distortion of science

[Old Rocks]

Concerning lies and liars.

Distorting science while invoking science Climate Progress

Distorting science while invoking science
Debating science shouldn’t enable antiscience disinformation
August 10, 2010
Guest authors Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway share some research from their recent must-read book “Merchants of Doubt,” which is reviewed here. The book documents how the cast of characters peddling pseudo-science had been stunningly consistent over the years, from secondhand smoke skeptics to “Star Wars” missile defense proponents to modern climate science deniers. Naomi Oreskes is a professor of history of science and provost of Sixth College at UC San Diego, and Erik Conway is a historian of science and technology, living in Pasadena, California. This is cross-posted at Science Progress.

Despite a two decades old consensus among climate scientists that the globe is warming, many people believe that there is still an active debate. This is due in large part to a direct and strategic public relations campaign being waged behind the scenes by free market-fundamentalists and funded by big polluters. Big industries such as tobacco, oil, and coal, aided by conservative foundations and the free-market ideologues who inhabit them, have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to undermine science and scientists. In doing so, they make it difficult, if not close to impossible, for ordinary people to get the information upon which reasoned public policy should be based.

This coalition, promoting disinformation while claiming to be dedicated to science, is nothing new. In fact, today’s climate deniers are using the same playbook used by supporters of Ronald Reagan’s failed “Star Wars” program in the 1980s, and by the tobacco industry to avoid regulation of secondhand smoke in the 1990s. Indeed, science denial, free-market fundamentalists, and big industries have a long and sorry past together.

 

[westwall]

What a load of horsecrap. These clowns are guilty of every violation of scientific ethics that has ever been concieved.

Here's an example for you. Priceless as the add says!

(Book Review) James Hansen’s “Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth About the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity” (alarmism on steroids) — MasterResource

 

[Old Rocks]

Hansen's prior predictions have been pretty accurate, much more so than his critics, many of whom were predicting a cooling for right now. Now those same critics lie about what they said only a year ago. I guess the 'coming ice age' came and went.

 

[Old Rocks]

And what would you know of scientific ethics, Walleyes? You have posted lie after lie from sources that cannot even be called scientific.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Concerning lies and liars.

Distorting science while invoking science Climate Progress

Distorting science while invoking science
Debating science shouldn’t enable antiscience disinformation
August 10, 2010
Guest authors Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway share some research from their recent must-read book “Merchants of Doubt,” which is reviewed here. The book documents how the cast of characters peddling pseudo-science had been stunningly consistent over the years, from secondhand smoke skeptics to “Star Wars” missile defense proponents to modern climate science deniers. Naomi Oreskes is a professor of history of science and provost of Sixth College at UC San Diego, and Erik Conway is a historian of science and technology, living in Pasadena, California. This is cross-posted at Science Progress.

Despite a two decades old consensus among climate scientists that the globe is warming, many people believe that there is still an active debate. This is due in large part to a direct and strategic public relations campaign being waged behind the scenes by free market-fundamentalists and funded by big polluters. Big industries such as tobacco, oil, and coal, aided by conservative foundations and the free-market ideologues who inhabit them, have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to undermine science and scientists. In doing so, they make it difficult, if not close to impossible, for ordinary people to get the information upon which reasoned public policy should be based.

This coalition, promoting disinformation while claiming to be dedicated to science, is nothing new. In fact, today’s climate deniers are using the same playbook used by supporters of Ronald Reagan’s failed “Star Wars” program in the 1980s, and by the tobacco industry to avoid regulation of secondhand smoke in the 1990s. Indeed, science denial, free-market fundamentalists, and big industries have a long and sorry past together.

I would like to emphasize the portion of your post I highlighted to call you on your constant attempts to distort science to extend the two decade old consensus about global warming past the point it began. Anyone with basic math skills can tell you that taking 20 from 2010 only gets you back to 1990, not 1970. I do thank you for providing the ultimate refutataion of your own tactics to lie about the science of global warming though. Please be kind enough never to lie about the science involved again.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And what would you know of scientific ethics, Walleyes? You have posted lie after lie from sources that cannot even be called scientific.

Talk about the pot and the kettle.

 

[edthecynic]

Concerning lies and liars.

