Showing posts with label mainstream. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mainstream. Show all posts

The Fudge Factor replaces Occam's Razor after scientific consensus votes it in. The matter is now considered settled.


According to Wikipedia :
1¬) 
Occam's razor (also Ockham's razor or Ocham's razorLatinnovacula Occami; or law of parsimonyLatinlex parsimoniae) is the problem-solving principle that states that "Entities should not be multiplied without necessity."[1][2] The idea is attributed to English Franciscan friar William of Ockham (c. 1287–1347), a scholastic philosopher and theologian who used a preference for simplicity to defend the idea of divine miracles. It is sometimes paraphrased by a statement like "the simplest solution is most likely the right one". Occam's razor says that when presented with competing hypotheses that make the same predictions, one should select the solution with the fewest assumptions,[3] and it is not meant to be a way of choosing between hypotheses that make different predictions.

Similarly, in science, Occam's razor is used as an abductive heuristic in the development of theoretical models rather than as a rigorous arbiter between candidate models.[4][5] In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result; the preference for simplicity in the scientific method is based on the falsifiability criterion. For each accepted explanation of a phenomenon, there may be an extremely large, perhaps even incomprehensible, number of possible and more complex alternatives. Since one can always burden failing explanations with ad hoc hypotheses to prevent them from being falsified, simpler theories are preferable to more complex ones because they are more testable.[6][7][8
... BUT THAT WAS THEN

Ever vigilant cosmologists and climatologists called a snap press briefing to clear up potential misunderstandings


... NOW. 2¬)  Also from Wikipedia 
fudge factor is an ad hoc quantity or element introduced into a calculationformula or model in order to make it fit observations or expectations. Also known as a "Correction Coefficient" which is defined by:
Examples include Einstein's Cosmological Constantdark energy, the initial proposals of dark matter and inflation.[1]

Above: Michio Kaku confesses modern theoretical physics does not use the scientific method. 

Examples in scienceEdit

Some quantities in scientific theory are set arbitrarily according to measured results rather than by calculation (for example, Planck's constant). However, in the case of these fundamental constants, their arbitrariness is usually explicit. To suggest that other calculations may include a "fudge factor" may suggest that the calculation has been somehow tampered with to make results give a misleadingly good match to experimental data.

Cosmological constantEdit

In theoretical physics, when Einstein originally tried to produce a general theory of relativity, he found that the theory seemed to predict the gravitational collapse of the universe: it seemed that the universe should either be expanding or collapsing, and to produce a model in which the universe was static and stable (which seemed to Einstein at the time to be the "proper" result), he introduced an expansionist variable (called the Cosmological Constant), whose sole purpose was to cancel out the cumulative effects of gravitation. He later called this, "the biggest blunder of my life."[2]

WE BELIEVE THAT CLAIMS MUST BE BACKED UP, SO WE DID OUR OWN RESEARCH :

CLIMATOLOGY DID VERY WELL TO COME IN SECOND PLACE WITH AROUND 65% OF THE DISCIPLINE TURNING OUT TO BE MODELED ON FUDGE, A DECLINE FROM 85% WHEN THE HOCKEY STICK MODEL DOMINATED TO THE CURRENT CMIP6

PAST EXAMPLES OF THE SUCCESS OF THE FUDGE FACTOR IN CLIMATE SCIENCE ARE ARCHIVED HERE

PAST EXAMPLES OF THE SUCCESS OF THE FUDGE FACTOR GENERALLY IN SCIENCE ARE STILL LEANING TOWARDS THE DOMINANCE OF CLIMATE SCIENCE,THEY ARE ALSO ACHIVED, YOU CAN FIND THEM HERE

CLIMATOLOGY COULD NOT MATCH COSMOLOGY IN THE END, COSMOLOGY PROVIDED ITS OWN MATHEMATICS TO PROVE THEIR 96% FUDGE FACTOR CLAIM! 

COSMOLOGY AND ASTROPHYSICS ARE NOT ABOUT TO LET THE CLIMATE SCIENTISTS OUTDO THEM,  SO THEY HAVE CREATED THEIR STANDARD COSMOLOGICAL MODEL CALLED THE LAMBDA-CDM MODEL. THIS IS A WONDER TO BEHOLD AND BY THEIR OWN ESTIMATIONS THEIR MODEL YEILDS A UNIVERSE THAT IS A STAGGERING 96% PURE FUDGE FACTOR. YOU CAN FIND IT RIGHT HERE

Fraudulent Data Epidemic: Provable Widespread Climate Data Fudging


I am about to demonstrate that data fraud surrounding all aspects of "Climate Change" has penetrated every aspect of every publicly funded institution, almost every syndicated media conglomeration and even many privately funded scientific enterprises. Despite this crime, it has STILL turned into a collective with the worst predictive success rate in all of science

I think it is important to remember that the science of "Global Warming" does not, and cannot exist by definition in that it presupposes a conclusion. Also  there is no such thing as a singular, overarching "Climate science". It is a broad strokes term for various disciplines including Climatology:

Climate Types: Types of Climate | Climatology
  • Tropical/Mega-Thermal Climates: ...
  • Dry (Arid and Semi-Arid) Climates: ...
  • Temperate/Meso-Thermal Climates: ...
  • Continental/Micro-Thermal Climate: ...
  • Polar Climates: ...
  • Alpine Climates:
There is a push to conflate Environmental Science, which covers a number of disciplines (climatology, oceanography, atmospheric sciences, meteorology, and ecology) with the term " Climate Science" in an effort to make it less empirical and more political.

