[zeo]

It's very sad. She THINKS she is doing the right thing. When you look at the science, though, it's disturbing. Check out the current issue if National Geographic about science being under attack.

Science, well the social/political system that replaced actual science is under attack because it deserves to be under attack. Far too many people have done what was good for their own careers and tossed the rules of science aside to do so in a variety of fields. Instead of admitting what has gone on, instead of admitting the problems of peer review, instead of coming up with reforms the counter attack consists primarily of ridicule and insults. Because to actually discuss the real science and what has been done for decades to mislead the public and support political and social agendas for the sake of more rewarding careers is simply unthinkable.

BTW, For vaccines, look up Bernice Eddy and Sarah Stewart. That's the start of the rabbit hole of the real science you're not supposed to know about.

Mod edit: this group of posts was pruned from a GF thread because from this point on, it's climate change being discussed for the most part. -Palomine

[pedonbio]

Zeo, I knew we could count on you to deny climate change as well as vaccines.  

Regarding Ms Eddy, there's always a problem when nobody can reproduce the results you claim to have obtained. As I recall Sweden did a study involving more than half a million people whom Ms Eddy claimed should have had cancer, but didn't.

[Robin_K2]

BTW, For vaccines, look up Bernice Eddy and Sarah Stewart.

Look up Mary Baker Eddy, while you're at it.

But honestly, folks. Is there anyone here who would choose to go without a polio vaccine? Want to experience the fun of an iron lung -- for the rest of your life?

[zeo]

Zeo, I knew we could count on you to deny climate change as well as vaccines.  

Regarding Ms Eddy, there's always a problem when nobody can reproduce the results you claim to have obtained. As I recall Sweden did a study involving more than half a million people whom Ms Eddy claimed should have had cancer, but didn't.

Unlike most people, I actually bother to look at data on "climate change", learn what is being done with it, etc. What they are doing isn't the science I learned. In my lab teaching and TA days I would failed anyone who did stuff like that as well.

The point isn't if SV40 causes cancer or not, the point is that it was there in the first place. That by itself breaks the narratives. There is a lot of science real science we are intentionally not told. You have to look for it yourself. You have to educate yourself. The downside is that people will laugh at you and insult you should you ever let on about anything you've learned on your own that goes against what the media and the schools tell us.

Ridicule, social pressure, etc are being deployed, not science. Why? Because if they started discussing the science, if we had an honest scientific discussion on these topics on which political power is being built, the inconvenient data, the inconvenient science, not to mention the poorly done science and the stuff experts just plain don't know, would become more widely known. So what must be done is to use social techniques so the people who've already become aware of it, won't be listened to, won't be debated, won't be allowed in the discussion. That's where the focus is.

[Martin Solo]

Unlike most people, I actually bother to look at data on "climate change", learn what is being done with it, etc. What they are doing isn't the science I learned. In my lab teaching and TA days I would failed anyone who did stuff like that as well.

The point isn't if SV40 causes cancer or not, the point is that it was there in the first place. That by itself breaks the narratives. There is a lot of science real science we are intentionally not told. You have to look for it yourself. You have to educate yourself. The downside is that people will laugh at you and insult you should you ever let on about anything you've learned on your own that goes against what the media and the schools tell us.

Ridicule, social pressure, etc are being deployed, not science. Why? Because if they started discussing the science, if we had an honest scientific discussion on these topics on which political power is being built, the inconvenient data, the inconvenient science, not to mention the poorly done science and the stuff experts just plain don't know, would become more widely known. So what must be done is to use social techniques so the people who've already become aware of it, won't be listened to, won't be debated, won't be allowed in the discussion. That's where the focus is.

You're talking in riddles.
What are the inconvenient scientific methods (science) for research, how are they implemented and what are the inconvenient data they come up with, with regard to climate change and to the use of vaccins?

[zeo]

You're talking in riddles.
What are the inconvenient scientific methods (science) for research, how are they implemented and what are the inconvenient data they come up with, with regard to climate change and to the use of vaccins?

I'll give you one plot. This is how the temperature record data has been altered. Final is after adjustments, raw is what was measured.

[Eliza D]

^I have a couple of problems with this as it is being displayed.

1. Average and raw data are two totally different things.

2. There is no source given that I see (unless it's supposed to be screenhunter, whatever that is).

3. You all should really get back to posting pix of Ms. McCarthy (or, at least, talking about her) or move the discussion off topic.  

 

[pedonbio]

Thank you, Eliza.   

[zeo]

^I have a couple of problems with this as it is being displayed.

1. Average and raw data are two totally different things.

2. There is no source given that I see (unless it's supposed to be screenhunter, whatever that is).

3. You all should really get back to posting pix of Ms. McCarthy (or, at least, talking about her) or move the discussion off topic.  

