Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.

In this modern age, the times of the church and the flat earth and firmament return. These people are supposedly scientists.. and academics
Here is a meltdown about the media rightly referring to people who look at both sides, as skeptics

For "balance", I put in bold the people who's opinion (like mine) is irrelevant. Which is almost everyone
Note the last name and note how many psychologists are on there, there is obviously funding going into denialism research For ****'s sake

Deniers are not Skeptics
http://www.csicop.org/news/show/deniers_are_not_skeptics

Mark Boslough, Physicist
David Morrison, Director of the Carl Sagan Center for the Study of Life in the Universe, at the SETI Institute
Bill Nye, CEO the Planetary Society
Ann Druyan, Writer/producer; CEO, Cosmos Studios
Ken Frazier, Editor, Skeptical Inquirer
Barry Karr, Exec Director, Committee for Skeptical Inquiry
Amardeo Sarma, Committee for Skeptical Inquiry Executive Council, Chairman GWUP (Germany)
Sir Harold Kroto, Nobel Prize in Chemistry
Ronald A. Lindsay, President & CEO Committee for Skeptical Inquiry and Center for Inquiry
Kenneth R. Miller, Professor of Biology, Brown University
Christopher C. French, Dept of Psychology, Goldsmiths University of London
Daniel C. Dennett, Center for Cognitive Studies, Tufts University
Massimo Pigliucci, Professor of Philosophy at CUNY-City College
Douglas Hofstadter, Director, The Center for Research on Concepts and Cognition, Indiana University
Stephen Barrett, Co-founder of the National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF), and the webmaster of Quackwatch
Scott O. Lilienfeld, Professor, Department of Psychology, Emory University
Terence Hines, Dept of Psychology, Pace University
James Randi, President James Randi Educational Foundation
Seth Shostak, Senior Astronomer and Director of the Center for SETI Research
Joe Nickell, Senior Research Fellow, Committee for Skeptical Inquiry
Henri Broch, Physicist, Emeritus, University Nice Sophia Antipolis, France
Eugenie C. Scott, Chair, Advisory Council, National Center for Science Education
Edzard Ernst, Professor of Medicine, Emeritus, University of Exeter, UK
Indre Viskontas, Cognitive Neuroscientist, Host Inquiring Minds Podcast
David J. Helfand, Professor of Astronomy, Columbia University
Mario Mendez-Acosta, Journalist, Science Writer, Mexico City
Cornelis de Jager, Astrophysicist, Past President, International Council for Science
Sanal Edamaruku, President, Rationalist International
Loren Pankratz, Psychologist, Portland VA Medical Center, Retired
Sandra Blakeslee, Science Writer
Benjamin Radford, Deputy Editor of the Skeptical Inquirer Magazine
David Thomas, Physicist and Mathematician
Stuart D. Jordan, NASA Astrophysicist, Emeritus
David H. Gorski, Cancer Surgeon, Wayne State University School of Medicine
Anthony R. Pratkanis, Professor of Psychology, UC @Santa Cruz
Jan Willem Nienhuys, Mathematician, Waalre, The Netherlands
Susan Blackmore, Psychologist, Visiting Professor at the University of Plymouth
Ken Feder, Anthropology, Central Connecticut State University
Jill Tarter, Bernard M. Oliver Chair, SETI Institute
Richard Saunders, JREF Million Dollar Challenge Committee, Producer - The Skeptic Zone Podcast
Jay Pasachoff, Field Memorial Professor of Astronomy, Williams College
Lawrence M. Krauss, Director, The ASU Origins Project, Arizona State University
Barbara Forrest, Philosophy, Southeastern Louisiana University
Kimball Atwood, Physician, Newton, MA
James Alcock, Psychologist, Glendon College, York University, Toronto, Canada
Massimo Polidoro, Science writer, author, Executive Director CICAP, Italy
E.C. Krupp, Director, Griffith Observatory
Dick Smith, Film Producer, Publisher, Australia
Thomas R. Casten, Chair, Recycled Energy Development, LLC
Willem Betz, MD, Professor of Medicine, Univ. of Brussels
Steven Novella, MD, assistant professor of neurology, Yale Univ. School of Medicine
Richard Dawkins, Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University emeritus
Stephan Lewandowsky, cognitive psychologist at the School of Experimental Psychology at the University of Bristol
Naomi Oreskes, geologist turned historian of science at Harvard University
James Powell, geochemist and executive Director at the National Physical Science Consortium
Stuart Vyse, psychologist and author
Donald Prothero, paleontologist and geologist associated with the National History Museum of Los Angeles
John Cook, Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland, Australia <<John Cook (Owner of Skeptical Science) <<Wrote 97% discredited and destroyed psychological trick paper and manager of Climate Denier fighting 101x school

 

Sisu no one cares until you #sortyourstoryout

Is the temperature actually going up or is that just #fraud from NASA using unreliable data?