A great way to establish the premise of this post before just listing a collection of data sources and examples of fraud is by introduction to the reality of why data fraud so prevalent in Climate Change and reminder about the original climate data fraud, the 97% consensus lie that is still today so widely touted (below).


Hiding the Medieval warm period:

(Below) Government Temperature graphs:

Wikipedia deletes descenting scientists:
This is sad! NOAA (NASA) has one upped their data fraud. https://earth.nullschool.net/…
Please see comments below as NASA removed the SO2 signature on multiple volcanoes starting with the 3rd of January 2020.
On January 2nd, 2020, NASA started removing the SO2 coming from its data of Kilauea volcano. One can see the increase in SO2 around the island (north and west at this current time). This is a sad time. Why is this critical? The tons of SO2 were observable, while the daily tons of CO2 emitted was not / is not showing up on the data. WHY? Because 22 miles downwind is the Gold Standard for CO2 measurement.


  • Hiding Global Heat waves:

    Hiding 50 years of Australian hot days:

    ARCHIVE STARTS Sunday 16 February and I will add to it as I come accross new instances of fraud or "revision" 








    What are the leading excuses for data tampering? 


    Data Tampering archives at WUWT:

    Tim Ball discusses his legal victory over Michael Mann. 

    More examples of tampering with historical data:




    An example of how control over institutions of the type I have been exposing above, which are bureocratic in nature, not scientific, eventually become scientific consensus are perfectly highlighted once a journalist has been active long enough to have archive footage of when they interviewed these "scientific authorities" giving the statistics of the day, captured on recorded archives. So when the historical data is inevitably changed, as this post has already demonstrated, there are a few old enough to be able to provide evidence of this which Google's search engine will not allow any of us to find. Well I will make it my business to find ways of getting such information, all you need to do is keep checking in here. Because of this intolerable censorship it means that often such links will be dead or removed. I appeal to you reading this to use the contact form available by pressing the drop-down menu at the top right hand of this site to report those dead links and I will find ways to replace the removed content.



    In the spirit of my above appeal I do have an earlier post dedicated to failed climate predictions of the last thirty or so years where I expand upon my own feelings regarding this problem with a number of examples.


    If you are interested in the days before the internet, that data, and often the media reports that come with it, are a lot more difficult to come by. In THIS POST I have therefore included screenshots of archived footage going back over fifty years if you are looking for such evidence and not having luck with search engines.

    Other tools you can use to empower yourself include using the the internet pages archive called the Way Back Machine at Archive.org to source older versions of current websites or media reports that have been insidiously altered or even scrubbed from the internet. I'm afraid its gotten to be as serious as it sounds.

    It gets even worse I'm afraid. The same powerful special interests in partnership with the "Big Tech" Silicon Valley Oligarchy have even begun putting pressure on the archiving sites to remove historical content in an attempt to remove any evidence of such discourse having ever occurred. I have been commentating on this problem for long enough to have built-up quite an extensive archive myself of academic papers, media reports, press releases and scientific studies considered dangerous the the consensus narrative of the sanitised establishment looking to completely fabricate a version of history.

    I will also post direct historical first hand accounts of weather, crop yields and other related topics going back as far as the middle ages.

    HERE you will find a more recent comparison of alarmist media reports on scientific data relating to warming, represented as facts that are not as easy to disprove. So what I did here was to compare the claims against each other. I found they directly contradict each other and it follows logically that such direct, intractable logical conflicts must render in each case at least one (possibly both) of the claims impossible.

    I have also written about how the role of CO2 in the temperatures of Venus has been quite obviously deliberately misrepresented.

    I hope that this collection is in some way helpful to you. If you are engaged in this issue in life, on social media or in public forums of discussion you will be presented this fabricated data regularly and my aim is to provide you with the facts you require to refute this nonsense at every possible opportunity available.  We are all in this together and stronger together. You can help me by filling in the contact form I mentioned earlier by pressing the drop down menu and suggesting more evidence for me to archive, or you can do it through my recently created Facebook group.

    Click HERE for the HOMEPAGE.



    Censored blogger back online

    Its always pleasing to see  a blogger who brings well researched causes that don't receive extensive coverage, even in alternative media, win a groundless censorship battle against the inane front that seeks to suppress the most socially relevant  cases of genuine injustice for reasons not always immediately apparent.
    Cases like this are critical to such causes, I frequent Mohsen Abdeloumens wordpress blog regularly because he frames the relevance of his issues so well within the broader global context that you never get the sense you are dealing with an isolated issue, which makes for more satisfying reading.


    Check it out her

    Labels

    Search This Blog

    Your Feedback

    Name

    Email *

    Message *