• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The LIA may have been anthropogenic

SouthernDemocrat said:
Here you go, its a mountain of papers actually. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter10_FINAL.pdf

A summary is here though: Climate Sensitivity - American Chemical Society

I guess the American Chemical Society is in on the hoax...
Click to expand...

So quote where the empirical value for CO2 climate sensitivity was established anywhere here ?. I'm saying its not and I dare you to prove me wrong by citing it because so far their guesses have been laughably wrong ?

Since CO2 isn’t a poison, has benefits for crop yields etc and the link to catastrophe appears to be broken all the hugely expensive CO2 reduction measures should be put on hold immediately while smart, honest, impartial people look over all the data.
 
flogger said:
So quote where the empirical value for CO2 climate sensitivity was established anywhere here ?. I'm saying its not and I dare you to prove me wrong by citing it ?

Since CO2 isn’t a poison, has benefits for crop yields etc and the link to catastrophe appears to be broken all the hugely expensive CO2 reduction measures should be put on hold immediately while smart, honest, impartial people look over all the data.
Click to expand...

No one is saying C02 is a poison. The Radiative Force of C02 is expressed here: ΔF = εσ[T[SUB]P[/SUB] + ΔT][SUP]4[/SUP] – (1 – α)S[SUB]ave[/SUB][SUP].

[/SUP]There is no one formula for climate sensitivity because it depends upon other variables that are positive and negative feed backs like water vapor, changes in albedo ice melts, vegetation changes, land use changes, variances in orbit / solar forcing and so on. This is why models always give a range.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
No one is saying C02 is a poison. The Radiative Force of C02 is expressed here: ΔF = εσ[T[SUB]P[/SUB] + ΔT][SUP]4[/SUP] – (1 – α)S[SUB]ave[/SUB][SUP].

[/SUP]There is no one formula for climate sensitivity because it depends upon other variables that are positive and negative feed backs like water vapor, changes in albedo ice melts, vegetation changes, land use changes, variances in orbit / solar forcing and so on. This is why models always give a range.
Click to expand...

Yes but when their range is greater than the entire observed warming since 1850 they are simply guesswork masquerading as science. The plain fact is that not only has the climate sensitivity of CO2 never been established the human fingerprint on temperature has never even been discerned against the background noise of normal natural temperature variation.

This is hardly surprising given the tiny fraction of CO2 we are held as being responsible for represents 0.0001% of our atmospheric volume the whole AGW premise is ridiculous

If CO2 was the bogeyman being claimed then we would currently be seeing the highest temperatures since the last ice age given CO2 is undeniably at its highest level since that time. The fact that we are nowhere near that indicates the effect of extra CO2 has been grossly overstated.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
There is no one formula for climate sensitivity because it depends upon other variables that are positive and negative feed backs like water vapor, changes in albedo ice melts, vegetation changes, land use changes, variances in orbit / solar forcing and so on. This is why models always give a range.
Click to expand...

Hah! You've fallen right into his cunningly-laid trap! Everyone knows that real science only ever provides precise, definitive values. This 'range' of values proves that they aren't "smart, honest, impartial people"!
 
Mithrae said:
Hah! You've fallen right into his cunningly-laid trap! Everyone knows that real science only ever provides precise, definitive values. This 'range' of values proves that they aren't "smart, honest, impartial people"!
Click to expand...

The AGW hypothesis is not genuine science because it is not falsifiable.

Its as simple as that.
 
Mithrae said:
Hah! You've fallen right into his cunningly-laid trap! Everyone knows that real science only ever provides precise, definitive values. This 'range' of values proves that they aren't "smart, honest, impartial people"!
Click to expand...

If you jump from a 3rd story window science cannot state exactly what will happen to your body. Instead, it will give probabilities. For example, there is a very small probability that you will be uninjured. There is a much larger probability that you will be seriously injured. There is a high risk of you being killed. There is a possibility that you will be seriously injured but will fully recovery. There is a high possibility that you will be seriously injured but never fully recover.

Using Flogger's logic, since science cannot state exactly what will happen to you if you jump from a 3rd floor window, the "hypothesis" that you will be seriously injured or killed should you jump from a 3rd floor window is not falsifiable and it is as simple as that.

