and subsidized junk food that deteriorates rather than supports health

Independent research, where funding is unrelated to findings, has become a rarity, and the end result is a dramatic deterioration of credible science
So! What does this have to do with Global Warming?


dumluk
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#42)
LAMas
AzB Silver Member
LAMas has a reputation beyond reputeLAMas has a reputation beyond reputeLAMas has a reputation beyond reputeLAMas has a reputation beyond reputeLAMas has a reputation beyond reputeLAMas has a reputation beyond reputeLAMas has a reputation beyond reputeLAMas has a reputation beyond reputeLAMas has a reputation beyond reputeLAMas has a reputation beyond reputeLAMas has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 34,834
vCash: 1700
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Los Angeles
   
11-21-2015, 01:34 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmyg View Post
Arctic Has Gained Hundreds Of Miles Of Ice The Last Three Years


Posted on 12th September 2015 by Administrator in Economy |Politics |Social Issues

Via Real Science by stevengoddard



Red shows the September 2012 minimum extent. Green shows the current extent, which is likely the minimum for 2015. The Arctic has gained hundreds of miles of ice over the past three years, much of which is thick, multi-year ice.

Nobel Prize winning climate experts and journalists tell us that the Arctic is ice-free, because they are propagandists pushing an agenda, not actual scientists or journalists.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The psychopaths and their "Scientific Studies" using fudged, fraudulent, and manipulated, data to support their self-serving agendas













The Argus-Press – Jun 24, 2008
This is a smear...ask Sofia.


dumluk
  
Reply With Quote
The sheep will still get sheared....
Old
  (#43)
jimmyg
Mook! What's a Mook?
jimmyg has a reputation beyond reputejimmyg has a reputation beyond reputejimmyg has a reputation beyond reputejimmyg has a reputation beyond reputejimmyg has a reputation beyond reputejimmyg has a reputation beyond reputejimmyg has a reputation beyond reputejimmyg has a reputation beyond reputejimmyg has a reputation beyond reputejimmyg has a reputation beyond reputejimmyg has a reputation beyond repute
 
jimmyg's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 32,244
vCash: 500
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Join Date: Jun 2006
   
The sheep will still get sheared.... - 12-02-2015, 07:42 AM

“Massively Altered” …German Professor Examines NASA GISS Temperature Datasets


By P Gosselin on 20. November 2015

Link: http://notrickszone.com/2015/11/20/g....f6AzW3yK.dpbs

Veteran journalist Günter Ederer* writes a piece reporting that massive alterations have been found in the NASA GISS temperature data series, citing a comprehensive analysis conducted by a leading German scientist. These results are now available to the public.


Professor Dr. Friedrich Karl Ewert. Source: University of Paderborn

Ederer reports not long ago retired geologist and data computation expert Professor Dr. Friedrich Karl Ewert began looking at the data behind the global warming claims, and especially the datasets of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS).

Ewert painstakingly examined and tabulated the reams of archived data from 1153 stations that go back to 1881 – which NASA has publicly available – data that the UN IPCC uses to base its conclusion that man is heating the Earth’s atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels. According to Ederer, what Professor Ewert found is “unbelievable”:

From the publicly available data, Ewert made an unbelievable discovery: Between the years 2010 and 2012 the data measured since 1881 were altered so that they showed a significant warming, especially after 1950. […] A comparison of the data from 2010 with the data of 2012 shows that NASA-GISS had altered its own datasets so that especially after WWII a clear warming appears – although it never existed.”

Ederer writes that Ewert particularly found alterations at stations in the Arctic. Professor Ewert randomly selected 120 stations from all over the world and compared the 2010 archived data to the 2012 data and found that they had been tampered to produce warming.

The old data showed regular cycles of warming and cooling over the period, even as atmospheric CO2 concentration rose from 0.03% to 0.04%. According to the original NASA datasets, Ederer writes, the mean global temperature cooled from 13.8°C in 1881 to 12.9°C in 1895. Then it rose to 14.3°C by 1905 and fell back under 12.9°C by 1920, rose to 13.9°C by 1930, fell to 13° by 1975 before rising to 14°C by 2000. By 2010 the temperature fell back to 13.2°C.

But then came the “massive” altering of data, which also altered the entire overall trend for the period. According to journalist Ederer, Ewert uncovered 10 different methods NASA used to alter the data. The 6 most often used methods were:

• Reducing the annual mean in the early phase.
• Reducing the high values in the first warming phase.
• Increasing individual values during the second warming phase.
• Suppression of the second cooling phase starting in 1995.
• Shortening the early decades of the datasets.
• With the long-term datasets, even the first century was shortened.

