Denial of truth

[Old Rocks]

Conclusions made by scientists in peer reviewed articles. Policy reccomendations from the conclusions they reached in those articles.

Real scientists doing real science, and worrying how what they see will affect the whole of our civilization. At this point, they had best just consider how best to protect their families, forget about the rest of those that are determined to be willfully ignorant.

You see, Si, you have won. Nothing is going to be done. The grand experiment will be made. And a great portion of humanity will suffer greatly because of it. And damn the names of people like yourself. But it won't matter, you will be dead and gone, just a dismal memory. You have won.

 

[Bern80]

Ah, of course. Peer review should not be the final say. Fat drugged out radio jocks should be. Isn't that just so logical?

That isn't what's being said. What is being said is that one should not take on blind faith that the peer review process is sound and uncorruptable.

 

[Old Rocks]

OK, what are you saying then? That the peer review process in every industrialized nation has been corrupted on this one subject? Because there is near unanamous agreement in the peer reviewed articles from scientific journals from all over the world that AGW is real and a danger.

Need more aluminium foil for your hats?

 

[Oddball]

enough said...

Because we all know how much Doonsbury cartoons are the absolute gold standard of impartiality and credibility.

 

[Old Rocks]

An honest man, for sure. Far more respectable than the like's of Si.

 

[Old Rocks]

enough said...

Because we all know how much Doonsbury cartoons are the absolute gold standard of impartiality and credibility.

Far more truth in Doonesbury than is found in you.

 

[Si modo]

You dont care about Peer Reviewed.

If you did you would accpet mans effect on global warming.

Who are you talking to?

 

[Si modo]

Poor Si. Just as big a liar as Wirebender.

So Si, all the scientists are manipulating the data. Up there with blow torchs melting glaciers, continental ice caps, and sea ice. Down in Texas, drying out the whole state. In the Mid-West, dumping shiploads of water they brought up the Mississippi and Missouri to fool people into thinking the rivers were in flood all summer. Still would like to know how they created those F-5 tornados.

First, you deniers denied that the world was warming, right up until it bacame obvious to all. Then you deny the basic science, absorption bands of the gases involved. Finally, you denigrate the real scientists that are doing the real science.

Si, if you really are in a scientific field, you are a sick and demented puppy. Denial of science becasuse it does not fit your political agenda, in a scientist, is worse than the whoring of Lindzen and Singer.

1. Where did I say all scientists manipulated data?

Nowhere.

So, that simply isn't true.

2. I denied that there is warming?

Where?

You can prove it by finding a post of mine where I said that. (I won't hold my breath waiting, though.)

So, that simply isn't true.

3. I denied basic science?

Where?

You find a post of mine where I did and you will be right. You won't find one, because I never did, and never will.

So, that simply isn't true.

4. Where have I politicized science?

You find a post of mine where I have done that and you will be right. I know I have never done so and will never do so.

So, that simply isn't true.




So, because none of your premisses are factual, your conclusion is crap.




Let's see you post some more opinion pieces of journalists thinking you have made some kind of profound scientific point, exactly what you did in this thread and exactly what you accuse me of doing. Mental health professionals call that projection.

Why yes, Si. You have done all those things.

Well, I asked for proof of MY words saying such things.

Not your typed words.

It's pretty clear that if you want folks to believe what you say I've said, you would demonstrate MY words saying such things.

It's not a difficult thing to grasp, Rocks.

 

[Si modo]

An honest man, for sure. Far more respectable than the like's of Si.

Yes. Those who demand scientific methodology and integrity are not worthy of your respect.

 

[Si modo]

Conclusions made by scientists in peer reviewed articles. Policy reccomendations from the conclusions they reached in those articles.

Real scientists doing real science, and worrying how what they see will affect the whole of our civilization. At this point, they had best just consider how best to protect their families, forget about the rest of those that are determined to be willfully ignorant.

You see, Si, you have won. Nothing is going to be done. The grand experiment will be made. And a great portion of humanity will suffer greatly because of it. And damn the names of people like yourself. But it won't matter, you will be dead and gone, just a dismal memory. You have won.

When there is no science to support the hypothesis, yes I have won when I say the science does not support the hypothesis...so far.