He would then go on to post a link to a "study" from a think tank called "Human Flight and Levitation Institute".
 
flogger said:
The AGW hypothesis is not genuine science because it is not falsifiable.

Its as simple as that.
Click to expand...

Of course it's falsifiable. Just off the top of my head, here's a few obvious potential falsification criteria:

> Show that CO2 and other greenhouse gases do not absorb and re-emit infrared radiation, retaining energy in the atmosphere
> Show that humans have not been emitting large quantities of CO2 and other GHGs over the past couple of centuries, resulting in higher levels than in the past half-million years and more
> Show that polar ice and high latitude snow cover does not reflect more sunlight or does not decrease in extent/duration under warmer conditions (and ditto for other feedback mechanisms)
> Show that the recent warming - despite the long-term cooling trend over the past millenium and more, and in particular declining solar irradiance over the past few decades - is fully explained by natural variables with no room for human impact
> Show that the net effects of anthropogenic climate impacts are far too small to account for any but a tiny fraction of the recent warming, disproving the studies which show for example that the direct forcing from CO2 alone is comparable in scale to the total observed warming to date

Anyone of these would falsify the scientific conclusions summarized in the IPCC reports and elsewhere (the third would only partially falsify them, I guess).

You're just a little confused: The fact that it has not been falsified after over a century of theoretical and empirical development and observations is not the same thing as not being falsifiable. It's a little bit like saying that the theory of gravity is not falsifiable because, damnit, every time you drop that pen it goes straight to the ground! Likewise, virtually everything from ice core sampling and paleoclimate studies to ocean heat measurements and sea ice extent have suggested that the impact on the climate is very real.
 
Last edited:
Threegoofs said:
Interesting theory - here's the paper.

The concept is that the native population of the new world were managing the land in North America, clearing most of it with fire. Then, in the 1500s and 1600s, disease wiped out 90% of natives, thus allowing massive forest regrowth in the now-depopulated US.

The massive carbon sequestration from tree growth dropped CO2 levels, thus triggering a Little Ice Age.

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
Click to expand...

Perhaps a contributing factor but IIRC there was also a decrease in solar output which is likely the largest factor.
 
Mithrae said:
Of course it's falsifiable. Just off the top of my head, here's a few obvious potential falsification criteria:

> Show that CO2 and other greenhouse gases do not absorb and re-emit infrared radiation, retaining energy in the atmosphere
Click to expand...

As yet not quantifiable so therefore not falsifiable. There is as yet no way to establish what an extra 0.0001% of CO2 in our atmospheric volume will do given a very precise value for such sensitivity would obviously be required here to establish anything a all against natural variability

> Show that humans have not been emitting large quantities of CO2 and other GHGs over the past couple of centuries, resulting in higher levels than in the past half-million years and more
Click to expand...

That may well be the case but as the climate sensitivity of the gases involved is not known it is therefore not falsifiable

> Show that polar ice and high latitude snow cover does not reflect more sunlight or does not decrease in extent/duration under warmer conditions (and ditto for other feedback mechanisms)
Click to expand...

What has that to do with the hypothesis given this would happen under any natural warming phase ?

> Show that the recent warming - despite the long-term cooling trend over the past millenium and more, and in particular declining solar irradiance over the past few decades - is fully explained by natural variables with no room for human impact
Click to expand...

We cannot as yet quantify the effect from the great bulk of those variables much less our minute contribution to them (the 95% GHGs clouds and water vapour being the most obvious example here) . In point of fact the human fingerprint on temperature has yet to even be discerned much less empirically quantified

> Show that the net effects of anthropogenic climate impacts are far too small to account for any but a tiny fraction of the recent warming, disproving the studies which show for example that the direct forcing from CO2 alone is comparable in scale to the total observed warming to date
Click to expand...
Nobody has as yet been able to empirically show any anthropological climate impact whatsoever on temperature so proving a negative would be quite impossible ergo not falsifiable

Anyone of these would falsify the scientific conclusions summarized in the IPCC reports and elsewhere (the third would only partially falsify them, I guess).
Click to expand...
The IPCC is a political body set up by governments for governments it reaches the conclusions it was set up to reach

You're just a little confused: The fact that it has not been falsified after over a century of theoretical and empirical development and observations is not the same thing as not being falsifiable. It's a little bit like saying that the theory of gravity is not falsifiable because, damnit, every time you drop that pen it goes straight to the ground! Likewise, virtually everything from ice core sampling and paleoclimate studies to ocean heat measurements and sea ice extent have suggested that the impact on the climate is very real.
Click to expand...

