assault on science

I find it amusing that we're STILL debating the issue of whether Global Weirding is actually happening.

This proves to me the truth that the NAZIs so understood.

The BIG LIE works.
 
I find it amusing that we're STILL debating the issue of whether Global Weirding is actually happening.

This proves to me the truth that the NAZIs so understood.

The BIG LIE works.

Don't worry, the deniers' lies will start to unravel. They always do. I have faith that science will get it right. They're AFRAID science will get it right. If that's "religion" on my part, so be it.
 
I find it amusing that we're STILL debating the issue of whether Global Weirding is actually happening.

This proves to me the truth that the NAZIs so understood.

The BIG LIE works.

Don't worry, the deniers' lies will start to unravel. They always do. I have faith that science will get it right. They're AFRAID science will get it right. If that's "religion" on my part, so be it.
LOL. I'm not too sure you understood the post you quoted.




Now, what are the deniers denying? You haveYET to answer that, even though I have asked you endless times.
 
Fellows, here is how it is. This game can be played by both parties. I think it high time that we look at the funding of such liars as Watts. And someone should go through all his e-mails back to the Arpnet.

And then there is the matter of Dr. Lindzen and the tobacco and energy company money. Same treatment for that bozo.

And we already have the letter written by the Royal Society to Exxon concerning the money they put out to lie about global warming.

Time to get aggressive with assholes. Including that twerp in Virginia. Seems that there is grounds for a harrassment suit there. As well as personal libel.

Old Rocks- it is rather unseemly that you are using deflection distraction and ad homenem to avoid the issue that you brought up by starting this thread. The inquiry by Penn State did not address in a meaningful way any of the serious criticisms leveled against Mann. Why do you consider this an exoneration rather than a whitewash?
 
Fellows, here is how it is. This game can be played by both parties. I think it high time that we look at the funding of such liars as Watts. And someone should go through all his e-mails back to the Arpnet.

And then there is the matter of Dr. Lindzen and the tobacco and energy company money. Same treatment for that bozo.

And we already have the letter written by the Royal Society to Exxon concerning the money they put out to lie about global warming.

Time to get aggressive with assholes. Including that twerp in Virginia. Seems that there is grounds for a harrassment suit there. As well as personal libel.

Old Rocks- it is rather unseemly that you are using deflection distraction and ad homenem to avoid the issue that you brought up by starting this thread. The inquiry by Penn State did not address in a meaningful way any of the serious criticisms leveled against Mann. Why do you consider this an exoneration rather than a whitewash?

Because the extreme right's attack on Mann is the real distraction.

The real question is, what will be the effect on the earth's climate of doubling atmospheric CO2?
 
What a joke of an article. Since when is exposing lack of scientific integrity an attack on science? If there is no scientific integrity, there is no science.

The article is lame but leave it to dilettantes to think it has any merit.

But so far the claim of lack of scientific integrity is only the opinion of people that didn't like him in the first place. That's hardly an unbiased sample. The people who would be expected to protect their institution from such charges, if at all true, exonerated him. It now appears that "Climategate" was nothing more than a hoax, ginned up over the misinterpretation of stolen private emails. If the skeptics are to be believed, they're going to have to come up with some actual evidence.
 
What a joke of an article. Since when is exposing lack of scientific integrity an attack on science? If there is no scientific integrity, there is no science.

The article is lame but leave it to dilettantes to think it has any merit.

But so far the claim of lack of scientific integrity is only the opinion of people that didn't like him in the first place. That's hardly an unbiased sample. The people who would be expected to protect their institution from such charges, if at all true, exonerated him. It now appears that "Climategate" was nothing more than a hoax, ginned up over the misinterpretation of stolen private emails. If the skeptics are to be believed, they're going to have to come up with some actual evidence.

All Mann has to do is show that he told Jones that it is unethical to delete emails and materials that are under FOI requests. instead he said he would pass the message along, the trail goes dead, and information disappears. Why?
 
Asked and answered.
Yes, I've asked it and you have yet to answer it.

Oh stop playing games, old gal. Everyone here knows that you deny any reality that conflicts with your Conservative talking points. A partisan dingleberry incapable of entering into a rational debate is what you are. Completely evident to one and all on this board.
 
Asked and answered.
Yes, I've asked it and you have yet to answer it.

Oh stop playing games, old gal. Everyone here knows that you deny any reality that conflicts with your Conservative talking points. A partisan dingleberry incapable of entering into a rational debate is what you are. Completely evident to one and all on this board.




Yet again the pot calls the kettle.
 
Yes, I've asked it and you have yet to answer it.

Oh stop playing games, old gal. Everyone here knows that you deny any reality that conflicts with your Conservative talking points. A partisan dingleberry incapable of entering into a rational debate is what you are. Completely evident to one and all on this board.