If it is going up is that part of a natural long term cycle or because the sun is more active recently?

You've got every possible base covered, which means your opinion is unfalsifiable religious nonsense

 

In summary, are you more interested in the motivation for what evidence either side produce in this discussion, as opposed to the merits of what they say? If so, are you prepared for all sides of all evidence produced in this and other such discussions (9/11, black holes, moon-landings, Sandy Hook, goodness knows what else) to be judged first and foremost on the motivation of those who are offering the 'evidence'? Goose, gander and sauce springs to mind, along with petro-chemical companies.

 

Finlands average temperature has risen by 2 degrees.

But it was -20 the other night so global warming is a myth.

 

Don't be silly, it clearly hasn't risen because all those people involved are liars , anyway even though it has risen its part of a cycle that I can't explain but 2 degree change is irrelevant because the temperature can vary by 35 degrees in one day and all the graphs that might show otherwise are clearly holograms so you are all mouthbreathers for believing it.

PS did I mention i know what I say is true because I have done far more research than you lot making me the cleverest person here.

 

Sisu's love of a conspiracy theory and some of the absolute guff he's spouted on here trying to validate them, makes his view on this subject somewhat dubious, as his preferred angle would always be the conspiracy one.

Unfortunately for him, the conspiracy angle on this subject holds up to little scrutiny, as the entire premise of global warming is a huge hinderance to capitalism which feeds off the spread of industrialisation, not to mention the effect it has on the oil companies, both have been targets for his ire in the past, and yet he wants us to believe that the Western world is somehow exacerbating this supposed myth as part of some global cover up.

There has been some strong debate over the science of global warming but the overwhelming consensus is still that the green house gas effect is impacting on the global temperature. The facts also bear this out, despite the deniers cherry picking of data and disingenuous masking of the correlation.

Nothing he's come out with in this debate has explained how the rise in temperature correlating with the increase in CO2 production is a proven lie. As the facts are ever more compelling as time goes on.The continued increase in temperature whilst the solar activity is on the downward curve of its cycle means that there's obviously another factor at play, and there's seemingly no current explanation that provides a compelling challenge to the CO2 theory.

 

Way too sensible.

 

please log in to view this image

 

On the subject of black holes, time and space dilation at close to the speed of light, holograms at the event horizon and at the edge of the universe, the 'illusion' (according to Susskind) of living in a 2D universe that appears 3D to our senses.... are we living in a black hole?

Maybe the Jews made me think that.

 

But wouldn't the black hole we're living in, i.e. effectively outside our universe, be a different kind of black hole than the black holes we observe within our universe?

Our internal black holes allow space and time to change roles, but presumably this external black hole is making time itself appear as a dimension?

 

I see the meltdown continues without me. Astro, science is not for you lad. Go throw some chicken bones and see what omens they tell us of. Or post some more Kayak pictures.

The guy behind NASA GISS joke temperature modeling, quote from this smug prick. Gavin Schmidt


NASA’s Schmidt: “Now, you know there’s some communities I can’t talk to because, you know, I’m a liberal, Jewish atheist from New York City, right? So if I go to Texas and try and tell people about climate change, I’m totally the wrong messenger, right? Because we don’t have any shared values quite frankly. […] A lot of times we think, ‘oh, more science, more science’, and really we want to allow less science and more cultural understanding, and that might take us a lot further.”


Less science, Astro he's definitely for you lad

#record
Hottest year eh, or 2nd. Especially for the US
That's weird, where is all that warm coming from. This is obviously before they butcher the data and make it warmer.

please log in to view this image

please log in to view this image

That's no good for global warming, so fix it.. like this

please log in to view this image

As I said, almost all the warming comes from re writing history and not actual warming

 

'Experts at the European Science Foundation said volcanoes – especially super-volcanoes like the one at Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming, which has a caldera measuring 34 by 45 miles (55 by 72 km) - pose more threat to Earth and the survival of humans than asteroids, earthquakes, nuclear war and global warming.'

http://www.express.co.uk/news/scien...in-10-chance-super-volcano-will-kill-millions

please log in to view this image

30% God, man made climate change 0.

 

We observe the outside of a black hole, not the inside. Maybe this Russian doll thing is all relative, as is space and time. That, effectively, is what Penrose claims too - dimensions and space lose all meaning when 'inside' one another.