I could claim little green men live on Pluto too and because our science isn't developed enough to land there to find out for sure doesn't mean I'm right. Do you see how that works ?
 
Last edited:
Lord of Planar said:
Another hypnosis being called a theory.

When will scientific malpractice ever cease?
Click to expand...

Yes, it's not all that strong but as a thought experiment it is interesting.

If the climate sensitivity is a strong as would be needed for this to happen then we should be boiling by now. We are not. But it did warm up a bit then stop.

How about the idea that CO2 does indeed have a pronounced effect but once it reaches a certain level it has done all it can in terms of IR heat energy bouncing around?

You konw far more about this than me. I have seen your colorful graph, well beyond me. Perhaps you can tell if there is any justification in this idea.
 
Mithrae said:
Of course it's falsifiable. Just off the top of my head, here's a few obvious potential falsification criteria:

> Show that CO2 and other greenhouse gases do not absorb and re-emit infrared radiation, retaining energy in the atmosphere
> Show that humans have not been emitting large quantities of CO2 and other GHGs over the past couple of centuries, resulting in higher levels than in the past half-million years and more
> Show that polar ice and high latitude snow cover does not reflect more sunlight or does not decrease in extent/duration under warmer conditions (and ditto for other feedback mechanisms)
> Show that the recent warming - despite the long-term cooling trend over the past millenium and more, and in particular declining solar irradiance over the past few decades - is fully explained by natural variables with no room for human impact
> Show that the net effects of anthropogenic climate impacts are far too small to account for any but a tiny fraction of the recent warming, disproving the studies which show for example that the direct forcing from CO2 alone is comparable in scale to the total observed warming to date

Anyone of these would falsify the scientific conclusions summarized in the IPCC reports and elsewhere (the third would only partially falsify them, I guess).

You're just a little confused: The fact that it has not been falsified after over a century of theoretical and empirical development and observations is not the same thing as not being falsifiable. It's a little bit like saying that the theory of gravity is not falsifiable because, damnit, every time you drop that pen it goes straight to the ground! Likewise, virtually everything from ice core sampling and paleoclimate studies to ocean heat measurements and sea ice extent have suggested that the impact on the climate is very real.
Click to expand...

But those bits are not the contentious parts.

The amplifying feedback mechanisms which change the predictions from a little bit of warming, 1.5c or so, to 4.2c are the things that cause the trouble.

Edit; In fact for me even those bits are insignificant. You would need to show that the cost of dealing with a slight warming was higher than the vast cost of not using the best energy forms we can.
 
Tim the plumber said:
But those bits are not the contentious parts.
Click to expand...

Apparently they are very contentious to the likes of Flogger :lol:

You, judging by the appearance of many of your posts, acknowledge the validity of at least the physical science summarized in the IPCC reports and elsewhere, believe in AGW and are a 'warmist.' What you are not is an 'alarmist' (well... perhaps an economic alarmist), or a believer in 'CAGW,' catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. Of course, nor am I ;)

What's curious is that we rarely see you commenting negatively on even the most far-fetched anti-science conspiracy theories which those who could appropriately be labelled 'deniers' hatch; indeed in one memorable thread you went so far as to claim that there was something rotten about the whole 'scientific establishment' because the WUWT blog site encouraged regulars to vote in a poll on the website for a pop-sci magazine! So it's really quite difficult to understand where you're coming from, some of the time. Similarly your questions about the likely negative impacts of ongoing warming have been answered by me personally at least some half a dozen times - fully referenced to various credible national and international health and scientific organisations - and undoubtedly by others also, yet you keep blithely asking the same old same old as if nothing ever sinks in.

Perhaps your choice not to contend "those bits" listed above is more a matter of political/rhetorical pragmatism than the conclusion of a consistent epistemological approach?
 
Mithrae said:
Apparently they are very contentious to the likes of Flogger :lol:
Click to expand...