Distorting science while invoking science Climate Progress

Distorting science while invoking science
Debating science shouldn’t enable antiscience disinformation
August 10, 2010
Guest authors Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway share some research from their recent must-read book “Merchants of Doubt,” which is reviewed here. The book documents how the cast of characters peddling pseudo-science had been stunningly consistent over the years, from secondhand smoke skeptics to “Star Wars” missile defense proponents to modern climate science deniers. Naomi Oreskes is a professor of history of science and provost of Sixth College at UC San Diego, and Erik Conway is a historian of science and technology, living in Pasadena, California. This is cross-posted at Science Progress.

Despite a two decades old consensus among climate scientists that the globe is warming, many people believe that there is still an active debate. This is due in large part to a direct and strategic public relations campaign being waged behind the scenes by free market-fundamentalists and funded by big polluters. Big industries such as tobacco, oil, and coal, aided by conservative foundations and the free-market ideologues who inhabit them, have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to undermine science and scientists. In doing so, they make it difficult, if not close to impossible, for ordinary people to get the information upon which reasoned public policy should be based.

This coalition, promoting disinformation while claiming to be dedicated to science, is nothing new. In fact, today’s climate deniers are using the same playbook used by supporters of Ronald Reagan’s failed “Star Wars” program in the 1980s, and by the tobacco industry to avoid regulation of secondhand smoke in the 1990s. Indeed, science denial, free-market fundamentalists, and big industries have a long and sorry past together.

You could also include the Creationists among the anti-science disinformation campaigners.

 

[westwall]

And what would you know of scientific ethics, Walleyes? You have posted lie after lie from sources that cannot even be called scientific.

Care to post an example. You, who have been proven to lie on many occasions, have made many accusations against my postings and yet you have never been able to produce a single example. I wonder why that is? Mayhaps because I don't lie? I don't need to unlike yourself.

I don't know why you need to lie but lie you do....and poorly.

 

[westwall]

Hansen's prior predictions have been pretty accurate, much more so than his critics, many of whom were predicting a cooling for right now. Now those same critics lie about what they said only a year ago. I guess the 'coming ice age' came and went.

Really now.

I'll let the article from Salon speak for me.

Stormy weather - Salon.com

 

[edthecynic]

And what would you know of scientific ethics, Walleyes? You have posted lie after lie from sources that cannot even be called scientific.

Care to post an example. You, who have been proven to lie on many occasions, have made many accusations against my postings and yet you have never been able to produce a single example. I wonder why that is? Mayhaps because I don't lie? I don't need to unlike yourself.

I don't know why you need to lie but lie you do....and poorly.

See the first quote in my sig, LIAR! You are one of the poorest liars of all the CON$ervoFascist liars.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2430487-post66.html

 

[westwall]

And what would you know of scientific ethics, Walleyes? You have posted lie after lie from sources that cannot even be called scientific.

Care to post an example. You, who have been proven to lie on many occasions, have made many accusations against my postings and yet you have never been able to produce a single example. I wonder why that is? Mayhaps because I don't lie? I don't need to unlike yourself.

I don't know why you need to lie but lie you do....and poorly.

See the first quote in my sig, LIAR! You are one of the poorest liars of all the CON$ervoFascist liars.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2430487-post66.html

I am going to explain this real slow for you as you seem to be a complete moron with no concept of how the academic world works.

You will notice that in every posting of grants there are names listed. The first person listed is called the FIRST AUTHOR and is considered the most important author of that particular paper. They get paid the most. The subsequent authors get paid less based on the amount of input they had. You will then please look at all the of the grants listed and you will see that Phil Jones is listed on every one of those grants. That means he was paid for every one of those papers listed.

ed you are a pathetic example of humanity. I am a real scientist unlike your fraudulent friend old fraud who when the classes actually got hard decided to quit and go back to his steel works job. That means he wasn't as smart or as disciplined as he thought he was.
Furthermore to reinforce just how complete a fraud he is he works for a notoriously polluting industry for a company (Evraz) that is being investigated for polluting from the very plant that old fraud works at.

My wife is a recognized expert on flexwork and has been responsible for getting over 350,000 people out of their vehicles in the Metropolitan Washington area. We live green. You clowns preach green but do nothing about it.

