SalfordOnline
Your local community website
Articles
 
 Bad science
Posted on behalf of Jonathan Thomason, Merchant’s Quay, Salford Quays, Medicine has embraced pier review by independent experts. But Global Warming research has broken every good rule of science! It has no mechanism: The data on the permeativity of air to CO2 has been done on air with down to 2% CO2 in. But CO2 is at 0.000037% in. Data New Scientist 2005 – you will never see a figure for CO2 mentioned. The figures you do see are from outside diesel exhausts, but this is not mentioned. Where is the figure for the middle of the Pacific – as we are talking about ‘Global’. We should also draw3 our data set back to the Jurassic, when there was more CO2 in the air, sea levels were 65 meters lower, and there was 80% more life on Earth. So we have selective data sets – that are not referenced. The met Office makes a lot of money from Global Warming, but even it is forced to admit the warmest year was 1998 – 11 years ago. Global Warming was the theory that said over all other factors, CO2 was most important – though the data here is not given. Where is the independent data set? Edited by the Met office and the raw data discarded. So they use 3,000 out of 7,000 measurements, and discard over half with no reason. No, not discard; incinerate the data you don’t want. This is how you lie with statistics. The instant any science is caught manipulating data sets, it should be discarded. The data they have, they manipulate – in other words falsify. No peer review, selected data sets, manipulation of data and discarding of raw data. This is not science: This is the sort of Public Relations nuclear power do – and surprise surprise, Global Warming is the theory nuclear power use to continue their existence. How much doe sit cost to buy academia? About £150 million. And then hold the purses of governments who pay academia cash. In the US, about $10 billion annually, 4 years ago. No so science. The science that deals with the carbon cycle is biology, but it is the one nuclear power has kept out of the debate. Using its money. I agree with the Professor from Harvard, who was appalled that a trace gas could be blamed for any effect at all on the world weather. But the manipulation of data sets is the biggest red flag to me. Isn’t academia meant to guard against this sort of lying? For all this, some recognition from biology would be appreciated. Due to problems with spam only SalfordOnline members can now leave comments. Becoming a member of SalfordOnline only takes a minute, just hit the red Join Us button at the top right hand side of the page to create your Personal account. |