Yet again the pot calls the kettle.
Problem is, this kettle isn't black.

Rocks is simply giving us a classic example of projecting.

He's a political hack who plays at science as a political hack, thus soiling it. He is an enemy of science.

I also have to wonder what relevance Rocks thinks my, or anyone's, gender has to do with the topic.
 
Last edited:
Asked and answered.
Yes, I've asked it and you have yet to answer it.

Oh stop playing games, old gal. Everyone here knows that you deny any reality that conflicts with your Conservative talking points. A partisan dingleberry incapable of entering into a rational debate is what you are. Completely evident to one and all on this board.

Irony is such a whore, ain't she, rockhead?
 
Fellows, here is how it is. This game can be played by both parties. I think it high time that we look at the funding of such liars as Watts. And someone should go through all his e-mails back to the Arpnet.

And then there is the matter of Dr. Lindzen and the tobacco and energy company money. Same treatment for that bozo.

And we already have the letter written by the Royal Society to Exxon concerning the money they put out to lie about global warming.

Time to get aggressive with assholes. Including that twerp in Virginia. Seems that there is grounds for a harrassment suit there. As well as personal libel.

Old Rocks- it is rather unseemly that you are using deflection distraction and ad homenem to avoid the issue that you brought up by starting this thread. The inquiry by Penn State did not address in a meaningful way any of the serious criticisms leveled against Mann. Why do you consider this an exoneration rather than a whitewash?

Because the extreme right's attack on Mann is the real distraction.

The real question is, what will be the effect on the earth's climate of doubling atmospheric CO2?

It's not just the 'extreme right' who attacks Mann. It's anyone who values integrity, scientific or otherwise.
 
Fellows, here is how it is. This game can be played by both parties. I think it high time that we look at the funding of such liars as Watts. And someone should go through all his e-mails back to the Arpnet.

And then there is the matter of Dr. Lindzen and the tobacco and energy company money. Same treatment for that bozo.

And we already have the letter written by the Royal Society to Exxon concerning the money they put out to lie about global warming.

Time to get aggressive with assholes. Including that twerp in Virginia. Seems that there is grounds for a harrassment suit there. As well as personal libel.

Old Rocks- it is rather unseemly that you are using deflection distraction and ad homenem to avoid the issue that you brought up by starting this thread. The inquiry by Penn State did not address in a meaningful way any of the serious criticisms leveled against Mann. Why do you consider this an exoneration rather than a whitewash?

Because the extreme right's attack on Mann is the real distraction.

The real question is, what will be the effect on the earth's climate of doubling atmospheric CO2?
the effect will be you'll have to put your head back up that sheep's asshole.
 
Michael E. Mann - Get the anti-science bent out of politics

As a scientist, I shouldn't have a stake in the upcoming midterm elections, but unfortunately, it seems that I -- and indeed all my fellow climate scientists -- do.

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) has threatened that, if he becomes chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, he will launch what would be a hostile investigation of climate science. The focus would be on e-mails stolen from scientists at the University of East Anglia in Britain last fall that climate-change deniers have falsely claimed demonstrate wrongdoing by scientists, including me. Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) may do the same if he takes over a committee on climate change and energy security.

My employer, Penn State University, exonerated me after a thorough investigation of my e-mails in the East Anglia archive. Five independent investigations in Britain and the United States, and a thorough recent review by the Environmental Protection Agency, also have cleared the scientists of accusations of impropriety.

Nonetheless, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli is investigating my previous employer, the University of Virginia, based on the stolen e-mails. A judge rejected his initial subpoena, finding that Cuccinelli had failed to provide objective evidence of wrongdoing. Undeterred, Cuccinelli appealed the decision to the Virginia Supreme Court and this week issued a new civil subpoena.

What could Issa, Sensenbrenner and Cuccinelli possibly think they might uncover now, a year after the e-mails were published?

The truth is that they don't expect to uncover anything. Instead, they want to continue a 20-year assault on climate research, questioning basic science and promoting doubt where there is none.

Your real criticism should have occurred years ago when POLITICIANS decided to politicize their pet scientific theory and treat the gibbering theories of scientists as the Holy Bible. I am truly sick and tired of politicians (and it is NO coincidence it is always the liberal ones who do this) who insist we must all bow down at the altar of science and treat scientists as infallible gods and science itself as a religion. And of course they insist that all "heretics" be destroyed. When they come across a theory they hope to be able to exploit for their larger political goals, politicians are the first to demand that sound scientific principles be abandoned, that no challenges can be allowed to their pet politicized theory even though this is how theories are tested for accuracy and ONLY after surviving all possible challenges can even begin to move from "theory" to "fact"! But those who politicize science fear their new religion will collapse if properly challenged and tested. So they insist those who challenge it or offer a contradictory theory have their reputations and finances destroyed. Which US politician was it who suggested that any CEO of any company funded any scientific research challenging global warming should face CRIMINAL CHARGES? Oh gee, why would that be? Its because the theory is just too fragile to withstand any challenge, that's why. That sure sounds like a 15th century throwback to me -but it is actually typical of liberals when it comes to their pet scientific theory they are trying to exploit for their larger political goals.

History has repeatedly proven when politicians politicize science, it inflicts MASS MISERY on MILLIONS. And it happens in other countries too with the same results. Some of THE most brutal, inhumane government policies were based on POLITICIZED SCIENCE -glomming onto some THEORY that worked nicely with the political goals of the power elite who exploited it for their OTHER goals. Which is why liberals have glommed on to global warming theories as well. If the theory couldn't be exploited for their larger political goals of strengthening their ability to grab power and the redistribution of wealth on a MASSIVE GLOBAL scale which is what they really want here, I guarantee you they would REJECT it as the unproven, contradictory, manipulated gibberish it really is. There is nothing trustworthy in the science any more because of the widespread fraud, deceit, destruction of raw data and manipulation that has taken place.

You scientists go do your damn job, do it honestly and upfront, stop trying to make the outcome fit a preconceived or desired conclusion - and insist politicians leave you to do that and accept the FACT that a theory is just a THEORY and remind them that scientific truth is NOT determined by consensus or popular opinion! Remind them it is a FACT that for every one thing scientists get right, they get hundreds and sometimes thousands wrong FIRST -because that is the nature of scientific discovery. (Shall we review that GIBBERISH from scientists about something less financially destruction like the value of OAT BRAN on cardiac health for YEARS before "oops -it doesn't do anything after all" BULLSHIT??? Or how about the same scientist who first proposed his theory of global warming first theorizing just a few decades earlier that earth was cooling too fast and URGED the government to take IMMEDIATE action by BLOWING UP 1/3 of THE POLAR ICE CAPS and towing the ice bergs to the equator to melt them in order to slow down the cooling???? Oh gee, if global warming were true, just imagine where we would be today by treating that SAME scientist like an infallible god then by politicians who thought that theory could be manipulated for their larger political goals too? Would "oops" work for you in that event? Because it sure wouldn't work for me! Yet he insisted it was CRITICAL we act IMMEDIATELY, no time to wait for the theory to prove itself true!! Now I'm always suspicious of any scientist and ANY politician who insists there is NO TIME to wait for more evidence their theory may be true -especially when the "cure" is DRASTIC QUALITY OF LIFE CHANGING bullshit.) NO ONE benefits by treating it like a religion except a power elite who really don't give a shit about the science but believe they can EXPLOIT IT for THEIR GAIN -and when they do MILLIONS have, can, do and will suffer for it when it is. Science is politicized by the left when they believe it will help boost their chances of grabbing, consolidating and maintaining POWER -and that is the ONLY reason they do it! If a scientific theory interfered with their ability to do so, they would do all they could to bury it and discredit the scientist who proposed it.

Personally I think there SHOULD be an investigation into the POLITICIZATION of climate science and the corruption of the entire scientific process. Legitimate science doesn't involve the destruction of raw data and falsifying data and then offering it up as being honest. Yet we know that occurred and FAR WORSE with scientists on nearly every continent stepping forward to admit they knew of other instances of falsifying data. The only reason to falsify it is because REALITY isn't cooperating with the THEORY, isn't it? Which means it was being used to DECEIVE people and manipulate them. And THAT is exactly what politicized science is ALWAYS used for.
 
Last edited:
Another "science as religion" post?!?! Get over it. You got an argument, give it. That tack is old, stale and just a gimmick to try and win an argument without having any actual evidence. You may say it's nothing more than being a skeptic; I believe it's a blatant political tactic, having nothing to do with the science or logic of the topic. :eusa_hand:
 
Frazzlegear

Personally I think there SHOULD be an investigation into the POLITICIZATION of climate science and the corruption of the entire scientific process. Legitimate science doesn't involve the destruction of raw data and falsifying data and then offering it up as being honest. Yet we know that occurred and FAR WORSE with scientists on nearly every continent stepping forward to admit they knew of other instances of falsifying data. The only reason to falsify it is because REALITY isn't cooperating with the THEORY, isn't it? Which means it was being used to DECEIVE people and manipulate them. And THAT is exactly what politicized science is ALWAYS used for.

..........................................................................................

You betcha! Let's start with the lying Senator Inhofe. Then move on to Singer and Lindzen. Put Watts up on the stand and let him defend his nonsense. There are a bunch of people that should be questioned about the politization of climate scientists. But they are not the climate scientists who have been doing their work and publishing the results and evidence.
 
Old Rocks- it is rather unseemly that you are using deflection distraction and ad homenem to avoid the issue that you brought up by starting this thread. The inquiry by Penn State did not address in a meaningful way any of the serious criticisms leveled against Mann. Why do you consider this an exoneration rather than a whitewash?

Because the extreme right's attack on Mann is the real distraction.

The real question is, what will be the effect on the earth's climate of doubling atmospheric CO2?

It's not just the 'extreme right' who attacks Mann. It's anyone who values integrity, scientific or otherwise.

Old Gal, you are still full of bullshit. Mann's work has been verified many times by independent studies. Studies that often stated they disagreed with his statistical work, yet, using their own methods, still had the same results.
Much-vindicated Michael Mann and Hockey Stick get final exoneration from Penn State — time for some major media apologies and retractions Climate Progress

Most questions about Dr. Mann’s findings have been focused on his early published work that showed the “hockey stick” pattern of climate change. In fact, research published since then by Dr. Mann and by independent researchers has shown patterns similar to those first described by Dr. Mann…. In some cases, other researchers (e.g., Wahl & Ammann, 2007) have been able to replicate Dr. Mann’s findings, using the publicly available data and algorithms. The convergence of findings by different teams of researchers, using different data sets, lends further credence to the fact that Dr. Mann’s conduct of his research has followed acceptable practice within his field. Further support for this conclusion may be found in the observation that almost all of Dr. Mann’s work was accomplished jointly with other scientists. The checks and balances inherent in such a scientific team approach further diminishes chances that anything unethical or inappropriate occurred in the conduct of the research.

A particularly telling indicator of a scientist’s standing within the research community is the recognition that is bestowed by other scientists. Judged by that indicator, Dr. Mann’s work, from the beginning of his career, has been recognized as outstanding. For example, he received the Phillip M. Orville Prize for outstanding dissertation in the earth sciences at Yale University in 1997. In 2002, he received an award from the Institute for Scientific Information for a scientific paper (published with co-authors) that appeared in the prestigious journal Nature; also in 2002, he co-authored a paper that won the Outstanding Scientific Paper Award from the NOAA Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, and Scientific American named him as one of 50 leading visionaries in science and technology. In 2005, Dr. Mann co-authored a paper in the Journal of Climate that won the John Russell Mather Paper award from the Association of American Geographers, and in the same year, the website “RealClimate.org” (co-founded by Dr. Mann) was chosen as one of the top 25 “Science and Technology” websites by Scientific American. In 2006, Dr. Mann was recognized with the American Geophysical Union Editors’ Citation for Excellence in Refereeing (i.e., reviewing manuscripts for Geophysical Research Letters). All of these awards and recognitions, as well as others not specifically cited here, serve as evidence that his scientific work, especially the conduct of his research, has from the beginning of his career been judged to be outstanding by a broad spectrum of scientists. Had Dr. Mann’s conduct of his research been outside the range of accepted practices, it would have been impossible for him to receive so many awards and recognitions, which typically involve intense scrutiny from scientists who may or may not agree with his scientific conclusions.

Old gal, the lack of scientific integrity lies within you. You would deny science for political conveniance.
 
Now Si, when the PNAS publishs a paper from you that shows evidence that this paper is incorrect, perhaps I can give some credance to your scribbles. Until then, you are just another person in the peanut gallery, with no evidenc and no standing as far as scientific authority is concerned.

Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Vol. 105, No. 36, pp. 13252-13257, September 9, 2008. doi:10.1073/pnas.0805721105

Michael E. Mann1, Zhihua Zhang1, Malcolm K. Hughes2, Raymond S. Bradley3, Sonya K. Miller1, Scott Rutherford4, and Fenbiao Ni 2.


NOAA Paleoclimatology Program - Mann et al. 2008 Temperature Reconstructions

ABSTRACT:
Following the suggestions of a recent National Research Council report [NRC (National Research Council) (2006) Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years (Natl Acad Press, Washington, DC).], we reconstruct surface temperature at hemispheric and global scale for much of the last 2,000 years using a greatly expanded set of proxy data for decadal-to-centennial climate changes, recently updated instrumental data, and complementary methods that have been thoroughly tested and validated with model simulation experiments. Our results extend previous conclusions that recent Northern Hemisphere surface temperature increases are likely anomalous in a long-term context. Recent warmth appears anomalous for at least the past 1,300 years whether or not tree-ring data are used. If tree-ring data are used, the conclusion can be extended to at least the past 1,700 years, but with additional strong caveats. The reconstructed amplitude of change over past centuries is greater than hitherto reported, with somewhat greater Medieval warmth in the Northern Hemisphere, albeit still not reaching recent levels
 

Forum List

Back
Top