Crawl back under your rock where you belong with the rest of the worms.

 

[daveman]

Did someone say distortion of science?

 

[edthecynic]

Care to post an example. You, who have been proven to lie on many occasions, have made many accusations against my postings and yet you have never been able to produce a single example. I wonder why that is? Mayhaps because I don't lie? I don't need to unlike yourself.

I don't know why you need to lie but lie you do....and poorly.

See the first quote in my sig, LIAR! You are one of the poorest liars of all the CON$ervoFascist liars.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2430487-post66.html

Originally Posted by westwall
Phil jones alone has raked in 22.6 million in us taxpayers dollars (and that does not include what he has recieved from the uk taxpayer). mann just got another 500,000 us taxpayer dollars. The list is endless. So far the agw crowd has been able to defraud the us taxpayer of over 100 billion dollars over the last 10 years. An they have nothing to show for it but some "maybe this will happen or this could possibly happen."

I am going to explain this real slow for you as you seem to be a complete moron with no concept of how the academic world works.

You will notice that in every posting of grants there are names listed. The first person listed is called the FIRST AUTHOR and is considered the most important author of that particular paper. They get paid the most. The subsequent authors get paid less based on the amount of input they had. You will then please look at all the of the grants listed and you will see that Phil Jones is listed on every one of those grants. That means he was paid for every one of those papers listed.

ed you are a pathetic example of humanity. I am a real scientist unlike your fraudulent friend old fraud who when the classes actually got hard decided to quit and go back to his steel works job. That means he wasn't as smart or as disciplined as he thought he was.
Furthermore to reinforce just how complete a fraud he is he works for a notoriously polluting industry for a company (Evraz) that is being investigated for polluting from the very plant that old fraud works at.

My wife is a recognized expert on flexwork and has been responsible for getting over 350,000 people out of their vehicles in the Metropolitan Washington area. We live green. You clowns preach green but do nothing about it.

Crawl back under your rock where you belong with the rest of the worms.

I am going to explain this real slow for you as you seem to be a complete moron with no concept of how the US tax system works.

AMERICANS DO NOT PAY UK TAXES!!!!!!!!

You lied when you said the 22.6 million came from U S TAXPAYERS and even more came from the UK TAXPAYER. Your own link showed the bulk of the 22.6 million came from the UK and only about 2 million came from the US.

But I always enjoy your dumb act.

And you know more about the US tax system than you do about science, and you know absolutely NOTHING about the US tax system.

 

[Old Rocks]

Concerning lies and liars.

Distorting science while invoking science Climate Progress

Distorting science while invoking science
Debating science shouldn’t enable antiscience disinformation
August 10, 2010
Guest authors Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway share some research from their recent must-read book “Merchants of Doubt,” which is reviewed here. The book documents how the cast of characters peddling pseudo-science had been stunningly consistent over the years, from secondhand smoke skeptics to “Star Wars” missile defense proponents to modern climate science deniers. Naomi Oreskes is a professor of history of science and provost of Sixth College at UC San Diego, and Erik Conway is a historian of science and technology, living in Pasadena, California. This is cross-posted at Science Progress.

Despite a two decades old consensus among climate scientists that the globe is warming, many people believe that there is still an active debate. This is due in large part to a direct and strategic public relations campaign being waged behind the scenes by free market-fundamentalists and funded by big polluters. Big industries such as tobacco, oil, and coal, aided by conservative foundations and the free-market ideologues who inhabit them, have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to undermine science and scientists. In doing so, they make it difficult, if not close to impossible, for ordinary people to get the information upon which reasoned public policy should be based.

This coalition, promoting disinformation while claiming to be dedicated to science, is nothing new. In fact, today’s climate deniers are using the same playbook used by supporters of Ronald Reagan’s failed “Star Wars” program in the 1980s, and by the tobacco industry to avoid regulation of secondhand smoke in the 1990s. Indeed, science denial, free-market fundamentalists, and big industries have a long and sorry past together.