 

1) It's the annual average for final minus the annual average for raw.
2) The source data is USHCN / NCDC. You can replicate the plot yourself if you wish, the data is publicly available. Here's the post by the guy who did this one: https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/02/26/ncdc-hits-new-milestones-of-fake-data/

What they do is they take the raw data and they adjust it. They also have estimated data. They have their reasons which would take a while to explain. They do more adjustments every year. If you subtract data from 1999 from data for 2014 you'll find the past was changed. As can be seen with this plot is that their adjustments are imposing their theory upon the data. That is they are making the data match theory through adjustment.

This is just one example of the sort of thing one can find by looking for oneself.

[Martin Solo]

1) It's the annual average for final minus the annual average for raw.
2) The source data is USHCN / NCDC. You can replicate the plot yourself if you wish, the data is publicly available. Here's the post by the guy who did this one: https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/02/26/ncdc-hits-new-milestones-of-fake-data/

What they do is they take the raw data and they adjust it. They also have estimated data. They have their reasons which would take a while to explain. They do more adjustments every year. If you subtract data from 1999 from data for 2014 you'll find the past was changed. As can be seen with this plot is that their adjustments are imposing their theory upon the data. That is they are making the data match theory through adjustment.

This is just one example of the sort of thing one can find by looking for oneself.

OK.
So, the UN, state governments and a lot of scientists are manipulating data to "prove" there is global warning (or that vaccins are safe).
To what end would they do that I wonder.
In the meantime, we are confronted by a rise in average yearly temperature, more frequent extreme weatherpatterns, more floodings and more animal and plant species from tropical and subtropical regions being found in more temperate regions.
You can ignore all of this and continue emitting all the CO2 you want or you can prevent things from getting worse by adapting/changing the way you produce things like electric energy, in a more sustainable way, which gives all kinds of new business chanches/opportunities to companies/industry/entrepeneurs/employees.
My vote is for the latter.

[Eliza D]

1) It's the annual average for final minus the annual average for raw.
2) The source data is USHCN / NCDC. You can replicate the plot yourself if you wish, the data is publicly available. Here's the post by the guy who did this one: https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/02/26/ncdc-hits-new-milestones-of-fake-data/

What they do is they take the raw data and they adjust it. They also have estimated data. They have their reasons which would take a while to explain. They do more adjustments every year. If you subtract data from 1999 from data for 2014 you'll find the past was changed. As can be seen with this plot is that their adjustments are imposing their theory upon the data. That is they are making the data match theory through adjustment.

This is just one example of the sort of thing one can find by looking for oneself.

You did not address my third point, which is probably the most important of the three for this thread.

I actually didn't really care about an explanation for the first two points, sorry. I was just kinda pointing out that by itself the graph made little sense. When I'm looking for info on climate change my last choice would be the BeArchive forum. I come her to have fun and talk about sex.  LOL

[Robin_K2]

Merely as an observer, I believe that McCarthy's pet cause is relevant here.

Global warming, record keeping of temperatures and a larger debate over the value of a "true" scientific method  -- while I might want to read about these  elsewhere in the forum, they are not of the slightest interest to me here, and they strike me as wildly off-topic.

[zeo]

Merely as an observer, I believe that McCarthy's pet cause is relevant here.

Global warming, record keeping of temperatures and a larger debate over the value of a "true" scientific method  -- while I might want to read about these  elsewhere in the forum, they are not of the slightest interest to me here, and they strike me as wildly off-topic.

Vaccine plots:
http://www.whale.to/vaccines/decline1.html

[pedonbio]

Merely as an observer, I believe that McCarthy's pet cause is relevant here.

Global warming, record keeping of temperatures and a larger debate over the value of a "true" scientific method  -- while I might want to read about these  elsewhere in the forum, they are not of the slightest interest to me here, and they strike me as wildly off-topic.

Yes, please. This thread is no longer appropriate for the G.D. forum.

[TheZookie007]

But honestly, folks. Is there anyone here who would choose to go without a polio vaccine? Want to experience the fun of an iron lung -- for the rest of your life?

The Rotary Club has been at the forefront of disseminating polio vaccines around the world. Just as we were able to eradicate smallpox from the earth, we have been thisclose to eradicating polio from the earth as well. In 1988, polio was endemic in 125 countries. Ten years later, that was reduced to a third of that number. Another ten years, and only 5 countries were polio-endemic.

But then people started spreading anti-vaccination messages. In Kano, Nigeria, clerics alleged that Americans had put contraceptives in those vaccines. So now, for the first time since 1988, live polio cases were being recorded.

Now, only Nigeria, Pakistan and Afghanistan have cases of polio, undoing the work of close to 30 years.

So, yeah, I understand the fears that some people have towards vaccinations generally -- but at least in the case of polio, the paranoia has negative and quite disastrous consequences. Because polio (if you've never seen the end results of it, and I have) is a terrible way to have to live.