Oceans not acidifying – “scientists” hid 80 years of pH data

joannenova.com.au ^ | January 5th, 2015 | Joanne

[Secret Agent Man]

In any field truth is the enemy of those with less-than-honorable agendas.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

fyi

[Kirkwood]

Geez... how many nails does this coffin take?

[smokingfrog]

It figures.

[CyberAnt]

And .. the hokus-pokus garbage continues to try to prove global warming and all sorts of junk science.

[Tilted Irish Kilt]

“But all the Science is in..” /s

[nascarnation]

What happened to “acid rain”

20 years ago that was all we heard from the MSM here in the midwest and east.

The forests were defoliating at a prodigious rate!

[jonrick46]

The politicians who jump on board with this fraud should be forced to walk the plank into their so-called “acid ocean.”

[eyeamok]

When I was a kid we called this sort of thing FRAUD, They ALL BELONG IN PRISON.

When you realize that all of this FRAUD was used to get MONEY from the TAXPAYERS, Prison is probably too lenient.

[meatloaf]

Most folks with a cognitive brain have been ignoring the alarmists for some time. Anytime you see the kind of full court press marketing that accompanied AGW, you can figure someone’s got a money making scheme that involves persuading the public to buy something whether it’s big macs or AGW.

When fast food chains license Disney characters you know it’s fantasy and marketing. Not much difference with AGW. The poor polar bears were an early indicator. Nothing sells like a sob story.

[srmorton]

Fascinating, but not surprising! I teach General Biology in our local community college. My colleagues are great people and some are even Christians as I am, but they stubbornly cling to the idea of AGW. Scientists are taught that they should be objective in their interpretation of experimental data, but in this case they are completely biased. I do my best to be the lone voice of reason in the department and to make my students aware of the contradictory evidence so they can at least have all the information they need to make their own decision.

[Kirkwood]

If anyone had bothered to actually plot the confidence intervals for that data, they find a fairly large spread about the linear regression. You could potentially fit a slew of regressions to that data and it would still be within the bounds of probability because the data is clearly cyclical. Lots of problems fitting 2nd order linear regressions to cyclical data unless there is a secondary overlaid trend occurring.

[Telepathic Intruder]

Oops, someone’s going to lose their grant money.

[deadrock]

‘Fake but accurate,’ goes along way in our liberal world.

[nascarnation]

Re: fake but accurate

I read an op-ed in our local Gannett generipaper the other day by some black guy

Republicans talked a lot about "drill baby drill" but Obama was the one who made it happen

/puke

[deadrock]

I am not surprised.

[Kirkwood]

Pretty much. You can get statistics to say anything when you have probability to work with. Like we see here, just taking the data from the end of the sample gives you a completely different trend than if you took the whole sample. Both tests were done correctly within their defined boundary conditions, but guess which one is hiding the truth and which one is the more historically accurate. more predictive, and has a narrower confidence interval?

[Marine_Uncle]

The fallacies continue to be exposed. Sadly. Such news seldom enters
the minds of the masses however.

[TigersEye]

Oops, someone’s going to lose their grant money.

Or get more so they can hide the grift better.