I would like to emphasize the portion of your post I highlighted to call you on your constant attempts to distort science to extend the two decade old consensus about global warming past the point it began. Anyone with basic math skills can tell you that taking 20 from 2010 only gets you back to 1990, not 1970. I do thank you for providing the ultimate refutataion of your own tactics to lie about the science of global warming though. Please be kind enough never to lie about the science involved again.

Hmmm...... And where in my post is any mention of 1970? Perhaps your reading skills need a bit of rust remover?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Concerning lies and liars.

Distorting science while invoking science Climate Progress

Distorting science while invoking science
Debating science shouldn’t enable antiscience disinformation
August 10, 2010
Guest authors Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway share some research from their recent must-read book “Merchants of Doubt,” which is reviewed here. The book documents how the cast of characters peddling pseudo-science had been stunningly consistent over the years, from secondhand smoke skeptics to “Star Wars” missile defense proponents to modern climate science deniers. Naomi Oreskes is a professor of history of science and provost of Sixth College at UC San Diego, and Erik Conway is a historian of science and technology, living in Pasadena, California. This is cross-posted at Science Progress.

Despite a two decades old consensus among climate scientists that the globe is warming, many people believe that there is still an active debate. This is due in large part to a direct and strategic public relations campaign being waged behind the scenes by free market-fundamentalists and funded by big polluters. Big industries such as tobacco, oil, and coal, aided by conservative foundations and the free-market ideologues who inhabit them, have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to undermine science and scientists. In doing so, they make it difficult, if not close to impossible, for ordinary people to get the information upon which reasoned public policy should be based.

This coalition, promoting disinformation while claiming to be dedicated to science, is nothing new. In fact, today’s climate deniers are using the same playbook used by supporters of Ronald Reagan’s failed “Star Wars” program in the 1980s, and by the tobacco industry to avoid regulation of secondhand smoke in the 1990s. Indeed, science denial, free-market fundamentalists, and big industries have a long and sorry past together.

I would like to emphasize the portion of your post I highlighted to call you on your constant attempts to distort science to extend the two decade old consensus about global warming past the point it began. Anyone with basic math skills can tell you that taking 20 from 2010 only gets you back to 1990, not 1970. I do thank you for providing the ultimate refutataion of your own tactics to lie about the science of global warming though. Please be kind enough never to lie about the science involved again.

Hmmm...... And where in my post is any mention of 1970? Perhaps your reading skills need a bit of rust remover?

Wow, just wow.

Where in my post did I say that your post mentioned 1970? I am calling you out on your insistence that the global warming consensus existed in the 70s and that only the popular media spread the global cooling and on coming ice age meme. Are you going to attempt to deny that every time anyone mentions the fact that in the 70s the consensus was that we had to worry about cooling you try to prove that the scientific consensus said the opposite? Should I go look up all the times you point out that 42 articles back then warmed about global warming, and that proves the consensus on global warming existed? Or will you just admit that you misrepresent science when it is convenient?

 

[Old Rocks]

I would like to emphasize the portion of your post I highlighted to call you on your constant attempts to distort science to extend the two decade old consensus about global warming past the point it began. Anyone with basic math skills can tell you that taking 20 from 2010 only gets you back to 1990, not 1970. I do thank you for providing the ultimate refutataion of your own tactics to lie about the science of global warming though. Please be kind enough never to lie about the science involved again.

Hmmm...... And where in my post is any mention of 1970? Perhaps your reading skills need a bit of rust remover?

Wow, just wow.

Where in my post did I say that your post mentioned 1970? I am calling you out on your insistence that the global warming consensus existed in the 70s and that only the popular media spread the global cooling and on coming ice age meme. Are you going to attempt to deny that every time anyone mentions the fact that in the 70s the consensus was that we had to worry about cooling you try to prove that the scientific consensus said the opposite? Should I go look up all the times you point out that 42 articles back then warmed about global warming, and that proves the consensus on global warming existed? Or will you just admit that you misrepresent science when it is convenient?

OK, Quantum, so you wish to prove yourself a complete dumb ass.

The consensus among scientists in the '70s was that we needed much more information before we made any definitive statements concerning warming or cooling. However, for the decade, there were 42 papers that predicted warming on the basis of CO2 increase, and 7 that predicted cooling because of the Milankovic Cycles.