The methods were employed for stations such as Darwin, Australia and Palma de Mallorca, for example, where cooling trends were suddenly transformed into warming.

Ewert then discovered that NASA having altered the datasets once in March 2012 was not enough. Alterations were made again in August 2012, and yet again in December 2012. For Palma de Majorca: “Now because of the new datasets it has gotten even warmer. Now they show a warming of +0.01202°C per year.”

Using earlier NASA data, globe is in fact cooling

The veteran German journalist Ederer writes that the media reports of ongoing global warming are in fact not based on reality at all, but rather on “the constantly altered temperatures of the earlier decades.” Ederer adds:

Thus the issue of man-made global warming has taken on a whole new meaning: Yes, it is always man-made if the data are adjusted to fit the theory. The meticulous work by Ewert has predecessors, and fits a series of scandals and contradictions that are simply being ignored by the political supporters of man-made climate change.”

Ederer also brings up the analysis by American meteorologists Joseph D’Aleo and Anthony Watts who examined 6000 NASA measurement stations and found an abundance of measurement irregularities stemming in large part from serious siting issues. According to Ederer the findings by Professor Ewert are in close agreement with those of Watts and D’Aleo.

Ederer writes of the overall findings by Professor Ewert:


Using the NASA data from 2010 the surface temperature globally from 1940 until today has fallen by 1.110°C, and since 2000 it has fallen 0.4223°C […]. The cooling has hit every continent except for Australia, which warmed by 0.6339°C since 2000. The figures for Europe: From 1940 to 2010, using the data from 2010, there was a cooling of 0.5465°C and a cooling of 0.3739°C since 2000.”

Ederer summarizes that in view of the magnitude of the scandal, one would think that there would be in investigation. Yet he does not believe this will be the case because the global warming has turned into a trillion-dollar industry and that that too much is tied to it.

All datasets are available to the public at any time. The studies by Prof. Ewert may be requested by e-mail: ewert.fk@t-online.de.

*Günter Ederer is a former journalist for ARD and ZDF German Television and has won numerous awards.
- See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2015/11/20/g....f6AzW3yK.dpuf
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#44)
LAMas
AzB Silver Member
LAMas has a reputation beyond reputeLAMas has a reputation beyond reputeLAMas has a reputation beyond reputeLAMas has a reputation beyond reputeLAMas has a reputation beyond reputeLAMas has a reputation beyond reputeLAMas has a reputation beyond reputeLAMas has a reputation beyond reputeLAMas has a reputation beyond reputeLAMas has a reputation beyond reputeLAMas has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 34,834
vCash: 1700
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Los Angeles
   
12-02-2015, 08:59 AM

China likes CO2 and is looking forward to getting that $100 Billion out of the Paris talks to do nothing..but to make some crooks rich.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...e-change-hoax/


dumluk
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#45)
jimmyg
Mook! What's a Mook?
jimmyg has a reputation beyond reputejimmyg has a reputation beyond reputejimmyg has a reputation beyond reputejimmyg has a reputation beyond reputejimmyg has a reputation beyond reputejimmyg has a reputation beyond reputejimmyg has a reputation beyond reputejimmyg has a reputation beyond reputejimmyg has a reputation beyond reputejimmyg has a reputation beyond reputejimmyg has a reputation beyond repute
 
jimmyg's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 32,244
vCash: 500
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Join Date: Jun 2006
   
02-24-2017, 06:47 AM

Most Scientists ‘Can’t Replicate Studies by Their Peers’

February 23rd, 2017

Via: BBC:

Science is facing a “reproducibility crisis” where more than two-thirds of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist’s experiments, research suggests.

This is frustrating clinicians and drug developers who want solid foundations of pre-clinical research to build upon.

From his lab at the University of Virginia’s Centre for Open Science, immunologist Dr Tim Errington runs The Reproducibility Project, which attempted to repeat the findings reported in five landmark cancer studies.

“The idea here is to take a bunch of experiments and to try and do the exact same thing to see if we can get the same results.”


You could be forgiven for thinking that should be easy. Experiments are supposed to be replicable.

The authors should have done it themselves before publication, and all you have to do is read the methods section in the paper and follow the instructions.

Sadly nothing, it seems, could be further from the truth.


After meticulous research involving painstaking attention to detail over several years (the project was launched in 2011), the team was able to confirm only two of the original studies’ findings.

Two more proved inconclusive and in the fifth, the team completely failed to replicate the result.


“It’s worrying because replication is supposed to be a hallmark of scientific integrity,” says Dr Errington.
  
Reply With Quote
Reply
Page 3 of 4 123 4

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.