"...up to 34% admitted to other questionable research practices including "failing to present data that contradict one's own previous research" and "dropping observations or data points from analyses based on a gut feeling that they were inaccurate."
Yes, your original statement was a lie. Now just STFU moron. Note the the words "including" and "up to". Moron.
More irrelevant shit from the nut job. It's the rate jerm, the rate. You just keep showing how clueless you are with every post. Can't wait to see the next stupid irrelevant post from you.
i think you need to go back and review the data that made up the chart. the average temps are actually down for the period addressed by that chart. (therefore below zero on that chart.) (-.01 per century... which statistically speaking is zero warming or cooling.)
"...up to 34% admitted to other questionable research practices including "failing to present data that contradict one's own previous research" and "dropping observations or data points from analyses based on a gut feeling that they were inaccurate."
ok go ahead and shows us what you think you have... regarding man made co2 causing warming.... I am interested in which time period you will cherry pick and explain how co2 worked that period but not the next. then we will ask you if all the papers showing the sun and the tides impacted you chosen time period.
I have to disabuse you leftists of that misrepresentation every time? I covered this last time... I did not argue that there was no greenhouse effect... I used NASA scientists exact words and their chart... i will show it again... and I ask you where I deny the greenhouse effect?
So what happens when you add man made co2 is the question. The question I pose is not does co2 capture some radiation and then emit it out in all directions including the direction it came from... I know it does... the NASA cooling experiment pretty much proved it. See here... this chart shows CO2 cools... and I believe you could use this exact concept to surmise that CO2 warms when hit by similar energy coming up from the earth. http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/ Mlynczak is the associate principal investigator for the SABER instrument onboard NASA’s TIMED satellite. SABER monitors infrared emissions from Earth’s upper atmosphere, in particular from carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), two substances that play a key role in the energy balance of air hundreds of km above our planet’s surface. “Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER’s principal investigator. “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.” That’s what happened on March 8th when a coronal mass ejection (CME) propelled in our direction by an X5-class solar flare hit Earth’s magnetic field. (On the “Richter Scale of Solar Flares,” X-class flares are the most powerful kind.) Energetic particles rained down on the upper atmosphere, depositing their energy where they hit. The action produced spectacular auroras around the poles and significant1 upper atmospheric heating all around the globe. “The thermosphere lit up like a Christmas tree,” says Russell. “It began to glow intensely at infrared wavelengths as the thermostat effect kicked in.” For the three day period, March 8th through 10th, the thermosphere absorbed 26 billion kWh of energy. Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95% of that total back into space.[/quote]
It really doesn't matter the denialist nutters like you think jerm. The science is settled. Pretending that it isn't changes nothing. It just makes you look like a nut.