If, for you, scientific consensus is about what Time and Newsweek publish, then I guess you have your "scientific consensus". For most of us, scientific consensus concerns what is published in peer reviewed scientific journals.

So go back to your National Enquirer and Weekly Globe. It is obviously your peer level reading material.

 

[code1211]

Concerning lies and liars.

Distorting science while invoking science Climate Progress

Distorting science while invoking science
Debating science shouldn’t enable antiscience disinformation
August 10, 2010
Guest authors Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway share some research from their recent must-read book “Merchants of Doubt,” which is reviewed here. The book documents how the cast of characters peddling pseudo-science had been stunningly consistent over the years, from secondhand smoke skeptics to “Star Wars” missile defense proponents to modern climate science deniers. Naomi Oreskes is a professor of history of science and provost of Sixth College at UC San Diego, and Erik Conway is a historian of science and technology, living in Pasadena, California. This is cross-posted at Science Progress.

Despite a two decades old consensus among climate scientists that the globe is warming, many people believe that there is still an active debate. This is due in large part to a direct and strategic public relations campaign being waged behind the scenes by free market-fundamentalists and funded by big polluters. Big industries such as tobacco, oil, and coal, aided by conservative foundations and the free-market ideologues who inhabit them, have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to undermine science and scientists. In doing so, they make it difficult, if not close to impossible, for ordinary people to get the information upon which reasoned public policy should be based.

This coalition, promoting disinformation while claiming to be dedicated to science, is nothing new. In fact, today’s climate deniers are using the same playbook used by supporters of Ronald Reagan’s failed “Star Wars” program in the 1980s, and by the tobacco industry to avoid regulation of secondhand smoke in the 1990s. Indeed, science denial, free-market fundamentalists, and big industries have a long and sorry past together.

Check the high-lighted sentence. See anything missing? How about the referance to CO2? Warming alone does nothing for the AGW crowd's case. It must be linked to CO2 to prove their point.

No link? No relevence.

Second hand smoke? I grew up in a house in which the father smoked 2 packs/day. I competed in the State Cross Country meet in High School. Maybe I would have won without all that 2nd hand smoke. However, there were about 2500 kids in my school that did not compete in that meet.

Do you suppose that their fathers all smoked 3 packs/day?

 

[California Girl]

And what would you know of scientific ethics, Walleyes? You have posted lie after lie from sources that cannot even be called scientific.

Care to post an example. You, who have been proven to lie on many occasions, have made many accusations against my postings and yet you have never been able to produce a single example. I wonder why that is? Mayhaps because I don't lie? I don't need to unlike yourself.

I don't know why you need to lie but lie you do....and poorly.

See the first quote in my sig, LIAR! You are one of the poorest liars of all the CON$ervoFascist liars.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2430487-post66.html

Speaking of that first quote in your sig, ed.... do you know where Rush got that statement from? I mean, do you know who originally devised the concept of accusing political opponents of doing what you are actually doing?

 

[code1211]

Hansen's prior predictions have been pretty accurate, much more so than his critics, many of whom were predicting a cooling for right now. Now those same critics lie about what they said only a year ago. I guess the 'coming ice age' came and went.

Who are the experts that you are talking about?

Hansen is the guy who is held up as the Lord High Guru of Climate Science. He is wrong and has been wrong for years. Every time he revises his prediction of warming, the extent of the wrming is lessened.

He missed by 300% in his 1988 prediction. How is that "pretty accurate"?

 

[edthecynic]

Care to post an example. You, who have been proven to lie on many occasions, have made many accusations against my postings and yet you have never been able to produce a single example. I wonder why that is? Mayhaps because I don't lie? I don't need to unlike yourself.

I don't know why you need to lie but lie you do....and poorly.

See the first quote in my sig, LIAR! You are one of the poorest liars of all the CON$ervoFascist liars.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2430487-post66.html

Speaking of that first quote in your sig, ed.... do you know where Rush got that statement from? I mean, do you know who originally devised the concept of accusing political opponents of doing what you are actually doing?

Stuttering LimpTard got it from his mentor, Saul Alinsky, who got it from Tricky Dicky Nixon, the source of all of Alinsky's rules.