Climate Change Puts Buildings, Coastlines, The North At Most Risk: Report Extreme wea

[sumdumguy]

Guess the deniers can buy up all the cheap coastal property. 👍

[grassfarmer]

We now have a forecast for July on the prairies where there is only one above 30deg day predicted. That has never happened in my lifetime that I can remember except maybe when that volcano erupted.....

[ATTACH]4497[/ATTACH]

Difficult to push the notion that we're in a cold spell when the temperatures you posted are at or above average apart from a couple of days and the night times are consistently above average throughout the period you showed.

[Radical]

https://youtu.be/XHX9pmQ6m_s http://https://youtu.be/XHX9pmQ6m_s

[Radical]

https://youtu.be/XHX9pmQ6m_s

[Radical]

MAGAZINE
These Are History’s Most Notorious Liars
From scientists to presidents, famous people throughout history have told infamous lies.

[Radical]

Scientists Aren’t Dumb; They’re Just Liars, Say Totally Reputable Scientists
by Rollin Bishop | 7:10 pm, October 1st, 2012 0
submit to reddit


Scientific papers being retracted after publication isn’t some kind of new phenomenon. The age of press releases might have made such snafus a more widely-known event, but it’s one of those things that happens from time to time. Common wisdom was that the majority of retractions were due to errors present in the work, but a new study has concluded that it’s actually misconduct like fraud or plagiarism that causes most retractions. In other words, scientists aren’t dumb; they’re just liars.

[Radical]

OVEMBER 16, 2015
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.

Facebook

Twitter

Email
BY BJORN CAREY
white-coated doctor with hands behind his back; one hand has fingers crossed in gesture indicating he's lying
Stanford communication scholars have devised an ‘obfuscation index’ that can help catch falsified scientific research before it is published.

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 to understanding the ways liars lie. Studies have shown that liars generally tend to express more negative emotion terms and use fewer first-person pronouns. Fraudulent financial reports typically display higher levels of linguistic obfuscation – phrasing that is meant to distract from or conceal the fake data – than accurate reports.

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.

They then rated the level of fraud of each paper using a customized “obfuscation index,” which rated the degree to which the authors attempted to mask their false results. This was achieved through a summary score of causal terms, abstract language, jargon, positive emotion terms and a standardized ease of reading score.

“We believe the underlying idea behind obfuscation is to muddle the truth,” said Markowitz, the lead author on the paper. “Scientists faking data know that they are committing a misconduct and do not want to get caught. Therefore, one strategy to evade this may be to obscure parts of the paper. We suggest that language can be one of many variables to differentiate between fraudulent and genuine science.”

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.”

The researchers say that scientists might commit data fraud for a variety of reasons. Previous research points to a “publish or perish” mentality that may motivate researchers to manipulate their findings or fake studies altogether. But the change the researchers found in the writing, however, is directly related to the author’s goals of covering up lies through the manipulation of language. For instance, a fraudulent author may use fewer positive emotion terms to curb praise for the data, for fear of triggering inquiry.

[Radical]

mailto:?body=https://www.therebel.media/liberals-knew-carbon-tax-would-strip-billions-in-gdp-annually-internal-documents

[sumdumguy]

One fellow at the community gardens was furious that cars parking along the gardens put CO2 on his garden. I told him greenhouse operators buy CO2 generators to boost the gardens. They pay for CO2.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Tell me Hamloc, if you put a large pot of water on your stove to boil and turn the burner on, does the water instantly boil? So if you do not expect instant boiling when heating a pot of water, why do you think it is a valid argument that the earth must instantly heat to the level of 20 million years ago as CO2 increases to that level over just the few decades.

No, but if I put the pot on, and made a hypothesis that it would boil within a certain period of time, then observed that it not only did not boil, but instead warmed for a period, then cooled, then was nearly constant etc., after 3 plus decades of futility expecting the water to boil, I would revisit the original hypothesis. And likely propose that a different mechanism may be at work.

But as for providing facts to support the null hypothesis, that is not a requirement of the scientific process, it is the responsibility of the party presenting the radical proposition that is not supported by all observed evidence to prove their theory, and disprove the null hypothesis. Science doesn't have to prove that the solar system isn't earth centric every time a crackpot claims the sun revolves around the earth.

When your side starts presenting some actual evidence of catastrophic warming, then I will concern myself with the cause.

If real world, real time observations aren't permissible evidence in your circles, then I guess you will have to stick with your models, and keep trying to make the data fit the models.