Anyway, it's all unfalsifiable nonsense, like that Wheeler Anthropic principle malarkey. Makes good science fiction though, and this thread meanders into that stream somewhat, no names mentioned...

 

Whatever would give a liberal, Jewish atheist the idea that any science he may present in the heart on banjo-twangling oil country may be somewhat badly received by those with pre-conceptions? Only a shape-shifting lizard in the pay of the Illumanti and the Bush family (doing everything they can to destroy their own oil businesses) would think like that.

 

Yet more twisting of data by you my friend (or whichever denier site constructed it)

You've got 2 measures there to 'prove' thet the overall stat is a 'lie' but both are meaningless in isolation

How many monitoring stations recorded 40C and how many average days over 35C were monitored doesn't mean that the overall figures are a lie, it just means that the extremes were less than have been previously recorded. If someone thinks that proves a lie they're a disingenuous **** or a ****ing idiot

 

Let me explain very simply why NOAA's recent paper to claim there has been no "pause" in global warming was pseudo science.

Tom Karl et al 2015 NOAA science.. re wrote the sea surface temperatures for the last 50 years. Yes, re wrote history AGAIN.
The oceans are obviously 70% of the earth's surface.

So what did they do?

They used different data sets/
1. Canvas bucket dropped over the side of a ship and hauled back up. Known for a fact that this gives colder temperatures, easily prove anyway and has been.
2. Study switches to ship intakes for the engines data. Big ship then that intake is well beneath the surface, small ship, near the surface, plus ships warm or cool depending, in July they warm, in Jan probably cool. Again this is very unreliable data.
3. Since the 70s they have been adding buoys to the oceans and NOAA add .2 degrees to every buoy they deploy (which creates a warming trend in data obviously)

4. Satellite data, we have satellites in geosync orbit and sats that go round the earth every 9 minutes. NOAA threw out this data, given the National hurricane centre uses this data to save lives, that's insane.

NOAA changed all records for ocean sst for the last 50 years when writing this paper


So..
1. Canvas buckets, colder readings
2. Ship intakes warmer and colder readings
3. Buoys with .2 added to each boy, clearly if you add 10 buoys you've added 1 degree to the data,how many .2 degrees (Astro Calibration) are added when you add up all those floats, just "calibration temp". It's a ****ing lot. As you add it up you literally create global warming, after re writing history already. This fraud has doubled down.

please log in to view this image

4. Threw out the best data we have. Satellite data.

Here is Tom Karl, the author for NOAA, in 2012 telling us Satellites are part of NOAA's instruments for getting temperature, the data he threw out when he re wrote history.

So because I understand what they are doing, bitter folk have meltdowns, because they don't understand anything and keep yapping

#science

 

Let me quote lead "climatologist" who gave the met it's data for donkeys.
Phil Jones CRU East Anglia
"I lost my data" when asked for it. The dog ate it eh.

"I am not giving my data to you so you can find something wrong with it" when illegally blocking FOI requests. Can someone tell Phil that's how peer review works.

"The Southern Hemisphere normals between the 60 and 605 lats are mostly made up" Really, so you created a 120 year temp time series out of 'made up data' when you "created" the Southern Hemisphere temperature record

Pathological science.

This is what happens when you take a weirdo who was left doing a job no one else wanted to do, and thrust him into the spotlight and throw money at him.

Universities rank scientists on how much they can bring into the University, fact, vast majority of funding is government, fact. So global warming gets universities lots of funding.

Writing a psychology paper, just put in the abstract, 'Psychological effects of climate change' and funding is guaranteed. This is why you see studies on everything from 'climate change will increase rape' to 'Climate change cause the middled east upheaval'

all of it is pseudo science, fueled by government funding
Lysenkoism

 

Care to explain exactly how you conclude that this equals #fraud please

#science

 

Re Tom Karl and NOAA or NASA paper 2015.

The data they based it on, CRU data, then altered it

East Anglia and NASA.. more magic NASA warming. They have doubled the trend. The CRU was overstated anyway and NASA ****ing doubled it

please log in to view this image

Add to that re writing of the 120 years record like 10 times, a switching of measurement systems causing a 3x rise in ocean levels....

There are 1500 land surface stations on the earth, unevenly spaced and biased towards urban areas, where most are, not so much in places that are not populated like say the arctic antarctic greenland and high snowy mountain ranges, huge areas of Africa Asia and India have none. Impossible to work out an average global with such a ****ty incomplete uneven network.

That's why we use satellites.. but that data doesn't show catastrophe, so it must be bad

When did science stop highlighting uncertainties..