If I am in error in any of the points I have made please don't hesitate to point out where ? The plain fact is we do not know what an extra 50, 100 or 1,000 PPM of CO2 will do to our temperatures . All we do know for sure based on direct observation is that the planet would be a good deal greener


:roll:
 
Last edited:
Mithrae said:
Apparently they are very contentious to the likes of Flogger :lol:

You, judging by the appearance of many of your posts, acknowledge the validity of at least the physical science summarized in the IPCC reports and elsewhere, believe in AGW and are a 'warmist.' What you are not is an 'alarmist' (well... perhaps an economic alarmist), or a believer in 'CAGW,' catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. Of course, nor am I ;)

What's curious is that we rarely see you commenting negatively on even the most far-fetched anti-science conspiracy theories which those who could appropriately be labelled 'deniers' hatch; indeed in one memorable thread you went so far as to claim that there was something rotten about the whole 'scientific establishment' because the WUWT blog site encouraged regulars to vote in a poll on the website for a pop-sci magazine! So it's really quite difficult to understand where you're coming from, some of the time. Similarly your questions about the likely negative impacts of ongoing warming have been answered by me personally at least some half a dozen times - fully referenced to various credible national and international health and scientific organisations - and undoubtedly by others also, yet you keep blithely asking the same old same old as if nothing ever sinks in.

Perhaps your choice not to contend "those bits" listed above is more a matter of political/rhetorical pragmatism than the conclusion of a consistent epistemological approach?
Click to expand...

My position is that I don't know if the predictions of the level of warming given by the IPCC are reasonable or not.

Is see the predictions of sea level rise grossly exagerated beyond all reasonable mechanisms by the IPCC. I still use these numbers because they, even after all the gross lying, are still not at all problematic in any significant way.

I thus conclude that there is an obvious bias about the way the IPCC and the science community and wider science reporting media works. I know of popular TV personalities who have lost their careers due to saying the wrong thing about it. I have seen professors at CERN saying that any scientist who works on their cloud experiments has to be tenured or they will not have a career. I thus conclude there is a Macarthyist style conspiracy at work.

I ask the same questions of posters here because they post the same gibberish lies. They talk of 20m sea level rises or some sort of run away melting of Greenland. This is not possible. I ask them the same questions because if they were to do the basic maths for themselves they would imediately understand that it is not at all worrying when Greenland loses 20km3 a year of ice. That this will never effect the North Atlantic convayor. That ocean salinity will never be changed by any projected sea level rise.

Perhaps your choice not to contend "those bits" listed above is more a matter of political/rhetorical pragmatism than the conclusion of a consistent epistemological approach?
Click to expand...

It might well be. I don't know what you are talking about. Words too big.
 
Tim the plumber said:
It might well be. I don't know what you are talking about. Words too big.
Click to expand...

Probably incorrect too :lol: I've got a sneaky suspicion I should have used 'epistemic.' Either way, I mean a consistent approach to evaluating knowledge. For example for my part I have no higher education in climate science, so while I certainly enjoying learning a little as a hobby I recognise that it's just dipping my toes in the shallows. In all areas of science or knowledge in general that I don't know much, I try and find out what those who DO know about them have to say. Climate science is no exception.

Tim the plumber said:
My position is that I don't know if the predictions of the level of warming given by the IPCC are reasonable or not.

Is see the predictions of sea level rise grossly exagerated beyond all reasonable mechanisms by the IPCC. I still use these numbers because they, even after all the gross lying, are still not at all problematic in any significant way.

I thus conclude that there is an obvious bias about the way the IPCC and the science community and wider science reporting media works. I know of popular TV personalities who have lost their careers due to saying the wrong thing about it. I have seen professors at CERN saying that any scientist who works on their cloud experiments has to be tenured or they will not have a career. I thus conclude there is a Macarthyist style conspiracy at work.

I ask the same questions of posters here because they post the same gibberish lies. They talk of 20m sea level rises or some sort of run away melting of Greenland.
Click to expand...

I have never said anything of the sort of course, and nor has the IPCC. But granted, perhaps your approach is not inconsistent: Perhaps in ALL fields wherein you don't know the answers, you opt for misrepresentation and gross hyperbole, gut feelings and conspiracy theories to rationalise your mistrust of expert opinion to yourself.
 
