Top scientist resigns: 'global warming is a $trillions scam — it has corrupted many scientists'. (The following is a letter to the American Physical Society released to the public by Professor Emiritus of physics Harold 'Hal' Lewis of the University of California at Santa Barbara.)

submitted by Tom_Bombadil from nexusnewsfeed.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (21 children)

This corruption doesn't mean that climate change isn't happening. It does mean that you need to pay more attention to the evidence, and where the evidence is coming from, because you can't assume that researchers with good reputations aren't trading that reputation for money.

[–]useless_aether 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (16 children)

this is true, still, one cannot help but ask, if the truth and facts support the agenda of the elites, then why is all this systemic corruption necessary :-)

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

To ensure that, regardless of the truth, what the public believes remains the same.

I acknowledge that people are trying to make me believe that climate change is a real thing. And to that, I say "yes, it is; you need to do your part" because I've been taking readings of my own that corroborate this.

[–]useless_aether 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

care to share? dont bother if its too much trouble

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I spent a few months recording temperature throughout the day, with a couple of weeks where I forgot. I did that on two separate years; the first time I did it for longer. So, rubbish stats (they were intended for comparing with the Met Office's +1 hour forecast) but at some point I averaged each year and found a temperature increase.

This isn't good evidence for climate change (UNDERSTATEMENT), but the fact that the structure of the data roughly matched the Met Office data suggests that at least that isn't faked.

I don't have the time nor equipment to conduct a rigorous study at the moment. If I felt like it when I had the time, I could purchase the equipment for not very much money, and run an experiment over a few years, but that'd take a while.

[–]useless_aether 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

i admire your dedication! where i am its alway a bit colder than the official numbers, but thats just the microclimate.

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I admire your dedication!

I got the data from my primary school's weather meter system, which I wouldn't trust as far as I could throw it. (It was affixed to a wall, which wasn't that great). I doubt I still have the data; I was in primary school at the time. But, the temperature data should've been fairly accurate, even though the wind data was completely trashed by children bashing the spinny cups thing to make it spin.

The primary motivating factor was boredom, not dedication.

Edit: I've got access to raw data from a weather balloon I helped launch (read: hindered the launch of); I could probably dig that up at some point and see if it matched. (Though that data was sent to the Met Office, so that wouldn't be too useful in determining the Met Office's accuracy.)

[–]Tom_Bombadil[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

UA this character is a MSM forum slider. Here comes a novel.

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

I criticise the mainstream media (finally figured out what that acronym means! ☺) and I don't know what "forum slider" means. Why're you attacking me, if my arguments and statements are flawed? Unless they aren't, but you just don't like them.

[–]Tom_Bombadil[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

It is absurd that you expect anyone to believe that you miraculously found SaidIt without knowing what MSM, or forum sliding is? It is incredible in the literal sense.

SaidIt is basically a group of Reddit/Voat exiles, who left because of the group-think shilling bullshit, and are all familiar with these tactics.

You just happened to find the ".net" address? On top of that, you parrot the MSM consensus on 95% of meaningful topics.

Let's hear some example of MSM ideas you don't support. Please include links to your posts as supporting evidence.

Edit: That's what I thought. All talk.

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Just because I don't visit the site every day, means that I concede the argument? Since when?

I found Saidit via Fosstodon, FYI. If you look at my post history, you'll see that that's not a lie I came up with on the spot. You'd also know that if you asked, instead of immediately accusing.

I "parrot the MSM consensus" on 95% of meaningful topics that I post on, because there's not much where my interests (stuff I've researched) coincide with what's being posted. Just because the mainstream media's saying something, doesn't make it false, so there's no surprise there.

Let's hear some example of MSM ideas you don't support.

Happy to, if you tell me the attitudes of "the MSM" about stuff. I don't often follow the mainstream media, by the way, so I don't know what "their" attitudes are. From what I can tell from my limited observations, there's very little common ground between organisations; don't know the state of the press in America.

Please include links to your posts

I don't have the time to do that. Given that you said 95%, not 100%, though, it seems that you think that 1 in 20 of my posts are against the MSM, by whatever definition of "mainsteam media" you're using. That means that you've already acknowledged that I disagree with the MSM, and so I don't need to prove it to you.

If you like, though, you can perform the time-consuming job of trawling through my comment history analysing each view I've provided, and comparing it against what you perceive to be "the MSM consensus" in order to determine whether or not I agree with this seemingly-arbitrary metric. I will not.

[–]Tom_Bombadil[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

K.

That's what I thought. No substance. No evidence.

All talk.

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Hard to dig through my comment history – I started in anger when you posted this comment, and carried on for a full hour because I just kept on going out of stubbornness. However, I found a comment that:

  • Very obviously criticised
  • Multiple media organisations; and
  • Was written to you.

I'm not searching further for another, better example because it is time-consuming.

[–]Tom_Bombadil[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Well stated.

[–]Tom_Bombadil[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Hi there forum slider.

Read the article. This is not my opinion.

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I never said that it was. Why do you immediately go on the antagonistic-defensive whenever I say something that isn't an attack?

[–]Tom_Bombadil[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

you need to pay more attention to the evidence

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I could say the same to you. It's not constructive, because it's meaningless.

Also, you haven't answered my question. You've avoided it and changed the topic. Is that what forum slider means?

To re-ask: Why do you immediately go on the antagonistic-defensive whenever I say something that isn't an attack?