Report: No "Global Warming" for 325 Months...

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Leadeye

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Jan 19, 2009
    36,987
    113
    .

    In light of the "paid protesters" revelations recently I'd be curious about the money behind this. There's a lot of cash to be made in the climate change business, somebody might be looking at this as in investment.

    Always follow the money
     

    Phase2

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Dec 9, 2011
    7,014
    27
    Not too many of these guys are scientists. Why do they want them to review scientific papers?

    I understand the purple. I expect politicians and lawyers to be corrupt, but the problem is that too many scientists have become corrupted. Search for two terms: "reproducibility crisis" and "peer review failures" and you will come up with many entries documenting how much of a credibility problem scientists are finding in their own community:

    The science 'reproducibility crisis' – and what can be done about it
    Murmurings of low reproducibility began in 2011 – the "year of horrors" for psychology – with a high profile fraud case. But since then, The Open Science Collaboration has published the findings of a large-scale effort to closely replicate 100 studies in psychology. Only 36% of them could be replicated.

    Is There a Reproducibility Crisis in Science?
    Nature asked 1,576 scientists for their thoughts on reproducibility. Most agree that there's a 'crisis' and over 70% said they'd tried and failed to reproduce another group's experiments.

    Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals
    CONCLUSION
    So peer review is a flawed process, full of easily identified defects with little evidence that it works. Nevertheless, it is likely to remain central to science and journals because there is no obvious alternative, and scientists and editors have a continuing belief in peer review. How odd that science should be rooted in belief.
     

    Leadeye

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Jan 19, 2009
    36,987
    113
    .
    Last edited:

    Thor

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Jan 18, 2014
    10,732
    113
    Could be anywhere
    Green energy lunatics never have to explain their impact on the environment...after all, they are green. Just deal with it. Any other industry they would shut down.
     

    BugI02

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 4, 2013
    32,257
    149
    Columbus, OH


    Read about this

    https://phys.org/news/2018-11-anti-global-atmospheric.html
    Could an anti-global warming atmospheric spraying program really work?

    Technologically feasible. Requires the development of no exotic, non-existent technology. Far less expensive and disruptive than drastically cutting our emissions. Does not favor some countries over others or allow opportunities to cheat the system

    I predict The Church of Climate Change will find it heretical; due to insufficient self-flagellation, opportunities for crony capitalism and/or capitulation to China
     

    DoggyDaddy

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    73   0   1
    Aug 18, 2011
    104,486
    149
    Southside Indy
    Top Bottom