MovieChat Forums > Politics > California scientist says he ‘left out t...

California scientist says he ‘left out the full truth’ to get climate change wildfire study published


Of course he did because climate predictions are based on biased climate models, not on historical data. Just keep fucking with the variables until you get the model you want, and TADA! Cliiiimate Channgee is gonna keel us awl!

https://www.foxnews.com/us/california-scientist-left-out-full-truth-climate-change-wildfire-study-published

Begs the question of just how much of the data is forged. I'm willing to bet most of it.

________________________
"When fascism comes to America, it will come in the name of 'Liberalism'."
-President Ronald Reagan

https://youtube.com/shorts/jPbGsvoNKMw?feature=share

Leftists always lie.
Wokeness is Fascism+Hypocrisy.

reply

Article says, “California Assembly leader James Gallagher, a Republican, blasted liberals by saying that they "cherry-pick data" to ‘fit their agenda.’”

Yes but so do the Republicans.

Every group only releases reports, research, and polls, etc., with biased or limited data that supports their agendas.

And then they do whatever they can to discredit opposing reports.

They’re all guilty. They’re all hypocrites.

reply

Note that he did not look at forrest management as a variable. Yet, conservatives are interpreting this as meaning first management is more important than climate change in increased wildfires

Has forest management changed in recent years?

Are Republicans pushing for more funding for forest management?

reply

Forest mangement means regulating logging. Sometimes that means banning it, which obviously creates fire conditions.

A large park was created nearby by tree-hugging protesters. Naturally lightning started a fire and fucking park managment did nothing to control it. So the tree were not saved! I'm sure Caifornia MUCH worse.

reply

give me a single scientific organization that things man made climate change isnt real

ia rleady educated your ass on hwo C02 works, how much humans have released and why its objectively warming up the planet. you ran away

reply

How did humans cause the last ice age to end?

reply

wow its almost like things can naturally occur AND humans can cause them. and that according to measurements of C02 and global temperature change man is causing it and its happening at a far far far faster level than it has naturally in the past.

you know how we know the last ice age happened right? the very same geologists, climatologists and other scientists who found evidence and researched it who also believe in man made climate change! But you only like listening to scientists when it supports your politics dont you?

floods can happen naturally. but also humans can cause them

that was the best you had? undermining your nonsense single brain cells posts is easy as hell..

reply

I dont know if republicans are really this dumb,
or if they have deliberately convinced themselves their kindergarten logic is sound because its the result they want .
or maybe they know its a real problem and are just trolling.

Its hard to think of analogies for how stupid their reasoning is:
"If you open this sluice gate the town in the valley will flood"
"well , dur , was it the sluice gate that caused the flood 500 years ago?"

"setting fireworks in the house will cause it to burn down"
"NO cos lightning is what caused that last house to burn down , all natural "



reply

its hard to believe some peoples brains can function so poorly as to think that was a good "gotcha" or "logical" point.

him and blacksurn say the dumbest shit then run away when educated. rinse and repeat

reply

I don't run away. I have better things to do with my time. If I didn't have a job like you then I could be here all day.

reply

you do it every time you make some ignorant boisterous comment and get educated on it.

reply

Whats the percentage of natural climate change and human caused climate change?

Also the same scientists have said there have been at least 7 ice ages. One good thing to look forward to is the Earth getting colder again. I wonder if Greta's offspring will complain that the Earth is too cold now.

Its called human hubris and I have addressed this issue extensively.

reply

so again, you believe climatologists and related scientists when they talk about past climate, but when it comes to current ones its all wrong?

its not called hubris you joke

-we know well how CO2 works as a greenhouse gas. its not a mystery.

https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2021/02/25/carbon-dioxide-cause-global-warming/
With CO2 and other greenhouse gases, it’s different. Carbon dioxide, for example, absorbs energy at a variety of wavelengths between 2,000 and 15,000 nanometers — a range that overlaps with that of infrared energy. As CO2 soaks up this infrared energy, it vibrates and re-emits the infrared energy back in all directions. About half of that energy goes out into space, and about half of it returns to Earth as heat, contributing to the ‘greenhouse effect.’


-we know how much roughly CO2 weve emitted and how much this has increased COs as PPM in our atmosphere

https://www.noaa.gov/news-release/carbon-dioxide-now-more-than-50-higher-than-pre-industrial-levels

Prior to the Industrial Revolution, CO2 levels were consistently around 280 ppm for almost 6,000 years of human civilization. Since then, humans have generated an estimated 1.5 trillion tons of CO2 pollutionoffsite link, much of which will continue to warm the atmosphere for thousands of years.