Mithrae said:
Probably incorrect too :lol: I've got a sneaky suspicion I should have used 'epistemic.' Either way, I mean a consistent approach to evaluating knowledge. For example for my part I have no higher education in climate science, so while I certainly enjoying learning a little as a hobby I recognise that it's just dipping my toes in the shallows. In all areas of science or knowledge in general that I don't know much, I try and find out what those who DO know about them have to say. Climate science is no exception.



I have never said anything of the sort of course, and nor has the IPCC. But granted, perhaps your approach is not inconsistent: Perhaps in ALL fields wherein you don't know the answers, you opt for misrepresentation and gross hyperbole, gut feelings and conspiracy theories to rationalise your mistrust of expert opinion to yourself.
Click to expand...

Hilarious.
 
flogger said:
All we do know for sure based on direct observation is that the planet would be a good deal greener
Click to expand...

A blatant lie you constantly repeat which illustrates well enough why there's usually no point in responding to your posts. As clearly explained by your own source for that information, the CSIRO press release for the study (and by me at least three times previously), CO2's "greening" effect is 'directly observed' in PRECISELY the same manner as its warming effect: Estimated real-world impacts of the increases are calculated based on controlled experiments, then the known effects of all other factors are subtracted from the observed greening/warming and the unexplained remainder found to be consistent with predictions. In fact the warming effect is more reliably quantifiable, since unlike 'greening' there's a more specific measurable aspect to look at, the longwave radiation flux.

That you constantly call the lesser of these almost identical processes 'direct observation' and the other 'speculation' tells us pretty much everything we need to know about your objectivity and scientific literacy.
 
Mithrae said:
A blatant lie you constantly repeat which illustrates well enough why there's usually no point in responding to your posts.
As clearly explained by your own source for that information, the CSIRO press release for the study (and by me at least three times previously), CO2's "greening" effect is 'directly observed' in PRECISELY the same manner as its warming effect: Estimated real-world impacts of the increases are calculated based on controlled experiments, then the known effects of all other factors are subtracted from the observed greening/warming and the unexplained remainder found to be consistent with predictions. In fact the warming effect is more reliably quantifiable, since unlike 'greening' there's a more specific measurable aspect to look at, the longwave radiation flux.

That you constantly call the lesser of these almost identical processes 'direct observation' and the other 'speculation' tells us pretty much everything we need to know about your objectivity and scientific literacy.
Click to expand...

Resort to ad hom all you want you just don't want to see anything from the real world that might contradict your agenda. The satellite observations pretty much speak for themselves. Its why you have such an issue with what they are saying thats so mystifying. After all what is wrong with a greener world where we have longer growing seasons and can feed more people due to the increased yields from extra CO 2 fertilization

A simple visual demonstration of my point......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2qVNK6zFgE

Do you really hate our species this much that you would rather such obvious advantages were denied them in support of an increasingly unsustainable political dogma ?
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Tim the plumber View Post
My position is that I don't know if the predictions of the level of warming given by the IPCC are reasonable or not.

Is see the predictions of sea level rise grossly exagerated beyond all reasonable mechanisms by the IPCC. I still use these numbers because they, even after all the gross lying, are still not at all problematic in any significant way.

I thus conclude that there is an obvious bias about the way the IPCC and the science community and wider science reporting media works. I know of popular TV personalities who have lost their careers due to saying the wrong thing about it. I have seen professors at CERN saying that any scientist who works on their cloud experiments has to be tenured or they will not have a career. I thus conclude there is a Macarthyist style conspiracy at work.

I ask the same questions of posters here because they post the same gibberish lies. They talk of 20m sea level rises or some sort of run away melting of Greenland.
Click to expand...

Mithrae said:
I have never said anything of the sort of course, and nor has the IPCC. But granted, perhaps your approach is not inconsistent: Perhaps in ALL fields wherein you don't know the answers, you opt for misrepresentation and gross hyperbole, gut feelings and conspiracy theories to rationalise your mistrust of expert opinion to yourself.
Click to expand...

You accuse me of lying.

What in the above do you consider wrong/a lie?

