Maker Pro
Maker Pro

Google plans to scrape everything you post online to train its AI

kellys_eye

Jun 25, 2010
6,473
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
6,473
it is imperative to emphasize the consensus among climate scientists
Consensus never was and never will be 'science'.

FACTS constitute science and experimentation to verify theory is also paramount. Not one single climate computer model actually models the rise in temperature. They all run 'hot'. They are all, therefore, falsified and their results should be discounted/discarded.

But we have policy (and scaremongering) based around these computer model results. And this is called '$cience'.

This one statement (above) throws the totality of climate policy and the claims they make right out of the window yet some people will still insist that '97% of scientists' (etc) and 'we're all gonna die unless.....' etc and there are multiple, multiple examples of the FRAUD that makes up so-called climate science.

A recent collaboration of 1,600+ real scientists (Nobel winners etc) signed a declaration that the current 'science' is false and that we're all being conned by the politics. Not that the MSM was particularly interested in pointing that out.
 

Delta Prime

Jul 29, 2020
1,793
Joined
Jul 29, 2020
Messages
1,793
You talking to a future Nobel laureate. I win you lose & the sky will fall on your head.
 

Delta Prime

Jul 29, 2020
1,793
Joined
Jul 29, 2020
Messages
1,793
The author someone like me a well-respected man of integrity submits their climate change scientific paper to a reputable journal specializing in climate science or a related field. Now if you for any reason do not approve of the journal or the editor of said journal then you would not approve of the journal's criteria including scientific rigor originality and relevance. The editor of the journal would asign my paper to one or more reviewers who possesses expertise in this specific area of climate change being addressed by me in the paper for peer review this expert maybe affiliated with academic institutions, research organization or government agencies all of which you must approve of to give credence or viability to the paper that was submitted for peer review so no matter what scientific agency or individual submits said paper you would still not approve. Cuz you may not like this organization,institution for whatever reason and would not accept a peer review paper on climate change.so I win again.You are left with your political views of how the world should be,tisk tisk. Shame on you. So the sky won't fall on you maybe I'll just assign a dark cloud to follow wherever you walk.
 
Top