-we can know past co2 levels based off ice samples, and past temperatures (paleoclimatology) off tree ring data. we know roughly how much the temperature changed over time periods. SO what a coincidence! iIn the past it takes thousands of years for the global temperature to change 1 degree. then we release 1.5 trillion tonnes of CO2, a known cause of global warming, and it now changes 1 degree in a 100 years. it must be a coincidence! all the experts are wrong

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f8/2000%2B_year_global_temperature_including_Medieval_Warm_Period_and_Little_Ice_Age_-_Ed_Hawkins.svg/2560px-2000%2B_year_global_temperature_including_Medieval_Warm_Period_and_Little_Ice_Age_-_Ed_Hawkins.svg.png


-and here it takes 15 000 years from 140 000 - 125 000BC to move 10 degrees. given the fact we are massively increasing CO2 output (it went from 5 billion to 35 billion per year from 1940- present) and already moved 1 degree in 100 years, we are on track to change 10 degrees in close to 500 years https://www.statista.com/statistics/276629/global-co2-emissions/. if you cant see the difference between a natural occurence over 15k years pre advanced human society. Vs the effects hyper fast climate change will have on a super fragile interwoven globalized economy and world, you are an absolute idiot. look what one small war in russia and ukraine did to destabilize gas and food prices. But massive temperature fluctuations and global climate change wont be that bad?

https://images.saymedia-content.com/.image/c_limit%2Ccs_srgb%2Cq_auto:eco%2Cw_492/MTczODE4MDA0MjY5MTgwNDc0/earths-temperature-brief-history-of-recent-change.webp

No you joke we know cause and effect exists. unless you propose the laws of physics arent real?? you cant release 1.5 trillion tonnes of a gas into the atmosphere and it have zero effect.

cant wait to see you run away from this one too

reply

He is not the only shill that has forged, manipulated and falsified data for the ‘global climate change hoax’ on behalf of globalists and elites.

lol, this post seems to have gotten the 'rabid attention' of 'climate change cultists'.

reply

Progressive science is not real science. It's just statements and conclusions that they agree with. If they don't agree with it, it's not science to them regardless of how many facts are involved.

reply

its not "progressive science"

its real science and you hate it. its a fact. we know how C0s works in the atmosphere. we know roughly how much humans have released. We know what effect this has and have been monitoring global temperatures.

you are literally denying physics and cause and effect.. you cant double the amount of a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere in a short period of time and think this will have no effect.

its why on this topic my side has real scientists and every single scientific institution in the world. and you have no one

reply

I bet if the science showed they got a free F150 and a maga hat instead of having to reduce their co2 emissions suddenly it would be all true.

Their ability to just dismiss the findings of 97% of scientists is a sad indictment of society in the 21st century.
I think social media has played a big part.
Who would have thought , the internet , a tool for sharing the accumulated knowledge of mankind would have caused this :(

reply

The 97% was falsified data by John Cook; it was actually 1.6% and it was based on a political consensus.

Oh, and for the 38th time: A consensus is based on politics not scientific validity.

reply

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/

Do scientists agree on climate change?
Yes, the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Most of the leading science organizations around the world have issued public statements expressing this, including international and U.S. science academies, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and a whole host of reputable scientific bodies around the world. A list of these organizations is provided here.

reply

Falsified by Cook as I have already stated.

39th time: A consensus is based on politics not scientific validity.

reply

I'll take NASA's word over "some guy on internet" anyday, NASA even have sources and citations on their page.

All you've got is "some guy made it up" , and a completely incorrect definition of "concensus"

reply

The original author falsified and misrepresented data that has been well known for ten years.

He deceptively combined the first three levels (from a total of 7 levels) when the first level was the only one that actually endorsed his GW consensus by humans at 1.6%.

Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science, consensus is irrelevant.

reply

Years of Alzheimer's research and treatment says hi.

https://www.businessinsider.com/alzheimers-manipulated-data-wasted-research-science-investigation-ab56-2022-7?op=1

But remember, if you question the Priests of Scientism, you're a nutbar.

reply

Not many people thought that work was important and it wasn't really the basis for much other work.

reply

Really. That's not what I heard. But hey, you hear what you want to hear and I'll hear what I want to hear.

reply

Well, I've worked on Alzheimer's research for 13 years, specifically in the area that Sylvain Lesne worked, and I've met and discussed his work with him and other experts in the field. People considered his work interesting but since others couldn't replicate it they didn't rest a ton of weight on it.

reply

Uh huh.

reply

Climate change is a hoax. People who know science know this. 15,000 scientists signed a letter stating it. There is no “consensus” in science.

reply

Just look at the state he's from and who pays his bills. That will tell you everything you need to know as to how "trustworthy" his data is.

reply