Do you consider that the IPCC's estimate of sea level rise due to Greenland's ice mass loss at 400+ GT/yr to be OK??? Or do you accept the 20GT/yr as has been shown in more recent papers or the 12.9GT/yr?? Which???

Do you say that the professors at CERN are not saying that there is a problem for any scientist who works on their cloud experiments who is not tenured?

Do say that there have been no posts here talking about 20m sea level rise??

If you can support any of the above I will accept you have a point. If not you should appologise.
 
Tim the plumber said:
You accuse me of lying.

What in the above do you consider wrong/a lie?

Do you consider that the IPCC's estimate of sea level rise due to Greenland's ice mass loss at 400+ GT/yr to be OK??? Or do you accept the 20GT/yr as has been shown in more recent papers or the 12.9GT/yr?? Which???
Click to expand...

No, you accused the IPCC of "gross lying." And I accused Flogger of lying, not you; of you my observation was only of misrepresentation and gross hyperbole. The former implies intentional deception, such as in the case of constantly repeating a claim which has been repeatedly shown to be false. The latter could be a product of anything from ignorance to over the top rhetorical flourishes and consequent self-delusion. Hopefully only ignorance in your case.

So, where does the IPCC suggest 400+ Gt/yr of ice loss in Greenland, exactly? I've just glanced over the relevant passages and couldn't see it; I found a much lower figure instead.

But, for the sake of argument, let's note that since 1 cubic meter of water weighs 1 ton, 1000 square kilometers of water 1m deep would weigh one gigaton. 400Gt of ice (at around 0.92 the density of water) would be equivalent to a 1m sheet exending around 435,000 square kilometers. At over 1.7 million square kilometers, the Greenland ice sheet is nearly four times that extent: If it had lost 400Gt every single year for the past 40 years, the loss on average would be about 11 meters of ice (though much of the loss would likely consist of destabilised chunks breaking away). Its average thickness is around 2000 meters... and the ice sheet is not the only ice in Greenland.

On face value I don't see anything particularly unbelievable about a fraction of a percent of Greenland's ice mass being lost due to the well-documented temperature increases over the past few decades. Nevertheless, I would like to see exactly where in the IPCC reports you got that 400+ Gt/yr figure from. I would also like to see these more recent papers suggesting 20 and 12.9 Gt/yr: Do they even exist? Are they referring to the same thing? (Hint, I've just found the 12.9 one, and it isn't referring to total Greenland ice loss; a careful read and about half a second of critical thinking would have told you that, rather than leaping instantly to the "IPCC are liars!!11" garbage.)

Tim the plumber said:
Do you say that the professors at CERN are not saying that there is a problem for any scientist who works on their cloud experiments who is not tenured?
Click to expand...

I don't know, are they? You are the one who openly acknowledges that you are proposing a conspiracy theory - "there is a Macarthyist style conspiracy at work." Do you expect other people to run around gathering the evidence for your proclamations, or do you actually have a credible source for this stuff? Hopefully your prospective source will offer some hint as to what this comment has to do with the topic in the first place!

Tim the plumber said:
Do say that there have been no posts here talking about 20m sea level rise??
Click to expand...

Have there? 20 meters? In what time-frame?

If so, I can certainly see why you would prefer to keep asking those people about the impacts of global warming, rather than having to deal with all those boring ol' reports by organisations like the WHO, WFPHA or CSIRO that I've repeatedly posted.
 
The last ice age was what, 10,000 years ago? I seriously doubt humans had the ability to impact global climate back then. This theory is rather nuts.
 
calamity said:
The last ice age was what, 10,000 years ago? I seriously doubt humans had the ability to impact global climate back then. This theory is rather nuts.
Click to expand...

Pah ! Humans are always guilty until proven innocent. Decades of eco greenwashing have made many of us automatically think about ourselves in that profoundly negative guilt ridden way now sadly :(
 
flogger said:
Pah ! Humans are always guilty until proven innocent. Decades of eco greenwashing have made many of us automatically think about ourselves in that profoundly negative guilt ridden way now sadly :(
Click to expand...
I'm thinking someone received a grant and figured a way to make it pay his bills for two years while he force-fit some data to look consistent with his theory. Everyone needs a racket.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom