projection
-
ICMag with help from Phlizon, Landrace Warden and The Vault is running a NEW contest for Christmas! You can check it here. Prizes are: full spectrum led light, seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!
Have you looked at the North Pole lately?
- Thread starter igrowone
- Start date
Gaslighting.
Porky82
Well-known member
it may appear i'm a genius to low i.q window licking folk such as yourself porkyIs there anything @shiva82 actually doesn't know?
He's a neurologist, economist, climate scientist, child psychologist and a political scholar.
What a fucking absolute genius this bloke must be!
nothing new
tell me more about vigilante tv
Is raspberry considered red?
Porky82
Well-known member
Chairman was this parasite. https://www.congress.gov/member/lamar-smith/S000583
A well known climate change and science denier!!
Fuck off with these inbred Texan conservative republican bribe specialists!
Chairman was this parasite. https://www.congress.gov/member/lamar-smith/S000583
A well known climate change and science denier!!
Fuck off with these inbred Texan conservative republican bribe specialists!
You need to read the whole thing Porky, like this bit below the inbred Texan conservative republican bribe specialist bit
"inbred Texan conservative republican bribe specialist"
"In the summer of 2015, NOAA scientists published the Karl study, which retroactively altered historical climate change data and resulted in the elimination of a well-known climate phenomenon known as the “climate change hiatus.” The hiatus was a period between 1998 and 2013 during which the rate of global temperature growth slowed. This fact has always been a thorn in the side of climate change alarmists, as it became difficult to disprove the slowdown in warming.
The Karl study refuted the hiatus and rewrote climate change history to claim that warming had in fact been occurring. The committee heard from scientists who raised concerns about the study’s methodologies, readiness, and politicization. In response, the committee conducted oversight and sent NOAA inquiries to investigate the circumstances surrounding the Karl study.
Over the course of the committee’s oversight, NOAA refused to comply with the inquiries, baselessly arguing that Congress is not authorized to request communications from federal scientists. This culminated in the issuance of a congressional subpoena, with which NOAA also failed to comply. During the course of the investigation, the committee heard from whistleblowers who confirmed that, among other flaws in the study, it was rushed for publication to support President Obama’s climate change agenda."
It was about as funny as your "real government adds shitfuckery"These fucking idiots watch WWE wrestling for fuck sake!!
Fuck you need to try much harder than this pathetic shit dickhead!
View attachment 19124765
Porky82
Well-known member
It was a senate committee set up by republicans discredit it and they couldn't.You need to read the whole thing Porky, like this bit below the inbred Texan conservative republican bribe specialist bit
"inbred Texan conservative republican bribe specialist"
"In the summer of 2015, NOAA scientists published the Karl study, which retroactively altered historical climate change data and resulted in the elimination of a well-known climate phenomenon known as the “climate change hiatus.” The hiatus was a period between 1998 and 2013 during which the rate of global temperature growth slowed. This fact has always been a thorn in the side of climate change alarmists, as it became difficult to disprove the slowdown in warming.
The Karl study refuted the hiatus and rewrote climate change history to claim that warming had in fact been occurring. The committee heard from scientists who raised concerns about the study’s methodologies, readiness, and politicization. In response, the committee conducted oversight and sent NOAA inquiries to investigate the circumstances surrounding the Karl study.
Over the course of the committee’s oversight, NOAA refused to comply with the inquiries, baselessly arguing that Congress is not authorized to request communications from federal scientists. This culminated in the issuance of a congressional subpoena, with which NOAA also failed to comply. During the course of the investigation, the committee heard from whistleblowers who confirmed that, among other flaws in the study, it was rushed for publication to support President Obama’s climate change agenda."
was itIt was a senate committee set up by republicans discredit it and they couldn't.
Porky82
Well-known member
Yes.
a refutation on RedditYou need to read the whole thing Porky, like this bit below the inbred Texan conservative republican bribe specialist bit
"inbred Texan conservative republican bribe specialist"
"In the summer of 2015, NOAA scientists published the Karl study, which retroactively altered historical climate change data and resulted in the elimination of a well-known climate phenomenon known as the “climate change hiatus.” The hiatus was a period between 1998 and 2013 during which the rate of global temperature growth slowed. This fact has always been a thorn in the side of climate change alarmists, as it became difficult to disprove the slowdown in warming.
The Karl study refuted the hiatus and rewrote climate change history to claim that warming had in fact been occurring. The committee heard from scientists who raised concerns about the study’s methodologies, readiness, and politicization. In response, the committee conducted oversight and sent NOAA inquiries to investigate the circumstances surrounding the Karl study.
Over the course of the committee’s oversight, NOAA refused to comply with the inquiries, baselessly arguing that Congress is not authorized to request communications from federal scientists. This culminated in the issuance of a congressional subpoena, with which NOAA also failed to comply. During the course of the investigation, the committee heard from whistleblowers who confirmed that, among other flaws in the study, it was rushed for publication to support President Obama’s climate change agenda."
Comments Section
Fred776
•
3 mo. ago
•
There were plenty of people pointing out at the time that the whole concept of the "hiatus" was statistical nonsense to start with.
The fact that you said between 1998 and a later date is the crux of the issue. 1998 was a super El Niño year. These will arise from time to time. The characteristic of an El Niño year in general is that there is a significant above trend temperature anomaly.
You can't just cherry pick 1998 as your starting point and note that subsequent years are smaller - that's almost an inevitability - you have to show that there was a genuine statistically significant change in trend at that point. You do this by performing a change point analysis. People who did this showed that there was no change in trend.
The so-called hiatus wasn't much more than a statistical artifact that seemed "obvious" from a dumb eyeballing of the graphs but which fell apart once any proper analysis was done.
"which retroactively altered historical climate change data"
Why would they need to alter the data ??
As for cherry picking, the whole climate hysteria is built on it
A little assistance for the climate change fanatics, to help them out of the hole they are in.
